Activities of Ulrike TREBESIUS
Plenary speeches (174)
Gender balance in EU economic and monetary affairs' nominations (debate) DE
Increasing EU resilience against the influence of foreign actors on the upcoming EP election campaign (topical debate) DE
2018 UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland (COP24) - 14th meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP14) (debate) DE
Implementation of the Council's LGBTI Guidelines in relation to the situation in Chechnya DE
The future of pensions: fighting privatisation and strengthening public universal social security systems (topical debate) DE
Presentation of the programme of activities of the Austrian Presidency (debate) DE
Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (debate) DE
Debate with the Prime Minister of Portugal, António Costa, on the Future of Europe (debate) DE
European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2018 - European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2018 (debate) DE
Composition of the European Parliament (debate) DE
The consequences of rising socio-economic inequalities for European citizens (topical debate) DE
Implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive and the need for reform in professional services (debate) DE
Implementation of the Youth Employment Initiative in the Member States (debate) DE
Implementation of the Social Pillar (debate) DE
Establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data of third country nationals crossing the EU external borders - Amendment of the Schengen Borders Code as regards the use of the Entry/Exit System (debate) DE
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 19 and 20 October 2017 (debate) DE
EU accession to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (debate) DE
The refoundation of a Europe based on values, anchored in effective democratic institutions and promoting a prosperous economy in a fair and cohesive society (topical debate) DE
Combating anti-semitism (debate) DE
Decision adopted on the European Pillar of Social Rights and work-life balance initiative (debate) DE
Decision adopted on the European Pillar of Social Rights and work-life balance initiative (debate) DE
Statement by the President of the Commission on the White Paper on the future of the European Union DE
Third countries whose nationals are subject to or exempt from a visa requirement: revision of the suspension mechanism (A8-0235/2016 - Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra) DE
Implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (Article 36 TEU) (A8-0360/2016 - Elmar Brok) DE
Situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in 2015 (A8-0345/2016 - József Nagy) DE
Combatting racism, xenophobia, homophobia and other forms of intolerance (debate) DE
Macro-financial assistance to Jordan (A8-0296/2016 - Emmanuel Maurel) DE
Activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (A8-0011/2016 - Brian Hayes) DE
EU-Turkey relations (RC-B8-1276/2016, B8-1276/2016, B8-1277/2016, B8-1278/2016, B8-1279/2016, B8-1280/2016, B8-1281/2016, B8-1282/2016, B8-1283/2016) DE
EU accession to the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women (B8-1229/2016, B8-1235/2016) DE
Towards a definitive VAT system and fighting VAT fraud (A8-0307/2016 - Werner Langen) DE
Voting time DE
Opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the proposed agreement between Canada and the European Union on a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) (B8-1220/2016) DE
Finalisation of Basel III (B8-1226/2016) DE
Implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (A8-0317/2016 - Ioan Mircea Paşcu) DE
EU strategic communication to counteract anti-EU propaganda by third parties (A8-0290/2016 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga) DE
Access to anti-money-laundering information by tax authorities (A8-0326/2016 - Emmanuel Maurel) DE
European Central Bank annual report for 2015 (A8-0302/2016 - Ramon Tremosa i Balcells) DE
European Defence Union (A8-0316/2016 - Urmas Paet) DE
EU-Turkey relations (debate) DE
EU Youth Strategy 2013-2015 (A8-0250/2016 - Andrea Bocskor) DE
Draft general budget of the European Union for 2017 - all sections DE
General budget of the European Union for 2017 - all sections (A8-0287/2016 - Jens Geier, Indrek Tarand) DE
The MFF mid-term revision (B8-1173/2016) DE
European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2016 priorities (A8-0309/2016 - Alfred Sant) DE
Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability (A8-0292/2016 - Iskra Mihaylova) DE
Union legal framework for customs infringements and sanctions (A8-0239/2016 - Kaja Kallas) DE
Human rights and migration in third countries (A8-0245/2016 - Marie-Christine Vergiat) DE
EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (A8-0283/2016 - Sophia in 't Veld) DE
2014 Annual report on monitoring the application of Union law (debate) DE
2016 UN Climate change Conference in Marrakesh, Morocco (COP22) (B8-1043/2016) DE
Implementation of the Food Contact Materials Regulation (A8-0237/2016 - Christel Schaldemose) DE
2014 Annual report on monitoring the application of Union law (A8-0262/2016 - Heidi Hautala) DE
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 20 and 21 October 2016 (debate) DE
Legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings (A8-0165/2015 - Dennis de Jong) DE
Application of the Employment Equality Directive (debate) DE
Travel document for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals (A8-0201/2016 - Jussi Halla-aho) DE
Asylum: provisional measures in favour of Italy and Greece (A8-0236/2016 - Ska Keller) DE
How best to harness the job creation potential of SMEs? (A8-0248/2016 - Zdzisław Krasnodębski) DE
State of the Union (debate) DE
Protocol to the EU-Switzerland Agreement on the free movement of persons (accession of Croatia) (A8-0216/2016 - Danuta Jazłowiecka) DE
Social dumping in the EU (A8-0255/2016 - Guillaume Balas) DE
Towards a new energy market design (A8-0214/2016 - Werner Langen) DE
Creating labour market conditions favourable for work-life balance (A8-0253/2016 - Tatjana Ždanoka, Vilija Blinkevičiūtė) DE
Programme of activities of the Slovak Presidency (debate) DE
European Border and Coast Guard (A8-0200/2016 - Artis Pabriks) DE
European Maritime Safety Agency (A8-0215/2016 - Michael Cramer) DE
Preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament's input ahead of the Commission's proposal (A8-0224/2016 - Jan Olbrycht, Isabelle Thomas) DE
Tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (TAXE 2) (A8-0223/2016 - Jeppe Kofod, Michael Theurer) DE
Preparation of the Commission Work Programme 2017 (RC-B8-0885/2016, B8-0885/2016, B8-0886/2016, B8-0892/2016, B8-0893/2016, B8-0894/2016, B8-0895/2016, B8-0896/2016) DE
Emission limits for non-road mobile machinery (A8-0276/2015 - Elisabetta Gardini) DE
Refugees: social inclusion and integration into the labour market (A8-0204/2016 - Brando Benifei) DE
The fight against trafficking in human beings in the EU's external relations (A8-0205/2016 - Barbara Lochbihler) DE
Refugees: social inclusion and integration into the labour market (debate) DE
Follow-up of the Strategic Framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020) (A8-0176/2016 - Zdzisław Krasnodębski) DE
Renewable energy progress report (A8-0196/2016 - Paloma López Bermejo) DE
The Single Market strategy (debate) DE
Virtual currencies (A8-0168/2016 - Jakob von Weizsäcker) DE
Transatlantic data flows (B8-0622/2016, RC-B8-0623/2016, B8-0623/2016, B8-0633/2016, B8-0639/2016, B8-0642/2016, B8-0643/2016, B8-0644/2016) DE
Delivering a new deal for energy consumers (A8-0161/2016 - Theresa Griffin) DE
Mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation (A8-0157/2016 - Dariusz Rosati) DE
China's market economy status (B8-0604/2016, B8-0605/2016, RC-B8-0607/2016, B8-0607/2016, B8-0608/2016, B8-0609/2016, B8-0610/2016, B8-0611/2016, B8-0612/2016) DE
Acceleration of implementation of cohesion policy (B8-0562/2016) DE
Turkey's progress in fulfilling the requirements of the Visa liberalisation roadmap (debate) DE
Economic growth and youth employment (debate) DE
European Investment Bank annual report 2014 (A8-0050/2016 - Georgi Pirinski) DE
Women domestic workers and carers in the EU (A8-0053/2016 - Kostadinka Kuneva) DE
2015 Report on Turkey (B8-0442/2016) DE
Meeting the antipoverty target in the light of increasing household costs (A8-0040/2016 - Tamás Meszerics) DE
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 March 2016 and outcome of the EU-Turkey summit (debate) DE
The situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration (A8-0066/2016 - Roberta Metsola, Kashetu Kyenge) DE
Banking Union - Annual report 2015 (A8-0033/2016 - Roberto Gualtieri) DE
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 March 2016 and outcome of the EU-Turkey summit (debate) DE
Guidelines for the 2017 Budget - Section III (A8-0036/2016 - Jens Geier) DE
Aid scheme for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk in the educational establishments (A8-0006/2016 - Marc Tarabella) DE
Market access to port services and financial transparency of ports (A8-0023/2016 - Knut Fleckenstein) DE
Gender mainstreaming in the work of the European Parliament (A8-0034/2016 - Angelika Mlinar) DE
The situation of women refugees and asylum seekers in the EU (A8-0024/2016 - Mary Honeyball) DE
European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2016 (A8-0030/2016 - Maria João Rodrigues) DE
European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2016 (A8-0031/2016 - Sofia Ribeiro) DE
Single Market governance within the European Semester 2016 (A8-0017/2016 - Catherine Stihler) DE
European Central Bank annual report for 2014 (A8-0012/2016 - Notis Marias) DE
European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2016 - European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2016 - Single Market governance within the European Semester 2016 (debate) DE
2015 progress report on Serbia (B8-0166/2016) DE
European integration process of Kosovo (B8-0167/2016) DE
Ending sexual harassment and violence against women in public spaces (debate) DE
Ending sexual harassment and violence against women in public spaces (debate) DE
Establishment of a European Platform to enhance cooperation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work (debate) DE
Rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (A8-0359/2015 - Heidi Hautala) DE
Increased terrorism threat (debate) DE
Mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) TEU) (RC-B8-0043/2016, B8-0043/2016, B8-0045/2016, B8-0051/2016, B8-0057/2016, B8-0058/2016, B8-0059/2016, B8-0060/2016) DE
External factors that represent hurdles to European female entrepreneurship (A8-0369/2015 - Barbara Matera) DE
Skills policies for fighting youth unemployment (A8-0366/2015 - Marek Plura) DE
Towards a Digital Single Market Act (A8-0371/2015 - Kaja Kallas, Evelyne Gebhardt) DE
Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union (B8-1347/2015) DE
EU-China relations (A8-0350/2015 - Bas Belder) DE
Towards a European Energy Union (A8-0341/2015 - Marek Józef Gróbarczyk) DE
Decision adopted on the European border and coast guard package (debate) DE
Special report of the European Ombudsman in own-initiative inquiry concerning Frontex (A8-0343/2015 - Roberta Metsola, Ska Keller) DE
Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for immediate budgetary measures to address the refugee crisis (A8-0336/2015 - José Manuel Fernandes) DE
Tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (A8-0317/2015 - Elisa Ferreira, Michael Theurer) DE
Prevention of radicalisation and recruitment of European citizens by terrorist organisations (A8-0316/2015 - Rachida Dati) DE
EU Strategic framework on health and safety at work 2014-2020 (A8-0312/2015 - Ole Christensen) DE
Outcome of the Valletta summit of 11 and 12 November 2015 and of the G20 summit of 15 and 16 November 2015 (debate) DE
Cohesion policy and marginalised communities (A8-0314/2015 - Terry Reintke) DE
Financing of two new EU trust funds for Syria and Africa and Member States' contributions to these funds (debate) DE
Interoperability solutions as a means for modernising the public sector (A8-0225/2015 - Carlos Zorrinho) DE
Reform of the electoral law of the EU (A8-0286/2015 - Danuta Maria Hübner, Jo Leinen) DE
European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2015 priorities (A8-0307/2015 - Dariusz Rosati) DE
New challenges and concepts for the promotion of tourism in Europe (A8-0258/2015 - Isabella De Monte) DE
European Citizens' Initiative (A8-0284/2015 - György Schöpflin) DE
Smart Borders (debate) DE
General budget of the European Union for 2016 - all sections (A8-0298/2015 - José Manuel Fernandes, Gérard Deprez) DE
Emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants (A8-0249/2015 - Julie Girling) DE
European single market for electronic communications (A8-0300/2015 - Pilar del Castillo Vera) DE
Mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation (A8-0306/2015 - Markus Ferber) DE
Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for immediate budgetary measures under the European Agenda on Migration (A8-0290/2015 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial) DE
Draft amending budget No 7/2015: Managing the refugee crisis: immediate budgetary measures under the European Agenda on Migration (A8-0289/2015 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial) DE
Towards a new international climate agreement in Paris (A8-0275/2015 - Gilles Pargneaux) DE
Payment services in the internal market (A8-0266/2015 - Antonio Tajani) DE
Conclusions of the informal European Council of 23 September 2015 (debate) DE
Conclusions of the informal European Council of 23 September 2015 (debate) DE
Possible extension of geographical indication protection of the EU to non-agricultural products (A8-0259/2015 - Virginie Rozière) DE
Common provisions on European Structural and Investment Funds: specific measures for Greece (A8-0260/2015 - Iskra Mihaylova) DE
Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2015/002 DE/Adam Opel (A8-0273/2015 - Jens Geier) DE
Council Decision establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy, Greece and Hungary [COM(2015)0451 - C8-0271/2015 - 2015/0209(NLE)] DE
Conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on migration (14 September 2015) (debate) DE
Preparation of the Commission Work Programme 2016 (B8-0656/2015, B8-0659/2015, B8-0660/2015, B8-0661/2015, B8-0662/2015, B8-0663/2015, B8-0664/2015) DE
Empowering girls through education in the EU (A8-0206/2015 - Liliana Rodrigues) DE
EEA-Switzerland: Obstacles with regard to the full implementation of the internal market (A8-0244/2015 - Andreas Schwab) DE
Migration and refugees in Europe (RC-B8-0832/2015, B8-0832/2015, B8-0833/2015, B8-0834/2015, B8-0835/2015, B8-0837/2015, B8-0838/2015, B8-0842/2015) DE
Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (A8-0245/2015 - Ska Keller) DE
Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (A8-0175/2015 - Bernd Lange) DE
Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (A8-0205/2015 - Laura Agea) DE
2016 Budget - Mandate for the trilogue (A8-0217/2015 - José Manuel Fernandes) DE
Draft amending budget No 3/2015: surplus from 2014 (A8-0219/2015 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial) DE
Draft amending budget No 1/2015: European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) (A8-0221/2015 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial) DE
Draft amending budget No 5/2015 - Responding to migratory pressures (A8-0212/2015 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial) DE
Green employment initiative - Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States DE
Preparation of the European Council meeting (25-26 June 2015) (continuation of debate) DE
European Fund for Strategic Investments (A8-0139/2015 - José Manuel Fernandes, Udo Bullmann) DE
Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2015/000 TA 2015 - Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission (A8-0185/2015 - Gérard Deprez) DE
Review of the economic governance framework: stocktaking and challenges (A8-0190/2015 - Pervenche Berès) DE
State of EU-Russia relations (debate) DE
Preparation of the G7 Summit (7-8 June) (debate) DE
Implementation of the Bologna process (short presentation) DE
Conclusions of the European Council meeting (19-20 March 2015) (debate) DE
European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2015 - European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2015 - Single market governance within the European Semester 2015 (debate) DE
European Central Bank annual report for 2013 (debate) DE
Way forward for Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office (continuation of debate) DE
Review of the Italian Presidency (debate) DE
Employment and social aspects of the EU2020 strategy (debate) DE
Preparation of the European Council (23-24 October 2014) (debate) DE
Roll-out of the European Youth Initiative (debate) DE
Shadow reports (12)
REPORT on European Semester for economic policy coordination: Employment and Social Aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2019 PDF (212 KB) DOC (75 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) PDF (2 MB) DOC (511 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority PDF (1 MB) DOC (311 KB)
REPORT on the employment and social policies of the euro area PDF (423 KB) DOC (74 KB)
REPORT on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2018 PDF (397 KB) DOC (94 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for European statistics relating to persons and households, based on data at individual level collected from samples PDF (1 MB) DOC (161 KB)
REPORT on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: Employment and Social Aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2017 PDF (385 KB) DOC (94 KB)
REPORT on European Semester for economic policy coordination: Employment and Social Aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2016 PDF (489 KB) DOC (168 KB)
REPORT on implementation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility PDF (196 KB) DOC (132 KB)
REPORT on EEA-Switzerland: Obstacles with regard to the full implementation of the internal market PDF (174 KB) DOC (102 KB)
REPORT on the Green Employment Initiative: Tapping into the job creation potential of the green economy PDF (235 KB) DOC (172 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cableway installations PDF (742 KB) DOC (607 KB)
Opinions (2)
OPINION on virtual currencies
OPINION on the Single Market Strategy
Shadow opinions (37)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2017
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the financial year 2017
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) for the financial year 2017
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Training Foundation (ETF) for the financial year 2017
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union agencies for the financial year 2017: performance, financial management and control
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
OPINION on the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the EU institutional framework
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/825 to increase the financial envelope of the Structural Reform Support Programme and adapt its general objective
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing a European services e-card and related administrative facilities
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational training for the financial year 2016
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2016
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the financial year 2016
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2016
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union agencies for the financial year 2016: performance, financial management and control
OPINION on the economic policies of the euro area
OPINION on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018
OPINION on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2018 draft budget
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and amending Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002, Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, EU No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1305/2013, (EU) No 1306/2013, (EU) No 1307/2013, (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014 and (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 541/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
OPINION on a new skills agenda for Europe
OPINION on increasing engagement of partners and visibility in the performance of European Structural and Investment Funds
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) 2015/1017 as regards the extension of the duration of the European Fund for Strategic Investments as well as the introduction of technical enhancements for that Fund and the European Investment Advisory Hub
OPINION on Digitising European Industry
OPINION Implementation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments
OPINION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part
OPINION on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2016 priorities
OPINION on preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament’s input ahead of the Commission’s proposal
OPINION on new territorial development tools in cohesion policy 2014-2020: Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) and Community-Led Local Development (CLLD)
OPINION on a Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe
OPINION on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2015 priorities
OPINION on the possible extension of European Union geographical indication protection to non-agricultural products
OPINION on the 2016 budget – mandate for the trilogue
OPINION on the urban dimension of EU policies – key features of an EU urban agenda
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Fund for Strategic Investments and amending Regulations (EU) No 1291/2013 and (EU) No 1316/2013
OPINION on European Central Bank Annual Report for 2013
OPINION on the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015 - all sections
Institutional motions (7)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the emergency situation in Venezuela PDF (143 KB) DOC (46 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on protection of investigative journalists in Europe: the case of Slovak journalist Jan Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová PDF (293 KB) DOC (63 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the death penalty PDF (155 KB) DOC (81 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the case of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr PDF (159 KB) DOC (80 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the case of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr - Saudi citizen condemned to death PDF (148 KB) DOC (67 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the death penalty PDF (255 KB) DOC (65 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Youth Employment PDF (126 KB) DOC (57 KB)
Oral questions (2)
Increased terrorism threat PDF (97 KB) DOC (25 KB)
Compliance of the German provisions on the minimum wage with European law PDF DOC
Written explanations (97)
Framework for screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union (A8-0198/2018 - Franck Proust) DE
Der Schutz vor ausländischen Übernahmen und Investitionen aus Gründen von Sicherheit und öffentlicher Ordnung sind legitim. Auch ein Informationsaustausch zwischen den EU-Staaten macht Sinn.Der Einsatz dieses Instruments muss jedoch eng beschränkt bleiben, sodass es die große Mehrheit legitimer Investoren nicht abschreckt und die Investitions- und Rechtssicherheit nicht unnötig in Frage stellt.Die EU profitiert grundsätzlich von Investitionen aus dem Nicht-EU-Ausland. Großen Wert müssen wir deshalb darauf legen, dass dieses Instrument nicht aus protektionistischen Gründen eingeführt bzw. später angewendet wird.Diese Gefahr war im ursprünglichen Parlamentsvorschlag groß. Die Politisierung des Screenings hätte Aspekte jenseits von Sicherheit und öffentlicher Ordnung ins Rampenlicht gestellt und damit dem Protektionismus Vorschub geleistet.Aber im Kompromiss aus dem Trilog, über den wir heute abstimmen, sind mehrere Aspekte zum Besseren verändert worden: kein Einfluss des Parlaments auf die Einzelfallentscheidung; die Letztentscheidung in jedem Investitionsfall liegt bei den Mitgliedstaaten – damit wird das Prinzip der Subsidiarität beachtet; Mitgliedstaaten, die keinen Screening-Mechanismus haben, müssen auch keinen einführen.Der Kompromiss aus dem Trilog schafft Rechtssicherheit und erfüllt aus meiner Sicht die gegebenen Anforderungen. Entsprechend stimme ich für diesen Bericht.
Common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and financial rules for those (A8-0043/2019 - Andrey Novakov, Constanze Krehl) DE
Die EU-Kohäsionspolitik gibt es in der heutigen Form seit 1988. Ziel der Kohäsionspolitik ist es, den Zusammenhalt in Europa durch den Abbau wirtschaftlicher und sozialer Ungleichheiten in den Regionen zu fördern. Zusammen mit den Agrarfonds macht sie bis heute den Großteil des EU-Haushalts aus. Für den neuen Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen schlug die EU-Kommission in Form eines Verordnungsentwurfs eine Reduktion des Gesamtvolumens von bisher 352 Mrd. EUR (gemäß Preisen von 2014) für den Zeitraum 2014-2020 neu auf rund 331 Mrd. EUR (gemäß Preisen von 2018) für den Zeitraum 2021-2027 vor. Kritisch dabei ist die Tatsache, dass nicht nur in strukturschwachen, sondern auch in wirtschaftlich prosperierenden Regionen Programme durchgeführt werden sollen. Kohäsionsprogramme sollten jedoch zeitlich befristete Maßnahmen für wirtschaftsschwache Regionen ermöglichen und nicht Dauersubventionierungen nach dem Gießkannenprinzip fördern. Programme und Projekte müssen messbare Ziele definieren, die nachvollziehbar überprüft werden können. Betrug, Vetternwirtschaft, Korruption und die schlechte Verwendung von Mitteln für unnötige Projekte sind nicht akzeptabel. In Fällen des Missbrauchs sind im Sinne der Steuerzahler Gelder zurückzufordern oder zu blockieren. Wirklich wirksame Mechanismen hierzu fehlen im Kommissionsentwurf. Zu allem Überfluss fordert das Parlament trotz Brexit eine Erhöhung der Mittel auf 372 Mrd. EUR. Dies ist nicht akzeptabel, weshalb ich diesem Vorhaben nicht zustimme.
The state of the debate on the Future of Europe (A8-0427/2018 - Ramón Jáuregui Atondo) DE
In dem vorliegenden Bericht stellt der Autor seine Vision einer föderalistischen (im englischen Sinne zentralistischen) Zukunft Europas vor. Dabei fordert er eine differenzierte Integration als Mittel zur Bewältigung der Herausforderungen der Union und spricht sich strikt gegen die Idee eines Europas „à la carte“ aus. Des Weiteren fordert der Berichterstatter eine supranationale Entscheidungsfindung durch den Europäischen Rat und die Kommission. Die Ersetzung der nötigen Einstimmigkeit im Rat durch Abstimmungen mit qualifizierter Mehrheit würde den Mitgliedstaaten den Rest ihrer Souveränität entziehen. Die Forderungen nach der Vertiefung der Europäischen Währungsunion, Bankenunion und die Verpflichtung der Mitgliedstaaten, den Euro als einzige Währung einzuführen, würde aus meiner Sicht viele rote Linien überschreiten.Da der Bericht Grundsätzen wie Verhältnismäßigkeit und Subsidiarität widerspricht, lehne ich ihn ab.
Roma integration strategies (B8-0098/2019) DE
Dieser Entschließungsantrag knüpft an den Parlamentsbeschluss vom 25. Oktober 2017 zur Lage der Roma an und fordert im Kern einen strategischen EU-Rahmen für die nationalen Roma-Inklusionsstrategien für die Zeit nach 2020. Insbesondere in den Bereichen Wohnen, Bildung und Erziehung, Gesundheit und Arbeit ist demnach die Integration von Roma-Gemeinschaften zu fördern. Hierzu wird eine bessere Einbindung von Roma-Organisationen bei der Umsetzung von Programmen gefordert.Der Antrag enthält eine Reihe von kritischen Punkten. Wie schon im Parlamentsbeschluss vom 25. Oktober 2017 wird auch hier mit keinem Wort erwähnt, dass Roma-Gemeinschaften Eigenverantwortung für ihr eigenes Handeln tragen. Dies zeugt von mangelndem Respekt und Vertrauen gegenüber den Roma-Gemeinschaften. Auch Forderungen nach der Festschreibung von Gender-Mainstreaming-Prinzipien im strategischen EU-Rahmen sowie der implizite Ruf nach Quoten für Roma in EU-Institutionen sind nicht akzeptabel. Schließlich wird eine Erhöhung von Kohäsionsmitteln für die Integration von Roma gefordert, obschon der Text festhält, dass bisherige, aus der Kohäsionspolitik finanzierte Programme kaum etwas gebracht haben und es zudem Fälle von Betrug bei einzelnen Projekten gegeben habe.Kurz: Das im Text formulierte Ziel einer besseren Integration von Roma-Gemeinschaften ist zu begrüßen, die vorgeschlagenen Mittel teilweise hochproblematisch. In Abwägung der Argumente dafür und dagegen habe ich mich hier für eine Enthaltung entschieden.
Implementation of the Treaty provisions related to EU Citizenship (A8-0041/2019 - Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz) DE
In drei Vorlagen wird die Umsetzung der Bestimmungen des Lissabonner Vertrags in den Bereichen Unionsbürgerschaft, Verstärkte Zusammenarbeit und Politische Kontrolle des Parlaments über die Kommission beleuchtet und bewertet. Grundtenor der Texte ist jeweils, dass die EU und die Mitgliedstaaten erhöhte Anstrengungen unternehmen müssten, um diese drei Bereiche zu stärken. Bezüglich Unionsbürgerschaft müssten gemäß dem vorliegenden Text eine europäische Identität gefördert, Eingriffe in nationale Wahlrechte vorgenommen und ein europäischer Feiertag geschaffen werden. Beim Dokument zur Verstärkten Zusammenarbeit wird eine Stärkung des Integrationsprozesses gefordert, was eine weitere Aushöhlung nationaler Souveränitätsrechte zugunsten eines EU-Zentralstaates fördern könnte. Was die politische Kontrolle des Parlaments über die Kommission angeht, so führt die zuständige Berichterstatterin einige positiv zu bewertende Punkte an, namentlich, wenn sie das zuweilen skurrile Eigenleben der EU-Kommission samt ihren umfassenden Machtbefugnissen kritisiert. Andererseits fordert der Text Maßnahmen, die dem EU-Zentralstaat den Weg bereiten würden. Dazu gehört die Forderung nach einer Schaffung eines legislativen Zweikammersystems mit Rat und Parlament und der Kommission als Exekutive. Aus den genannten Gründen lehne ich alle drei Berichte ab.
Implementation of the Treaty provisions concerning enhanced cooperation (A8-0038/2019 - Alain Lamassoure) DE
In drei Vorlagen wird die Umsetzung der Bestimmungen des Lissabonner Vertrags in den Bereichen Unionsbürgerschaft, Verstärkte Zusammenarbeit und Politische Kontrolle des Parlaments über die Kommission beleuchtet und bewertet. Grundtenor der Texte ist jeweils, dass die EU und die Mitgliedstaaten erhöhte Anstrengungen unternehmen müssten, um diese drei Bereiche zu stärken. Bezüglich Unionsbürgerschaft müssten gemäß dem vorliegenden Text eine europäische Identität gefördert, Eingriffe in nationale Wahlrechte vorgenommen und ein europäischer Feiertag geschaffen werden. Beim Dokument zur Verstärkten Zusammenarbeit wird eine Stärkung des Integrationsprozesses gefordert, was eine weitere Aushöhlung nationaler Souveränitätsrechte zugunsten eines EU-Zentralstaats fördern könnte. Was die politische Kontrolle des Parlaments über die Kommission angeht, so führt die zuständige Berichterstatterin einige positiv zu bewertende Punkte an, namentlich, wenn sie das zuweilen skurrile Eigenleben der EU-Kommission samt ihren umfassenden Machtbefugnissen kritisiert. Andererseits fordert der Text Maßnahmen, die dem EU-Zentralstaat den Weg bereiten würden. Dazu gehört die Forderung nach einer Schaffung eines legislativen Zweikammersystems mit Rat und Parlament und der Kommission als Exekutive. Aus den genannten Gründen lehne ich alle drei Berichte ab.
Implementation of the Treaty provisions on Parliament’s power of political control over the Commission (A8-0033/2019 - Mercedes Bresso) DE
In drei Vorlagen wird die Umsetzung der Bestimmungen des Lissabonner Vertrags in den Bereichen Unionsbürgerschaft, Verstärkte Zusammenarbeit und Politische Kontrolle des Parlaments über die Kommission beleuchtet und bewertet. Grundtenor der Texte ist jeweils, dass die EU und die Mitgliedstaaten erhöhte Anstrengungen unternehmen müssten, um diese drei Bereiche zu stärken. Bezüglich Unionsbürgerschaft müssten gemäß dem vorliegenden Text eine europäische Identität gefördert, Eingriffe in nationale Wahlrechte vorgenommen und ein europäischer Feiertag geschaffen werden. Beim Dokument zur Verstärkten Zusammenarbeit wird eine Stärkung des Integrationsprozesses gefordert, was eine weitere Aushöhlung nationaler Souveränitätsrechte zugunsten eines EU-Zentralstaates fördern könnte. Was die politische Kontrolle des Parlaments über die Kommission angeht, so führt die zuständige Berichterstatterin einige positiv zu bewertende Punkte an, namentlich, wenn sie das zuweilen skurrile Eigenleben der EU-Kommission samt ihren umfassenden Machtbefugnissen kritisiert. Andererseits fordert der Text Maßnahmen, die dem EU-Zentralstaat den Weg bereiten würden. Dazu gehört die Forderung nach einer Schaffung eines legislativen Zweikammersystems mit Rat und Parlament und der Kommission als Exekutive. Aus den genannten Gründen lehne ich alle drei Berichte ab.
Implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the EU institutional framework (A8-0051/2019 - Barbara Spinelli) DE
Das Europäische Parlament erstellt regelmäßig Berichte zur Umsetzung der Charta der Grundrechte, die mit dem Lissabon-Vertrag am 1.12.2009 europäisches Recht geworden ist. Der am 12.2.2019 verabschiedete Bericht geht deutlich über diesen Auftrag hinaus.Der Bericht beschäftigt sich mit der Ausweitung der Rechte der Organisationen, die in Fragen der Grundrechte involviert sind. Dabei handelt es sich um EU-Institutionen wie die „European Institution for Gender Equality“ (EIGE), um supranationale Organisationen wie die Vereinten Nationen oder den Europarat wie auch um zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen. Solche Organisationen, die nicht Teil des demokratischen Rechtsrahmens der EU sind, sollen fortan systematisch in alle Gesetzgebungsverfahren, die die Grundrechte betreffen könnten, eingebunden werden und würden diese dann mitprägen.Weiterhin soll die Grundrechtecharta erweitert werden. So sollen beispielsweise soziale Grundrechte mit ökonomischen gleichgestellt werden. Auch die Eurogruppe soll nach Anforderungen der Grundrechtecharta ausgerichtet und einer demokratischen und rechtlichen Kontrolle, sprich einer umfassenden EU-Kontrolle, unterstellt werden.Weiterhin soll die EU die Umsetzung der Grundrechte in den Mitgliedstaaten genau kontrollieren und Verstöße sanktionieren. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass es bei einigen Teilen der Charta unterschiedliche Interpretationen von EuGH und nationalen Gerichten gibt, soll die absolute Kontrolle der EU durchgesetzt werden.Ich habe den Bericht daher abgelehnt.
Cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars (A8-0465/2018 - Pavel Svoboda) DE
Kunstobjekte werden in bewaffneten Konflikten häufig zur Kriegsbeute. Die rechtlichen Ansprüche für legitime Besitzer sind häufig unklar und sehr schwer durchzusetzen.Der Initiativbericht des Parlaments fordert die Kommission und den Rat daher auf, die rechtliche Situation legitimer Besitzer zu verbessern. Grundsätzlich ist die Initiative positiv. Leider ist der Bericht des Parlaments sehr einseitig ausgefallen. Während der systematische Kunstdiebstahl der Nationalsozialisten richtigerweise mehrfach prominent erwähnt wird, ist das für den ebenfalls systematischen Kunstdiebstahl durch die Sowjetunion nicht der Fall. Noch heute befinden sich viele Beutekunstwerke aus Mittel- und Osteuropa in den Händen staatlicher russischer Institutionen. Ohne Berücksichtigung dieser Sachverhalte wird eine für alle Opfer zufriedenstellende Lösung kaum möglich sein, insbesondere dann nicht, wenn eine Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments diese Ansprüche unerwähnt lässt.Darüber hinaus fordert das Parlament die Kommission auf, europäische Organe zu schaffen, die sich mit dem Thema beschäftigen sollen. Da ich eine neue EU-Institution ablehne, habe ich dem Bericht insgesamt nicht zugestimmt.
Protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (A8-0469/2018 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Petri Sarvamaa) DE
Am 2. Mai 2018 schlug die Kommission vor, dass Haushaltskürzungen für EU-Mitgliedstaaten ermöglicht werden sollen, welche rechtsstaatliche Mängel an den Tag legen. In Fällen von ineffizienter Behördentätigkeit, Nichtverfolgung von Korruption und Betrug, Einschränkung des Rechtswegs, befangenen Gerichten sollen finanzielle Konsequenzen angeordnet werden können. Dies umfasst beispielsweise die Aussetzung von Zahlungen, die Nichterteilung von Genehmigungen von Programmen oder die Reduzierung von Vorfinanzierungen. Dabei sollen allerdings Endbegünstigte wie z. B. Erasmus-Stipendiaten nicht in Mitleidenschaft gezogen werden. Grundlage für die Beurteilung, ob die Rechtsstaatlichkeit in einem Land nicht beachtet wird, sind Urteile des EuGH, Berichte des Europäischen Rechnungshofes sowie Schlussfolgerungen einschlägiger internationaler Organisationen. Strafmaßnahmen kann die Kommission nach erfolgtem Briefaustausch mit der betroffenen Regierung eines Landes in Form eines Durchführungsrechtsaktes erlassen. Wird der Rat nicht binnen eines Monats aktiv und lehnt mittels qualifizierter Mehrheit die Maßnahme ab, tritt sie danach in Kraft. Nach dem Willen der Berichterstatter soll dieses Recht auch auf das Europäische Parlament ausgeweitet werden.Zwar anerkenne ich das Bestreben, die gute Verwendung von EU-Mitteln und die Einhaltung rechtsstaatlicher Prinzipien durch die Einführung von finanziellen Konsequenzen bei Nichtbeachtung dieser Grundsätze zu gewährleisten. Allerdings besteht die Gefahr, dass diese Regelung politisch gegen einzelne EU-Mitgliedstaaten instrumentalisiert wird. Ich lehne dieses Vorhaben daher ab.
Establishing the Fiscalis programme for cooperation in the field of taxation (A8-0421/2018 - Sven Giegold) DE
Die Kommission schätzt den jährlichen Verlust der Mitgliedstaaten durch Mehrwertsteuerbetrug auf 160 Mrd. Euro. Mehrwertsteuerbetrug ist überwiegend bei grenzüberschreitenden Umsätzen möglich und daher ein grenzüberschreitendes Phänomen zu Lasten ehrlicher Steuerzahler.Die Kommission möchte im Rahmen des „Fiscalis“-Programms die Initiativen nationaler Steuerbehörden zur Betrugsbekämpfung bündeln und aufeinander abstimmen. Dabei geht es insbesondere um Schulungen und den Austausch zwischen den nationalen Behörden.Der Berichterstatter Sven Giegold ergänzte das an sich zu befürwortende Vorhaben um eine entwicklungspolitische Dimension, indem er die am wenigsten entwickelten Länder kostenlos in das Programm einbinden möchte. Da es sich hierbei um einen sinnvollen entwicklungspolitischen Ansatz handelt und das „Fiscalis“-Programm insgesamt zu befürworten ist, stimme ich dem Bericht zu.
Establishing the Rights and Values programme (A8-0468/2018 - Bodil Valero) DE
Mit dem neuen Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen 2021-2027 soll nach dem Willen der Kommission ein neues EU-Programm namens „Rechte und Werte“ mit einer Gesamtdotierung von rund 648 Mio. EUR eingerichtet werden, um so mitzuhelfen, die EU-Werte wie Grundrechte, Gleichbehandlung, Gleichstellung, Antirassismus, Toleranz, Rechtsstaatlichkeit, kulturelle Vielfalt, lebendige Zivilgesellschaft, Meinungsfreiheit und demokratische Teilhabe zu bewahren. Dabei kann die Kommission nicht ausreichend erklären, wieso ein neues Programm notwendig ist, obschon bereits ähnliche Programme mit Titeln wie „Rechte, Gleichstellung und Unionsbürgerschaft“, „Europa für Bürger“, „Justiz“ sowie „Kreatives Europa“ umgesetzt werden. Zudem sind im Kommissionentwurf Anflüge von Selbstüberschätzung zu erkennen. So könne das neue Programm dazu beitragen, den EU-Binnenmarkt zu vollenden, den Wohlstand und Zusammenhalt in der EU zu fördern, die EU zu befähigen, ihre Werte in der Welt zu verteidigen und zu den Zielen der Vereinten Nationen für nachhaltige Entwicklung beizutragen.Wohl auch inspiriert von dieser opulenten Begründung geht der Berichterstatterin von den schwedischen Grünen, Frau Bodil Valero, der Kommissionsentwurf nicht weit genug. Sie möchte die Mittel für dieses Programm verdreifachen auf fast zwei Milliarden Euro. Diesem Vorhaben, welches nur zusätzliche Bürokratie erzeugt, erteile ich eine klare Absage, weshalb ich gegen den Bericht gestimmt habe.
Differentiated integration (A8-0402/2018 - Pascal Durand) DE
Das Europäische Parlament bezieht mit diesem Entschließungsantrag eine Position zu Konzepten der „differenzierten Integration“, also einem Europa der verschiedenen Geschwindigkeiten. Es wird festgestellt, dass es differenzierte Integration gibt und es nicht um das „Für und Wider“ gehen solle. In den einzelnen Paragraphen wird dann aber festgestellt, dass differenzierte Integration immer nur temporär sein sollte, eine begrenzte Anzahl von Politiken betreffen sollte, dass sie generell als „zweite Wahl“ zu betrachten sei, und dass das „gemeinschaftliche Vorgehen“ die beste Lösung für das Funktionieren der Union sei.Diese Aussagen belegen, dass das Parlament mit diesem Entschließungsantrag die differenzierte Integration möglichst weit begrenzen und abschaffen will. Wichtige Politikbereiche, die hiervon betroffen wären, sind z. B. das Euro-System oder die Schengen-Regelungen.Als Vehikel für diese Politik setzt man auf eine vermehrte Anwendung der sogenannten Passerelle-Klausel nach Artikel 48 (7) AEUV. Einige Länder sollen mit der „verstärkten Zusammenarbeit“ vorangehen und neue Politiken einführen, die dann per Passerelle auf die gesamte EU übertragen werden sollen. Man erhofft sich so eine Ausschaltung des Europäischen Rates.Das Parlament fordert ganz klar, den Weg in einen in allen Politikbereichen gleichgeschalteten europäischen Zentralstaat zu gehen. Diese Konzeption lehne ich klar ab und habe deshalb gegen den Antrag gestimmt.
Apportionment of tariff rate quotas included in the WTO schedule of the Union following the UK's withdrawal from the EU (A8-0361/2018 - Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl) DE
Der Brexit ist für Deutschland ein großer Rückschlag – einer der verlässlichsten Partner und Nettozahler verlässt die EU. Dies bedaure ich und hoffe auf einen „Exit vom Brexit“. Trotzdem ist es geboten, dass sich die EU bereits jetzt auf den Brexit vorbereitet. Die „Aufteilung der Zollkontingente in der WTO-Liste der Union nach dem Austritt des Vereinigten Königreichs aus der Union“ ist ein Teil davon. Die vorgeschlagene Umsetzung ist sachlogisch: Die Mengen werden nach bisherigen Importmengen zwischen der Rest-EU und Großbritannien aufgeteilt.Somit werden die durch den Brexit verursachten Handelsverzerrungen so gering wie möglich gehalten. Entsprechend stimme ich dem Bericht zu.
Establishing the InvestEU Programme (A8-0482/2018 - José Manuel Fernandes, Roberto Gualtieri) DE
Mit dem neuen Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen 2021-2027 soll nach dem Willen der Mehrheit im Europäischen Parlament das neue Programm InvestEU mit einer Gesamtdotierung von 15,2 Milliarden Euro eingerichtet werden. InvestEU ist zum einen das Nachfolgeprogramm des sogenannten Juncker-Plans, der zwischen 2015 und 2020 seine Wirkung entfalten soll. Zum anderen werden 16 bisher zentral verwaltete Finanzierungsinstrumente in das Programm InvestEU integriert. Mittels EU-Garantien sollen Hebelwirkungen und damit zusätzliche Investitionen in Höhe von mehreren hundert Milliarden Euro erzielt werden. Weitere Bestandteile von InvestEU sind eine Beratungsplattform, eine Projektdatenbank sowie Mischfinanzierungen. Thematisch werden Projekte in den Bereichen Innovation, Digitalisierung, Infrastruktur, Soziales, KMU und Lokales unterstützt. Wie beim Juncker-Plan besteht auch bei InvestEU die Gefahr, dass nicht notwendige Projekte finanziert und der Privatsektor sowie nationale Förderbanken wie die KfW unzulässig konkurrenziert werden. Der Beleg, dass dadurch zusätzliche Investitionen erzielt werden, wurde bis heute nicht geliefert. Wieder einmal zeigt es sich, dass sich angeblich befristete Programme wie der Juncker-Plan verstetigen, obschon die ursprüngliche Begründung hierfür, nämlich die Finanzkrise von 2008, weggefallen ist. Historische Beispiele für solch ein Vorgehen sind etwa die Sektsteuer von 1902 oder der Solidaritätszuschlag. Leidtragende einer solchen Politik sind die Steuerzahler. Ich lehne daher das Programm InvestEU ab.
European Central Bank Annual report 2017 (A8-0424/2018 - Gabriel Mato) DE
Der Initiativbericht zum Jahresbericht der EZB 2017 setzt sich mit der Politik der EZB auseinander und stellt eine diesbezügliche politische Stellungnahme des Parlaments dar. Im diesjährigen Bericht sind etliche Punkte enthalten, die ich für sehr begrüßenswert halte. Darunter fällt insbesondere die Kritik an den Anleihekäufen der EZB (APP). Der Bericht warnt davor, dass diese negative Nebenwirkungen hervorrufen und fordert ausdrücklich, dass dieses Instrument nur zeitlich begrenzt angewandt werden sollte. Damit widerspricht er offen der Haltung Mario Draghis.Leider enthält der Bericht aber auch etliche Punkte, die ich für nicht akzeptabel halte. Der Versuch der EZB, das selbstgesteckte Inflationsziel von zwei Prozent zu erreichen, wird nicht hinterfragt. Stattdessen lobt das Parlament die Bemühungen der EZB im Kampf gegen die Deflation. Es wird außerdem der irreversible Charakter des Euro hervorgehoben. Dabei bräuchte es dringend eine Exit-Option für Staaten, die mit der gemeinsamen Währung nicht zurechtkommen. Zuletzt wird Bezug auf eine mögliche gemeinsame Einlagensicherung (EDIS) genommen, die ich rundheraus ablehne.Trotz der ungemein zu begrüßenden kritischen Passagen zu Anleihekäufen habe ich den Bericht daher abgelehnt.
Banking Union - Annual report 2018 (A8-0419/2018 - Nils Torvalds) DE
Der Jahresbericht zur Bankenunion beschäftigt sich mit den Fortschritten, aber auch Unzulänglichkeiten und Baustellen der Bankenunion. Dabei ist das Europäische Parlament wie auch in den vorherigen Jahren erstaunlich kritisch. Dies ist sehr zu begrüßen. So werden Risiken betont, die mit dem Halten von Staatsanleihen einhergehen können, vor allem wenn es sich um größere Risikopositionen in Bankbilanzen handelt. Zu begrüßen ist auch, dass das „Too-big-to-fail “-Problem angegangen werden soll, indem die weitere Reduktion notleidender Kredite angemahnt und die Gläubigerbeteiligung bei Bankenpleiten betont wird. Letzteres wird dazu beitragen, dass künftig seltener der Steuerzahler für Bankenpleiten haftet, sondern diejenigen, die zuvor an Geschäften mit der jeweiligen Bank verdient haben.Allerdings wird der Bericht durch den Aufruf zur Einführung einer gemeinsamen Einlagensicherung (EDIS) zur Vervollständigung der Bankenunion konterkariert. Damit kann es im Extremfall zu einer unbegrenzten Haftung der Steuerzahler für Einlagen in der Bankenunion kommen. Diese Vergemeinschaftung von Risiken lehne ich eindeutig ab, zumal der Abbau von Risiken, wie der Bericht selber feststellt, deutlich zu langsam vorangeht.
Situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in 2017 (A8-0466/2018 - Josep-Maria Terricabras) DE
Die Beurteilung der Lage der Grundrechte in der Europäischen Union 2017 ist in sechs thematische Abschnitte unterteilt: Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Migration, Frauenrechte, Medienfreiheit, Diskriminierung/Rassismus sowie die Rolle der Agentur für Grundrechte. Insgesamt erwähnt das Europäische Parlament viele positive Aspekte in Bezug auf die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz, den Schutz der Rechte der vom Brexit betroffenen Personen oder die Medienfreiheit und Sicherheit von Journalisten.Gleichzeitig ist der Wortlaut des Dokuments oft stark ideologisch aufgeladen, was für mich nicht mitzutragen ist. Die Bestimmungen über Sanktionsmechanismen im Migrationsbereich oder die geforderten Umsiedlungen von Flüchtlingen sind nur einige Beispiele dafür, weshalb ich mich meiner Stimme enthalten habe.
Autonomous driving in European transport (A8-0425/2018 - Wim van de Camp) DE
Autonomes Fahren birgt in sich großes wirtschaftliches Potenzial, weshalb auch deutsche Automobilhersteller in dem Bereich mächtig investieren. Die Europäische Kommission geht von einem exponentiellen Wachstum des neuen Marktes und von Umsätzen in der EU bis 2025 von über 620 Mrd. EUR alleine in der Automobilbranche aus.Während sich der Stand der Technik zügig entwickelt, stehen einer Verbreitung von teil- und vollautomatisierten Fahrzeugen andere, vor allem legislative, Hürden im Wege. Einzelne Mitgliedstaaten müssen sich vor allem dahingehend einigen, wer im Falle eines Unfalls für entstandene Schäden haften wird. Darüber hinaus muss die Sicherheit der Verkehrsteilnehmer durch ein geändertes Typenzulassungsverfahren und neue Datensicherheitsvorschriften garantiert werden.Ich setze mich für eine schnelle Beseitigung der genannten Hürden ein. Da die heute zur Abstimmung gestellte Position des Verkehrsausschusses in dieselbe Richtung geht, stimme ich ihr gerne zu.
Gender mainstreaming in the European Parliament (A8-0429/2018 - Angelika Mlinar) DE
Diese Entschließung soll die Konzepte des „Gender Mainstreaming“ im Europäischen Parlament stärken. Gender Mainstreaming ist eine Ideologie, die einerseits Frauenrechte stärken will, was positiv zu bewerten ist, aber andererseits klassische Rollenverteilungen ablehnt und abschaffen will. Gemäß der Definition der UN des „Gender Mainstreaming“ sind soziale Attribute und Möglichkeiten, die mit Männern und Frauen assoziiert werden, sozial konstruiert und erlernt. Diese Definition wird von Biologen abgelehnt. Gewachsene Rollenbilder haben eine Funktion und ihre Abschaffung richtet gesellschaftlichen Schaden an.In diesem Bericht finden sich leider nicht nur Vorschläge, die im Sinne eines klassischen Liberalismus die Chancengleichheit zwischen Männern und Frauen verbessern sollen, sondern insbesondere solche, die im Sinne eines „modernen“ Linksliberalismus eine Ergebnisgleichheit erreichen sollen.Zwar wird zugegeben, dass Frauen bereits heute 59 % der Bediensteten des Parlaments ausmachen, aber daraus wird keine Diskriminierung von Männern abgeleitet. Es wird einzig davon eine Diskriminierung abgeleitet, dass Frauen in Leitungspositionen und auf MdEP-Ebene unterrepräsentiert sind. Dass sich Frauen weniger in Parteien engagieren als Männer, ist zwar empirisch bewiesen, wird aber von den Gender-Ideologen nicht akzeptiert.
Approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (A8-0048/2017 - Daniel Dalton) DE
Der zuständige Untersuchungsausschuss des Europäischen Parlaments stellte fest, dass signifikante Unterschiede zwischen Labormessungen und Abgastests im realen Fahrbetrieb der Europäischen Kommission spätestens seit 2010 bekannt waren. Die Kommission hat uns auf ihre Reaktion leider zu lange warten lassen, sodass wir in der Zwischenzeit mehrere Skandale europäischer Automobilhersteller erleben mussten.Bei der Typenzulassung wurden bisher neue Modelle aufgrund der sogenannten „NEDC“- und später „WLTP“-Testzyklen geprüft. Beide Zyklen sehen ausschließlich Labormessungen vor. Da muss sich die Kommission oder die Deutsche Umwelthilfe nicht wundern, dass einige Modelle auf der Straße die Emissionsgrenzwerte überschreiten, wenn sie bei der Typenzulassung nie im realen Verkehr getestet wurden.Nach dem Motto „spät aber doch“ werden aufgrund des vom Parlament verabschiedeten Berichts endlich reale Abgasmessungen eingeführt. Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer unterstützen diese wichtige Nachbesserung. Dementsprechend stimme ich dem Bericht zu.
Protection of investigative journalists in Europe: the case of Slovak journalist Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová (B8-0186/2018) DE
Der Anlass zum Bericht zum Schutz von investigativen Journalisten in Europa waren die Morde in der Slowakei am investigativen Journalisten Ján Kuciak und seiner Freundin Martina Kušnírová im Februar dieses Jahres. Ján Kuciak hatte die Verstrickungen slowakischer Politiker mit der italienischen Mafia im Zuge der Veruntreuung von EU-Fördergeldern im Agrarsektor untersucht. Darüber hinaus beinhalteten seine Untersuchungen Indizien für die Korruption hochrangiger Regierungsangestellter.Bereits im Oktober 2017 wurde die maltesische Journalistin Daphne Caruana Galizia ermordet, die im Zusammenhang mit der Veröffentlichung der Panama Papers verschiedene hochrangige maltesische Politiker unter anderem der Steuerhinterziehung beschuldigte.Die LKR ist daher der festen Überzeugung, dass investigative Journalisten eines besonderen Schutzes bedürfen. Der Bericht, der die Bedeutung von investigativem Journalismus für die Demokratie anerkennt, ruft die slowakische Regierung zu einer unabhängigen und gründlichen Untersuchung unter Beteiligung internationaler Expertenteams auf und fordert diese sowie die europäische Antikorruptionsbehörde Olaf dazu auf, die von Herrn Kuciak untersuchten Anschuldigungen weiter zu verfolgen.Auch wenn der Bericht in Ziffer 20 indirekt einen Aufruf zur Schaffung einer neuen EU-Stelle beinhaltet und wir von den Liberal-Konservativen Reformern uns stets für einen Abbau von Bürokratie einsetzen, so überwiegen doch die Vorteile eindeutig. Deshalb stimme ich dem Bericht zu.
Implementation of the European Protection Order Directive (A8-0065/2018 - Soraya Post, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio) DE
Am 19. April 2018 stimmt das Europäische Parlament über die „Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2011/99/EU über die Europäische Schutzanordnung“ ab. Aktuell gibt es EU-weit hunderttausende Anordnungen, die vornehmlich Frauen vor hässlicher Gewalt, Belästigung, Stalking oder sexueller Nötigung schützen sollen, indem sie den Tätern eine Annäherung an die Opfer verbieten. Die Anordnung soll den Schutz bei Reisen und bei Übersiedlung ins EU-Ausland u. a. durch die Einführung eines Zentralregisters verbessern.Während eine Verbesserung des Opferschutzes von Frauen sinnvoll und unterstützenswert ist, kommt der Bericht nicht ohne Elemente aus, die linken Ideologien Vorschub leisten. Dies lässt sich bei vielen Berichten aus dem FEMM-Ausschuss beobachten. So fordert der Bericht die „Einführung des Gender Mainstreaming in allen Politikbereichen“ oder die Einführung von Unterricht zur Geschlechtergleichstellung (im Sinne des Gender Mainstreaming) bereits in Grundschulen. Darüber hinaus soll das Europäische Institut für Geschlechtergleichstellung mit der Überprüfung der Umsetzung dieser Richtlinie beauftragt werden. Wenn man sachliche Arbeit will, sollte die Überprüfung der Umsetzung einer solchen Richtlinie nicht bei einem linksgerichteten Gender-Institut, sondern bei den europäischen Polizeibehörden liegen.Während der Bericht gute und sinnvolle Elemente enthält, ist es nicht akzeptabel, dass praktisch jeder Bericht aus dem FEMM-Ausschuss mit linksideologischem Ballast versehen ist. Weil die LKR für sachliche Arbeit steht, lehne ich den Bericht ab.
Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (A8-0131/2018 - Helga Stevens) DE
Das Übereinkommen des Europarats zur Vorbeugung des Terrorismus und das Zusatzprotokoll sind Teil einer internationalen Anstrengung zur Verbesserung der Zusammenarbeit im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus. Es zielt darauf ab, die strafrechtlichen Aspekte der Resolution 2178 (2014) zur Bedrohung des internationalen Friedens und der Sicherheit durch Terroranschläge des VN-Sicherheitsrates umzusetzen.Das Übereinkommen und dessen Zusatzprotokoll versuchen, den Zustrom von ausländischen terroristischen Kämpfern in Konfliktgebiete zu stoppen und eine gemeinsame Reaktion zu schaffen.Es sieht die Kriminalisierung folgender Handlungen vor:– Teilnahme an einer Vereinigung oder Gruppe für die Zwecke des Terrorismus;– Ausbildung für terroristische Zwecke;– Reisen oder der Versuch, für terroristische Zwecke zu reisen;– Bereitstellung von Mitteln für solche Reisen;– Organisation solcher Reisen.Alle Vertragsparteien des Zusatzprotokolls müssen eine Kontaktstelle benennen. Europol kann diese Rolle für die EU wahrnehmen und dabei die einschlägigen Regeln für die Beziehungen zu den Partnern sowie die Grundrechte einschließlich des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten umfassend berücksichtigen.Mit dem Inkrafttreten der Richtlinie von 2017 zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus erfüllen die EU und ihre Mitgliedstaaten bereits die Verpflichtungen, die sich aus dem Übereinkommen und dem Zusatzprotokoll ergeben.Aus den genannten Gründen stimme ich für diesen Bericht.
Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Protocol) (A8-0132/2018 - Helga Stevens) DE
Das Übereinkommen des Europarats zur Vorbeugung des Terrorismus und das Zusatzprotokoll sind Teil einer internationalen Anstrengung zur Verbesserung der Zusammenarbeit im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus. Es zielt darauf ab, die strafrechtlichen Aspekte der Resolution 2178 (2014) zur Bedrohung des internationalen Friedens und der Sicherheit durch Terroranschläge des VN-Sicherheitsrates umzusetzen.Das Übereinkommen und dessen Zusatzprotokoll versuchen, den Zustrom von ausländischen terroristischen Kämpfern in Konfliktgebiete zu stoppen und eine gemeinsame Reaktion zu schaffen.Es sieht die Kriminalisierung folgender Handlungen vor:– Teilnahme an einer Vereinigung oder Gruppe für die Zwecke des Terrorismus;– Ausbildung für terroristische Zwecke;– Reisen oder der Versuch, für terroristische Zwecke zu reisen;– Bereitstellung von Mitteln für solche Reisen;– Organisation solcher Reisen.Alle Vertragsparteien des Zusatzprotokolls müssen eine Kontaktstelle benennen. Europol kann diese Rolle für die EU wahrnehmen und dabei die einschlägigen Regeln für die Beziehungen zu den Partnern sowie die Grundrechte einschließlich des Schutzes personenbezogener Daten umfassend berücksichtigen.Mit dem Inkrafttreten der Richtlinie von 2017 zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus erfüllen die EU und ihre Mitgliedstaaten bereits die Verpflichtungen, die sich aus dem Übereinkommen und dem Zusatzprotokoll ergeben.Aus den genannten Gründen stimme ich für diesen Bericht.
Packaging and packaging waste (A8-0029/2017 - Simona Bonafè) DE
Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer setzen sich für eine grundsätzliche Reform der Europäischen Union ein. Wir fordern, dass sich die EU künftig auf ihre Kernkompetenzen – also jene, bei denen sie zweifellos einen größeren Mehrwert als die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten generiert – beschränkt. Solch einen Mehrwert sehen wir bei dem vom Parlament verabschiedeten Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket nicht.Während z. B. Industrie- und Verkehrsabgase als grenzüberschreitendes Problem einzustufen sind, weil die Luftverschmutzung keine territorialen Grenzen kennt, bleibt die Abfallbehandlung eine nationale Angelegenheit. Wir sehen, dass die Abfallbehandlung zu einem gewissen Maße die Luftverschmutzung verursacht. Dies halten wir allerdings für keinen ausreichenden Grund, um europäische Regulierung, die im Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket geplanten Eingriffe in die freie Marktwirtschaft oder den erheblichen zusätzlichen bürokratischen Aufwand zu legitimieren.Viele Parlamentskollegen konnten leider der Versuchung nicht widerstehen, sich zu jedem für sie wichtigen Bereich ein Ziel auszudenken. So setzt das Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket unterschiedliche Ziele für 2025 vs. 2030, für den Abfall generell, für Verpackungsabfälle, für Altbatterien und Elektrogeräte als auch für Abfalldeponien. Dazu kommen noch partielle Ziele für die einzelnen Stoffe. Es ist völlig illusorisch zu glauben, dass sich Unternehmen an so viele unterschiedliche Ziele halten können.Aus dem Grund stimme ich gegen alle vier Berichte des Kreislaufwirtschaftspakets.
End-of-life vehicles, waste batteries and accumulators and waste electrical and electronic equipment (A8-0013/2017 - Simona Bonafè) DE
Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer setzen sich für eine grundsätzliche Reform der Europäischen Union ein. Wir fordern, dass sich die EU künftig auf ihre Kernkompetenzen – also jene, bei denen sie zweifellos einen größeren Mehrwert als die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten generiert – beschränkt. Solch einen Mehrwert sehen wir bei dem vom Parlament verabschiedeten Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket nicht.Während z. B. Industrie- und Verkehrsabgase als grenzüberschreitendes Problem einzustufen sind, weil die Luftverschmutzung keine territorialen Grenzen kennt, bleibt die Abfallbehandlung eine nationale Angelegenheit. Wir sehen, dass die Abfallbehandlung zu einem gewissen Maße die Luftverschmutzung verursacht. Dies halten wir allerdings für keinen ausreichenden Grund, um europäische Regulierung, die im Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket geplanten Eingriffe in die freie Marktwirtschaft oder den erheblichen zusätzlichen bürokratischen Aufwand zu legitimieren.Viele Parlamentskollegen konnten leider der Versuchung nicht widerstehen, sich zu jedem für sie wichtigen Bereich ein Ziel auszudenken. So setzt das Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket unterschiedliche Ziele für 2025 vs. 2030, für den Abfall generell, für Verpackungsabfälle, für Altbatterien und Elektrogeräte als auch für Abfalldeponien. Dazu kommen noch partielle Ziele für die einzelnen Stoffe. Es ist völlig illusorisch zu glauben, dass sich Unternehmen an eine solche Menge unterschiedlicher Ziele halten können.Aus dem Grund stimme ich gegen alle vier Berichte des Kreislaufwirtschaftspakets.
Waste (A8-0034/2017 - Simona Bonafè) DE
Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer setzen sich für eine grundsätzliche Reform der Europäischen Union ein. Wir fordern, dass sich die EU künftig auf ihre Kernkompetenzen – also jene, bei denen sie zweifellos einen größeren Mehrwert als die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten generiert – beschränkt. Solch einen Mehrwert sehen wir bei dem vom Parlament verabschiedeten Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket nicht.Während z. B. Industrie- und Verkehrsabgase als grenzüberschreitendes Problem einzustufen sind, weil die Luftverschmutzung keine territorialen Grenzen kennt, bleibt die Abfallbehandlung eine nationale Angelegenheit. Wir sehen, dass die Abfallbehandlung zu einem gewissen Maße die Luftverschmutzung verursacht. Dies halten wir allerdings für keinen ausreichenden Grund, um europäische Regulierung, die im Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket geplanten Eingriffe in die freie Marktwirtschaft oder den erheblichen zusätzlichen bürokratischen Aufwand zu legitimieren.Viele Parlamentskollegen konnten leider der Versuchung nicht widerstehen, sich zu jedem für sie wichtigen Bereich ein Ziel auszudenken. So setzt das Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket unterschiedliche Ziele für 2025 vs. 2030, für den Abfall generell, für Verpackungsabfälle, für Altbatterien und Elektrogeräte als auch für Abfalldeponien. Dazu kommen noch partielle Ziele für die einzelnen Stoffe. Es ist völlig illusorisch zu glauben, dass sich Unternehmen an eine solche Zahl unterschiedlicher Ziele halten können.Aus dem Grund stimme ich gegen alle vier Berichte des Kreislaufwirtschaftspakets.
Landfill of waste (A8-0031/2017 - Simona Bonafè) DE
Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer setzen sich für eine grundsätzliche Reform der Europäischen Union ein. Wir fordern, dass sich die EU künftig auf ihre Kernkompetenzen – also jene, bei denen sie zweifellos einen größeren Mehrwert als die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten generiert – beschränkt. Solch einen Mehrwert sehen wir bei dem vom Parlament verabschiedeten Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket nicht.Während z. B. Industrie- und Verkehrsabgase als grenzüberschreitendes Problem einzustufen sind, weil die Luftverschmutzung keine territorialen Grenzen kennt, bleibt die Abfallbehandlung eine nationale Angelegenheit. Wir sehen, dass die Abfallbehandlung zu einem gewissen Maße die Luftverschmutzung verursacht. Dies halten wir allerdings für keinen ausreichenden Grund, um europäische Regulierung, die im Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket geplanten Eingriffe in die freie Marktwirtschaft oder den erheblichen zusätzlichen bürokratischen Aufwand zu legitimieren.Viele Parlamentskollegen konnten leider der Versuchung nicht widerstehen, sich zu jedem für sie wichtigen Bereich ein Ziel auszudenken. So setzt das Kreislaufwirtschaftspaket unterschiedliche Ziele für 2025 vs. 2030, für den Abfall generell, für Verpackungsabfälle, für Altbatterien und Elektrogeräte als auch für Abfalldeponien. Dazu kommen noch partielle Ziele für die einzelnen Stoffe. Es ist völlig illusorisch zu glauben, dass sich Unternehmen an eine solche Menge unterschiedlicher Ziele halten können.Aus dem Grund stimme ich gegen alle vier Berichte des Kreislaufwirtschaftspakets.
Integrity policy of the Commission, in particular the appointment of the Secretary-General of the European Commission (B8-0214/2018) DE
Der Bericht beschäftigt sich mit der Ernennung von Martin Selmayr zum Generalsekretär der Europäischen Kommission. Das Verfahren dieser Ernennung hat in den Medien und der Öffentlichkeit als auch in der EU-Beamtenschaft für Aufsehen, Irritation und schwere Kritik gesorgt und belastet die Glaubwürdigkeit nicht nur der EU-Kommission, sondern der gesamten Europäischen Union schwer. Der Bericht zeichnet klar und deutlich die Fehler und Versäumnisse bei der Art und Weise nach, wie Herr Selmayr ins Amt gelangte. Der Bericht zeigt auf, wie Kommissionspräsident Jean-Claude Juncker und der zuständige Kommissar für Finanzplanung und Haushalt, Günther Oettinger, die übrigen Mitglieder in Bezug auf den Rücktritt des amtierenden Generalsekretärs Alexander Italianer vor vollendete Tatsachen gestellt haben, um Martin Selmayr, ohne vorherige Ausschreibung der Position, zum Generalsekretär zu ernennen. Die LKR hat zwei Änderungsanträge eingebracht, die die mutmaßliche unberechtigte Informationsweitergabe von Selmayr an einen Journalisten sowie die spätere Beleidigung dieses Journalisten zum Inhalt haben.Insgesamt leistet der Bericht einen wichtigen Beitrag zur notwendigen Debatte um die Integrität der amtierenden EU-Kommission. Ich stimme ihm dementsprechend zu.
Progress on UN Global compacts for safe, orderly and regular migration and on refugees (B8-0184/2018) DE
Der globale Migrationspakt verfolgt das Ziel, einen besseren Umgang mit globalen Migrationsströmen zu ermöglichen. Gestützt auf die New Yorker Erklärung der VN-Generalversammlung vom 19. September 2016 sollen die VN-Mitgliedstaaten bis spätestens Ende 2018 zu einem umfassenden Rahmenplan für Flüchtlingshilfsmaßnahmen verpflichtet werden. Zu begrüßen ist in diesem Kontext das Bestreben, alle Mitgliedstaaten der Vereinten Nationen erneut zur Wahrung von Grundrechten für Migranten und Flüchtlinge zu verpflichten, unabhängig vom jeweiligen Aufenthaltsstatus betroffener Personen. Allerdings überwiegen in der New Yorker Erklärung und noch viel stärker in der vorliegenden Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments Forderungen, die die Eigenverantwortung von Migranten sowie die mit der Migration verbundenen Probleme ignorieren und bei entsprechender Umsetzung die EU-Mitgliedstaaten noch mehr als bisher überfordern würden. Wiederum wird nicht klar zwischen wirtschaftlich motivierter Migration und der Flucht Schutzsuchender unterschieden. Wieder wird undifferenziert behauptet, Migration verschaffe sowohl den Migranten wie auch der Aufnahmegesellschaft in jedem Falle wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Nutzen. Wieder wird platt gefordert, bei Arbeitskräftemangel in einzelnen Ländern müsse Migration erleichtert werden, ohne auf bereits existierende, gravierende Integrationsprobleme hinzuweisen. Und wieder werden Neuansiedlungsprogramme und erleichterte Familienzusammenführungen unbesehen der massiven Widerstände in der Bevölkerung der einzelnen EU-Mitgliedstaaten gefordert. Entsprechend lehne ich die Entschließung ab.
Inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry into the 2030 climate and energy framework (A8-0262/2017 - Norbert Lins) DE
Die LKR legt großen Wert auf das Subsidiaritätsprinzip und kritisiert in vielen Fällen, dass Kompetenzen zu weit „nach oben“ verschoben werden. Im Bereich des globalen Problems des Klimawandels sind aber globale oder wenigstens EU-weite Lösungen sinnvoll.Der Bericht baut auf den vorhandenen Anrechnungsvorschriften für Treibhausgasemissionen auf und aktualisiert diese für den Zeitraum 2021 bis 2030. LULUCF ist eine Verrechnungsplattform für klimawirksame Emissionen im Rahmen der europäischen Klima- und Energiepolitik bis 2030.Der Vorschlag berücksichtigt die unterschiedliche Ausgangslage und Präferenzstruktur der EU-Mitgliedstaaten. Diesen wird freie Hand bei der Maßnahmenwahl zur Erfüllung der Emissionsreduktion gewährt. Es wird zudem ermöglicht, dass Emissionsausstöße zwischen verschiedenen Landnutzungskategorien miteinander verrechnet werden können. Des Weiteren kann der Handel mit Emissionsrechten fortgesetzt werden. Weiterhin sieht der Bericht vor, eine Sachverständigengutachtergruppe zur Überprüfung der Referenzwerte für Wälder zu erstellen, welche von den Mitgliedstaaten eigenverantwortlich gestaltet wurden. Unter restriktiv gestalteten Bedingungen darf die Kommission eine Neuberechnung der Referenzwerte vornehmen. Der Referenzwert für Wälder wird von den Mitgliedstaaten unter Bezug auf die vorhergehende Bewirtschaftungspraxis und unter Berücksichtigung der Art des Waldes festgelegt.Da Emissionshandel ein marktnahes Instrument und daher eine effiziente CO2-Reduzierung ist, entspricht der Vorschlag den Grundlinien der LKR. Deshalb stimme ich für den Bericht.
Binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement (A8-0208/2017 - Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy) DE
Die LKR legt großen Wert auf das Subsidiaritätsprinzip und kritisiert in vielen Fällen, dass Kompetenzen zu weit „nach oben“ verschoben werden. Im Bereich des globalen Problems des Klimawandels sind aber globale oder wenigstens EU-weite Lösungen sinnvoll.In diesem Bericht werden verbindliche nationale Jahresziele für den Ausstoß von Treibhausgasen festgelegt. Der Vorschlag enthält die flexible Komponente, dass ein Mitgliedstaat einen Teil der jährlichen Emissionszuteilungen auf spätere Jahre übertragen oder aus früheren Jahren vorwegnehmen kann. Somit wird die Unterschiedlichkeit der Ausgangslagen und Präferenzen in den Mitgliedstaaten berücksichtigt. Zusätzlich soll das Übertragen von nicht in Anspruch genommenen Emissionszuteilungen an andere Mitgliedstaaten möglich sein. Auch diese Regelung wird dem genannten Gesichtspunkt gerecht. Bei Emissionsüberschüssen, die nicht anderweitig kompensiert werden können, setzt eine Strafe ein. Es werden dem Mitgliedstaat zusätzliche CO2-Emissionen, welche sich an der Höhe des Überschusses orientieren, für das kommende Jahr verbucht. Somit wird ein weiterer Anreiz gesetzt, den Verpflichtungen nachzukommen. Der Erfolg der Maßnahmen soll durch in zweijährigen Abständen folgende Befolgungskontrollen sichergestellt werden.Der Antrag ist durch seine flexible Gestaltung und dem den Mitgliedstaaten gewährten Freiraum mit der Ausrichtung der LKR konform. Deshalb stimme ich für den Bericht.
Statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations (A8-0373/2017 - Mercedes Bresso, Rainer Wieland) DE
Mehr Wettbewerb führt zu besserem Angebot – das gilt ebenso für politische Parteien. Als junge und kleine Partei erleben wir in Deutschland, dass wir gegenüber bestehenden, größeren Parteien strukturell benachteiligt werden. Ein Beispiel hierfür ist das sehr aufwändige Sammeln von Unterschriften, um an Wahlen teilnehmen zu können. Deshalb begrüßen wir als LKR, dass es bisher auf europäischer Ebene verhältnismäßig einfach ist, eine Partei zu gründen, und dass die Benachteiligung gegenüber großen Parteien gering war.Mit dem Bresso/Wieland-Bericht werden erstens Gelder von kleinen hin zu großen Parteien umverteilt und so die bestehenden Parteien im Wettbewerb um Wählerstimmen bevorteilt. Zweitens wird eine größere direkte finanzielle Unterstützung aller europäischen Parteien gefordert, was unserem Verständnis von verantwortungsvollem Umgang mit Steuergeldern widerspricht.Daher lehne ich diesen Bericht ab.
Gender equality in the media sector in the EU (A8-0031/2018 - Michaela Šojdrová) DE
Der Bericht klagt EU-weit systematische Benachteiligungen von Frauen im Mediensektor an. Abhilfe soll durch einige Maßnahmen geschaffen werden. Diese betreffen vor allem das Entfernen von anstößigen Inhalten und die Einführung von Quotenregelungen für Frauen, primär in den Führungsriegen der Branche.Die erste Maßnahme birgt Missbrauchspotenzial, wenn es um die Entfernung von Inhalten geht, welche lediglich politisch missliebige Meinungen darstellen. Auch die zweite Forderung sieht die LKR kritisch. Die Besetzung von Stellen und die Beförderung im oberen Management sollten grundsätzlich nach dem Leistungsprinzip erfolgen, um bestmögliche Resultate zu sichern. Quoten stehen diesem Prinzip diametral gegenüber. Davon abgesehen sollte im Kulturbereich das Subsidiaritätsprinzip zur Anwendung kommen. In Deutschland stehen Kulturangelegenheiten unter der Verantwortung der Bundesländer. Es ist für mich nicht ersichtlich, wieso Kultur auf supranationaler Ebene gefördert werden soll, wenn diese Unterstützung schon auf niedrigeren Ebenen möglich ist.Aus den genannten Gründen stimme ich gegen den Bericht.
Setting up a special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (TAX3), its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (B8-0125/2018) DE
Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer unterstützen den Kampf gegen Steuerhinterziehung und Geldwäsche. Wir begrüßen dahingehend die bisherigen Antworten des Europäischen Parlaments und somit die Einrichtung der Ausschüsse TAX1, TAX2 und PANA. Diese Ausschüsse haben die entsprechenden Themen umfangreich diskutiert, Mechanismen in Gang gesetzt und sinnvolle Empfehlungen geleistet.Am 25.2.2018 wurden der slowakische Journalist Kuciak und seine Verlobte ermordet. Sie fielen mutmaßlich seinen investigativen Nachforschungen im Zusammenhang mit Steuerbetrug, der sich bis in Regierungskreise ziehen soll, zum Opfer. Dieser Fall verdeutlicht die Aktualität des Themas für das Europäische Parlament, insbesondere da es sich auch um Subventionsbetrug gegenüber der EU handeln könnte, da Gelder aus dem Europäischen Landwirtschaftsfonds hinterzogen wurden. Ein weiterer Fall verdeutlicht die Bedeutung dieser Thematik: Vorwürfen des amerikanischen Finanzministeriums zufolge ist die lettische ABLV Bank in Geldwäsche-Aktivitäten in großem Stil verwickelt. Die Umsetzung der bestehenden EU-Geldwäscherichtlinien muss weiter verbessert werden, und das Europäische Parlament sollte dabei genau hinschauen.Dies zeigt die Notwendigkeit, die Arbeit innerhalb des TAX3-Ausschusses fortzusetzen, weshalb ich dem Antrag zugestimmt habe.
Commission decision to activate Article 7 (1) TEU as regards the situation in Poland (B8-0119/2018, B8-0120/2018, B8-0121/2018) DE
Aufgrund dieser Entschließung fordert das Europäische Parlament den Rat auf, ein Verfahren gegen Polen gemäß Artikel 7 Absatz 1 EUV einzuleiten, um zu überprüfen, ob die eindeutige Gefahr einer schwerwiegenden Verletzung der in Artikel 2 genannten Werte besteht. Diese sind vor allem Freiheit, Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit, d. h. Werte, die die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer schätzen und uneingeschränkt befürworten.Persönlich halte ich einige Schritte der derzeitigen polnischen Regierung für fragwürdig. Auf der anderen Seite haben viele Parlamentskollegen während der Plenardebatte am 28.2.2018 deutlich gemacht, dass es erst in zweiter Linie um die Rechtstaatlichkeit geht. Sonst hätten die CDU-, SPD- oder FDP-Kollegen Alarm schlagen müssen, als friedliche Bürger in Katalonien wegen ihrer Meinungsäußerung von der Polizei geschlagen und verhaftet wurden oder weil der Maastricht Vertrag von Eurorettern andauernd mit Füßen getreten wird.Solange sich die Forderung nach mehr Rechtsstaatlichkeit der großen Koalition der christlichen und sozialen Demokraten im Europaparlament auf politische Gegner und EU-kritische Regierungen beschränkt, kann dies nur als politischer Angriff verstanden werden. Das ist nicht der Politikstil der Liberal-Konservativen Reformer, weshalb ich die Entschließung abgelehnt habe.
Banking Union - Annual Report 2017 (A8-0019/2018 - Sander Loones) DE
Der Jahresbericht zur Bankenunion befasst sich mit den Fortschritten bei der Vollendung der Bankenunion, aber auch mit noch bestehenden Unzulänglichkeiten und offenen Punkten. Der diesjährige Bericht, verfasst von ECR-Berichterstatter Sander Loones, spricht etliche kritikwürdige Punkte an, die die Abgeordneten der LKR wiederholt betont haben. Erstens wurden die hohen Anteile notleidender Kredite in etlichen Mitgliedstaaten angesprochen. Zweitens wurde die Forderung nach mehr Anstrengungen für den Übergang von der Steuerzahler- zur Eigentümer- und Gläubigerbeteiligung bei Bankeninsolvenzen genannt. Als Letztes (aber nicht abschließend) wurden kritische Bemerkungen zu den hohen Beständen an heimischen Staatsanleihen gerade bei Banken in den Krisenstaaten, die den Teufelskreislauf aus Staats- und Bankenpleiten verstärken, geäußert.Neben diesen wichtigen Punkten erinnert der Bericht aber auch an die fehlende dritte Säule der Bankenunion in Form einer europäischen Lösung für die Einlagen(rückver-)sicherung. Allerdings bleiben die Forderungen weit hinter dem von der LKR abgelehnten ursprünglichen Kommissionsvorschlag zurück. Die Formulierungen sind außerdem hinreichend offen, sodass sie durchaus mit den Forderungen der LKR bezüglich der Ausgestaltung der dritten Säule zu vereinbaren sind. Einem europäischen System starker nationaler Einlagensicherungssysteme widersprechen sie jedenfalls nicht.Deshalb, und weil der Bericht viele wichtige Punkte im Sinne der LKR anspricht, habe ich dem Bericht zugestimmt.
Cutting the sources of income for Jihadists - targeting the financing of terrorism (A8-0035/2018 - Javier Nart) DE
Angesichts der wachsenden Terrorgefahr in Europa listet der Bericht des liberalen Abgeordneten Javier Nart Empfehlungen an Rat und Kommission auf, wie die Finanzierung von Terrornetzwerken auf EU-Ebene wirksam unterbunden werden kann. Zu diesem Zweck soll eine formelle europäische Plattform innerhalb bestehender Sicherheitsstrukturen geschaffen werden, um insbesondere Informationen zu Finanzströmen aus terroristischen Netzwerken schnell und umfassend austauschen zu können. Um unnötige Bürokratie zu vermeiden, soll allerdings keine neue EU-Agentur geschaffen werden. Der Bericht enthält eine Reihe guter Elemente. Einige neue Vorschläge im Bericht wurden von der EKR-Fraktion eingebracht. Da Terror grenzüberschreitend bekämpft werden muss, um die Sicherheit in Deutschland und Europa langfristig wahren zu können, habe ich diesem Bericht zugestimmt.
EU priorities for the 62nd session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (A8-0022/2018 - Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Ángela Vallina) DE
Der Initiativbericht des FEMM-Ausschusses macht Vorschläge für die 62. Tagung der Kommission der Vereinten Nationen für die Rechtsstellung der Frau. Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer unterstützen viele der im Bericht genannten Ziele. Zu diesen gehören der Kampf gegen Gewalt gegen Frauen, die Förderung von guten Arbeitsbedingungen oder die Investition in die Bildung von Mädchen und Frauen.Leider beinhaltet das Papier auch eine Reihe von Vorschlägen, die von politischen Gruppen eingebracht wurden, die sich für radikalen sozialen Wandel einsetzen. Als problematisch empfinde ich den Ruf nach einer umfassenden Anwendung der Idee des „Gender Mainstreaming“ in allen UN-Programmen und Politikbereichen oder den Ruf nach Einführung von „Gender Budgeting“. Per „Gender Budgeting“ sollen Haushalte geschlechtergerecht überprüft und ausgerichtet werden. Das Konzept wurde bisher in Österreich und wenigen Städten, insbesondere in Europa, ausprobiert und hat sich als nicht praktikabel erwiesen.Wer solche Experimente weiterhin will, sollte diese im Kleinen ausprobieren und sie nicht von ganz oben, von der UN-Ebene, verordnen. Der Schaden, der durch ideologiegetriebene und unwissenschaftliche Politik erzeugt wird, wäre erheblich. Aus diesen Gründen habe ich den Bericht abgelehnt.
Current human rights situation in Turkey (B8-0079/2018, RC-B8-0082/2018, B8-0082/2018, B8-0084/2018, B8-0091/2018, B8-0092/2018, B8-0095/2018, B8-0097/2018, B8-0103/2018) DE
Seit dem misslungenen Putschversuch im Juli 2016 befindet sich die Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der Türkei in Gefahr. Polizeiliche und rechtliche Schikanen werden zur Unterdrückung Andersdenkender eingesetzt. Seit 2016 wurden mehr als sechs Millionen Menschen Opfer von juristischen oder polizeilichen Untersuchungen, die sich auf Vermutungen stützen. Mehr als einhundert (ausländische) Journalisten mussten ins Gefängnis. Allerdings gibt es noch Platz für Debatten und Widerstand durch die unabhängige Presse, die unterstützt werden muss.Die Politik der Türkei muss sich ändern, die Menschenrechte vor Ort gestärkt werden. Beide Forderungen spiegeln sich in der Entschließung wider, die ich deshalb unterstütze.
Summer-time arrangements (B8-0070/2018, B8-0071/2018) DE
Die Resolution des Europäischen Parlaments empfiehlt der Kommission die Abschaffung der jährlichen Zeitumstellung zwischen Sommer- und Winterzeit.Leider konnten sich EU-Mitgliedstaaten bisher nicht einigen, ob die Sommer- oder Winterzeit bestehen bleibt. Um künftige Verwirrungen der Bürger zu vermeiden, wäre eine koordinierte internationale Initiative vonnöten, die es bisher nicht gab.Aufgrund dieser offenen Fragen habe ich gegen die Entschließung gestimmt, obwohl ich einer einheitlichen Regelung nicht grundsätzlich ablehnend gegenüberstehe, die auf der Sommerzeit basiert.
Composition of the European Parliament (A8-0007/2018 - Danuta Maria Hübner, Pedro Silva Pereira) DE
Der Antrag möchte die Sitze des Europäischen Parlaments neu verteilen, nachdem Großbritannien aus der EU ausgetreten ist. Laut des Antragstellers sollen 27 der 73 britischen Sitze auf europäische Länder mit Bevölkerungszuwachs verteilt werden, um eine gerechtere Verteilung nach der Bevölkerungsgröße sicherzustellen.Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer lehnen das Argument einer gerechteren Verteilung und die Steigerung der Sitze für die restlichen 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten stark ab, da nicht alle Bürger Europas das gleiche Mitspracherecht haben. Basierend auf der Tatsache, dass z. B. Malta sechs Vertreter hat, müssten im Europaparlament ungefähr tausend Parlamentarier aus Deutschland sitzen. Gerade weil die derzeitige Verteilung nicht gerecht ist, kann keine weitere Steigerung der Sitze für die restlichen 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten gerechtfertigt werden.Ich bin der Meinung, dass die durch den Brexit entfallenden 73 Sitze restlos gestrichen werden sollten. Daher lehne ich den Antrag ab.
Revision of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (A8-0006/2018 - Esteban González Pons) DE
Der Berichterstatter möchte den Spitzenkandidatenprozess etablieren, der erstmals in den Europawahlen 2014 in informeller Weise angewandt wurde. Während man sich über den Nutzen dieses Prozesses im Sinne einer demokratischen Teilhabe der Bürger unterhalten kann, ist eine andere Forderung völlig inakzeptabel: Der Berichterstatter schlägt vor, dass eine für Kommissare geltende Regelung geändert werden soll, in Bezug auf die Teilnahme am Europawahlkampf. Nach aktueller Regelung muss ein Kommissar vom Ende der letzten Plenarwoche der laufenden Legislaturperiode bis zu den Europawahlen unbezahlten Urlaub nehmen, wenn er sich als Europaabgeordneter bewerben möchte. Dies soll geändert werden. Kommissare sollen demnach weiterhin ihrer Funktion entsprechend Bezüge erhalten, wenn sie sich für ein Mandat im Europäischen Parlament bewerben. Darüber hinaus sollen sie sich nur darauf verpflichten, im Wahlkampf ihre Position als Kommissar nicht auszunutzen. Interessenskonflikte wären damit vorprogrammiert.Der Bericht kann die mangelnde demokratische Legitimität der Europäischen Kommission nicht wegdiskutieren und fordert zudem einen Freifahrtschein zum potenziellen Missbrauch von Steuergeldern für bereits privilegierte EU-Kommissare. Aus diesem Grund habe ich den Bericht abgelehnt.
Protection and non-discrimination with regard to minorities in the EU Member States (B8-0064/2018) DE
Dieser Antrag hält fest, dass Minderheiten in der EU nach wie vor Diskriminierungen erleiden müssten und wurde aufgrund zahlreicher Petitionen verfasst.Genannt werden zum einen einheimische, nationale und sprachliche Minderheiten, zum andern gesondert LGBTI-Minderheiten. So sei die Rechtslage für Minderheiten zu verbessern und Minderheitensprachen müssten besser geschützt werden. Weitere Forderungen beinhalten die Förderung von kultureller Diversität und Toleranz bei der Bildung, eine bessere Einbindung von Minderheiten beim Erhalt kulturellen Erbes und eine EU-weite Beobachtung der Situation von einheimischen und sprachlichen Minderheiten durch die EU-Agentur für Grundrechte. Im Weiteren solle das Problem der so genannten Nicht-Bürger gelöst werden, welches in einigen EU-Ländern aus historisch-politischen Gründen besteht. Schließlich soll die Europaratskonvention zum Schutz von nationalen Minderheiten, Protokoll 12 der Konvention zum Schutz von Menschenrechten und Grundfreiheiten sowie die Europäische Charta für regionale und Minderheitensprachen von allen Mitgliedstaaten unterzeichnet werden.Auch wenn die Mitgliedstaaten bereits durch die EU-Verträge zum Minderheitenschutz verpflichtet sind, ist ein zusätzlicher Appell von Seiten des Europäischen Parlaments an die EU-Mitgliedstaaten zum besseren Schutz von Minderheiten hilfreich. Entsprechend habe ich dem Entschließungsantrag zugestimmt.
Zero tolerance for female genital mutilation (B8-0068/2018) DE
Dem Entschließungsantrag zum Thema „Null Toleranz gegenüber Genitalverstümmelung bei Frauen“ habe ich gerne zugestimmt, da ich für Genitalverstümmelung bei Frauen kein Verständnis habe und die Aufklärung in dem Bereich voll unterstütze.Auf der anderen Seite musste ich ein paar Änderungsanträge anderer Fraktionen ablehnen, die Genitalverstümmelung in Zusammenhang mit der EU-Asylpolitik stellen oder Blankoschecks für EU-Finanzierung in Drittländern fordern.
Setting up a special committee on the Union’s authorisation procedure for pesticides, its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (B8-0077/2018) DE
Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer befürworten generell eine turnusmäßige Überprüfung der europäischen Zulassungsverfahren für Pestizide, insbesondere darauf, ob diese den aktuellen wissenschaftlichen Stand berücksichtigen. Der hier ins Leben gerufene Sonderausschuss steht aber unter dem Eindruck der hoch emotionalisierten Glyphosat-Debatte. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist nicht davon auszugehen, dass das jetzige komplexe Zulassungsprozedere für Pflanzenschutzmittel (Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009), welches demokratisch legitimiert und in seiner Ausführung an die Europäische Kommission und die EFSA delegiert ist, einer objektiven Bewertung unterzogen wird. Das anvisierte Mandat für diesen auch Kosten verursachenden Sonderausschuss zeigt eine starke Fokussierung auf das Thema Glyphosat, anstatt die generellen regulatorischen Rahmenbedingungen auch im Vergleich zu anderen Stoffzulassungsregularien angemessen zu vergleichen beziehungsweise zu berücksichtigen.Eine besondere Gefahr sehen wir in den haltlos im Raum stehenden Vorwürfen gegen die ausführenden staatlichen und unabhängigen Zulassungsbehörden. Gerade das mit der Glyphosat-Bewertung betraute Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) ist hiervon betroffen. Dieses hat gerade durch seine politisch nicht opportune Einschätzung seine Unabhängigkeit und somit seine Glaubwürdigkeit unter Beweis gestellt. Der Sonderausschuss darf keinesfalls als Instrument der politischen Einflussnahme gegenüber den europäischen Zulassungsbehörden missbraucht werden.Der im Vorfeld des Sonderausschusses gesteckte Rahmen lässt leider kein objektives Ergebnis erwarten, daher lehne ich seine Einrichtung ab.
Geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment (A8-0172/2017 - Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein) DE
In diesem Antrag zum Geoblocking geht es um die Online-Diskriminierung von Kunden in der EU bezüglich des Angebots von Gütern und Dienstleistungen, wenn sich der Kunde im EU-Ausland befindet. Das Ziel des Antrags ist es, den Onlinemarkt zu öffnen und Nachteile aufgrund der geografischen Lage zu verhindern, beispielsweise beim Erwerb von Tickets.Ich unterstütze das Ziel des Antrags. Es ist unfair, dass Kunden höhere Preise zahlen oder ein nur stark eingeschränktes Angebot wahrnehmen können, einzig aufgrund ihrer Position innerhalb der EU – insbesondere, wenn diese Einschränkungen bei einem physischen Besuch des Händlers des Landes vor Ort nicht gelten würden. Daher stimme ich dem Bericht zu.
Cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments (A8-0003/2017 - Julie Girling) DE
Dieser legislative Bericht dient der Reform des Europäischen Emissionshandelssystems. Dadurch soll das Emissionsziel der EU von mindestens 40 % bis 2030 erfüllt werden. Für die Industrie wird der Anreiz gesenkt, ihre Produktion in Nicht-EU-Staaten auszulagern, um CO2-Werte zu senken. Damit werden Investitionen in Innovation und Modernisierung vorangetrieben, weshalb ich dem Bericht zustimme.
European Central Bank Annual Report for 2016 (A8-0383/2017 - Jonás Fernández) DE
Der Jahresbericht über die Europäische Zentralbank ist in diesem Jahr deutlich besser ausgefallen als früher. Er weist beispielsweise auf die Gefahr von Vermögenspreisblasen hin, die durch die Nullzinspolitik entstehen könnten. Darüber hinaus fordert er mehr Transparenz hinsichtlich des Unternehmensanleihekaufprogramms durch die EZB. Der insgesamt deutlich kritischere Grundton ist als Erfolg der EKR und LKR zu werten. Dennoch überschreitet der Bericht einige rote Linien. Er begrüßt beispielsweise eine Vertiefung der institutionellen Architektur der Währungsunion. Außerdem suggeriert der Bericht, dass die EZB nach Ende des dritten Griechenlandprogramms damit beginnen könnte, griechische Anleihen in die Ankaufprogramme aufzunehmen. Eigentlich soll das Anleihekaufprogramm etwa zeitgleich mit dem Griechenlandpaket auslaufen. Der Verweis auf Griechenland suggeriert also entweder den raschen Ankauf griechischer Papiere oder eine Verlängerung des Ankaufprogramms. Beides ist mit dem Wahlprogramm der LKR nicht vereinbar, weshalb ich den Bericht trotz guter Aspekte abgelehnt habe.
Implementation of the Youth Employment Initiative in the Member States (A8-0406/2017 - Romana Tomc) DE
Die „Umsetzung der Beschäftigungsinitiative für junge Menschen in den Mitgliedsstaaten“ ist nicht erfolgreich. Zwar gibt es Fortschritte bei der Jugendarbeitslosigkeit in der EU, aber diese sind eher auf die allgemeine Erholung der Konjunktur zurückzuführen. Am besten lässt sich das am Beispiel Spanien erkennen: Spanien hat eine insgesamt stark zurückgehende Arbeitslosigkeit, und, obwohl es EU-weit die meisten Gelder für die Beschäftigungsinitiative einsetzen konnte, weiterhin eine besonders hohe Jugendarbeitslosigkeit von knapp 40%. Diese Analyse wird vom Europäischen Rechnungshof bestätigt. Dieser bescheinigt der Beschäftigungsinitiative, dass zu hohe Erwartungen geweckt wurden, die Umsetzung den eigenen Ansprüchen nicht gerecht werde, der Erfolg „sehr limitiert“ sei und das Programme der Staaten durch dieses EU-Programm verdrängt würden, ohne einen Mehrwert zu erzielen. Angesichts dieser schwachen Leistung mehr Geld für das Programm zu fordern, ist ein unverantwortlicher Umgang mit Steuergeldern. Zunächst müsste, wie auch vom Rechnungshof gefordert, eine weit bessere Vorarbeit geleistet werden.Leider wird im Bericht das Gegenteil gefordert. Trotz der schlechten Ergebnisse soll das Programm von einem Programm zur Krisenbekämpfung zu einem längerfristigen (gemeint: permanenten) Instrument umgewandelt werden. Es zeigt sich, dass die EU Kompetenzen der Nationalstaaten an sich ziehen möchte, und zwar auch dort, wo die EU nachweislich schlecht arbeitet. Ich habe den Bericht abgelehnt.
Implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive and the need for reform in professional services (A8-0401/2017 - Nicola Danti) DE
Die Kommission hat im vergangenen Winter ein Binnenmarktpaket vorgelegt, um Wachstum und Beschäftigung im Dienstleistungssektor zu fördern. Teil dieses Pakets sind Leitlinien für die Mitgliedsstaaten bei der Reformierung regulierter Berufe. Diese Leitlinien umfassen zum einen Empfehlungen für sieben Sektoren und zum anderen einen Einschränkungsindikator.Die Empfehlungen sollen den Mitgliedstaaten dabei helfen, die sieben betrachteten Sektoren weiter zu liberalisieren und bestehende Hürden abzubauen. Der Einschränkungsindikator soll helfen, die Schwierigkeit des Zugangs zu regulierten Berufen einzuschätzen (z. B. geforderte Ausbildungsjahre, geschützte Bezeichnungen, Mitgliedschaften in Berufsgenossenschaften, notwendige Geschäftsformen etc.).Der vorliegende Bericht stellt einen ausgewogenen Kompromiss dar, der zum einen das Gleichgewicht zwischen notwendiger Regulierung und Liberalisierung regulierter Berufe aufrechterhält und zum anderen nicht in die Zuständigkeiten der Mitgliedsstaaten eingreift. So werden die Empfehlungen zur weiteren Liberalisierung zwar als nützlich anerkannt, sind für die Mitgliedstaaten jedoch nicht bindend. Ebenso wenig lässt sich aus einem hohen Wert beim Einschränkungsindikator auf einen übermäßig regulierten Beruf schließen.Aus diesen Gründen habe ich dem Bericht zugestimmt.
Control of exports, transfer, brokering, technical assistance and transit of dual-use items (A8-0390/2017 - Klaus Buchner) DE
„Dual-Use-Produkte“ sind Produkte, die sowohl für zivile als auch militärische Zwecke verwendet werden können. Die Exportkontrolle dieser Produkte ist durch internationale Abkommen vorgeschrieben. Der Buchner-Bericht nimmt hier eine Aktualisierung vor. Dies ist sinnvoll, da sich die technologischen Möglichkeiten – z. B. bei Überwachungs- und Verschlüsselungstechnologien – deutlich erweitert haben. Darüber hinaus wird eine Prozessoptimierung und mehr Transparenz angestrebt.Der Bericht bildet eine sinnvolle Aktualisierung, ohne unnötige bürokratische Hürden aufzubauen. Deshalb habe ich ihm zugestimmt.
Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (A8-0392/2017 - José Blanco López) DE
In Folge des Pariser Klimaabkommens hat die Europäische Kommission die Überarbeitung der Erneuerbare-Energien-Richtlinie vorgeschlagen, die die Ziele ab 2030 beinhaltet. Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer haben durch den EKR-Schattenberichterstatter Hans-Olaf Henkel an den Verhandlungen im Europaparlament direkt mitgewirkt.Nach Absprache mit vielen Vertretern der deutschen Industrie haben wir zur Anhebung des EU-weiten Erneuerbare-Energien-Ziels von 27 auf 35% beigetragen. Dieses relativ ambitionierte Ziel gibt vielen deutschen Firmen einen Wettbewerbsvorteil gegenüber ausländischen Konkurrenten, die oft nicht innovativ genug unterwegs sind.Darüber hinaus sieht die überarbeitete Richtlinie eine stufenweise Reduzierung von Biokraftstoffen der ersten Generation vor, die von den Liberal-Konservativen Reformern oft kritisiert wurden. Biokraftstoffe der ersten Generation werden aus Pflanzenteilen hergestellt, die man auch für die Ernährung nutzen könnte. Sie tragen deswegen zu höheren Lebensmittelpreisen bei. Darüber hinaus halte ich die Klimaneutralität und ökologische Vorteilhaftigkeit von solchen Biokraftstoffen für umstritten und setze mich deswegen für eine Fokussierung auf fortgeschrittene Biokraftstoffe, die z. B. aus Abfallprodukten hergestellt werden, ein.Aus diesen zwei Gründen konnte ich den heute abgestimmten Bericht unterstützen.
Women, gender equality and climate justice (A8-0403/2017 - Linnéa Engström) DE
Der Bericht zu Frauen, Gender-Gleichheit und Klimagerechtigkeit von der Grünen-Abgeordneten Engström hebt die Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf ärmere Bevölkerungen hervor, differenziert zwischen den Effekten auf Frauen und Männer und ruft die Kommission und die Mitgliedstaaten dazu auf, Klimagerechtigkeit in internationalen Arbeiten gegen den Klimawandel miteinzubinden.Der Bericht fordert unter anderem, dass bindende Sozial- und Umweltnormen in Handelsverträge eingeführt werden sollen und eine globale CO2-Quote pro Person eingeführt wird, nach der jeder Bürger Strafen bzw. Kompensierungen wegen Über- oder Unterbeanspruchung erwarten darf. Zudem werden in den Bericht auch Sanktionen gegenüber „Gruppen und Wählerschaften“ miteingebracht, wenn diese bei der Nominierung von UN-Klimaorganen nicht die Gender-Gleichheit respektieren – ein Thema, welches nichts mit Klimawandel zu tun hat.Aus den genannten Gründen lehne ich den Bericht ab.
Establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (A8-0345/2017 - Cecilia Wikström) DE
Das Europäische Parlament wurde gemäß Artikel 69c der Geschäftsordnung dazu befragt, ob es der Aufnahme von Verhandlungen zwischen den EU-Institutionen zur Neuregelung der Dublin-III-Verordnung hin zu Dublin IV zustimmt. Zuvor hatte die schwedische Abgeordnete Cecilia Wikström in einem Bericht Stellung zum entsprechenden Kommissionsvorschlag von 2016 - 2016/0133(COD) - bezogen.Die Dublin-Verordnung konnte die Migrationskrise 2015 nicht verhindern. Ursachen für diese Krise waren eine unzureichende langfristig angelegte Hilfe vor Ort seitens der EU-Mitgliedstaaten für Menschen in Not, die fatale Kürzung von Geldern zur Ausstattung von Flüchtlingslagern, die Nichtexistenz von Frühwarnsystemen, der völlig unzureichende Schutz der Schengen-Außengrenzen mit komplett überforderten Staaten wie Griechenland und Italien, eine fatale Kommunikation von Ländern wie Deutschland und Schweden, die schleppende Bearbeitung von Asylgesuchen und kaum durchgesetzte Rückführungen von abgelehnten Asylbewerbern. Zudem wurde insbesondere durch die unverantwortliche Politik der Bundesregierung ein Keil durch Europa getrieben. Vor diesem Hintergrund mutet es mehr als befremdlich an, wenn nun im Verhandlungsmandat zu Dublin IV explizit ein Zwangsverteilungsmechanismus für Asylsuchende auf alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten sowie Sanktionsandrohungen gegen aufsässige EU-Länder mit aufgenommen werden sollen. Dies gefährdet den Zusammenhalt zwischen den EU-Staaten und schlimmer noch den Frieden in Europa. Daher habe ich mich gegen die Erteilung eines Verhandlungsmandates in dieser Form ausgesprochen.
Combating inequalities as a lever to boost job creation and growth (A8-0340/2017 - Javi López) DE
Der Lopez-Bericht über den „Abbau von Ungleichheiten zur Ankurbelung von Wachstum und Beschäftigung“ sieht in wirtschaftlichen Ungleichheiten eine Wachstumsbremse für die EU. Eine größere politische Umverteilung von Wohlstand soll Wachstumskräfte wecken. Diese Analyse ist sehr umstritten. Die wissenschaftliche Aussagekraft der verwendeten Studien ist sehr fragwürdig und wird durch die Besonderheiten der post-kommunistischen Länder (niedrige Ungleichheit bei hohem Wachstum) verzerrt. Obwohl wir schon bei früheren Berichten auf die Unstimmigkeiten der verwendeten Studien verwiesen hatten, werden diese immer wieder politisch genutzt.Der Bericht fordert weiterhin die „Umverteilung von exzessiven Konzentrationen von Reichtum“ in die „produktivsten Formen von Investitionen“. Solche Formulierungen klingen sehr nach staatlicher Planwirtschaft. Darüber hinaus enthält der Bericht u. a. Forderungen nach einer Europäischen Arbeitslosenversicherung und angemessenen sozialen Minimalstandards auf EU-Ebene. Auf Deutschland würden bei Umsetzung dieser Ideen gewaltige Zusatzkosten zukommen. Ich habe den Bericht aus diesen Gründen abgelehnt.
Saving lives: boosting car safety in the EU (A8-0330/2017 - Dieter-Lebrecht Koch) DE
Versteckt unter seinem humanen Namen stellt der Bericht ein klassisches Beispiel einer Missachtung der EU-Kompetenzen im Europäischen Parlament dar. So wiederholt der CDU-Abgeordnete Koch die von seiner Parteichefin schon mehrmals angewandte Strategie, wenn emotionale Gründe dem geltenden Recht übergeordnet werden, nach dem Motto: „Gegen die Rettung von Menschenleben kann doch niemand stimmen.“ Obwohl mit guten Absichten, präsentiert der Berichterstatter viele Ideen wie ein EU-weites Alkoholverbot am Steuer oder eine gesetzliche Verpflichtung von Fahrerassistenzsystemen, die allerdings (richtigerweise) nicht in den Kompetenzbereich der EU fallen.Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer schätzen weiterhin den Rechtsstaat und setzen sich darüber hinaus für den Abbau unnötiger europäischer Regulierungen ein. Aus dem Grund habe ich den Koch-Bericht abgelehnt.
2017 UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany (COP23) (B8-0534/2017) DE
Der Bericht befasst sich mit der Rolle des Europäischen Parlaments in den kommenden Klimaverhandlungen der Vereinten Nationen in Bonn und schlägt vor, weitere anspruchsvolle Ziele für den Klimaschutz zu setzen und die nationalen Beiträge der EU-Mitgliedstatten zu steigern. Obwohl diese zwar mit den Zielen der EU-Klimapolitik korrespondieren, kann ich dem Bericht wegen der vorgeschlagenen Einführung einer Finanztransaktionssteuer trotzdem nicht zustimmen. Diese ist kein richtiges Instrument zur Finanzierung des Klimaschutzes. Zudem steht der Vorschlag, einen steuerlichen Grenzausgleich für emissionsintensive Produkte einzuführen, im Widerspruch zum Prinzip des fairen Steuerwettbewerbs und des Freihandels, wofür wir als die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer stehen.
State of play of negotiations with the United Kingdom (B8-0538/2017, B8-0539/2017) DE
Die Entschließung wurde von einer europazentralistischen Koalition, zu der auch Kollegen aus der CDU, CSU oder FDP gehören, entworfen, ohne den konservativen britischen Parlamentariern eine gleichmäßige Beteiligung zu ermöglichen. Dadurch missbraucht das Europäische Parlament sein Mandat, das ihm Wähler in 28 Mitgliedstaaten anvertraut haben, und benimmt sich als Vertreter von nur 27 Staaten.Dieser Tonfall spiegelt sich auch in der Entschließung wider. Den Briten wird für die Verhandlungen ein Zeitablauf vorgeschrieben. Demzufolge wird pauschal eine Zusicherung der Briten erwartet, alle ausstehenden Verbindlichkeiten zu zahlen, bevor die Handelsfragen erschlossen werden. So geht man mit seinen wichtigen Handelspartnern nicht um! Geblendet von dem Wunsch, das Vereinigte Königreich für seine demokratische Entscheidung über den EU-Ausstritt zu bestrafen, vergisst die Mehrheit des Europäischen Parlaments, dass ein guter Deal mit dem Vereinigten Königreich in unserem gegenseitigen Interesse liegt. Wir reden über den weltweit drittgrößten Exportmarkt Deutschlands, mit dem unsere Wirtschaft stark verbunden ist. Ein Beispiel: Einige Modelle deutscher Automobilhersteller, die wir auf unseren Straßen täglich sehen können, werden im Vereinigten Königreich produziert und erst dann nach Deutschland importiert.Eine für die deutsche Wirtschaft schädliche Position unterstützen die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer nicht. Dementsprechend habe ich die Entschließung abgelehnt und würde mir dies auch von Politikern anderer Parteien wünschen.
Women’s economic empowerment in the private and public sectors in the EU (A8-0271/2017 - Anna Hedh) DE
Der Entschließungsantrag über die Stärkung der wirtschaftlichen Stellung der Frau im Privatsektor und im öffentlichen Sektor in der EU befasst sich mit dem grundlegend bedeutsamen Thema des geschlechtsspezifischen Lohnunterschieds, welcher nach Angaben der Kommission in der EU durchschnittlich 16 % beträgt.Die Vorschläge der Berichterstatterin gehen jedoch weit über jedes vernünftige Maß hinaus. Insbesondere gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Quoten und bindende Vorgaben für Privatunternehmen stellen zu große Eingriffe in die liberale Wirtschaftsordnung dar. So ist etwa der geforderte gesetzliche Anspruch auf einen Wechsel von einer Teilzeitbeschäftigung in eine Vollzeitstelle höchst kritisch zu sehen. Auch die geforderten Schulungsprogramme für pädagogische Fachkräfte über die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter werfen Fragen auf. In eigener Sache sind auch die postulierten Kandidatenlisten mit ausgewogenem Geschlechterverhältnis für die nächste Europawahl fragwürdig, sollte doch jedes Parteimitglied und jeder Wähler selbst frei darüber entscheiden, wem sie ihr Vertrauen schenken.Aufgrund dieser exemplarisch aufgeführten Punkte habe ich gegen den Bericht gestimmt.
Extension of the European statistical programme to 2020 (A8-0158/2017 - Roberto Gualtieri) DE
Das Europäische Statistikprogramm (ESP) bildet das rechtliche Rahmenwerk für die Entwicklung, Produktion und Verbreitung von Statistiken. Das laufende Programm lief von 2013 bis 2017 und wurde von der Kommission bis 2020 verlängert. Der Bericht wurde als Grundlage genutzt, um künftig weitere Daten zu relevanten Politikbereichen zu erfassen, aufzubereiten und zu veröffentlichen. Dazu gehören u. a. Daten zu den Top-10-Prioritäten der Kommission. Zwar sind auch Forderungen nach Daten enthalten, die schwer zu erfassen oder fragwürdig sind, positiv zu vermerken ist aber, dass die Daten für die Bürger frei zugänglich sein werden.Deshalb habe ich dem Bericht zugestimmt.
A new skills agenda for Europe (A8-0276/2017 - Martina Dlabajová, Momchil Nekov) DE
Der Bericht befasst sich mit einem europaweiten Fortbildungsprogramm für Arbeitnehmer. Dieses soll nach seiner Implementierung eine verbesserte Zusammenarbeit zwischen Bildung, Beschäftigung und Industrie bewirken. Ein besonderer Fokus liegt einerseits auf der Förderung individueller und intelligenzsteigernder Fähigkeiten und andererseits auf der Eindämmung des Fachkräftemangels. Aus EU-Perspektive sind die Mitgliedstaaten aufgerufen, sich aktiv an der Schaffung eines europäischen Fortbildungsprogramms zu beteiligen. Dieses soll Anreize für die einfachere Festlegung und Anerkennung der Kompetenzen von Drittstaatenangehörigen schaffen. Ich stehe diesem Vorschlag positiv gegenüber und habe dem Bericht, auch unter Zuspruch der Liberal-Konservativen Reformer (LKR), zugestimmt.
Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2017/002 FI Microsoft 2 (A8-0278/2017 - Petri Sarvamaa) DE
Der Europäische Fonds für die Anpassung an die Globalisierung (EGF) hilft Arbeitnehmern, wenn sie infolge von Veränderungen des Welthandelsgefüges (z. B. Schließung eines großen Unternehmens oder Verlagerung einer Produktionsstätte außerhalb der EU) ihren Arbeitsplatz verloren haben.Dieser Antrag aus Finnland bezieht sich auf die Mobilisierung eines Gesamtbetrags von 3 520 080 € für die Wiedereingliederung von 1248 Arbeitnehmern (Microsoft (Microsoft Mobile Oy) und 11 Lieferanten und nachgelagerten Herstellern).Maßnahmen, die Wachstum und Beschäftigung schaffen, gilt es zu unterstützen. Allerdings ist der Europäische Fonds für die Anpassung an die Globalisierung nicht das richtige Instrument für die Umsetzung solcher Politiken, noch glaube ich, dass es ein effizientes Kosten-Nutzen-Instrument für die Wiedereingliederung von Arbeitnehmern in den Arbeitsmarkt ist.Aus den genannten Gründen stimme ich dagegen.
Arms export: implementation of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP (A8-0264/2017 - Bodil Valero) DE
Im Initiativbericht der schwedischen Abgeordneten Bodil Valero wird eine effektive Umsetzung des Gemeinsamen Ratsstandpunktes aus dem Jahre 2008 (2008/944/GASP) angemahnt, welcher gemeinsame EU-Regeln für die Kontrolle der Ausfuhr von Militärtechnologie und Militärgütern festschreibt. Demzufolge sollen Waffenexporte eines EU-Mitgliedstaates in andere Länder außerhalb der EU nur dann erlaubt werden, wenn acht klar definierte Kriterien erfüllt sind. So soll das Waffen importierende Land unter anderem nicht mit Sanktionen belegt sein, die Menschenrechte achten, keine Konflikte schüren, nicht den Terrorismus unterstützen und den Frieden und die Stabilität in einer Region gewährleisten.Der Bericht hält fest, dass Waffenexporte nur der Verteidigung des Empfängerlandes dienen sollen, und kritisiert in diesem Zusammenhang jüngst erfolgte Exporte, etwa nach Saudi-Arabien. Auch so genannte private Sicherheitsunternehmen sollen nicht beliefert werden. Im Weiteren fordert Frau Valero eine umfassendere Berichterstattung sowie einen besseren Informationsaustausch zwischen den EU-Mitgliedstaaten.Insgesamt teile ich die Stoßrichtung dieses Berichtes, weshalb ich hierzu zugestimmt habe.
Promotion of internet connectivity in local communities (A8-0181/2017 - Carlos Zorrinho) DE
Der Bericht befasst sich mit der Förderung europaweiter Wi-Fi-Hotspots in 6 000 bis 8 000 Gemeinden. Ein 120-Millionen-Euro-Fonds soll Gemeinden finanziell dabei unterstützen, Hotspots an öffentlichen Plätzen einzurichten. Ich stehe diesem Vorschlag sehr kritisch gegenüber, weil es sich hier um eine „Greenwashing“-Kampagne der Europäischen Kommission handelt, mit dem Ziel, das Vertrauen und die Anerkennung der EU-Bürger zurückzugewinnen. Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer stellen sich gegen die uneffektive Umverteilung der Steuergelder, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten erst in den gemeinsamen EU-Haushalt einzahlen, um später einen Teil der eingezahlten Gelder wieder zugewiesen zu bekommen für Projekte, die viel effektiver auf der nationalen oder regionalen Ebene gestaltet werden können. Der EU-Fonds sollte vielmehr auf Projekte konzentriert sein, bei denen eine internationale Zusammenarbeit notwendig ist, wie grenzüberschreitende Netzinfrastruktur oder Glasfaserausbau. Folglich habe ich den Bericht abgelehnt.
EU accession to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (A8-0266/2017 - Christine Revault d'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt) DE
Der Bericht der Abgeordneten Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy und Anna Maria Corazza setzt ein deutliches Zeichen, dass häusliche Gewalt und Gewalt gegen Frauen bei dem Europaparlament auf null Toleranz stoßen. Darüber hinaus werden die EU-Mitgliedstaaten aufgefordert, das „Übereinkommen des Europarats zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt“ zu ratifizieren. Beides finde ich absolut richtig und bin zutiefst entsetzt darüber, dass Frauenrechte im 21. Jahrhundert überhaupt noch in der EU thematisiert werden müssen. Frauenrechte sind für mich ein untrennbarer Bestandteil unserer Gesellschaft. Ferner sollten diese von allen Regierungen, Volksgruppen und Religionen angemessen und in vollem Umfang geachtet werden. Obwohl ich einige von den linken und grünen Parlamentskollegen stammende Absätze nicht unterstütze, habe ich mich dem moralischen Appell angeschlossen und dem Bericht zugestimmt.
Impact of international trade and EU’s trade policies on global value chains (A8-0269/2017 - Maria Arena) DE
Der Arena-Bericht beschäftigt sich mit globalen Wertschöpfungsketten. Diese sind eine wichtige Errungenschaft der Globalisierung – und ich befürworte deren Existenz.Dem Bericht kann ich trotzdem nicht zustimmen. Insbesondere befürchte ich, dass die vorgeschlagene durchgehende Zertifizierung unverhältnismäßig bürokratisch und aufwändig ist.Daher lehne ich den Initiativbericht ab und befürworte stattdessen weniger bürokratische und freiwillige Lösungen (Labelling, Codes of Conduct,...), idealerweise auf WTO-Ebene.
Implementation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (A8-0200/2017 - José Manuel Fernandes, Udo Bullmann) DE
Der EFSI ist im Wesentlichen eine Garantie von 21 Mrd. EUR für die Europäische Investitionsbank (EIB), die der EIB zusätzliche Risikotragfähigkeit zur Verfügung stellt, damit sie bis zu 315 Mrd. EUR an Investitionsprojekten mit einem höheren Risikoprofil mobilisieren kann, ohne ihr Triple-A-Rating zu verlieren. Der EFSI wurde für einen ersten Zeitraum von drei Jahren gegründet, obwohl die Kommission bereits am 14. September 2016 seine Verlängerung bis zum 31. Dezember 2020 sowie die Erweiterungen für den Fonds und den Europäischen Investitionsbeirat (EIAH) vorgeschlagen hat.Der EFSI ist seit etwa 1,5 Jahren im Einsatz. Dieser INI-Bericht bewertet die Umsetzung der EFSI-Verordnung bislang und gibt Empfehlungen für Verbesserungen.Der Gesamteindruck ist, dass der EFSI quantitativ die erwarteten Ergebnisse innerhalb des vorgegebenen Zeitrahmens abgegeben hat. Aus qualitativer Sicht gibt es jedoch Bedenken darüber, ob die Verordnung vollständig in Übereinstimmung mit den von den Mitgesetzgebern vorgesehenen Regelungen umgesetzt wurde. Problematisch ist insbesondere das Konzept der „Additionalität“. Vieles deutet darauf hin, dass der EFSI nicht nur neue Projekte finanziert, sondern Geschäftsbanken und nationale Förderbanken mit besseren Konditionen verdrängt. Somit wurde nicht immer ein Mehrwert für Europa geschaffen, und es wurden selten neue, zusätzliche, sondern schon geplante Projekte umgesetzt. Ich habe deshalb gegen den Bericht gestimmt.
Statute and funding of European political parties and foundations (B8-0405/2017, B8-0406/2017) DE
Diese Entschließung fordert eine Überarbeitung der Vorschriften über die Finanzierung europäischer politischer Parteien und Stiftungen. Es handelt sich um keinen neuen Vorschlag. Dieser taucht immer dann auf, wenn die christlich-demokratische und sozialistische Koalition im Europäischen Parlament zu dem Schluss kommen, dass kleinere Parteien ihre Ressourcen zu viel zu ihren Gunsten verwendet haben. In solchen Fällen wird plötzlich nach mehr Transparenz und Ankopplung der Ressourcen an die von der großen Koalition vorgegebenen „europäischen Werte“ gerufen.Die heute abgestimmte Entschließung ist als eine Reaktion auf die Finanzierung der Brexit-Kampagne von der UKIP-Partei zu verstehen. Auch wenn die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer sehr eng mit der britischen Regierungspartei (d. h. Konkurrenz von UKIP) zusammenarbeiten, sprechen wir uns stark gegen die Entschließung und jegliche Versuche, politische Pluralität einzuschränken, aus. Sollten konkrete Beweise für einen Missbrauch der europäischen Gelder vorliegen, müssen diese mit aller Härte untersucht und bestraft werden. Dies sehen wir als Selbstverständlichkeit. Einen politischen Machtkampf im Namen der Transparenz lehnen wir allerdings ab.Dementsprechend habe ich gegen die Entschließung gestimmt.
Binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement (A8-0208/2017 - Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy) DE
Am 20. Juli 2016 verabschiedete die Kommission ein Maßnahmenpaket zur Beschleunigung von Europas Übergang in eine kohlenstoffarme Wirtschaft. Einer der Legislativvorschläge in diesem Paket ist der Vorschlag für eine Verordnung über die verbindlichen jährlichen Treibhausgasemissionsreduktionen durch die Mitgliedstaaten von 2021 bis 2030. Dieser ist die Folgemaßnahme zur Beschlussfassung (Entscheidung Nr. 406/2009/EG), die zwischen 2013 und 2020 nationale Emissionsziele für die Mitgliedstaaten in den Nicht-ETS-Sektoren festlegte. Neben der Festlegung differenzierter nationaler Emissionsreduktionsziele für das Jahr 2030 (die das Bruttoinlandsprodukt jedes Mitgliedstaats berücksichtigen, um den relativen Wohlstand zu reflektieren) führt die Kommission in ihrem Vorschlag eine Flexibilitätsklausel ein. Der zuständige Ausschuss unterstützte den Vorschlag der Kommission, zusätzliche „Flexibilitätszertifikate“ einzuführen, und nahm den EKR-Vorschlag zur Einführung von Konditionalität beim Zugang zu diesen Zertifikaten an. Weil sich unsere Fraktion, die EKR, in vielen Punkten durchsetzen konnte, habe ich für diesen Bericht gestimmt.
The need for an EU strategy to end and prevent the gender pension gap (A8-0197/2017 - Constance Le Grip) DE
Die sogenannte „gender pension gap“ betrifft die Lohn- und Rentenpolitik, die laut den gültigen europäischen Verträgen in den Aufgabenbereich der Mitgliedstaaten fällt. Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer stehen für die Einhaltung des EU-Rechts und akzeptieren deswegen keine Kompetenzerweiterung der EU in Bereiche, die der EU nicht zustehen. Stattdessen setzen wir uns für eine Einschränkung der Aktivitäten der EU auf die Kernproblematiken ein.In Anbetracht der nationalen Zuständigkeiten habe ich den Le Grip-Bericht abgelehnt.
Increasing engagement of partners and visibility in the performance of European Structural and Investment Funds (A8-0201/2017 - Daniel Buda) DE
Der Bericht fordert, die Kommunikation und damit die Sichtbarkeit der EU-Kohäsionspolitik, welche auch wahlweise als Regional- oder Strukturpolitik bezeichnet wird, nachhaltig zu erhöhen. Grundsätzlich bedarf es meines Erachtens einer Reformierung und auch einer Mittelreduzierung bei der EU-Kohäsionspolitik. Denn neben vielen sinnvollen, zeitlich befristeten Programmen für strukturschwache Regionen gibt es auch ineffiziente Dauersubventionierung, Marktverzerrung, zweckentfremdete Projekte, Korruption und Vetternwirtschaft. Entscheidend für diesen Bericht ist allerdings etwas anderes. Zurzeit werden für die Kohäsion enorme Summen aus Steuermitteln ausgegeben – 351,8 Milliarden Euro für den Zeitraum 2014-2020 –, welche rund ein Drittel des EU-Haushaltes ausmachen. Der Bürger und Steuerzahler in der EU hat daher ein Anrecht darauf, zu erfahren, was genau mit diesen Mitteln geschieht und wie sinnvoll dieser Mitteleinsatz im Rahmen der Strukturpolitik ist. Nur mit umfassender Transparenz kann eine solide Entscheidungsgrundlage für künftige Haushaltsentscheidungen in der EU-Kohäsionspolitik geschaffen und das Leistungsprinzip bei der Festlegung und Umsetzung von Programmen und Projekten in den Vordergrund gerückt werden. Aus diesem Grund habe ich für diesen Bericht gestimmt.
Energy efficiency labelling (A8-0213/2016 - Dario Tamburrano) DE
In diesem Verordnungsentwurf werden das Verfahren und der Zeitplan für die Wiedereinführung des Energieetiketts mit der A-G-Skala (im Wesentlichen innerhalb von 5 Jahren) herbeigeführt. Studien belegen, dass die einfache A-G-Skala verbraucherfreundlicher ist als die abgestufte Skala mit A +, A ++ oder A +++. Die grüne bis rote Farbskala wird beibehalten. Zunächst muss die Kommission eine Überprüfung der aktuellen Etiketten durchführen und anschließend einen delegierten Rechtsakt vorschlagen, um die A-G-Skala wieder einzuführen. Die einfache Etikettierung soll Innovation anregen und die Überfüllung der Top-Kategorien mit Produkten durch eine einfache und grobe Differenzierung verhindern. Diesem verbraucher- und innovationsfreundlichen Bericht habe ich zugestimmt.
Building blocks for a post-2020 EU cohesion policy (A8-0202/2017 - Kerstin Westphal) DE
Der Bericht der sozialdemokratischen Europaabgeordneten Kerstin Westphal fordert vor allem eines: mehr Geld vom deutschen und europäischen Steuerzahler.Zurzeit wird rund ein Drittel des EU-Haushaltes für die sogenannte Kohäsionspolitik ausgegeben, welche wahlweise auch als Struktur- oder Regionalpolitik bezeichnet wird. Teilweise sind die damit verbundenen Programme sinnvoll, etwa in strukturschwachen Regionen, in denen zeitlich befristete Anschubprojekte zur Verbesserung der Infrastruktur und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit finanziert werden. Andererseits steht die Kohäsionspolitik aber für ineffiziente Dauersubventionierung, Marktverzerrung, zweckentfremdete Projekte, Korruption und Vetternwirtschaft. Solche Vorkommnisse untergraben auf Dauer das Vertrauen der Bürger in die Funktionsfähigkeit der EU und haben auch zum Brexit-Votum im Vereinigten Königreich beigetragen. Dennoch fordert Frau Westphal und mit ihr die große Mehrheit des Europäischen Parlaments mindestens gleich viel, besser noch mehr Geld für die Kohäsionspolitik nach 2020. Zudem möchte die SPD-Abgeordnete mehr nationale Beiträge von den EU-Mitgliedstaaten für Kofinanzierungen. Dabei sollen diese zusätzlichen Mittel nicht bei der Kalkulation von nationalen Defiziten im Rahmen des Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspaktes angerechnet werden. Solch ein Vorgehen würde die ohnehin krisenbehaftete Euro-Einheitswährung weiter destabilisieren und schwächen.Aus Verantwortung für die Steuerzahler in Deutschland und der EU habe ich mich daher gegen diesen Bericht ausgesprochen.
European Year of Cultural Heritage (A8-0340/2016 - Mircea Diaconu) DE
Das Hauptziel des Europäischen Jahres ist die Feier des europäischen Kulturerbes als gemeinsame Ressource und soll das Gefühl der europäischen Identität stärken. Die EU-Kommission will damit die Rolle des europäischen kulturellen Erbes bei der Förderung eines gemeinsamen Bewusstseins für Geschichte und Identität hervorheben.Ich kann den Bericht des CULT—Ausschusses über den Vorschlag für das Europäische Jahr des Kulturerbes (EJCH) 2018 nicht unterstützen, da es zu einer neuen, gewidmeten Haushaltslinie kommt.Des Weiteren ist es eine Illusion, darauf zu hoffen, dass die nationale Identität nach und nach durch eine europäische Identität abgelöst werden könnte. Das Miteinander von mehreren Identitäten prägt die westlichen Staaten. „Mehr Europa“ ist nicht die Lösung.
Discharge 2015: EU general budget - European Parliament (A8-0153/2017 - Dennis de Jong) DE
Der ehemalige Präsident des Europäischen Parlaments, Martin Schulz, wollte im Jahr 2015 Leitungspositionen im EP ohne Ausschreibungen vergeben. Er hat seine Mitarbeiter im Kabinett eine Besoldungsgruppe höher eingestuft als normal und ihnen eine Kabinettszulage bezahlt. Darüber hinaus hat er sich selbst ermächtigt, seinen Kabinettsmitgliedern eine nicht vorgesehene und in der Höhe nicht begrenzte Sonderzulage zu vergeben. Das EP hat Martin Schulz am 27.4. durch Annahme des De Jong-Berichtes entlastet.In einem anderen Fall soll über die Aufhebung der Immunität Marine Le Pens entschieden werden, weil sie wohl Mitarbeiter des EP im französischen Präsidentschaftswahlkampf eingesetzt hat. Ob diese Aufhebung kommt, ist fraglich, weil diese Praxis vermutlich von vielen Parlamentariern genutzt wird.2013 wurde aus dem deutschen Bundestag berichtet, dass wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter vieler Abgeordneter am Bundestagswahlkampf teilgenommen haben. Report Mainz schildert: „Alle Abgeordneten, wirklich alle, beschäftigen ihre Mitarbeiter auch zu Wahlkampfzwecken. Zwar wissen alle theoretisch, dass sie das nicht tun dürfen, aber praktisch hält sich keiner dran.“ Dieses Verhalten verursacht dem Steuerzahler regelmäßig Millionenschäden.In den Fällen Schulz und Le Pen kann man eine Doppelmoral erkennen. Die sorglose Ver(sch)wendung von Steuergeldern wird medienwirksam genutzt, um Le Pen im Präsidentschaftswahlkampf zu schaden, während Martin Schulz nicht sanktioniert wird.Ich habe gegen den Bericht gestimmt.
Negotiations with the United Kingdom following its notification that it intends to withdraw from the European Union (RC-B8-0237/2017, B8-0237/2017, B8-0241/2017, B8-0242/2017, B8-0243/2017) DE
Die gemeinsame „Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments vom 5. April 2017 zu den Verhandlungen mit dem Vereinigten Königreich nach seiner Mitteilung, dass es beabsichtige, aus der Europäischen Union auszutreten“, soll die Grundlage für die Verhandlungen der kommenden beiden Jahre sein.Aus Sicht der LKR sollte der Brexit eine Trennung unter Freunden werden. Großbritannien ist für Deutschland und die EU ein wichtiger Partner und es ist wichtig, Störungen etwa der Handels- oder Forschungsbeziehungen und negative Wachstumseffekte zu vermeiden.Die gemeinsame Entschließung ist aus unserer Sicht nicht dafür geeignet, eine gute Arbeitsgrundlage zu sein. Sie soll den Brexit für Großbritannien schwer machen, um Nachahmer abzuschrecken. Besonders zum Ausdruck kommt das durch Ziffer 6, die die Aufnahme von Verhandlungen für Handelsbeziehungen mit Drittländern, die erst nach dem Brexit in Kraft treten sollen, als Verstoß gegen das Unionsrecht einstuft. Ein Land wie Großbritannien muss selbstverständlich in der Lage sein, solche Verhandlungen durchzuführen, damit nach dem Austritt keine Regelungslücke entsteht. Auf ähnliche Weise verweigert die Entschließung des Parlamentes den Abschluss eines Anschlussvertrages mit Großbritannien vor dessen Austritt aus der Union und riskiert so einen reibungslosen Ablauf etwa der Forschungsabkommen und des Handels zwischen der EU und Großbritannien. Diese Politik ist kurzsichtig und schädlich.Ich habe deshalb die gemeinsame Entschließung abgelehnt.
Addressing refugee and migrant movements: the role of EU External Action (A8-0045/2017 - Elena Valenciano, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra) DE
Der Bericht beschäftigt sich in undifferenzierter Art und Weise mit der EU-Migrationspolitik und der Reaktion auf Flüchtlingsbewegungen. Er unterscheidet nicht ausreichend zwischen ökonomisch motivierter Migration, die nach den selbstdefinierten volkswirtschaftlichen Interessen der aufnehmenden Länder gestaltet werden soll, und der Flucht aus Kriegsgründen sowie der Flucht infolge politischer, sexueller oder ethnischer Verfolgung. Es wird lediglich einseitig auf die Notwendigkeit der Solidarität mit Migranten und Flüchtlingen verwiesen, ohne klarzustellen, dass für eine gelungene Integration der Wille und die Gefälligkeit beider Seiten notwendig sind. Der Bericht bleibt somit oberflächlich, da nicht auf die entstehenden Schwierigkeiten im Integrationsprozess hingewiesen wird, und blendet mithin die Belastungen der Einwanderungsländer in gesellschaftlicher und politischer Hinsicht vollkommen aus. Es wird vermieden, in Bezug auf Flüchtlingsströme geeignete Vorschläge zur Eindämmung derselben zu benennen. Vielmehr fordert der Bericht u. a., dass die EU und ihre Mitgliedstaaten keine Anreize für Drittländer schaffen dürfen, sich bei der Rückübernahme von Migranten kooperativ zu zeigen. Dies ist eine leichtsinnige Preisgabe geeigneter Instrumente, um unkontrollierte Migration zu unterbinden.
An integrated EU policy for the Arctic (A8-0032/2017 - Urmas Paet, Sirpa Pietikäinen) DE
Der Initiativbericht A8-0032/2017 der Abgeordneten Sirpa Pietikäinen und Urmas Paet vom 8.2.2017 betrifft das Thema einer gemeinsamen europäischen Politik für den arktischen Raum. Hintergrund des Berichts ist eine wirtschaftliche Erschließung des arktischen Raums, die allerdings unter strengen Umweltauflagen erfolgen soll. Denn die Arktis ist laut dem Bericht eine „low-tension area“, die es zu schützen gilt. Für die EU soll der arktische Raum ein neues Feld für Politik und Wirtschaft werden.Eine Zustimmung zum gesamten Bericht hätte die Beschneidung von Norwegen in seiner Schweröl- und Gasförderung bedeutet. Die EU darf nicht in Kompetenzen und in die Wirtschaft von Nicht-EU-Staaten eingreifen und dadurch anderen Staaten wie Russland und Kanada den Vortritt für den arktischen Raum überlassen.
e-Democracy in the EU: potential and challenges (A8-0041/2017 - Ramón Jáuregui Atondo) DE
Der Bericht setzt sich mit dem Potenzial sowie den Herausforderungen elektronischer Abstimmungen und Bürgerbeteiligung auseinander. Die LKR glaubt, dass elektronische Abstimmungen, sofern sie sicher und unter Schutz der persönlichen Daten umsetzbar sind, die Demokratie insgesamt stärken können. Darüber hinaus fordert der Bericht die Mitgliedstaaten und auch die Kommission auf, bestehende behördliche Prozesse, sofern sinnvoll, zu digitalisieren. Aus Sicht der LKR würde insbesondere eine digitale europäische Bürgerinitiative die Bürgerbeteiligung vereinfachen. Aus diesen Gründen habe ich dem Bericht zugestimmt.
Commission's approval of Germany's revised plan to introduce a road toll (B8-0180/2017) DE
Im Juni 2015 hatte die Kommission aufgrund der geplanten Einführung der Pkw-Maut ein formales Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen Deutschland eröffnet, aus Diskriminierungsgründen gegenüber anderen Staatsangehörigen. Im Dezember hat die Kommission das Vertragsverletzungsverfahren auf Eis gelegt, weil der deutsche Verkehrsminister angekündigt hat, das Infrastrukturabgabegesetzt zu ändern.Speziell bei dieser Abstimmung ging es um eine mündliche Anfrage und eine Entschließung des Verkehrsausschusses. Das Parlament zeigt mit dieser Initiative, dass es Bedenken hat in Bezug auf den Abbau der diskriminierenden Elemente in dem Gesetz gegenüber ausländischen Autofahrern, und fordert deshalb die Kommission dazu auf, das Parlament über die Details der politischen Einigung mit Deutschland zu informieren. Die Entschließung spricht sich einerseits gegen eine nationale Maut aus, andererseits unterstützt sie eine harmonisierte EU-Maut.Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer setzen sich gegen eine nationale wie auch eine europäische Maut ein, weil wir beide für Handels- und Freizügigkeitshemmnisse halten. Darüber hinaus können wir die jetzige Kritik unserer Parlamentskollegen nicht nachvollziehen. Wo waren die Kritiker des deutschen Mautsystems, als Italien oder Frankreich ihre überteuerte Maut eingeführt haben? Wo waren die Kritiker, als Österreich Autobahnvignetten, die einheimische Bürger in der Einkommensteuererklärung absetzen können, eingeführt hat?Aufgrund der tiefen Meinungsunterschiede habe ich gegen die Entschließung gestimmt.
Long-term shareholder engagement and corporate governance statement (A8-0158/2015 - Sergio Gaetano Cofferati) DE
Hinter dem Bericht Cofferati verbirgt sich eine Richtlinie, die den Einfluss von Kleinanlegern in großen Aktiengesellschaften stärken und dabei für mehr Transparenz bei Eigentümerstrukturen insgesamt sorgen soll. Der Berichterstatter hat als Vertreter der Sozialisten und Demokraten eine Vielzahl an Auskunftspflichten für institutionelle Investoren in den ursprünglich guten Text der Kommission aufgenommen. Um Wettbewerbsnachteile für in der EU ansässige Aktiengesellschaften zu vermeiden, hat die ECR deshalb den Bericht im Ausschuss abgelehnt. Kritische Passagen wurden im Trilog mit dem Europäischen Rat gestrichen oder entscheidend abgeschwächt. Da der Bericht einige wichtige Reformen zu Aktionärsrechten beinhaltet, habe ich dem finalen Text zugestimmt.Als Beispiel sei hier die Vergütung von Unternehmensvorständen angeführt: Durch die Richtlinie erhalten Anleger das Recht, auf der Vollversammlung über die Vergütung des Vorstandes abzustimmen. Es liegt dadurch an den Unternehmenseigentümern wie institutionellen Investoren, Privatanlegern und anderen Aktionären, eine angemessene Vergütung sicherzustellen und dabei das Risiko hoher Abfindungen trotz schlechter Manager-Performance zu begrenzen.
Control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (A8-0251/2016 - Vicky Ford) DE
Der Staat hat die Aufgabe, die Sicherheit sowie die persönliche Freiheit des Bürgers zu schützen. Wo sinnvoll, kann der Staat diese Aufgabe auch teilweise oder ganz auf eine supranationale, also in diesem Fall auf EU-Ebene übertragen. 1992 hatten die damaligen EU-Mitgliedstaaten eine europäische Waffenrechtsrichtlinie (91/477/EWG) beschlossen, um in Ergänzung zur jeweiligen nationalen Gesetzgebung eine gewisse Vereinheitlichung bezüglich des Rechts auf Besitz und Tragen einer Schusswaffe zu erzielen. Diese Richtlinie wurde 2008 bereits angepasst (2008/51/EG). Unmittelbar nach den fürchterlichen Terroranschlägen vom 13. November 2016, nämlich drei Tage später, veröffentlichte die Kommission einen Entwurf für eine Verschärfung der bestehenden Waffenrechtsrichtlinie. Eine solche Maßnahme ist nur dann sinnvoll, wenn folgender Grundsatz eingehalten wird: Eigenverantwortung und Freiheit für die gesetzestreuen Bürger, wirksame Bekämpfung von Terroristen und Straftätern durch zielgerichtete Maßnahmen. Die neue europäische Waffenrechtsrichtlinie erfüllt leider keine dieser Voraussetzungen. Zwar wurde die Richtlinie in den Trilogverhandlungen zwischen Rat, Kommission und Parlament etwas verbessert. Völlig unsinnige Forderungen wie etwa das Verbot, Waffen zu verbieten, die wie automatische Schusswaffen aussehen, wurden gestrichen. Nichtsdestotrotz enthält die neue Richtlinie kaum wirksame Maßnahmen zur Terrorismusbekämpfung. Stattdessen drangsaliert sie in unzulässiger Weise gesetzestreue Jäger, Sportschützen und Waffensammler und stellt sie unter Generalverdacht. Daher habe ich den Bericht abgelehnt.
Request for the waiver of the immunity of Marine Le Pen (A8-0047/2017 - Laura Ferrara) DE
Am 16. Dezember 2015 hatte die französische Abgeordnete Marine Le Pen über ihr Twitter-Konto drei Bilder mit Hinrichtungen von IS-Geiseln veröffentlicht. Diese Bilder hatte sie nach eigenen Angaben über Google gefunden. Dazu schrieb sie: „Daesh c'est ÇA!“ (DAS ist der IS). Nachdem am 17. Dezember 2015 die Angehörigen einer hingerichteten Geisel die Löschung eines Bildes beantragt hatten, kam Le Pen dieser Bitte umgehend nach. Nichtsdestotrotz leiteten Anfang 2016 die französischen Justizbehörden ein Ermittlungsverfahren gegen Marine Le Pen wegen der Verbreitung von Bildern mit Gewaltdarstellungen ein. Am 5. Oktober 2016 beantragte in der Folge der französische Justizminister Jean-Jacques Urvoas beim Europäischen Parlament die Aufhebung der parlamentarischen Immunität von Marine Le Pen. Ohne ein Freund von Marine Le Pen zu sein, halte ich die Aufhebung ihrer parlamentarischen Immunität für falsch. Der IS hatte Geiseln grausam umgebracht und die Menschenwürde der Opfer mit Füßen getreten. Frau Le Pen hat als Reaktion die politische Entscheidung getroffen, darauf mit drastischen Bildern aufmerksam zu machen. Dieses Recht muss ein Parlamentarier haben. Sie für dieses Verhalten der Strafverfolgung auszusetzen, kann als Einschüchterungsversuch und politisches Manöver aufgefasst werden. Deshalb habe ich gegen die Aufhebung der Immunität von Frau Le Pen gestimmt.
Obligations in the field of visa reciprocity (B8-0173/2017) DE
Der Entschließungsantrag vom 22.2.2017 des Abgeordneten Claude Moraes befasst sich mit der Visumpflicht von EU-Bürgern für Drittstaaten, die ihrerseits Visumfreiheit in der EU genießen. Nach dem Gegenseitigkeitsprinzip aus der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 539/2001 geht allerdings hervor, dass ein Drittland, das Visumfreiheit in der EU genießt, ebenfalls für alle EU-Bürger Visumfreiheit schaffen muss.Allerdings liegt es in der Souveränität der Drittländer zu entscheiden, welchem Land sie eine Visumfreiheit einräumen. Auch die Drohung mit der ultima ratio, vor den EuGH zu ziehen, um die Kommission zum Handeln zu zwingen, darf zu keiner Bevormundung von nicht-EU-Staaten führen. Eine Gleichbehandlung unter allen Umständen zu fordern, würde deutsche Visumfreiheiten aufs Spiel setzen.Aus diesen Gründen habe ich gegen den Entschließungsantrag gestimmt.
Implementation of the Europe for Citizens programme (A8-0017/2017 - María Teresa Giménez Barbat) DE
Das Programm „Europa für Bürgerinnen und Bürger“ zielt insbesondere darauf ab, die Möglichkeiten demokratischer Teilhabe der Bürger an der EU zu stärken (60%) sowie das Geschichtsbewusstsein in Europa zu verbessern (20%). Das Gesamtbudget im mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen beträgt insgesamt 185,47 Millionen Euro.Das Projekt hat den Auftrag, das Ansehen der EU zu stärken und Menschen von den Vorteilen der EU zu überzeugen. Es ist somit nicht politisch neutral, sondern ein Propagandainstrument im Sinne der EU.Die EU hat klare Schwächen. Die Unzufriedenheit der Bürger hat bereits zum Brexit geführt und könnte weitere EU-kritische politische Entscheidungen mit sich bringen. Die Rolle der EU erfordert angesichts dieser Situation eine kritische Analyse und einen offenen Diskussionsprozess. Ein Projekt wie „Europa für Bürgerinnen und Bürger“ kann mit einem ex ante festgelegten positiven EU-Bild nicht zu einer solchen Debatte beitragen. Die EU scheitert nicht an einer mangelnden Erklärung durch die Politik, sondern daran, dass sie unzureichende Ergebnisse produziert.Weiterhin wäre es angesichts der großen wirtschaftlichen Probleme der EU sinnvoll, die verwendeten Gelder für Projekte einzusetzen, mit denen wirtschaftliche Impulse gesetzt werden könnten, wie beispielsweise Forschungsförderung.Aus diesen Gründen habe ich mich entschieden, das Programm abzulehnen.
Possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union (A8-0390/2016 - Guy Verhofstadt) DE
Der Verhofstadt-Bericht zur institutionellen Struktur der EU ist eine Sammlung an Reformvorschlägen für eine Neufassung der Europäischen Verträge. Die Umsetzung dieser Vorschläge würde die EU fundamental verändern hin zu einem Zentralstaat. Wichtige Elemente sind die Einführung eines Europäischen Finanzministers mit makroökonomischen, haushalts- und sogar geldpolitischen Instrumenten, die Schaffung neuer Behörden und Programme, die Ermächtigung der EU-Kommission zur Schuldenaufnahme, umfangreiche EU-eigene Steuern und das Recht des Parlamentes, diese selbst festzusetzen, die Streichung des Konzeptes des „angemessenen Mittelrückflusses“, das bisher große innereuropäische Transfers verhindert hat, oder auch die Umsetzung der Bankenunion.Ziel des Verhofstadt-Berichtes ist ganz deutlich die Verlagerung von Macht nach Brüssel und die Umverteilung von Geld innerhalb der EU. Europa soll auf diese Weise ein föderaler Staat werden, die Kommission die Regierung und die Nationalstaaten sollen in den Rang von Provinzen herabgestuft werden. Wenn man zu Konzepten wie Bürgernähe, Subsidiarität und Eigenverantwortung steht, kann man dieses Reformpapier keinesfalls unterstützen. Ich habe es abgelehnt.
Improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty (A8-0386/2016 - Mercedes Bresso, Elmar Brok) DE
Der Bresso-Brok-Bericht zur „Ausschöpfung des Potenzials der Verträge von Lissabon“ ist eine Mogelpackung. Das Anliegen war, innerhalb des bestehenden Regelwerks des Lissabon-Vertrages Möglichkeiten für mehr europäische Zentralisierung und zusätzliche Geldmittel zu finden. Der einzige mögliche Ansatz, der auch im Bericht genannt wird, wäre die Aufstockung der europäischen Eigenmittel. Weil die Berichterstatter offensichtlich keine weiteren realistischen Optionen gefunden haben, wurde dieser Bericht um eine Vielzahl von Forderungen angereichert, die innerhalb der bestehenden Verträge nicht umgesetzt werden können. Dazu zählen die Einführung von EU-eigenen Steuern sowie der Verzicht auf die Einstimmigkeit im europäischen Rat und im Rat. Der Verzicht auf Einstimmigkeit tangiert das Haushaltsrecht und damit ein zentrales Kriterium eines souveränen Staates. Weiterhin möchte die EU sich in die Arbeits- und Sozialpolitik der Mitgliedstaaten einmischen dürfen und in Zukunft selbst bestimmen dürfen, welche Elemente der Politik subsidiär zu regeln sein sollen. Forderungen wie diese sind auf der Basis des Lissabon-Vertrages nicht denkbar und würden eine klare Verletzung der Europäischen Verträge darstellen. Diesen Bericht, der so eklatant seine Aufgabe verfehlt und unzumutbare zentralistische Forderungen stellt, habe ich abgelehnt.
Budgetary capacity for the Eurozone (A8-0038/2017 - Reimer Böge, Pervenche Berès) DE
Der Bericht des CDU-Abdeordneten Böge und der Sozialistin Beres fordert euphemistisch eine „Haushaltskapazität für das Euro-Währungsgebiet“, im Klartext also einen eigenen, zusätzlichen Haushalt für die Eurozone auf Kosten der Steuerzahler. Damit sollen die Maastricht-Kriterien für den Euro mit dem Verbot der Schuldenübernahme eines Euro-Staates durch einen anderen endgültig und rechtsbrüchig ausgehebelt werden. Ein solcher Bericht kann daher als nichts anderes bezeichnet werden als ein Skandal. Denn zusammen mit den ebenfalls im Februar 2017 vorgelegten Berichten der Abgeordneten Verhofstadt sowie Brok (wie Herr Böge von der CDU) und Bresso wird damit versucht, die EU weiter zu zentralisieren und zu bürokratisieren und aus der EU eine Art „europäischen Superstaat“ zu machen. Wir brauchen jedoch etwas ganz Anderes, nämlich grundlegende Reformen hin zu einer bürgernahen, subsidiären Europäischen Union auf der Grundlage souveräner Nationalstaaten.Ich lehne den Bericht daher klar ab.
European Cloud Initiative (A8-0006/2017 - Jerzy Buzek) DE
Der Initiativbericht stellt eine Kommunikation über die komplexen Zusammenhänge der Einrichtung einer europäischen Cloud zur Förderung der Wissenschaft und Effizienzsteigerung der Wirtschaft in Europa dar. Die Cloud-Initiative beinhaltet eine Dateninfrastruktur zur Speicherung und Verwaltung von Daten, eine High-Speed-Datenverbindung und die Entwicklung von Hochleistungsrechnern (HPC), um die Daten zu prozessieren.Marktprozesse werden politisch vereinnahmt. Die Kommission definiert detaillierte Anforderungen der Zukunft der Cloud und vollzieht damit eine willkürliche Planung ohne den Markt. Vor dem Hintergrund, dass die Forschungsrahmenprogramme der EU in der Vergangenheit die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der IT-Unternehmen nicht erhöht haben, sind die Ziele dieses Vorhabens unglaubwürdig. Milliarden an Euros sind mit nutzlosen Förderprogrammen im IT–Sektor durch die EU seit den 70er-Jahren verschwendet worden. Das hat nicht verhindert, dass Nixdorf, Siemens, Qimonda, Grundig, Telefunken, Philips, ICL, Olivetti, Bull, Triumph-Adler alle verschwunden sind. Mittlerweile sind verschiedenste Cloudsysteme in der Industrie üblich und niemals kann die EU das anbieten, was namenhafte Anbieter wie Microsoft, HP und Apple können. Es handelt sich also um Industriepolitik. Solche Markteingriffe durch die „European Cloud Initiative“ lehne ich entschieden ab.
EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (A8-0009/2017 - Artis Pabriks) DE
Die LKR steht für freien Handel. Kanada ist eines der Länder, die der EU und ihren Werten am nächsten sind. Es ist der zwölftgrößte Handelspartner der EU.Mit CETA wurde ein hervorragendes Freihandelsabkommen vereinbart, das nicht nur die Zölle im Handel mit Kanada fast vollständig verschwinden lässt, sondern auch sonstige Handelshemmnisse reduziert/eliminiert. Darüber hinaus setzt das Abkommen internationale Maßstäbe und regt einen internationalen Investitionsgerichtshof an.Das Abkommen wurde am 30.10.2016 beim 16. EU-Kanada-Gipfel unterschrieben und bekam heute die Zustimmung des Parlaments.Die begleitende Resolution ist ein Kompromiss zwischen EPP, ALDE und der EKR. Sie ist nicht perfekt, aber deckt sich in der Grundaussage mit meiner positiven Einschätzung zu CETA. Strittig ist z.B. die Aussage, dass Kanada der „stärkste Partner“ der EU ist – dies sehe ich nicht so. Trotzdem habe ich diesen Kompromiss mit unterstützt und sowohl für die Resolution als auch für CETA gestimmt.
EU-Canada Strategic Partnership Agreement (A8-0028/2017 - Charles Tannock) DE
Die LKR steht für freien Handel. Kanada ist eines der Länder, die der EU und ihren Werten am nächsten sind. Es ist der zwölftgrößte Handelspartner der EU.Mit CETA wurde ein hervorragendes Freihandelsabkommen vereinbart, das nicht nur die Zölle im Handel mit Kanada fast vollständig verschwinden lässt, sondern auch sonstige Handelshemmnisse reduziert/eliminiert. Darüber hinaus setzt das Abkommen internationale Maßstäbe und regt einen internationalen Investitionsgerichtshof an.Das Abkommen wurde am 30.10.2016 beim 16. EU-Kanada-Gipfel unterschrieben und bekam heute die Zustimmung des Parlaments.Die begleitende Resolution ist ein Kompromiss zwischen EPP, ALDE und der EKR. Sie ist nicht perfekt, aber deckt sich in der Grundaussage mit meiner positiven Einschätzung zu CETA. Strittig ist z.B. die Aussage, dass Kanada der „stärkste Partner“ der EU ist – dies sehe ich nicht so. Trotzdem habe ich diesen Kompromiss mit unterstützt und sowohl für die Resolution als auch für CETA gestimmt.
European Semester for Economic Policy Coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2017 (A8-0039/2017 - Gunnar Hökmark) DE
Der Hökmark-Bericht nennt die wesentlichen wirtschafts- und sozialpolitischen Prioritäten, auf die sich die EU nach Auffassung des Parlaments im Europäischen Semester 2017 konzentrieren sollte. Der Bericht ist insgesamt ausgewogen und legt den Fokus auf strukturelle Reformen. Positiv hervorzuheben ist, dass er die Idee eines aggregierten fiskalpolitischen Ziels auf Eurozonenebene relativiert. Allerdings gibt es im Bericht auch negative Punkte, wie beispielsweise die positive Erwähnung von EU-Eigenmitteln. Darüber hinaus unterstützt der Bericht eine „umfassende“ Vollendung der Bankenunion. Hier ist insbesondere die noch nicht implementierte dritte Säule der gemeinsamen Einlagensicherung strittig. Ich bin der Überzeugung, dass eine gemeinsame Einlagensicherung die Probleme der Eurozone nicht lösen wird, sondern lediglich die Kosten der andauernden Krise umverteilt. Da vor allem deutsche Sparer die Leidtragenden sein werden, kann ich dem Bericht nicht zustimmen und habe mich deshalb enthalten.
European Semester for Economic Policy Coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2017 (A8-0037/2017 - Yana Toom) DE
Der Bericht zu arbeits- und sozialpolitischen Fragen im Jahreswachstumsbericht ist eine jährlich wiederkehrende Aufgabe des Parlaments. Der Bericht unterstützt grundlegend den Vorschlag der Kommission, auf einen dreifachen Ansatz von Investitionen, strukturellen Reformen und verantwortungsvollen öffentlichen Finanzen zu setzen. Diesen Ansatz hat die LKR bereits im Ausschuss unterstützt. Weiterhin ist es der LKR gelungen, im Ausschuss eine Formulierung einzubauen, die die Auswahl der EFSI-Projekte strikt nach Qualitätskriterien und nicht nach regionaler Bedürftigkeit fordert. Wir wollten verhindern, dass der EFSI zu einer Art Kohäsionsfonds umfunktioniert wird, engagieren uns aber gleichzeitig dafür, dass schwache Regionen im Bewerbungsprozess unterstützt werden.Leider enthält der Bericht auch Elemente, die problematisch sind. Dazu zählt die Forderung, die sozialen Indikatoren mit den ökonomischen Indikatoren gleichzustellen. Um Wachstum und Steuermittel, die eine Voraussetzung für soziale Aspekte sind, generieren zu können, müssen die ökonomischen Impulse Vorrang haben. Forderungen nach Gender Mainstreaming, europäische Vorschläge für eine aktive Arbeitsmarktpolitik und mehr Geld für europäische Programme haben mich aber dazu bewogen, mich bei der Abstimmung zu enthalten.
Banking Union - Annual Report 2016 (A8-0019/2017 - Danuta Maria Hübner) DE
Der Jahresbericht zur Bankenunion 2016 weist einige Fortschritte gegenüber dem letztjährigen Jahresbericht auf. Erstmals werden die aus dem einheitlichen Bankenaufsichtsmechanismus resultierenden Interessenkonflikte der EZB klar benannt. Zudem weist der Bericht auf die Gefahren hin, die sich aus dem Risikoverbund zwischen Banken und Staaten ergeben.Allerdings wird in dem vorliegenden Bericht abermals die Einführung eines europäischen Einlagensicherungssytems gefordert. Die Liberal-Konservativen Reformer lehnen diese dritte Säule der Bankenunion wie auch die Bankenunion insgesamt ab, da es aufgrund der höheren Kreditausfallwahrscheinlichkeit in den südlichen EU-Staaten zu einer Umverteilung in diese Länder kommen würde. Vor diesem Hintergrund widerspricht auch die Forderung nach einem „fiscal backstop“ den Zielen der LKR. Vielmehr sollten die im Rahmen von Basel III beschlossenen Richtlinien zur Erhöhung der Eigenkapitalanforderungen von Banken verbindlich in der EU umgesetzt werden. Ich lehne den Bericht daher ab.
A European Pillar of Social Rights (A8-0391/2016 - Maria João Rodrigues) DE
Die Säule der sozialen Rechte wurde von Kommissionspräsident Juncker im Herbst 2015 vorgestellt, um insbesondere für die Länder der Eurozone die Konvergenz zu steigern und die Beschäftigungs- und Sozialpolitik anzugleichen. Der Vorschlag der Kommission sah keine legislativen Maßnahmen vor, sondern sollte eine Art Leitfaden für den Austausch von „best practice“ und nationale Reformen sein.Der Rodrigues-Bericht geht über diese Gedanken hinaus und fordert legislative Standards, u. a. für „anständige Arbeit“, bei Arbeitslosigkeit, neue Steuermittel für soziale Zwecke, Garantien für grundlegende Ausbildungen usw.Die Frage nach der Leistungsfähigkeit der Arbeitsmärkte, diese Wohltaten zu erwirtschaften, wird nicht gestellt. Eine Angleichung der Regeln der Arbeitsmärkte wird gerade die schwächeren Arbeitsmärkte vor große Probleme stellen. In der Eurozone ist Flexibilität bei den Arbeitskosten und Arbeitsbedingungen aber von zentraler Bedeutung, um Schocks ausgleichen zu können. Eine Annäherung der Parameter kann nur steigende Arbeitslosigkeit oder steigenden Transferbedarf nach sich ziehen. Der Bericht bejaht zusätzlichen Transferbedarf, ohne deutlich zu machen, dass dieser international sein müsste.Es ist somit zu erwarten, dass die Initiative kontraproduktiv ist. Die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der schwächeren Länder wird abnehmen, die Arbeitslosigkeit insbesondere nach ökonomischen Schocks zunehmen, und die Konvergenz nicht erreicht werden. Europäische Transfersysteme und eine Zunahme der EU-Binnenmigration werden die Probleme überdecken müssen.
Written questions (6)
VP/HR - Question on the activity of Turkish intelligence agencies outside of the country's borders PDF (106 KB) DOC (16 KB)
Documents related to Germany's Network Enforcement Law ('Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz' or 'NetzDG'), also known as the Facebook Law PDF (102 KB) DOC (19 KB)
Regulation 2016/60 PDF (5 KB) DOC (24 KB)
Violence by migrants towards sexual minorities PDF (5 KB) DOC (23 KB)
EUR 2 billion financing for Greece on 19 March 2015 PDF (101 KB) DOC (25 KB)
Real exchange rates in the EU PDF (5 KB) DOC (24 KB)
Amendments (670)
Amendment 15 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 1
1. Regrets that the procedure for the appointment of the new Secretary-General of the European Commission on 21 February 2018 was conducted in a manner which aroused widespread irritation and disapproval in public opinion, among Members of the European Parliament and within the European civil service; notes that the result of this procedure constitutes a reputational riskhas damaged the reputation and integrity of not only for the European Commission but for all the European Union institutions;
Amendment 38 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 6
6. Takes note that the new Secretary- General was transferred in the interest of the service under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and that the position was not published because the post was not considered vacant; hence no official could apply since the procedure was organised through a reassignment with post rather than as a transfer in the strict sense with proper publication of the vacant post; stresses that such a procedure for the post of Secretary-General is unacceptable, and against the spirit of implementing the rules for the appointment of EU officials, who are servants of the citizens of the European Union;
Amendment 73 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Stresses that there have been clear and continued failings by the European Commission in the communication of the processes and procedures for the appointment of the Secretary-General of the Commission to both the public and the press; in this regard notes that the European Commission published its response to the Budgetary Control Committee’s questions at 03h00 on Sunday the 25th March 2018; stresses that in the interest of transparency and informing the broadest possible audience on a matter of public interest, such a working practice is unacceptable;
Amendment 74 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16 b. Notes that throughout the European Parliament’s investigation into the appointment of the Secretary-General of the European Commission, neither the Commission President or the Secretary- General of the Commission have appeared before the Members of the European Parliament, notes that this is against the spirit of inter-institutional cooperation and the spirit of transparency and openness; stresses that the debates within the European Parliament are intended to give the public and the press the opportunity to scrutinise the work of the EU institutions and hold them to account;
Amendment 85 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Expresses serious concerns over the impartiality and objectivity of the President of the European Commission, given that the President of the Commission has publically threatened to resign if the appointment of the newly appointed Secretary-General is not honoured;
Amendment 122 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Notes that when Mr. Selmayr was appointed, the rules were applied in such a way that only he could succeed; concludes therefore, that this seems very likely to be a case of favouritism; considers that the procedure must be re- opened, with the term of opening being extended by an additional month to give candidates from the individual Member States an opportunity to apply for the role;
Amendment 2 #
2018/2210(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that the yearly exchange of views regarding the draft annual work programmes and the multiannual strategies of the agencies in the committees responsible helps to ensure that the programmes and strategies reflect the actual political priorities - especially in the context of the European Pillar of social Rights andof the Europe 2020 strategy;
Amendment 4 #
2018/2210(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes that most of the agencies publish vacancy notices on their own websites and on social media, but frequently not on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO); encourages the agencies to publish their vacancy notices on the EPSO website which would increase transparency and publicity, bearing in mind the cost effectiveness;
Amendment 5 #
2018/2210(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Welcomes the fact that, according to the European Court of Auditors’ recommendations, the number of observations on the legality and regularity of payments decreased, which illustrates the agencies’ continued efforts to comply with the legal framework, particularly the provisions laid down by the Financial and Staff Regulations;
Amendment 6 #
2018/2210(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. Urges the agencies to make the accounting officers independent from anyone having (sub-) delegation to authorise commitments and payments as the hierarchical position of an accounting officer within an agency can affect its independence;
Amendment 8 #
2018/2183(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Calls for the EU-OSHA to strengthen the accounting officer’s independence by making him directly responsible to the Agency’s Director (administratively) and Board (functionally) as, according to the European Courtof Auditors, this observation was included for a total of 13 agencies;
Amendment 15 #
2018/2183(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 6 #
2018/2179(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Calls for the Eurofound to strengthen the accounting officer’s independence by making him directly responsible to the Agency’s Director (administratively) and Board (functionally) as, according to the European Court of Auditors, this observation was included for a total of 13 agencies;
Amendment 10 #
2018/2179(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 17 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas as new forms of work emerge, including platform and own- account work, social protection traditionally geared to covering workers in full-time open-ended contracts will need to be modernised and adapted; notes that social protection needs to be devised decentrally according to the needs and ability of each Member State;
Amendment 23 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas Member States have the primary role in delivering employment policies including youth employment policies and whereas such measures are best delivered at the national level;
Amendment 43 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
Oa. encourages the Member States to increase the accessibility and public acceptance of vocational training;
Amendment 47 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas housing exclusion, homelessness and housing affordability represent a highly significant challenge in many Member States; notes that housing problems have increased due to mass migration within the EU and from third countries; notes that housing problems have increased due to flight into real estate that is intentionally caused by the ECBs negative interest rate policy;
Amendment 65 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Whereas in some Member States, unemployment remains high due to a lack of growth and structural weakness that derive to a large extent from ineffective and in many cases rigid labour market regulatory frameworks; believes in this regard that insufficient labour market reforms are the main reason for high unemployment;
Amendment 67 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Notes that despite improvements, there are substantial differences between Member States and across different regions, in terms of economic recovery and progress due to pre-existing structural weaknesses in several Member States notably in the field of employment and productivity; believes in this regard that gradual convergence across the EU also needs to address divergence within Member States, as regional disparities have an impact on European growth potential, as many policies and services are delivered at a regional level;
Amendment 72 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to carefully examine the issue of in-work poverty and to propose solutions at both EU and national level to counter this most insidious issue; believes that immediate and coordinated action must be taken to reverse this trend, which threatens to fragment social cohesion and intergenerational solidarity; reiterates its concern at the high number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion despite the decreasing trend; is especially worried about the high rates of child poverty; asks the Commission and the Member States to adopt all necessary measures to significantly reduce poverty, particularly child poverty; calls on the Commission and the Member States to give greater recognition to the work and expertise of NGOs, anti-poverty organisations and people experiencing poverty themselves, encouraging their participation in the exchange of good practices; points out that highthe relatively low levels of inequality in the EU do not diminish economic output and the potential for sustainable growth;
Amendment 81 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recognises that the availability of non-standard forms of employment provides numerous benefits for workers who cannot or chose not to commit to ‘standard’ full-time employment which results in high participation rates amongst groups that might otherwise be excluded from work altogether;
Amendment 84 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Member States to ensure that young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs) can avail of and benefit from the Youth Guarantee in a real and meaningful way; emphasises that the Youth Guarantee was devised to be a temporary mechanism to respond to a crisis and should not become a permanent feature and transfer mechanism; notes that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) warns that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) risks to simply replace national funding rather than adding extra value; notes that the ECA warns of the poor quality of available data to assess results of the YEI;
Amendment 89 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and all Member States to initiate and/or strengthenMember States to study and consider the regulation of new forms of work; in this context, expresses concern about the coverage of atypical workers and self-employed workers, who often do not have full access to the social protection system; notes that many forms of atypical employment are voluntary;
Amendment 92 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Member States to increase the coverage and effectiveness of active labour market policies by making them more result-oriented, working in close cooperation with the social partners;
Amendment 101 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Stresses the importance of creating the right regulatory framework for businesses and small and micro enterprises to create jobs by for example implementing smart regulation and avoiding overly restrictive employment legislation;
Amendment 103 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Believes that Member States can only create jobs if the market allows for it, if they can rely on a qualified workforce, if labour markets are sufficiently flexible, if labour costs including wages are in line with productivity, if social protection systems make work more attractive and if regulation is proportionate and evidence based;
Amendment 110 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls that increasing life expectancy and low birth rates requires the adaptation of pension systems in order to ensure sustainable and adequate pensions; calls for more tax incentives for families in order to increase birth rates;
Amendment 117 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Deplores the failure to include the housing crisis among the top policy priorities for 2019, as house affordability and homelessness are fundamental issues of concern in many Member States; notes that migration within the EU, migration from outside the EU and low or negative interest rates set by the ECB are aggravating the situation;
Amendment 122 #
2018/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Warns that taking back labour market reforms that were implemented after the Euro crisis as has been done in several Member States will increase the vulnerabilities to crisis; encourages those Member States with high unemployment rates to pursue further reforms and thereby increase their ability to deal with economic downturns;
Amendment 1 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that sustainable growth anrequires structural reforms to labour markets, to the banking sector and capital markets and to public administration as well as targeted investment, which isn the key tourn will help in the creation of quality jobs and increased prosperity for all and; believes that it is necessary to direct the structural funds and investments more effectively towardsto regions that need it most as long as these areas have the ability to absorb them and deliver good results; notes that efficient investments will deliver the best value for money including job creation, promoting inclusive growth, reducing inequalities and boosting upward social convergence;
Amendment 4 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that the 2019 budget should contribute towards achieving the employment and social targets set out in Europe 2020 targets in the social and eimployement area and the successful implementation of the Proclamation ofn the European Pillar of Social Rights at both Union and national level within their respective competences, particularly when it comes to combating youth and long-term unemployment, rising inequalities, social exclusion and poverty, in particular child poverty; stresses, in this regard, that the 2019 budget cannot be understood outside the context of the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF) and that that efficient and effective spending is equally as important as the total budget ceilings;
Amendment 8 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Believes that the principle of European added value should represent the cornerstone of all future expenditure and that Union funding under Heading 1a and 1b should not be used to subsidise national approaches, but rather to complement and enhance national programmes, in particular in the area of job creation; believes that Union funding should therefore reflect a performance- based public budgeting model in which each budget line is accompanied by measurable objectives and outputs;
Amendment 11 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. RejectsBelieves that any reductions to the budgetary programming for the employment, social affairs and inclusion lines and recalls that a proper balance between commitment and payment appropriations must be foundmust be made on a case by case basis by identifying under performing budget lines where investments are not having the desired effect; recalls that a proper balance between commitment and payment appropriations and results based policy making must represent the cornerstone for future spending in order to allow these policies to reach their full potential;
Amendment 13 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its call that adequate appropriations and especially payment appropriations are ensured in Budget 2019 for the ESF given that it is entering a period of intense implementation and payment requests by Member States will increase and therefore regrets the proposed decreased in payment appropriations (- 2.6%);
Amendment 14 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomNotes the proposal to increase the commitment appropriations for the FEAD and the EGF (+2% for each); regrets, however,welcomes that savings have been identified elsewhere in the EU budget including the decrease (-60%) of the payment appropriations for the EGF, as well as the decreases (respectively 1.5% and -0.4%) of the commitment and payment appropriation for the EaSI;
Amendment 17 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Underlines that, in the context of on-going budgetary constraints, gaining the full support from citizens is extremely important in order to reaffirm and achieve our social and employment commitments under the EU 2020 strategy; believes that the challenge faced by the EU will not be to spend more, but to spend more efficiently;
Amendment 18 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 23 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the commitment appropriations of the YEI to be maintained for 2019 at the same level as for 2018, i.e EUR 350 millaligned with performance-based budgeting as outlined in the joint statements from previous Budgetary agreements in which the Commission committed itself to draw lessons from the results of the Youth Employment Initiative evaluation;
Amendment 27 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. WelcomNotes the creproposal for a regulation ofn the European Labour Authority, which is expected to begin operating in 2019; highlights the need to provide for additional funding to ensure that sufficient financial resourceappropriate funding which is are set aside for its establishment; regrets that the funding proposed by the Commission (EUR 11 million, appropriations are to be entered into the reserve until such time as the basic act is adopted by the legislator) is of a lower magnitude than the one of other EU agencies in the area of employment and social affairs; insists that this funding cannot be accomplished by redeploying allocations from the other employment and social affairs agenciesflective of the tasks set out in any final agreement on the regulation in order to ensure that sufficient financial resources are set aside for its establishment;
Amendment 5 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2
Citation 2
— having regard to Articles 9, 145, 148, 149, 152, 153, 174 and 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
Amendment 21 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas among the euro area Member States the lowest unemployment rates in January 2018 were recorded in Malta (3.5 %) and Germany (3.6 %), while the highest unemployment rates were observed in Greece (20.9 % in November 2017) and Spain (16.3 %); whereas in some Member States, unemployment remains high due to a lack of growth and structural weakness that derive to a considerable extent from ineffective and in many cases rigid labour market regulatory frameworks; welcomes the labour market reforms that have been passed in most countries affected by the Euro-crisis; urges these countries to continue on their reform path and to not undo the attained progress;
Amendment 28 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the primary responsibility for tackling youth unemployment rests with the Member States in terms of developing and implementing labour market regulatory frameworks, education and training systems and active labour market policies;
Amendment 31 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas other Member States are faced with structural challenges in the labour market such as low participation as well as skills and qualification mismatches; whereas there is a growing need for concrete measures for the integration or re-integration of inactive workforce to meet labour market demands;
Amendment 59 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that while the economic conditions in the EUuro Area are currently favourable and overall employment is steadily growing, there is still much room for improvement in terms of youth unemployment, labour market segmentation and inequalities, in-work poverty, productivity and wage growth; notes that in regards to a majority of parameters, economic convergence is negative;
Amendment 67 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that well-functioning and efficient social protection systems are an important precondition for inclusive national labour markets and the resilience of the euro area economy as a whole;
Amendment 69 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 89 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the Commission communication of 13 March 2018 on monitoring the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) (COM(2018)0130), which aligns the Pillar with the European Semester cycle by reflecting the priorities of the EPSR in the analysis of measures taken and progress made at national level; stresses that these principles must not be used as a vehicle for further initiatives at EU level which clearly fall within the competence of the Member States;
Amendment 95 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the labour markets of euro area countries differ significantly, which constitutes a challenge to their proper functioning; calls therefore and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity for well- designed labour market policies that reduce labour market segmentation, promote equal opportunities, facilitate access to the labour market, increase labour mobility and reintegrate the unemployed;
Amendment 113 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Member States to take full advantage of the positive economic outlook and pursue labour market reforms that focus on the creation of jobs; if feasible fostering reliable labour contracts and tackling bogus self-employment and promoting adequate social protection for all types of contracts;
Amendment 126 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Believes that reforms to social protections systems by the Member States must aim to facilitate labour market participation for those who can work by making work pay; stresses in this regard that income support should be targeted at those most in need;
Amendment 133 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Underlines that adequate skills can be acquired and the skills mismatch tackled by improving the quality and accessibility of education and training, including targeted quality training and reinforcing upskilling and reskilling measures, which require appropriate support, including funding at EU, level while respecting Article 149 TFEU, at national and regional level; points to the need to increase the relevance of vocational training to the labour market;
Amendment 137 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines the need to pursue reforms that prepare the labour market and its workforce for the digital transformation; highlights the need to modernise national social protection systems to provide adequate protection for employees in new forms of work and with new kinds of contracts; calls on Member States to develop labour market policies that support mobility between sectors and the re-training of workers, which will become increasingly important as our labour markets adapt to the digital transformation of our economies;
Amendment 159 #
2018/2034(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Believes that in order to maintain and increase global competitiveness, the labour market regulatory framework in Member States needs to be clear, simple and flexible while maintaining high labour standards;
Amendment 47 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Strenghtening economic cohesion amongst Member States whose currency is the euro would contribute to the stability of the monetary union and to the harmonious development of the Union as a whole. The goal of economic convergence has proven to be unrealistic in the Euro system. Economic convergence is actually deteriorating with regards to a multitude of economic parameters.
Amendment 50 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2 a) A common currency area will lead to increased specialization and its countries and regions will be more susceptible to asymmetric shocks. An asymmetric shock is a negative economic development that affects one region or one country within a currency area more than other regions or countries in the same currency area. An asymmetric schock will usually affect the economic structure of a country and can not simply be overcome by temporarily increased fiscal spending. It can be overcome by a focus on education and entrepreneurship and by becoming competitive in order to attract new private investment and new industries.
Amendment 53 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Member States should conduct their economic policies and should coordinate them in such a way as to attain the objective of strengthening economic, social, and territorial cohesion, with regards to their fiscal limits as set out in the treaties, conduct their economic policies and should optimize them for their own country, but always try to learn from others.
Amendment 57 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The unprecedented financial crisis and economic downturn that hit the world and the euro area has shown that in the euro area available instruments such as the single monetary policy, automatic fiscal stabilisers and discretionary fiscal policy measures at national level are insufficient in multiple countries to absorb large asymmetric shocks.
Amendment 61 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The financial crisis has resulted in a pro-cyclical pattern for fiscal policies, which has been detrimental to the quality of public finances and in particular for public investment. Much of this can be attributed to a lack of fiscal leeway due to huge debt levels at the outbreak of the crisis or even at the time of the entry into the Euro area. In turn, that shortcoming has contributed to widespread differences in macroeconomic performance between Member States, imperilling cohesion.
Amendment 63 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 84 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) With a view to swiftly provide EISF support, the competence for granting the loans when the eligibility and activation criteria are fulfilled and deciding on granting interest rate subsidies should be entrusted to the Commissionan authority controlled by the member states. To activate support, the decision needs to be supported by a group of member states with 2/3 of the population of the EU.
Amendment 89 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 91 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. The EISF shall provide financial assistance in the form of loans and interest rate subsidies for public investment to a Member State which is experiencing a large asymmetric shock. An asymmetric shock is a negative economic development that affects one region or one country within a currency area more than other regions or countries in the same currency area. An asymmetric schock will usually affect the economic structure of a country and can not simply be overcome by temporarily increased fiscal spending. It can be overcome by a focus on education and entrepreneurship and by becoming competitive in order to attract new private investment and new industries. A common currency area will lead to increased specialization and its countries and regions will be more susceptible to asymmetric shocks.
Amendment 96 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A Member State shall be considered to experience a large asymmetric shock if the following activation criteria are simultaneously fulfilledits economy suffer a significant downturn in comparison to other member states of the Euro system:
Amendment 99 #
2018/0212(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
b) the quarterly national unemployment rate increased above onethe average increase in the unemployment rate of all neighbouring Euro area countries by two percentage points in comparison to the unemployment rate observed in same quarter of the previous year.
Amendment 28 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) On 17 November 2017, the European Pillar of Social Rights was jointly proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission as a response to social challenges in Europe. The European Pillar of Social Rights is a declaration of political intent but not a legal framework. To reach the goals of the European Pillar of Social Rights, the goals of the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) have to be grounded on a legal basis of the current EU acquis and cannot transcend it. The twenty key principles of the pillar are structured around three categories: equal opportunities and access to the labour market; fair working conditions; social protection and inclusion. The twenty principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights should guide the actions under the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+). In order to contribute to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights the ESF+ should support investments in people and systems in the policy areas of employment, education and social inclusion, thereby supporting economic, territorial and social cohesion in accordance with Article 174 TFEU, while respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Amendment 54 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The Union is confronted with structural challenges arising from economic globalisation, the management of internal and external migration flows and the increased security threat, clean energy transition, technological change and an increasingly ageing workforce and growing skills and labour shortages in some sectors and regions, experienced especially by SMEs. Taking into account the changing realities of the world of work, the Union should be prepared for the current and future challenges by investing in relevant skills, making growth more inclusive and by improving employment and social policies, including in view of labour mobility of EU citizens.
Amendment 60 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The types of financing and the methods of implementation under this Regulation should be chosen on the basis of their ability to achieve the specific objectives of the actions and to deliver results, taking into account, in particular, the costs of controls, the administrative burden, and the expected risk of non- compliance. The distribution of financial resources between programmes may not be changed unless based on a parliamentary decision. For grants, this should include consideration of the use of lump sums, flat rates and unit costs, as well as financing not linked to costs as envisaged in Article 125(1) of the Financial Regulation. To implement measures linked to the socio- economic integration of third country nationals, and in accordance with Article 88 of the Common Provisions Regulation, the Commission may reimburse Member States using simplified cost options including the use of lump sums.
Amendment 65 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The Union should contribute to the employment policies of the Member States by encouraging cooperation and by complementing their action. In view of this wider scope of the ESF+ it is appropriate to foresee that the aims to enhance the effectiveness of labour markets and promote access to quality employment, to improve the access to and the quality of education and training as well as to promote social inclusion and health and to reduce poverty are not only implemented under shared management, but also under direct and indirect management under the Employment and Social Innovation and Health strands for actions required at Union level.
Amendment 71 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) This Regulation lays down a financial envelope for the ESF+. To shift money between purposes parliamentary consent is required. Parts of this financial envelope should be used for actions to be implemented in direct and indirect management under the Employment and Social Innovation and Health strands.
Amendment 78 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The ESF+ should, in close cooperation with the Member States, aim to promote employment through active interventions enabling (re)integration into the labour market, notably for youth, the long-term unemployed and the inactive, as well as through promoting self– employment and the social economy. The ESF+ should aim to improve the functioning of labour markets by supporting the modernisation of labour market institutions such as the Public Employment Services in order to improve their capacity to provide intensified targeted counselling and guidance during the job search and the transition to employment and to enhance workers’ mobility. The ESF+ should promote women’s participation in the labour market through measures aiming to ensure, amongst others, improved work/life balance and access to childcare. The ESF + should also aim to provide a healthy and well-adapted working environment in order to respond to health risks related to changing forms of work and the needs of the ageing workforce.
Amendment 132 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 154 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) To ensure that the social dimension of Europe as set out in the European Pillar of Social Rights is duly put forward and that a minimum amount of resources is targeting those most in need Member States should allocate at least 250% of their national ESF+ resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management to fostering social inclusion.
Amendment 163 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) In the light of persistently high levels of youth unemployment and inactivity in a number of Member States and regions, in particular affecting young people who are neither in employment, nor in education or training, it is necessary that those Member States continue to invest sufficient resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management towards actions to promote youth employment including through the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes, if these programmes have proven to be successful according to external auditors. Monitoring of programmes and exchange of best practise should be a focal point of the ESF+ in order to maximise the efficiency of funding. Building on the actions supported by the Youth Employment Initiative in the 2014-2020 programming period targeting individual persons, Member States should further promote employment and education reintegration pathways and outreach measures for young people by prioritising, where relevant, long-term unemployed, inactive and disadvantaged young people including through youth work. Member States should also invest in measures aimed at facilitating school-to-work transition as well as reforming and adapting employment services with a view to providing tailor-made support to young people. Member States concerned should therefore allocate at least 10% of their national resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management to support youth employability.
Amendment 223 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) Reflecting the importance of tackling climate change in line with the Union’s commitments to implement the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, this Regulation will contribute to mainstream climate action in the Union’s policies and to the achievement of an overall target of 25 % of the EU budget expenditures supporting climate objectives. Relevant actions will be identified during the preparation and implementation, and reassessed in the context of the mid-term evaluation.
Amendment 281 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
The ESF+ aims to support Member States to achieve high employment levels, fair social protection and a skilled and resilient workforce ready for the future world of work, in line with the principles set out in the Treaties of the European Union and with regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 17 November 2017.
Amendment 460 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall allocate at least 250% of their ESF+ resources under shared management to the specific objectives for the social inclusion policy area set out in points (vii) to (xi) of Article 4(1), including the promotion of the socio- economic integration of third country nationals.
Amendment 483 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Member States having a rate of young people aged 15 to 29 not in employment, education or training above the Union average in 2019 on the basis of Eurostat data, shall allocate at least 10% of their ESF+ resources under shared management for the years 2021 to 2025 to targeted actions and structural reforms to support youth employment and school-to-work transition, pathways to reintegrate into education or training and second chance education, in particular in the context of implementing those Youth Guarantee schemes that have empirically proven to be successful.
Amendment 557 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4
Article 13 – paragraph 4
4. Each Member State shall dedicate at least one priority to the implementation of paragraphs 1 or 2 or to both. The maximum co-financing rate for these priorities may be increased to 985% depending on the relative wealth of the region for the allocation of maximum 5% of the national ESF+ allocation under shared management to such priorities.
Amendment 57 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Pursuant to Article 3 TEU, the Union is to work for a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress and promote social justice and protection. In accordance with Article 9 TFEU, the Union, in defining and implementing its policies and activities, is to take into account requirements linked to, inter alia, the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of an adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and the promotion of a high level of education, training and the protection of human health. The exercise of EU competences is subject to two fundamental principles laid down in Article 5 TEU on proportionality and subsidiarity.
Amendment 61 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) The proclamation states that the Principles should be implemented at both Union level and Member State level within their respective competences, taking due account of different socio- economic environments and the diversity of national systems, and in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. At Union level, the European Pillar of Social Rights does not entail an extension of the Union’s powers and tasks as conferred by the Treaties. It should be implemented within the limits of those powers. The European Pillar of Social Rights respects the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe, as well as the national identities of the Member States and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels.
Amendment 69 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) A European Labour Authority (the ‘Authority’) should be established in order to provide added value at Union level to help strengthen fairness and trust in the Single Market. For the Authority to add value it must respect the competence of Member States labour enforcement mechanisms and compliment their work. To that effect, the Authority should support the Member States and the Commission in strengthening access to information for individuals and employers about their rights and obligations iparticularly on cross- border labour mobility situations as well as access to relevant services, support compliance and cooperation between the Member Sta, employment and social security matters to ensure the effective application of the Union law in these areas, and mediate and facilitate a solution in case of cross-border disputes or labour market disruption taking into account the different traditions and structures within member states.
Amendment 87 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The Authority should perform its activities to support a better functioning of the single market including in the areas of cross-border labour mobility and social security coordination, including free movement of workers, posting of workers and highly mobile services that fall within the scope of Union legislation. It should also enhance cooperation between Member States in tackling fraud and undeclared work. In cases where tThe Authority, in the course of the performance of its activities, becomes aware of suspected irregularities, including in areas of Union law beyond its scope, such as violations of working conditions, health and safety rules, or the employment of illegally staying third- country nationals, it should be able to report them and cooperate on these matters with the Commission should cooperate on these matters with the member states authorities, competent Union bodies, and national authoritiesocial partners where appropriate.
Amendment 101 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) The Authority should help create a competitive and productive Union in which the conditions for mobility are improved as part of a well-functioning Single Market. In this regard, the Authority in its activities should provide reliable, easily accessible, up to date information in all languages for companies, especially SMEs, wishing to provide services across the EU avoiding duplication and reducing the administrative barriers.
Amendment 103 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The Authority should contribute tosupport Member States in the effective application of existing rights and obligations in the area of cross-border mobility, facilitating the free movement of workers governed by Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council39 , Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and the Council40 and Regulation (EU) 2016/589 of the European Parliament and the Council41 . It should facilitate the posting of workers governed by Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and the Council42 and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and the Council43 , including by supporting the enforcement of those provisions implemented through universally applicable collective agreements in line with the practices of Member States. It should also help the coordination of social security systems governed by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council44 , Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council45 , Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council46 ; as well as Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/7147 and Council Regulation (EC) No 574/7248 . __________________ 39 Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ L 141, 27.5.2011, p. 1). 40 Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers (OJ L 128, 30.4.2014, p. 8). 41 Regulation (EU) 2016/589 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 April 2016 on a European network of employment services (EURES), workers’ access to mobility services and the further integration of labour markets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 492/2011 and (EU) No 1296/2013 (OJ L 107, 22.04.2016, p. 1). 42 Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1). 43 Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) (OJ L 159, 28.05.2014, p. 11). 44 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p.1, corrigendum OJ L 200, 7.6.2004, p. 1). 45 Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1). 46 Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ L 344, 29.12.2010, p. 1). 47 Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, 5.7.1971 p. 2). 48 Council Regulation (EC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons, and to their families moving within the Community (OJ L 74, 27.3.1972, p. 1).
Amendment 115 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Without prejudice to the role of the Administrative Commission, the Authority should also help the coordination of social security systems governed by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council ,Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council ,Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council; as well as Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 and Council Regulation (EC) No 574/72.
Amendment 117 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In certain instances, sector-specific Union law has been adopted in order to respond to specific needs in that sector, such as the area of international transport. The Authority should also, upon request by the Member States’ authorities, assist in dealing with the cross-border aspects of the application of such sector-specific Union law, in particular Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council49 , Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and the Council50 , Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council51 and Directive (Amending Directive 2006/22/EC – COM(2017)278)52 . __________________ 49 Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 1). 50 Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 35). 51 Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 51). 52 COM(2017)278 – Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector.
Amendment 118 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The individuals covered by the activities of the Authority should be persons whoAuthority should only act in areas that are subject to the Union law within the scope of this Regulation, including workers, self-employed persons, jobseekers, and economically non-active persons; this should cover both Union citizens and third-country nationals who are legally resident in the Union, such as posted workers, EU Blue Card holders, intra-corporate transferees or long-term residents, as well as their family members. In all other cases it should support cooperation between Member States where appropriate in areas that fall outside of this scope including working conditions, health and safety and fraud.
Amendment 135 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 142 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) The Authority shall promote the use of existing tools including the EURES portal, which establishes a framework for cooperation to facilitate the exercise of the freedom of movement for workers within the Union in accordance with Article 45 TFEU.
Amendment 146 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 157 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In view of the fair, simple and effective application of Union law, the Authority should support cooperation and timely exchange of information between Member States. Together with other staff, National Liaison Officers working within the Authority should support Member States’ compliance with cooperation obligations, speed up exchanges between them through procedures dedicated to reducing delays, and ensure links with other national liaison offices, bodies, and contact points established under Union law. The Authority should encourage the use of innovative approaches to effective and efficient cross-border cooperation, including electronic data exchange tools such as the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) system and the Internal Market Information (IMI) system, and should contribute to further digitalising procedures and improving IT tools used for message exchange between national authorities making information more accessible for citizens, companies and in particular SMEs.
Amendment 165 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) To here is a need to improve sincerease Member States' capacity to tackle irregularities with a cross-border dimension in relation to Union law within its scope, the Authority should support the national authorities in carrying out concerted and joint inspection cooperation among Member States' in order to increase their capacity to tackle breaches of Union law with a cross-border dimension. The Authority should support the national authorities in combating fraud, improving cooperation, sharing best practices and identifying common principles, including by facilitasupporting the implementation of the inspections in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 2014/67/EU. These should take place at the request of Member States or upon their agreement to the Authority's suggestion. The Authority should provide strategic, logistical, and technical support to Member States participating in the concerted or joint inspections in full respect of confidentiality requirements. Inspections should be carried out in agreement with the Member States concerned and take place fully within the legal framework of national law of Member States concerned, which should follow up on the outcomes of the concerted and joint inspections according to national law and in accordance with national law and practice. The Authority should provide strategic, logistical, and technical support to Member States who request it.
Amendment 173 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) Different national enforcement authorities are involved with cases of fraud and breaches of legalisation in the labour market, including labour inspectorates, other authorities dealing with health and safety at work, social security inspectorates and tax authorities. In some cases, migration authorities and employment services as well as customs authorities and authorities in charge of implementation of the common transport policy, the police, the public prosecutor's office and the social partners may also be involved.
Amendment 175 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) In order to keep track of emerging trends, challenges, or loopholes in the areas of labour mobility and social security coordination, the Authority should provide a platform for Member States to develop an analytical and risk assessment capacity. This should involve carrying out labour market analyses and studies, as well as peer reviews. TWhe authority should monitor potential imbalances in terms of skills and cross-border labour flows, including their possible impact on territorial cohesion. The Authority should also support the risk assessment referred ton making such a risk assessment, the carrying out of large infrastructural projects, the existence of long chains of subcontractors, geographic proximity, the special problems and needs of specific sectors, the past record of infringement, as well as the vulnerability of certain groups of workers may in Aparticle 10 of Directive 2014/67/EUular be taken into account. The Authority should ensure synergies and complementarity with other Union Agencies or services or networks. This should include seeking input from SOLVIT and similar services on recurring problems encountered by individuals and businesses in the exercise of their rights in the areas under the scope of the Authority. The Authority should also facilitate and streamline data collection activities provided for by the relevant Union laws within its scope. This does not entail the creation of new reporting obligations for Member States.
Amendment 186 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) TWithout prejudice to the role of the Administrative Commission as set out in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, the Authority should provide an independent platform for resolving disputes between Member States in relation to the application of Union law that falls within its scope. It should build on dialogue anduse existing conciliation mechanisms that are currently in place in the area of social security coordination, which are valued by Member States60 and their importance is recognised by the Court of Justice61 . Member States should be able to refer cases to the Authority for mediation according to standard procedures put in place for this purpose. The Authority should only deal with disputes between Member States, while individuals and employers facing difficulties with exercising their Union rights should continue to have at their disposal the national and Union services dedicated to dealing with such cases, such as the SOLVIT network to which the Authority should refer such cases. The SOLVIT network should also be able to refer to the Authority for its consideration cases in which the problem cannot be solved due to differences between national administrationswhich have been agreed and developed by the Member States and put in place for this purpose. The Authority should only provide a platform for mediation when disputes between Member States has been reported by a Member States using the standard procedure. Individuals and employers facing difficulties with exercising their Union rights should continue to have at their disposal the national and Union services dedicated to dealing with such cases, such as the SOLVIT network. __________________ 60 Council, Partial general approach of 26 October 2017 on the proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and regulation (EC) No 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 13645/1/17. 61 Case C-236/88 EU:C:1990:303, paragraph 17; Case C-202/97 EU:C:2000:75, paragraphs 57-58; Case C- 178/97 EU:C:2000:169, paragraphs 44-45; Case C-2/05 EU:C:2006:69, paragraphs 28-29; Case C-12/14 EU:C:2016:135, paragraphs 39-41; Case C-359/16 EU:C:2018:63, paragraphs 44-45.
Amendment 199 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) To facilitate the management of labour market adjustments, the Authority should, upon a request by a Member State facilitate cooperation among relevant stakeholders in order to address labour market disruptions elements falling within the scope of Union law affecting more than one Member State, such as cases of restructuring or major projects impacting employment in border regions.
Amendment 207 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The Member States and the Commission should be represented on a Management Board, in order to ensure the effective functioning of the Authority. The composition of the Management Board, including the selection of its Chair and Deputy-Chair, should respect the principles of gender balance, experience and qualification as well as gender balance. In view of the effective and efficient functioning of the Authority, the Management Board, in particular, should adopt an annual work programme, carry out its functions relating to the Authority’s budget, adopt the financial rules applicable to the Authority, appoint an Executive Director, and establish procedures for taking decisions relating to the operational tasks of the Authority by the Executive Director. Representatives from countries other than Union Member States, which are applying the Union rules within the scope of the Authority, may participate in the meetings of the Management Board as observers.
Amendment 222 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25a) In the processing of personal data the Authority must ensure that data protection remains a priority. In a time when large, well-protected organisations are vulnerable to cyber-attacks the sharing of data must be strictly regulated.
Amendment 231 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) In order to bring an operational dimension to the activities ofsupport cross-border cooperation and the activities of Member States authorities, the European Commission and other existing bodies in the areas of cross-border labour mobility, the Authority should take over the performance of tasks carried out by the Technical Committee on the Free Movement of Workers established pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 492/2011, the Committee of Experts on Posting of Workers set up by Commission Decision 2009/17/EC68 and the European Platform to enhance cooperation in tackling undeclared work set up by Decision (EU) 2016/344 of the European Parliament and the Council69 . With the establishment of the Authority, those bodies should cease to exist. __________________ 68 Commission Decision 2009/17/EC of 19 December 2008 setting up the Committee of Experts on Posting of Workers (OJ L 8, 13.1.2009, p. 26). 69 Decision (EU) 2016/344 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on establishing a European Platform to enhance cooperation in tackling undeclared work (OJ L 65, 11.3.2016, p. 12).
Amendment 238 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The Authority should complement the activities of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems created by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (‘the Administrative Commission’) in so far as it exercises regulatoryits tasks related to the application of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009. The Authority should however take over operational tasks currently carried out under the framework of the Administrative Commission, such as providing a mediation function between Member States, ensuring a forum for handling financial matters related to the application of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009, replacthe Technical Commission for Data Processing, the function ofConciliation Board, and the Audit Board set up by those Regulations, as well as matters related to electronic data exchange and IT tools to facilitate the application of those Regulations, replacing the function of the Technical Commission for Data Processing set up by those Regulation. The Authority may participate in their meetings.
Amendment 244 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 269 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. The Authority shall assist Member States and the Commission in matters relating to cross-border labour mobility that fall within the scope of Union legislation and the coordination of social security systems within the Union.
Amendment 290 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The objective of the Authority shall be to provide input with added value at Union level in order to contribute to ensuring fair labour mobility in the internal market, while fully respecting national competences and procedures. To this end, the Authority shall:
Amendment 304 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) supportenhance cooperation between Member States in' relevant authorities to improve more effectively the cross-border enforcement of relevant Union law, including facilitating joint inspections;
Amendment 325 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) mediate and facilitate a solutionsupport Member States in cases of cross-border disputes between national authorities or labour market disruptions.
Amendment 330 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) facilitating the exercise of the rights conferred by Article 45 TFEU and by Regulation (EU) No 492/2011;
Amendment 337 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 344 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) facilitate access to up to date information by companies, especially SMEs, wishing to provide services across the EU, avoiding duplication and reducing administrative barriers;
Amendment 352 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) coordinate and support concerted and joint inspections,national authorities in combating fraud, including by supporting the implementation of inspections in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 2014/67/EU and in accordance with Articles 9 and 10;
Amendment 367 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) mediatewithout prejudice to the role of the Administrative Commission in the application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, mediate and support national authorities in disputes between Member States' authorities on the application of relevant Union law, in accordance with Article 13;
Amendment 392 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6
Article 6
Amendment 439 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7
Article 7
Access to cross-border labour mobility 1. services to individuals and employers to facilitate labour mobility across the Union. To that end, the Authority shall: (a) initiatives supporting the cross-border mobility of individuals, including targeted mobility schemes; (b) of job, traineeship, and apprenticeship vacancies with CVs and applications for the benefit of individuals and employers, particularly via EURES; (c) initiatives and networks, such as the European Network of Public Employment Services, the European Enterprise Network and the Border Focal Point, in particular to identify and overcome cross- border obstacles to labour mobility; (d) facilitate cooperation between competent services at the national level designated in accordance with Directive 2014/54/EU to provide information, guidance and assistance to individuals and employers on cross-border mobility, and the national contact points designated in accordance with Directive 2011/24/EU to provide information on healthcare. 2. EURES European Coordination Office and ensure that it fulfils its responsibilities in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/589, except for the technical operation and development of the EURES portal and related IT services, which shall continue to be managed by the Commission. The Authority, under the responsibility of the Executive Director as set out in Article 23(4)(k), shall ensure that this activity fully complies with requirements of the applicable data protection legislation, including the requirement to appoint a Data Protection Officer, in accordance with Article 37.rticle 7 deleted services The Authority shall provide promote the development of enable the cross-border matching cooperate with other Union The Authority shall manage the
Amendment 477 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) facilitate the follow-up to reasoned requests and information exchanges between national authorities by providing logistical and technical support, including translation and interpretation services, and through exchanges on the status of cases subject to legal clearance;
Amendment 493 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point d
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point d
(d) in line with Article 6 of Directive 2014/67/EC facilitate cross-border enforcement procedures of penalties and fines;
Amendment 516 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The Authority shall support upon request of national authorities the work of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems with handling financial matters related to social security coordination, in accordance with Article 74 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Articles 65, 67 and 69 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009.
Amendment 517 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The Authority shall promoteassist Member States with the use of electronic tools and procedures for message exchange between national authorities, including the Internal Market Information (IMI) system and the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) system.
Amendment 538 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – title
Article 9 – title
Coordination of concerted and joint inspections
Amendment 540 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. At the request of one or several Member States, the Authority shall coordinate concerted or joint inspections in the areas under the scope of the Authority’s competences. The request may be submitted by one or several Member States. The Authority may also suggest to the authorities of the Member States concerned that they perform a concerted or joint inspectionsupport the national authorities in the implementation of inspections in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 2014/67/EU and in other the areas that fall under the scope of Union legislation and in respect to the competences of the Member States. The request may be submitted by one or several Member States. The Authority should provide strategic, logistical, and technical support to Member States who request it.
Amendment 562 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Where the authority of a Member State decides not to participate in or carry out the concerted ora joint inspection referred to paragraph 1, it shall inform the Aauthority in writing of the reasons for its decision duly in advance. In such cases, the Authority shall inform the other national authof the requesting Member State(s) and the Authority in writing of the reasons for ities concerneds decision duly in advance.
Amendment 568 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The organisation of a concerted or jJoint inspections shall be subject to the prior agreement of all participating Member States via their National Liaison Officers. In the event that one or more Member States refuse to take part in the concerted or joint inspection, the other national authorities may, where appropriate, only carry out the envisaged concerted or joint inspection in the participating Member States. The Member States that declined to participate in the inspection shall keep information about the envisaged inspection confidential competent national authority.
Amendment 580 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – title
Article 10 – title
Arrangements for concerted and joint inspections
Amendment 582 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Amendment 595 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Concerted and jJoint inspections and their follow- up shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the Member States concerned.
Amendment 607 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. The Authority shall provide logistical and technical support, which mayshall include translation and interpretation services, to Member States carrying out concerted or joint inspections.
Amendment 620 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. SUpon invitation by the national authorities of the participating Member States, staff of the Authority may participate in a concerted or joint inspection with the prior agreement of the Member State on whose territory they will be providing their assistance to the inspection.
Amendment 628 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. National authorities that carrying out a concerted or joint inspection in cooperation with another Member State shall report back to the Authority on the outcomes within their respective Member States and on the overall operational running of the concerted or joint inspection.
Amendment 644 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 7
Article 10 – paragraph 7
7. In the event that the Authority, in the course of concerted or joint inspections, or in the course of any of its activities, becomes aware of suspected irregularities in the application of Union law, including beyond the scope of its competences, it shall report those suspected irregularitibecomes aware of a breach in the application of Union law, it shall report those breaches to the Commission and authorities in the Member State concerned, where appropriate.
Amendment 668 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Authority shall organise peer reviews in line with Member States competences amongst national authorities and services in order to:
Amendment 671 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) examine any questions, difficulties and specific issues which might arise concerning the implementation and practical application of Union law within the scope of the Authority’s competences, including in support of the role of the Administrative Commission on Social Security, as well as its enforcement in practice;
Amendment 676 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. The Authority shall regularlyon a yearly basis analyse statistical data collected, compiled and provided by the Member States and report its findings to the Commission, as well as directly to the Member States concerned, outlining possible measures to address identified weaknesses.
Amendment 707 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. In interpreting Union law, the Authority shall follow the decisions of the Administrative Commission in the event of disputes between Member States regarding the application orf Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. In the interpretation of Union law in all other areas covered by this Regulation, the Authority may perform a mediation role.
Amendment 765 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
At the request of the national authoritiMember States, the Authority may facilitate cooperation between relevant stakeholders in order to address labour market disruptions affecting more than one Member State, such as large-scale restructuring events or major projects impacting employment in border regions.
Amendment 779 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Amendment 788 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Authority may set up working groups or expert panels with representatives from Member States and/or from the Commission, or external experts following selection procedures, for the fulfilment of its specific tasks or for specific policy areas, including a Mediation Board in order to fulfil its tasks in accordance with Article 13 of this Regulation, and a dedicated group for the purpose of handling financial matters related to the application of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009, as referred to in Article 8(2) of this Regulation.
Amendment 797 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. The Management Board shall be composed of onea list of senior representatives from each Member State and two representatives of the Commission, all of whom have voting rights. Every Member State and the Commission shall have one vote.
Amendment 827 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4
Article 18 – paragraph 4
4. The term of office for members and their alternates shall be four years. That term shall be extendablmay be renewed once.
Amendment 853 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. The term of office of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson shall be for a minimum period of one year and a maximum period of four years. Their term of office may be renewed once. Where, however, their membership of the Management Board ends at any time during their term of office, their term of office shall automatically expire on that date.
Amendment 855 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 3
Article 21 – paragraph 3
3. The Management Board shall hold at least twofour ordinary meetings per year. In addition, it shall meet at the request of its Chairperson, at the request of the Commission, or at the request of at least one-third of its members.
Amendment 919 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33
Article 33
Amendment 922 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1
Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. In addition to the National Liaison Officers, tThe Authority may make use in any areas of its work of other seconded national experts or other staff not employed by the Authority.
Amendment 923 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2
Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. The Management Board shall adopt the necessary implementing arrangements for seconded national experts, including National Liaison Officers.
Amendment 927 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1
Article 41 – paragraph 1
1. No later than five years after the date referred to in Article 51, and every five years thereafter, the Commissionthe Commission's accounting officer shall submit the Authority's accounts to the Court of Auditors, together with a report on the budgetary and financial management. The Court of Auditors shall assess the Authority's performance in relation to its objectives, mandate and tasks. The evaluation shall, in particular, address the possible need to modify the mandate of the Authority, and the financial implications of any such modification, including by further synergies and streamlining with Agencies active in the area of employment and social policy.
Amendment 929 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 41 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Every five years thereafter, the Court of Auditors shall assess the Authority's performance in relation to its objectives, mandate and tasks. Based on this evaluation, the Commission together with the Member States shall propose that this Regulation be amended accordingly or repealed.
Amendment 930 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2
Article 41 – paragraph 2
2. Where the CommissionFollowing the evaluation referred to in Paragraph 1 and where the Court of Auditors considers that the continuation of the Authority is no longer justified with regard to its assigned objectives, mandate and tasks, it maythe Commission together with the Member States shall propose that this Regulation be amended accordingly or repealed.
Amendment 940 #
Amendment 957 #
Amendment 41 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas according to Eurostat (2017) from 2013 to 2016 involuntary part-time employment in the EU-28 as a percentage of the total part-time employment has decreased from 26% to 24.6%;
Amendment 49 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the primary responsibility for tackling youth unemployment rests with the Member States in terms of developing and implementing labour market regulatory frameworks, education and training systems and active labour market policies;
Amendment 56 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas in some Member States, unemployment remains high due to a lack of growth and structural weakness that derive to a large extent from ineffective and in many cases rigid labour market regulatory frameworks; Believes in this regard that insufficient labour market reforms are the main reason for high unemployment;
Amendment 57 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas other Member States are faced with structural challenges in the labour market such as low participation as well as skills and qualification mismatches; whereas there is a growing need for concrete measures for the integration or re-integration of inactive workforce to meet labour market demands;
Amendment 80 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas wage-setting is a matter of national competence;
Amendment 83 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
Recital H b (new)
Hb. whereas the provision and management of social security systems are a Member State competence which the Union coordinates but does not harmonise;
Amendment 86 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H c (new)
Recital H c (new)
Hc. whereas the capacity of the EU's economy to drive long-term growth is below that of our major competitors; whereas the Commission has estimated that potential growth is around 1.4% in the EU, compared with of 2% in the US;
Amendment 109 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that reforms to social protections systems by the Member States must aim to facilitate labour market participation for those who can work, by making work pay; stresses in this regard that income support should be targeted at those most in need;
Amendment 119 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the Interinstitutional Proclamation on the European Pillar of Social Rights and believes its 20 key principles regarding equal opportunities and access to the labour market, fair working conditions and social protection and inclusion should serve as a point of reference when implementing the European Semester policy coordination cycle; stresses that these principles must not be used as a vehicle for further initiatives at EU level which clearly fall within the competence of the member states;
Amendment 140 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its concern at the level of youth unemployment, which remains high, with the number of NEETs having stagnated; welcomstresses, in this respect, an increase in funding for the gard the European Court of Auditors special report no. 5 "Youth EUnemployment Initiative by EUR 2.4 billion for the period 2017-2020- have EU policies made a difference" which emphasises that expectations on the YEI need to be managed and interventions should be redesigned in light of the available funding and based on better gap assessments and market analyses;
Amendment 148 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that the YEI was designed as a temporary response to an economic crisis and should not become a permanent transfer mechanism;
Amendment 186 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to take all the necessary measurespropose appropriate measures in line with the principle of subsidiarity to improve the services and national legislation that areis important for a improperving work-life balance; calls for the development of accessible and affordable childcare and early education services, and for the creation of favourable conditions for parents and carers by allowing for advantageous family leave take-up and flexible working arrangements which tap into the potential of new technologies; underlines, in this respect, the potential of public-private partnerships;
Amendment 194 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on Member States to ensure that active labour market policies are efficient and effective and are designed to support mobility between sectors and the re-training of workers, which will become increasingly important as our labour markets adapt to the digital transformation of our economies;
Amendment 202 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recognises that women continue to be under represented in the labour market; believes in this regard that flexible employment contracts including voluntary temporary and part-time contracts can play an important role in increasing the levels of participation from groups that might otherwise have been excluded from the labour market including women;
Amendment 207 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to invest in research and promote the development of new production technologies and services; underlines their potential to increase productivity, create new jobs and stimulate long-term growth;
Amendment 239 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Underlines the fact that the non- alignment of labour demand with labour supply is a problem that encompasses all EU regions, including the most developed; calls on the Commission and the Member States to tackle this issue by introducing measures to facilitate the mobility of workers across jobs, sectors and locations in order to meet labour demand in less and better developed regions alike; acknowledges that intra EU labour mobility across member states helps to meet supply and demand but stresses that high labour mobility can bring social stress on receiving regions; calls on the Commission and the Member States, furthermore, to devote particular attention to the unique circumstances of cross-border workers and workers in peripheral regions;
Amendment 244 #
2017/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Believes that in order to maintain and increase global competitiveness, the labour market regulatory framework in Member States needs to be clear, simple and flexible while maintaining high labour standards;
Amendment 7 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines that these additional resources must not violate the principle of subsidiarity, crowd out private investments or replace national measures;
Amendment 15 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that youth unemployment rates remain very high in the Union and that the situation of unemployed young people, especially the persons who are not in education, employment, or training (NEETS), is particularly worrying; emphasises that, in order to address this issue, it is of high importance to ensure the proper and timely funding of the Youth Guarantee schemes through the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) and the European Social Fundin this context emphasises that this task can best be addressed by the Member States because they are closer to the problem; believes that by consistent adherence to the subsidiarity principle and increased efficiency, considerable savings can be accomplished without more contributions required from Member States;
Amendment 19 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 24 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 32 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomCriticises the EUR 72,8 million funding proposed by the Commission for the European Solidarity Corpse (appropriations are to be entered into the reserve until such time as the basic act is adopted by the legislator), EUR 2,5 million being provided in 2018 by the Progress axis of the EaSisince already today young people all over Europe express their solidarity in various projects, including the European Voluntary Service; repeats that this also raises the question of whether the European Union is actually taking action against the high rate of youth unemployment in some countries or whether it only creates another option for job-seekers and young people to do internships;
Amendment 9 #
2017/2002(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Emphasizes in this context that education policy represents a core competence of the Member States and that the European Union should focus on elements with a cross border dimension;
Amendment 22 #
2017/2002(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that closing the skills gap and mismatches in the labour market and promoting opportunities for social mobility, including for vocational training and apprenticeships, is essential to ensure sustainable growth and jobs creation, in particular for SMEs and crafts, if pursued on a regional or national level;
Amendment 29 #
2017/2002(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 36 #
2017/2002(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Underlines that labour markets differ significantly between Member States and even between regions, hence the Commission should provide coordinating support only; underlines that an overall increase of EU funds or EU programmes may not meet demands on a subsidiary level;
Amendment 38 #
2017/2002(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Asks the Commission to come forward with a methodology for the recognition of the new digital professions and to make provision for appropriate funding for the new educational framework for digital skills.
Amendment 18 #
2017/0334(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Strengthening economic and social cohesion by reinforcing structural reforms is crucial for successful participation in the Economic and Monetary Union. That is particularly; cohesion is even more important for Member States already participating in the Economic and Monetary Union because they suffer even more from asymmetric shocks as they lack the instrument of exchange rate flexibility. It is important for Member States whose currency is not the euro, in their preparation to join the euro area but more so for Member States within the monetary union.
Amendment 23 #
2017/0334(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) It is thus appropriate to stressnote in the general objective of the Programme – within its contribution towards responding to economic and social challenges – that enhancing cohesion, competitiveness, productivity, sustainable growth, and job creation should also contribute to the preparations for future participation in the euro area by those Member States whose currency is not the euro.
Amendment 31 #
2017/0334(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to meet the growing demand for support from Member States, and in view of the need to support the implementation of structural reforms in all Member States whose currency is notbut especially those with structural weaknesses within the eEuro area, the financial allocation for the Programme shcould be increased to a sufficient level that allows the Union to provide support that meets the needs of the requesting Member States. Any increase should be made by identifying efficiencies and savings elsewhere within existing budget lines. It is also important that the Programme should be of a temporary character and should not inadvertently dis-incentivise additional action by the Member States. Reporting and evaluation in terms of concrete results is particularly important as it otherwise will be difficult to attribute the reforms taken place to the Programme.
Amendment 37 #
2017/0334(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) 2017/825
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
The general objective of the Programme shall be to contribute to institutional, administrative and growth-sustaining structural reforms in the Member States by providing support to national authorities for measures aimed at reforming and strengthening institutions, governance, public administration, and economic and social sectors in response to economic and social challenges, with a view to enhancing cohesion, competitiveness, productivity, sustainable growth, job creation, and investment, which will alsocould, in some cases, prepare for participation in the euro area but in general focusing on vulnerable countries within the euro area, in particular in the context of economic governance processes, including through assistance for the efficient, effective and transparent use of the Union funds.;
Amendment 150 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Personal pensions are important in linking long-term savers with long-term investment opportunities. A larger, European market for personal pensions will support the supply of funds for institutional investors and investment into the real economy.; warns that this might benefit larger and more liquid markets of bigger countries more than smaller markets and that this might hurt convergence within the EU and the Euro-system;
Amendment 153 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Currently, the functioning of the internal market for personal pensions is impeded by the high degree of fragmentation between national markets and the limited degree of portability of personal pension products. This can result in difficulties for individuals to make use of their basic freedoms. For instance, they may be prevented from taking up a job or retiring in another Member State. In addition, the possibility for providers to use the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services is hampered by the lack of standardisation of existing personal pension products.; points out that there is a good supply of working products in several national markets and that the existing products should not be discriminated by tax rules or new regulation;
Amendment 156 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The Capital Markets Union (CMU) will help mobilise capital in Europethe EU and channel it to all companies, including small and medium enterprises, infrastructure and long term sustainable projects that need it to expand and create jobs. One of the main objectives of the CMU is to increase investment and choices for retail investors by putting European savings to better use.savings in the EU to better use. Warns that this might benefit larger and more liquid markets of bigger countries more than smaller markets and that this might hurt convergence within the EU and the Euro-system;
Amendment 161 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) A legislative framework for a PEPP will lay the foundations for a successful market in affordable and voluntary retirement-related investments that can be managed on a pan-European scale. By complementing the existing pension products and schemestatutory and occupational pension schemes and products, it will contribute to meeting the needs of people wishing to enhance the adequacy of their retirement savings, addressing the demographical challenge and providing a powerful new source of private capital for long-term investment. This framework will not replace or harmonise existing national personal pension schemes. , nor will it affect existing national statutory and occupational pension schemes and products. The PEPP will neither directly nor indirectly be linked to the occupation or the employment status of the PEPP saver.
Amendment 165 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) A legislative framework for a PEPP will lay the foundations for a successful market in affordable and voluntary retirement-related investments that can be managed on a pan-European scale. By complementing the existing pension products and schemes, it will contribute to meeting the needs of people wishing to enhance the adequacy of their retirement savings, addressing the demographical challenge and providing a powerful new source of private capital for long-term investment. This framework willmust not replace or harmonise existing national personal pension schemes.
Amendment 168 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The Regulation harmonises a set of core features for the PEPP, which concern key elements such as distribution, investment policy, provider switching, or cross-border provision and portability. Tax treatment of the PEPP, which could be considered as a core feature, will remain a competence of each Member State. The harmonisation of these core features will improve the level playing field for personal pension providers at large and help boost the completion of the CMU and the integration of the internal market for personal pensions. It will lead to the creation of a largely standardised pan- European product, available in all Member States, empowering consumers to make full use of the internal market by transferring their pension rights abroad and offering a broader choice between different types of providers, including in a cross- border way. As a result of fewer barriers to the provision of pension services across borders, a pan-European Personal Pension Product will increase competition between providers on a pan-European basis and create economies of scale that should benefit savers.
Amendment 174 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure a high quality of service and effective consumer protection, home and host Member States of the provider and distributors of PEPPs should closely cooperate in the enforcement of the obligations set out in this Regulation. Where PEPP providers and distributors pursue business in different Member States under the freedom to provide services, the competent authority of the home Member State should be responsible for ensuring compliance with the obligations set out in this Regulation, because of its closer links with the PEPP provider. In order to ensure fair sharing of responsibilities between the competent authorities from the home and the host Member States, if the competent authority of a host Member State becomes aware of any breaches of obligations occurring within its territory, it should inform the competent authority of the home Member State which should then be obliged to take the appropriate measures. Moreover, the competent authority of the host Member State should be entitled to intervene if the home Member State fails to take appropriate measures or if the measures taken are insufficient.
Amendment 176 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In the case of the establishment of a branch or a permanent presence in another Member State, it is appropriate to distribute responsibility for enforcement between home and host Member States. While responsibility for compliance with obligations affecting the business as a whole – such as the rules on professional requirements – should remain with the competent authority of the home Member State under the same regime as in the case of provision of services, the competent authority of the host Member State should assume responsibility for enforcing the rules on information requirements and conduct of business with regard to the services provided within its territory. However, where the competent authority of a host Member State becomes aware of any breaches of obligations occurring within its territory with respect to which this Directive does not confer responsibility on the host Member State, a close cooperation demands that that authority informs the competent authority of the home Member State so that the latter takes the appropriate measures. Such is the case in particular as regards breaches of the rules on good repute, professional knowledge and competence requirements. Moreover, in view of protecting consumers, the competent authority of the host Member State should be entitled to intervene if the home Member State fails to take appropriate measures or if the measures taken are insufficient. The responsibility of the home Member State is such that any damages to consumers or failures by PEPP providers may only be covered by the home Member State and not the host Member State. The home Member State will be responsible for insurance requirements for the PEPP providers.
Amendment 177 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In the case of the establishment of a branch or a permanent presence in another Member State, it is appropriate to distribute responsibility for enforcement between home and host Member States. While responsibility for compliance with obligations affecting the business as a whole – such as the rules on professional requirements – should remain with the competent authority of the home Member State under the same regime as in the case of provision of services, the competent authority of the host Member State should assume responsibility for enforcing the rules on information requirements, advertisements and conduct of business with regard to the services provided within its territory. However, where the competent authority of a host Member State becomes aware of any breaches of obligations occurring within its territory with respect to which this Directive does not confer responsibility on the host Member State, a close cooperation demands that that authority informs the competent authority of the home Member State so that the latter takes the appropriate measures. Such is the case in particular as regards breaches of the rules on good repute, professional knowledge and competence requirements. Moreover, in view of protecting consumers, the competent authority of the host Member State should be entitled to intervene if the home Member State fails to take appropriate measures or if the measures taken are insufficient.
Amendment 180 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The pan-European dimension of the PEPP can be developed not only at the level of the provider, through the possibilities for its cross-border activity, but also at the level of the PEPP saver – through the portability of the PEPP, thus contributing to the safeguarding of personal pension rights of persons exercising their right to free movement under Articles 21 and 45 TFEU. Portability involves the PEPP saver changing residence to another Member State without changing PEPP providers, whereas the switching of PEPP providers does not necessarily involve a change of residence. The PEPP provider taking up an existing contract from another PEPP provider may only do so based on the current market value of its assets. If assets are illiquid the uptaking PEPP provider may reject the demand of the consumer trying to switch providers.
Amendment 184 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) In order to allow a smooth transition for PEPP providers, the obligation of providing PEPPs comprising compartments for eachat least 8 Member States will apply three years after the entry into force of this Regulation. However, upon launching a PEPP, the provider should provide information on which national compartments are immediately available, in order to avoid a possible misleading of consumers.
Amendment 189 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Taking into account the nature of the pension scheme established and the administrative burden involved, PEPP providers and distributors should provide clear and adequate information to potential PEPP savers and PEPP beneficiaries to support their decision-making about their retirement. For the same reason, PEPP providers and distributors should equally ensure a high level of transparency throughout the various phases of a scheme comprising pre-enrolment, membership (including pre-retirement) and post- retirement. In particular, information concerning accrued pension entitlements, projected levels of retirement benefits, risks and guarantees, and costs should be given. Where projected levels of retirement benefits are based on economic scenarios, that information should also include an unfavourable scenario, which should be extreme but plausiblethe information that this investment could cause considerable losses.
Amendment 192 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Before joining a PEPP scheme, potential PEPP savers should be given all the necessary information to make an informed choice including information about other available pension products that are not based on PEPP rules. Transparency of costs and fees is essential to develop PEPP savers’ trust and allow them to make informed choices. Accordingly, the use of non-transparent pricing methods should be prohibited.
Amendment 202 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 a (new)
Recital 29 a (new)
(29a) The payout phase will start at the earliest at 65 years of age. This is to discourage savers with bad risk due to health issues to move to the Member State with the lowest possible pension age.
Amendment 203 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 b (new)
Recital 29 b (new)
Amendment 204 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) PEPP providers should inform PEPP savers sufficiently in advance before retirement about their pay-out options. Where the retirement benefit is not paid out as a lifetime annuity, members approaching retirement should receive information about the benefit payment products available, in order to facilitate financial planning for retireThe payout will be a lifetime annuity but up to 30% of the value can be paid out as a lump-sum payment.
Amendment 211 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) By setting the prudent person rule as the underlying principle for capital investment and making it possible for PEPP providers to operate across borders, the redirection of savings into the sector of personal retirement provision is encouraged, and thereby should contributinge to economic and social progress.
Amendment 213 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) This Regulation should ensure an appropriate level of investment freedom for PEPP providers. As very long-term investors with low liquidity risks, PEPP providers are in a position to contribute to the development of the CMU by investing in non-liquid assets such as shares and in other instruments that have a long-term economic profile and are not traded on regulated markets, multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) or organised trading facilities (OTFs) within prudent limits. They can also benefit from the advantages of international diversification. Investments in shares in currencies other than those of the liabilities and in other instruments that have a long-term economic profile and are not traded on regulated markets, MTFs or OTFs should therefore not be restricted, in line with the prudent person rule so as to protect the interest of PEPP savers and PEPP beneficiaries, except on prudential grounds. The PEPP provider taking up an existing contract from another PEPP provider may only do so based on the current market value of its assets. If assets are illiquid the uptaking PEPP provider may reject the demand of the consumer trying to switch providers.
Amendment 224 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) The default investment option should allow the PEPP saver to recoup the invested capital. Capital guarantees may only be given by the home country of the PEPP provider and by the countries of the compartments, but not at an EU level. The PEPP providers cshould in addition include an inflation indexation mechanism to at least partly cover inflation.
Amendment 227 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) Where theAny PEPP provider is an institution for occupational retirement provision or an investment firm, it should appoint a depositary in relation to the safe- keeping of its assets. This is necessary for protecting consumers, since the sectorial legislation applicable to institutions for occupational retirement provision and investment firms does not provide for the appointment of a depositary.
Amendment 230 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
Recital 42
Amendment 236 #
2017/0143(COD)
(47) In order to find better conditions for their investments, thus also stimulating the competition among PEPP providers, PEPP savers should have the right to switch providers during the accumulation and the decumulation phases, through a clear, quick and safe procedure.
Amendment 240 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
Recital 50
(50) The cooperation of the transferring PEPP provider is necessary in order for the switching to be successful. Therefore, the receiving PEPP provider should be provided by the transferring PEPP provider with all the information necessary to reinstate the payments on the other PEPP account. However, such information should not exceed what is necessary in order to carry out the switching. What information is required will be determined by EIOPA.
Amendment 242 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Recital 53
(53) PEPP savers should be given the freedom to decide upon subscription of a PEPP about their pay-out choice (annuities, lump sum, or other) in the decumulation phase, but with a possibility to revise their choice once every five years thereafter, in order to be able to best adapt their pay-out choice to their needs when they near retire. The payout will be a lifetime annuity but up to 30% of the value can be paid out as a lump-sum payment.
Amendment 244 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
Amendment 249 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) EIOPA should, with the respect of subsidiarity and proportionality principles, cooperate with national competent authorities and facilitate cooperation between them. In this respect, EIOPA should play a role in the power of competent national authorities to apply supervisory measures by providing evidence about PEPP-related infringements. EIOPA should also provide binding mediation in the event of disagreement between competent authorities in cross-border situations.
Amendment 256 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68
Recital 68
(68) This Regulation should not be understood as obliging Member States to apply to PEPPs the same tax rules as they would apply to comparable personal pension products under their national laws. However, in application of the national treatment principle, stemming from Articles 21 and 45 of the TFEU and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Unionnational court systems, it shcould be possible for a PEPP that is objectively comparable to a personal pension product (PPP) distributed in a given Member State to benefit from the same tax relief granted to the PPP in this Member State, if the PEPP saver there is subject to tax. This also applies if the PEPP is provided by a provider from another Member State. The final decision on this rests with the governments of the Member States and their judicial systems.
Amendment 257 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 69
Recital 69
(69) Following the launch of the PEPP, Member States are encouraged to take into consideration Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/… and to extend the benefits of the tax advantages they grant to national PPPs also to the PEPP. However, it is reaffirmed that taxation policy is a Member State competence and therefore any decision to grant tax relief to the PEPP remains with each Member State.
Amendment 263 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) is neither directly nor indirectly linked to the occupation or the employment status of the individual saver;
Amendment 283 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
(ii) the provisions of Member States’ laws which would apply to a comparable personal pension product manufactured and distributed in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the manufacturwhere the PEPP saver has its rlegistered offial residence.
Amendment 287 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 323 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. EIOPA shall withdraw the authorisation of a PEPP in the event that the conditions for granting this authorisation are no longer fulfilled. The withdrawal decision may be appealed within 14 days to the national courts. It is of utmost importance to ensure that the saver will not suffer any financial loss following the withdrawal decision.
Amendment 352 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Three years at the latest after the entry into application of this Regulation, each PEPP shall offer national compartments for allt least eight Member States upon request addressed to the PEPP provider.
Amendment 437 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24a Advertisements 1. Any advertisement relating to a PEPP shall comply with the principles contained in paragraphs 2 and 3. 2. Advertisements shall be clearly recognisable as such. The information contained in an advertisement shall not be inaccurate or misleading and shall be consistent with the information contained in the PEPP key information document, where already published, or with the information required to be in the PEPP key information document, where the PEPP key information document is yet to be published. 3. All information disclosed in an oral or written form concerning a PEPP, even where not for advertising purposes, shall be consistent with the information contained in the PEPP key information document. 4. The competent authority of the Member State where the advertisements are disseminated shall have the power to exercise control over the compliance, of advertising activity relating to a PEPP, with paragraphs 2 and 3 and with applicable national law. 5. The use of any of the supervisory and investigatory powers referred to in Article 54 in relation to the enforcement of this Article by the competent authority of a host Member State of the PEPP provider shall be communicated without undue delay to the competent authority of the home Member State of the PEPP provider.
Amendment 455 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Where PEPP savers or potential PEPP savers do not provide the information referred to in the first subparagraph, or where they provide insufficient information regarding their knowledge and experience, the PEPP provider or distributor shall warn them that it is not in a position to determine whether the PEPP envisaged is appropriate for them. That warning mayust be provided in a written, standardised format.
Amendment 462 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – point d
Amendment 510 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The decumulation phase can start at the earliest at the age of 65. All PEPP contracts are strictly personal and end at the time of death of the PEPP saver. There will be no payments to relatives or inheritances because of the diverging national laws. All persons in relationships are advised to set up several individual contracts.
Amendment 540 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
Article 38 – paragraph 1
Amendment 543 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 38 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. There can be an alternative investment option based on a life-cycling model that would have greater risk and greater reward at earlier stages of the contract while respecting prudential regulation. The PEPP provider has to inform the PEPP saver that this investment strategy might incur losses.
Amendment 555 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1
Article 41 – paragraph 1
1. Where theAny PEPP provider is an institution for occupational retirement provision or an investment firm as referred to in Article 5(1), it shall appoint one or more depositaries for the safe- keeping of assets and oversight duties.
Amendment 559 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3
Article 43 – paragraph 3
3. PEPP providers and distributors shall make every possible effort to reply, on paper or by email or, if agreed between the PEPP provider or distributor and the PEPP customer, on another durable medium, to the PEPP customers’ complaints. The reply shall address all points raised, within an adequate timeframe and at the latest within 15 business days of receipt of the complaint. In exceptional situations, if the answer cannot be given within 15 business days for reasons beyond the control of the PEPP provider or distributor, it shall be required to send a holding reply, clearly indicating the reasons for a delay in answering to the complaint and specifying the deadline by which the PEPP customer will receive the final reply. In any event, the deadline for receiving the final reply shall not exceed 35 business days.
Amendment 568 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
At the age of 65 years the PEPP saver must chose the Member State where the PEPP pension will be paid out. After this age switching of PEPP providers will no longer be possible to avoid problems with divergences in national regulations. At this time assets must be consolidated into one compartment. If the PEPP saver does not change PEPP providers at this latest moment the last country of residence will be chosen automatically.
Amendment 608 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. PEPP providers may make available to PEPP savers one or more of the following forms of out-The pay-out will be a lifetime annuity but up to 30% of the value can be paid out as a lump-sum payments:.
Amendment 609 #
Amendment 610 #
Amendment 611 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 612 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 614 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2
Article 52 – paragraph 2
Amendment 627 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) maximum administrative fines of at least EUR 5 000 000, or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on [date of entry into force of this Regulation];the competent national authority is responsible to set administrative fines.
Amendment 629 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point e
Amendment 630 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point f
Amendment 1 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
- having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;
Amendment 11 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
- having regard to the Commission communication of 22 November 2016 entitled 'Europe's next leaders: the Start- up and Scale-up Initiative' (COM(2016)733);
Amendment 22 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 48 a (new)
Citation 48 a (new)
- - having regards to the fifth and sixth European working conditions survey 2010 and 2015. 1a __________________ 1a http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/europea n-working-conditions-surveys-ewcs
Amendment 49 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. Whereas the primary responsibility for tackling youth unemployment rests with the Member States in terms of developing and implementing labour market regulatory frameworks, education and training systems and active labour market policies;
Amendment 52 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
C b. Whereas structural challenges in the labour market such as low participation as well as skills and qualification mismatches remain a concern in many member states;
Amendment 53 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
C c. Whereas wage-setting is and needs to continue to be a matter of national competence;
Amendment 91 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. Whereas the provision and management of social security systems are a Member State competence which the Union coordinates but does not harmonise;
Amendment 109 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Supports the Commission concept of the "virtuous triangle of investment, structural reforms and responsible public finances"; warns that structural reforms are lagging in some member countries; warns that deficit criteria are being broken in some member states and sometimes regularly;
Amendment 112 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Highlights that public and private debt is too high in some member states which prevents investment, economic growth and employment;
Amendment 114 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Highlights that continual disregard of EU deficit rules by some member states is undermining the rule of law at EU level which erodes trust among member states; stresses that the current situation is not a good basis for further economic integration;
Amendment 146 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Recognises that women continue to be under represented in the labour market; believes in this regard that flexible employment contracts including voluntary temporary and part-time contracts can play an important role in increasing the levels of participation from groups that might otherwise have been excluded from the labour market including women;
Amendment 148 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Calls on Member States to exchange best practice and to consider new innovative ways of developing an adaptable and flexible labour market to meet the challenges of a global economy while ensuring high labour standards for all workers;
Amendment 255 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Highlights the importance of the EFSI insofar as it permits improvedWarns that EFSI is the wrong tool to increase social and economic convergence of Member States and their regions within the Union; calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States are fully using the possibility of accessing this fund as it is based on project quality alone; reminds that most projects are being approved in the economically more healthy regions of western Europe; asks the Commission to help the weaker regions with the application process but not modify the basic premise to select projects only based on quality; calls on the Commission to monitor and control investments under the EFSI and to measure their economic and social impact;
Amendment 310 #
2016/2307(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Member States to set minimum social standards based on their own country-specific requirements;
Amendment 8 #
2016/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Believes that one of the greatest challenges is the capacity of regions and partners to use and access EU funding streams, stresses in this regard the importance of investing in capacity both in terms of identification and application of funding opportunities and most importantly the administration of Structural and Investment funds;
Amendment 46 #
2016/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses the importance of EU added value which is one of the core principles against which spending options at EU level should be assessed; believes in this regard that all European Structural and Investment funding must be used in a way that adds value to the work already undertaken by the Member States;
Amendment 49 #
2016/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Firmly believes that ESIF should not be used to subsidise national approaches, but should be used to provide additional support via partner organisations in a way that complements and enhances national programmes according to the decision of the Member States;
Amendment 51 #
2016/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Calls for ESIF funded programmes to allow for appropriate flexibility in their design in order to allow Member States and partner organisation implement individualised support in line with local needs, without compromising on audit and control;
Amendment 2 #
2016/2271(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission communication on ‘'Digitising European Industry’' (COM(2016)0180); recalls the objective of raising the contribution of industry to EU GDP to 20 % by 2020; underlines the important role that digitalisation canwill play in this context and the urgent need to establish an ambitious EU strategystrategies in order to attract private investments;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2271(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the need for adequate investment in research and innovation, infrastructures, cybersecurity and digital skills digital skills and the strengthening of an entrepreneurial culture in the public sphere;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2271(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Promotes European coordination in the field of cybersecurity, in order to protect critical public infrastructure;
Amendment 25 #
2016/2271(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Urges not to crowd out free-market solutions by means of public financing and not to stifle innovation through discriminatory financial regulation;
Amendment 32 #
2016/2271(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the need to accelerate an effective plan fEncourages the private sector standardisation and to ensure full interoperability in the digital domain; calls on the Commission to promote the development of open standards in all key domains, and welcomes its intention to guarantee access to standard essential patents under FRAND (fair, reasonable and non- discriminatory) conditions; reminds the Commission of the need to consider social and environmental aspects in the development of standards, and to ensure adequate participation of social partners a all stakeholders to rely on market competition as a basis to develop international standards in order to avoid purely European solutions and foster integration of European ind ustakeholderry in worldwide supply chains;
Amendment 54 #
2016/2271(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the very important consequences and urges to focus on potential benefits of industry digitalisation for society, business models, working conditions and jobs demand; regrets the lack of analysis on the part of the Commission of the social effects of the digitisation of industry;
Amendment 62 #
2016/2271(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers it necessary for the Member States according to their individual requirements to ensure high- quality education, lifelong learning and vocational training, including in the field of basic and advanced digital qualifications and skills.
Amendment 900 #
2016/2114(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 15 – paragraph 1
Rule 15 – paragraph 1
The President, Vice-Presidents and Quaestors shall be elected by secret ballot, in accordance with Rule 182. Nominations shall be with consent. They may only be made by a political group or by at least 40 Members. However, if the number of nominations does not exceed the number of seats to be filled, the candidates may be elected by acclamation. Members shall be permitted to serve a maximum of two terms in the office of President pursuant to Rule 19(1), regardless of whether they are served consecutively or not.
Amendment 13 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the country-specific recommendations (CSRs) demonstrate the differences that exist between Member States and the difficulties in creating a one-size-fits all solution; argues that the Member States should continue to give priority to reforms tailored to their own policy bottlenecks that will strengthen their economic recovery, competitiveness and job creation by making a commitment to investment, implementing structural reforms and taking an approach based on fiscal and budgetary responsibility;
Amendment 46 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that economic growth should guarantee a positive social impactbe conducive to social fairness; welcomes the introduction of the three new headline social indicators in the macroeconomic imbalances procedure; reiterates the call for these to be placed on an equal footing with existing economic indicatorindicators to be duly taken into account in order to better capture the employment and social dimension of the adjustment processes, thereby guaranteeensuring that internal imbalances are better assessed and making structural reforms more effective; calls, in this connection, for a social imbalances procedure to be introduced;
Amendment 51 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recognises that the Commission has initiated work on the establishment of a European Pillar of Social Rights which seeks to deliver a deeper and fairer EMU; highlights in this regard the five Presidents Report which recognises that there are no one size fits all solution;
Amendment 54 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Recognises that setting of wages is a Member State competence which must be respected in line with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 57 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Stresses that the provision and management of social security systems are a Member State competence which the Union coordinates but does not harmonise;
Amendment 68 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for a strong commitment to promoting the Juncker Plan (EFSI) in Member States with a low level of participation; stresses in this regard the importance of ensuring that the rules governing the EFSI funded programmes are fully adhered to;
Amendment 80 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Firmly believes that urgent action is needed to ensure that Member States workforce has the necessary skills to keep pace with the fast-changing global labour market;
Amendment 85 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recognises the significant progress made by thunwillingness or inability of some Member States into implementing structural reforms, while nevertheless taking the viewbelieves that further progressaction is necessary: in those member states;
Amendment 97 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that Member States should take on board the realities of the single market and the digital single market which will bring new opportunities and challenges, and that future reforms must be of benefit to workers, businesses and consumers alike;
Amendment 102 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Strongly believes that a more business and employment friendly regulatory environment will encourage greater private investment, growth and job creation;
Amendment 103 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Points out that the economic and social crisis began in 2008 and has not yet been overcome; firmly believes that this crisis cannot be considered a temporary shock; whereas Euro-zone member states cannot devalue their own currency and therefor stresses the need for greater labour market flexibility; outlines that member states unable to regain their competitiveness should be able to temporarily withdraw from the Euro- zone;
Amendment 121 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Believes that the lowering of administrative burdens and compliance costs on businesses, especially SMEs, and repealing unnecessary legislation, while continuing to ensure high standards of consumer, employee, health and environmental protection is key to delivering growth and jobs;
Amendment 126 #
2016/2101(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for account to be taken of the challenges that have been emerging in the EU since 201508, which have required serious adaptation efforts; callsbelieves that if any onf the Commission not to apply any sanctions to the Member States in 2016reforms outlined in the CSRs and the Five Presidents Report are to be implemented, all member states must be held to account including though the use of sanctions without exceptions;
Amendment 56 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)
Citation 15 a (new)
– having regard to Eurofound’s European Industrial Relation Dictionary,
Amendment 57 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16
Citation 16
Amendment 94 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union needs a paradigm shift towards a strong European social model based onconsists of 28 social models all of which to seek to deliver solidarity, social justice, a fair distribution of wealth, gender equality, a high-quality public education system, quality employment and sustainable growth - a model that ensures; whereas the EU can add value to these models by supporting and encouraging new initiatives that will deliver good social protection for all, empowers vulnerable groups, enhances participation in civil and political life, and improves the living standards for all citizens, delivering on the objectives and rights set out in the EU Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Social Charter;
Amendment 130 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Commission is expected to come forwhas set out that the purpose of the Social Pillard ins the spring of 2017 with a proposal for a binding European Pillar of Social Righto support well-functioning and fair labour markets and welfare systems within the Eurozone Member States;
Amendment 146 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. Whereas the provision and management of social security systems are a Member State competence which the Union coordinates but does not harmonise;
Amendment 152 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. Whereas the setting of wages is a Member State competence;
Amendment 159 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) cannot be limited to a declaration of principles or good intentions but must consist of real matter (legislation, policy-making mechanisms and financial instruments), delivering positive impact on citizens’ lives in the short term and enabling support for European construction in the 21st century by effectively upholding social rights and Treaty objectives, strengthening cohesion and upward convergence, and helping to complete EMUhelp to measure the employment and social performance of participating Member States, to drive reforms at national level and, to drive convergence within Eurozone Member States;
Amendment 223 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Amendment 228 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 260 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recognises the Commissions intention to modernise the existing acquis; believes that in the context of the Better Regulation Agenda, it is important to ensure that EU legislation remains fit for purpose given the rapid change of the world of work, societal developments and scientific knowledge over the last decade;
Amendment 268 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Considers that, where the need for action at EU level in the area of employment and social affairs has been clearly identified and fully respects the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, that a set of indicators to identify the full compliance costs as well as administrative costs of any such legislative act should be applied in order to better assess its impact;
Amendment 271 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
Amendment 277 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Calls for decisive steps towards legal certainty on what constitutes ‘employment’, also for work intermediated by digital platforms; underlines that open-ended contracts should remain the norm githe Commission to use measures including the use of benchmarks, and to review, update and improven their importance for socio-economic security; calls for the directive on fair working conditions to include relevant minimum standards to be ensured in more precarious forms of employment, in particular: enforcement of existing pieces of legislation in order to help Member States address the emerging opportunities and challenges;
Amendment 300 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point a
Paragraph 4 – point a
Amendment 320 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point b
Paragraph 4 – point b
Amendment 336 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point c
Paragraph 4 – point c
Amendment 357 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises the need for renewedHighlights the Commissions intention to promote upward social convergence in wages throughout the EU; calls on the Commission to actively support a wider coverage for collective bargaining;encourage Member States to considers that to ensure decente benefits of developing policies on living wages, and minimum wages set at a decent level are necessary; recommends the establishment of national wage floors through legislation or collective bargaining, with the objective of attaining at least 60 % of the respe; Stresses the importance of the exchange of best practivce national average wagein this regard;
Amendment 387 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 404 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Eagerly awaits the outcome of the public consultation on the Working Time Directive; believes that the Commission should produce its detailed impact assessment on the Directive as a matter of urgency;
Amendment 407 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the importance of collective rights; expects the Commission to step up concrete support for strengthening social dialogue in Member States and sectors where it is weak owing to the prolonged crisis or the prevalence of non-standard forms of employmentEncourages the Commission to work with Member States to promote both competitiveness and fairness by for example strengthening social dialogue;
Amendment 461 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Commission to introduce a clear distinction between workers, job seekers and the economically inactive based on recent Court of Justice case law, which upheld the fundamental principle that the right to freedom of movement does not give automatic entitlement to social benefits;
Amendment 506 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 537 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls for a European framework forMember States to consider the strong socio-economic arguments in favour of introducing minimum income schemes; highlights the importance of such schemes for maintaining human dignity as well as their role as a form of social investments enabling people to undertake training and/or look for work;
Amendment 570 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 588 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers child poverty to be a major issue on which Europe should ‘act big’; calls for the swift implementation of a Child Guarantee in all Member States, so that every child now living in poverty can have access to free healthcare, free education, free childcare, decent housing and proper nutritionthe Member States and the EU should take urgent action; Reminds the Commission and the Member States of the EU agenda for the rights of the child which includes 11 concrete actions where the EU can contribute in an effective way to children's well-being and safety;
Amendment 609 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 629 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 652 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Supports a Skills Guarantee as a new right for everyone to acquire fundamental skills for the 21st century,Calls on Member States, local and regional authorities to identify a broad range of emerging industries and key growth sectors on which Member States should focus on developing their skills base including digital literacy; highlights this as an important social investment, requiring adequate financing;
Amendment 673 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 690 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – point a
Paragraph 19 – point a
Amendment 705 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – point b
Paragraph 19 – point b
Amendment 715 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Highlights that flexibility in the labour market must not come at the cost of worker rights; believes that balancing workers protection with the ability for individuals and employers to voluntarily agree ways of working that suit both their needs will increase levels of participation from groups that might otherwise have been excluded from the labour market;
Amendment 757 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 – point b
Paragraph 22 – point b
Amendment 779 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to set out new concretegether with the Member States to consider policy measures to ensure non- discrimination and equal opportunities;
Amendment 837 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Commission to propose a clear roadmap that fully reflects the outcome of the public consultation and to consider the need for legislative updates, withdrawals and other measures that are necessary for full practical application of the EPSR; highlights that in cases of conflict of law, the horizontal social clause (Article 9 TFEU) should be properly applied;
Amendment 856 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – introductory part
Paragraph 26 – introductory part
26. Considers that the objective of upward social convergence should be underpinned by a set of targets, building on the Europe 2020 strategy and the Sustainable Development Goals and serving to guide the coordination of economic, employment and social policies in the EUparticipating Member States; believes that these targets could also form part of the Convergence Code currently being discussed for the euro area, and could be based on the following indicators which are directly affected by public policies:;
Amendment 865 #
Amendment 873 #
Amendment 879 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – point c
Paragraph 26 – point c
Amendment 884 #
Amendment 890 #
Amendment 897 #
Amendment 899 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – point g
Paragraph 26 – point g
Amendment 907 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – point h
Paragraph 26 – point h
Amendment 914 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – point i
Paragraph 26 – point i
Amendment 918 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – point j
Paragraph 26 – point j
Amendment 935 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls for a rebalancing of the European Semester so that the existing scoreboard of key employment and social indicators and the new Convergence Code are directly taken into account in formulating CSRs and the euro area recommendation as well as for the activation of EU instruments; urges a stronger role for the Macroeconomic Dialogue with social partners; considers ‘macro-social surveillance’ to be of great importance for avoiding that economic imbalances are reduced at the expense of worsening the employment and social situationfor the participating Member States;
Amendment 951 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 970 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 986 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 – introductory part
Paragraph 30 – introductory part
30. Reiterates its call for the raising of the MFF 2014-20 ceilings in Believes that in the context of the on-going review of the MFF 2014 - 2020 that the principle of European added value must represent the cordner sto cope with increased needs; calls, in particular, for:ne of all expenditures and that EU funding should not be used to subsidise national approaches but to complement and enhance national programmes, reflecting a performance-based public budgeting model in which each budget line is accompanied by objectives and outputs to be measured;
Amendment 996 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 – point a
Paragraph 30 – point a
Amendment 1001 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 – point b
Paragraph 30 – point b
Amendment 1010 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 – point c
Paragraph 30 – point c
Amendment 1042 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 1056 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – point a
Paragraph 32 – point a
Amendment 1071 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – point b
Paragraph 32 – point b
Amendment 1084 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 1086 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 1094 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Calls on the Commission, the EEAS and theparticipating Member States to translate the EPSR into relevant external action, in particular by promoting the implementation of the UN SDGs, the ILO conventions and European social standards through trade agreements and strategic partnerships;
Amendment 1103 #
2016/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Considers that the EPSR should be adopted in 2017 as a binding agreement between the European Parliament and the European Council, involving social partners at the highest level, and should before any initiatives are proposed under the EPSR, the outcome of the public consultation must be genuinely taken into accountain a clear roadmap for implementation, with concrete commitments and target dates and must fully respect the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 10 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the main aim of projects financed under the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) should be to create growth and a dynamic labour market in Europe, and hence to enhance the well-being of EU citizens; maintains that the EFSI should focus on launching potential economically successful long- term projects as this will be the most effective way to create jobs in the long run;
Amendment 12 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Believes that EFSI could be an important step in demonstrating the effectiveness of making more innovative use of the EU budget, leveraging the EU budget to boost investment in the real economy; emphasises that it is too early to draw conclusions about its general effectiveness according to the ECA;
Amendment 26 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to help SMEs and micro- enterprises to tap into funding more easily, so as to increase their capacity to implement projects and afford them better access to advisory services and technical support; notes that the SME funding seems to be the most successful part of EFSI financing; notes that the success of the SME window is due to frontloading other EU SME initiatives but that there is an argument to increase this window if quality requirements are maintained;
Amendment 42 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for the EFSI to operate in closer conjunction with the Structural FundPoints out that developed countries in western Europe attract most of the EFSI financing; warns that this could lead to extending the gap between strong and weak regions; maintains that while there should not be any regional or sectorial focus or pre-allocation when spending EFSI money the EFSI should operate in closer conjunction with the Structural Funds to help weaker regions overcome bureaucratic deficits that limit EFSI applications;
Amendment 57 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to engage more actively in consultation at local level, especially in cooperation with national investment banks; believes that the EFSI should focus in particular on business startup projects and; maintains that successful projects to reduce unemployment;
Amendment 63 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 76 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers it disappointing that the Commission’s assnecessary to develop more clearly the concept of additionality in order to not crowd out private invesstment of the EFSI has failed to record the number of jobs created to date under the Fundand to effectively spend taxpayer money; points out that only with clear additionality the number of jobs created to date under the Fund can be assessed by the Commission; believes that greater effort must be made to establish a performance-based public budgeting model in which each project is accompanied by objectives and outputs to be measured by performance indicators;
Amendment 94 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Member States to lay down more clear-cut investment priorities and to draw up projects in collaboration with the European Investment Advisory Hub; calls on the Commission to work in closer cooperation with Member States in the European Semester process in order to help them begin as soon as possible to implement the recommendations, in particular by carrying out economic and social reforms, thus removing national barriers to investment; reminds that only the 'virtuous triangle' of structural reforms, responsible fiscal policies and investment will lead to success.
Amendment 4 #
2016/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that the 2017 budget has to be key in enhancing the Union’s contribution to growth, the creation of jobs and combatting poverty; stresses that efficient and effective spending is equally as important as the total budget ceilings;
Amendment 5 #
2016/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Believes that the principle of European added value should represent the cornerstone of all future expenditures and that EU funding should not be used to subsidize national approaches but to complement and enhance national programmes, reflecting a performance- based public budgeting model in which each budget line is accompanied by objectives and outputs to be measured;
Amendment 7 #
2016/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets that the unemployment rate among young people still remains too high and calls on the Commission to provide enough financial support to those programmes targeting youth unemploymentalign appropriations in this field with performance-based budgeting in line with the joint statement from the 2016 Budget agreement in which the Commission committed to draw lessons from the results of the Youth Employment Initiative evaluation;
Amendment 10 #
2016/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the budget shouldRecognises the importance of supporting programmes that will help creatinge jobs for those with multiple disadvantages inespecially for those who may be furthest from the labour market, such as women, long-term unemployed, elderly unemployed, people with disabilities and people from minority backgrounds;
Amendment 14 #
2016/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines that in the context of on-going budgetary constraints gaining the full support from citizens is extremely important in order to reaffirm and achieve our social and employment commitments under the EU 2020 strategy; believes that the challenge faced by the EU will not be to spend more, but to spend more efficiently;
Amendment 15 #
2016/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the importance of sufficient funding and good budgetary management of those programmes aiming at addressing unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, such as the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), with a proven track record based on key performance indicators; recalls in this regard the principles of European added value and subsidiarity and the Eimployment and Social Innovation (EaSI) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD)ortance of ensuring that all new funding is first and foremost made available through a reallocation of funds from existing budget lines;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the EU budget should invest in education and vocational training to provide opportunities, especially in the most affected areas by youth unemployment aBelieves that appropriate measures should be taken in order to help combat the refugee crisis and to integrate migrants into the labour market; calls on the Commission to consider the possibilities of moving fund in order to integrate migrants in the labour market; g from underperforming budget lines, for example the Fund for European Aid for the Most Deprived (FEAD);
Amendment 29 #
2016/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Supports efforts to facilitate market access for SMEs and funding through existing programmes such as COSME;
Amendment 34 #
2016/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 38 #
2016/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines that the EU budget should support the completion of the single market, competitiveness and social convergence, the development of a policy on socially responsible enterprises and the monitoring of can represent a strong tool to increase strategic investments with European added value consistent with an approach aimed at creating growthe application of statutory social standards by enterprises to ensurend jobs; thus supports measures aimed at the creaompletion of decent jobs.the single market and global competitiveness;
Amendment 29 #
2016/2007(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that virtual currency companies can be organized and operated from anywhere in the world, over the internet; maintains that in this area of technology there is a danger of losing important innovation to other parts of the world; asks the Commission and member states to work with VC companies to avoid overregulation in order to keep the EU attractive as a location for R&D and the operation of these technologies;
Amendment 36 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Description of the terms of coverage of a mandatory or voluntary insurance included in written contracts might be difficult to find. Insurance distributers, as well as bodies appointed by a Member State to provide compulsory insurance, should therefore provide a description of the core elements of coverage to their client in the format of an insurance certificate. This certificate should be annexed to the application form. In order to ensure uniform implementation of this part of the Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt a harmonised format for the certificates. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Amendment 47 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) A statement relating to claims history should be instrumental in allowingmaking it easier for insurance distributers and bodies appointed by a Member State to provide compulsory indemnity insurance to ban discriminatory practices towards cross- border providers of which information is more scarce and difficult to obtain. The same non-discrimination principle should apply to pto provide voluntary insurance cover. The taking-out of insurance cover shall be governed by the market. Professional organisations whoich offer group cover to their members or other service providers should also be able to offer insurance cover to foreign workers.
Amendment 48 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) A single coordinating authority should be designated by each Member State to carry out the tasks provided for in this Regulation, without prejudice to the competences seTo carry out the tasks provided for in this Regulation, use should be made of the ‘Points of Single Contact’ (PSCs) established in the Services Directive. It wout in applicable national legislation. Suchld not be proportionate to set up new authorities. PSCs should be registered as a competent authority in the Internal Market Information system for the purposes of Regulation (EU) 1024/2012 and communicated to the Commission.
Amendment 51 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
Amendment 52 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Regulation, through the introduction of the European services e-card and related administrative facilities and procedures, seeks to promote the rights of establishment and the right to provide services in any Member State, preventing any discrimination on grounds of nationality and ensuring impartial, fair and reasonably speed procedure. At the same time, this Regulation must not restrict the leeway available to Member States and lower-tier regional units. In addition, in accordance with Articles 15, 21 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, there must be an impartial, fair and reasonably speedy procedure while ensuring full respect ofor the protection of personal data, including in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council28, and giving due consideration to the risk of abuse of rights provided for respectively in Articles 8 and 54 of that Charter. __________________ Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the institutions and bodies of the Community and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).
Amendment 53 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph -1 (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph -1 (new)
This Regulation shall not apply to the area regulated by Directive 2005/36/EC.
Amendment 54 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
This Regulation shall not apply to the area covered by the Professional Qualifications Recognition Directive (2005/36/EC).
Amendment 68 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The insurance distributor or the body appointed by a Member State to provide compulsory insurance shall provide the certificate to the applicant upon request.
Amendment 74 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Such declaration shall be renewed once a year if the service provider intends to provide temporary or occasional services in the host Member State during that year. The service provider may supply the declaration by any means.
Amendment 79 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Regarding declarations in advance in relation to the professional qualifications of the provider, the attestations referred to in points b) and d) of Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC shall becontinue to apply. The host Member State may waive that requirement and replaced them by the completed application form for a European services e-card, communicated to the host Member State in accordance with Article 11 of Directive. [ESC Directive]…….., proving establishment of the provider.
Amendment 85 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. In the context of procedures to issue, update, suspend or revoke a European services e-card, competent authorities of Member States shall normally accept documents in a simple copy form and shall not request that documents submitted to them are subject to legalisation, apostille formalities, certification or authentication. In cases of justified doubt, competent authorities may request originals or certified copies.
Amendment 94 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Insurance distributors and bodies appointed by a Member State to provide compulsory insurance shallmay freely choose their contractors and need not disclose the grounds for their choice. They should duly take into account in the acceptance policy and in the calculation of premiums, in a non- discriminatory manner, the experience of the provider as reflected in the claims statement issued in accordance with Article 11, as presented by the provider.
Amendment 95 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Professional organisations, including competent authorities as defined in points (i) and (ii) of Article 3(18), which offer group cover related to professional liability insurance to their members or to providers of services under specific conditions, shall may ensure access to such cover, under the same conditions in a non-discriminatory manner, to providers of services from other Member States which express an interest in benefiting from such group cover.
Amendment 100 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, each Member State shall designate one coordinating authority,, in accordance with its administrative and organisational set-up, shall designate one competent authority and/or other bodies empowered to perform the tasks assigned to them in accordance with this Regulation.
Amendment 32 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) In order to concentrate actions and decisions within a Member State and facilitate cooperation between different competent authorities in home and host Member States, a coordinating authority in the home Member State and in the host Member State should ultimately be responsible for handling issues relatthe concept of Points of Single Contact (PSCs) introduced toby the European services e-card, thus coordinating the input from the different competent national authorities and acting as a contact point with its counterparts in other Member StatesServices Directive should be applied. The application for a European services e-card should thus be submitted to the coordinating authority of the home Member Stausing the PSC system.
Amendment 40 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) For provision of temporary cross- border services, given that Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC admits requirements for the generality of services covered by this Directive, host Member States should be allowed to object to the issue of a European services e-card by the home Member State in those cases whereand subsidiary administrative units should be allowed, always respecting the proportionality principle, to object to the issue of a European services e-card by the home Member State in those cases where certain (regulated) professions are affected for reasons associated with the public interest (e.g. for health or consumer protection reasons). Furthermore, objections should be permissible whenever the circumstances of the applicant give rise to genuine and sufficiently serious threats to public interests related to public policy, public security, public health or the protection of the environment, in a manner which cannot be suitably and sufficiently addressed by requirements and controls applicable once service provision starts. This should be the case when a prior authorisation scheme or prior notification for temporary provision of the services in question is in place, justified in proportionate terms under one of those four overriding reasons of public interest safeguarded under Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC and when the conditions met by the applicant in its home Member State cannot be considered equivalent to the ones required in the host Member State for the granting of that prior authorisation. The possibilities and prerrogatives of host Member States under Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC apply in the context of issuing a European services e-card.
Amendment 42 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Equivalence between requirements of a host Member State and those requirements of the home Member State the applicant has already complied should be an integral part of this assessment. The host Member State shall determine the equivalence between requirements. In order to facilitate the assessment of the equivalence of requirements in home and host Member States, where the authority of the host Member State declares its intention to refuse an e-card for establishment, the applicant should have a renewed possibility to prove that it meets the conditions laid down in the prior authorisation or prior notification on the basis of which the authorities of the host Member States base their intention to refuse the e-card, including through requirements to which the applicant is subject in the home Member State and which they deem to be equivalent. The possibilities for the Member States and/or subsidiary administrative units to regulate services and certain (regulated) professions for reasons of public interest (e.g. for health or consumer protection reasons) and in compliance with the proportionality principle must not be restricted.
Amendment 47 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The host Member State should no longer control whether the applicant for a European services e-card is legally established in another Member State. Nor should it put into question the veracity and validity of the data and documents included in an application, once validated by the coordinating authority of the home Member State, unless there are reasonable doubts. Conversely, the coordinating authority of the home Member State should not assess whether it issues a European services e-card for temporary cross-border provisions of services based on compliance by the provider of host Member State requirements, rather it should only assess of whether the applicant is legally established in its territory for the provision of the service in question at the time the decision to issue is made.
Amendment 55 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) A European services e-card should allow for provision of services throughout the territory of the host Member State. A service provider, once established in a Member State in the form of a branch, agency or office, should not, in principle, need to apply for another e-card in order to expand provision of services already covered by the existing e-card domestically through additional branches, agencies or offices there, as the case may be. However, as long as there are no divergent regulations issued by subsidiary administrative units. If there are such regulations, the service provider must fulfil and show that it has fulfilled additional requirements when expanding its activities in these areas. Furthermore, as Directive 2006/123/EC expressly provides for, authorisations for each individual branch, agency or office may be justified by overriding reasons of public interest. In that case, service providers should continue to have the choice of expanding operations domestically by obtaining those authorisations under national law or applying for additional European services e-cards, for each additional branch, agency of office, as the case may be.
Amendment 57 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) This Directive should not interfere with the division of regional or local competences within the Member States, including regional and local self- government. This notwithstanding, administrative cooperation between different national authorities within strict time-limits may be necessary in order to meet the obligations laid down in the Directive. In order to help Member States meet their obligations and considering the decentralised structure of many of them, IMI could also be used as a tool for the effective exchange of information and mutual assistance between competent authorities within a certain Member State, without prejudice to other solutions put in place by Member States.
Amendment 63 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) A European services e-card should be valid for an indefinite period in timefive years, without prejudice to, in relation to temporary cross-border services, the effects of case-by-case derogations in accordance with Directive 2006/123/EC.
Amendment 70 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
This directive shall not apply to the area covered by the Professional Qualifications Directive (2005/36/EC).
Amendment 74 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Member States shall accept a valid European services e-card as proof that its holder is established in the territory of his home Member State and is entitled, in that territory, to provide the service activities covered by the e-card. In cases where there are divergent requirements on the part of subsidiary administrative units, the proof shall relate only to areas in which the service provider fulfils the requirements. These regulation / registration requirements are set down in the Professional Qualifications Directive.
Amendment 81 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. A host Member State shall not impose any prior authorisation scheme or prior notification scheme on the holder of a previously issued European services e-card for establishment as a condition for establishment in its territory through a branch, agency or office located in its territory. Regulation / registration requirements permitted under the Professional Qualifications Directive shall be exempt from this.
Amendment 88 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4 – point i v
Article 5 – paragraph 4 – point i v
(iv) requirements regarding recognition of professional qualifications as provided for by Articles 4 and 4f of Directive 2005/36/EC;
Amendment 93 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Before issuing the e-card, the competent authority shall undertake the inspections and checks statutorily stipulated at national or, secondarily, regional level.
Amendment 94 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. The host Member State can determine the length of validity of the e- card.
Amendment 95 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
A European services e-card for temporary cross-border provision of services concerned by that e-card shall be valid throughout the territory of the host Member State, as long as there are no divergent regulations issued by subsidiary administrative units. If there are such regulations, the service provider must fulfil and show that it has fulfilled additional requirements when expanding its activities in these areas.
Amendment 98 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
A European services e-card shall be valid for an indefinite duration period of five years, unless suspended, revoked or cancelled, in accordance with Articles 15 to 17. A new inspection by the competent authorities shall be conducted upon expiry of the validity period and before the e-card is extended.
Amendment 105 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of service activities for which a European professional card for the temporary and occasional provision of services has been or can be introduced, in accordance with Directive 2005/36/EC, shall not be eligible for a European services e-card for the provision of temporary cross-border services.
Amendment 106 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
In assessing applications for the European services e-card, Member States shall retain the right to invoke those overriding reasons of public interests recognised under Directive 2006/123/EC, in particular Article 16 thereof, or other acts of EU law, or under national or secondary regional requirements.
Amendment 108 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The coordinating authority or Point of Single Contact (PSC) of the home Member State shall within oneeight weeks of having received an application for a European services e-card:
Amendment 127 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Within twoeight weeks from receiving the application the coordinating authority of the host Member State or the Point of Single Contact (PSC) shall examine it and inform the applicant and the home Member State of any requirements applicable to temporary cross-border provisions under the legislation of the host Member State with the exception of those referred to in Article 5(4). In line with the rights of Member States as referred to in Article 10, the coordinating authority of the host Member State may within the same time- limit, decide to object to the issue of the European services e-card by the coordinating authority of the home Member State where it demonstrates that the application of a prior authorisation scheme, prior notification scheme or requirements to the applicant is justified for one of those overriding reasons of public interest set out in Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC or is admissible in accordance with other acts of EU law.
Amendment 130 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The host Member State shall take due account in that assessment of the requirements that the applicant already meets in its home Member States. For the purpose of that assessment and within the above-mentioned time-limit, the coordinating authority of the host Member State shall be allowed to request necessary clarifications or necessary additional information from the home Member State or the applicant which is not yet contained in the application. In that case, the time limit referred to in this paragraph is suspended until the requested necessary clarification or necessary additional information is supplied. The procedure for requesting clarifications or additional information will be laid down by way of the delegated acts referenced in paragraph 4.
Amendment 143 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Amendment 156 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The coordinating authority of the host Member State shall assess, within oneeight weeks upon receipt of proof of compliance with the conditions identified in accordance with paragraph 1, whether to issue the European services e-card or reject the application for the European services e- card.
Amendment 162 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Upon receipt of the observations of the applicant or, where no observations have been made, upon expiration of the time- limit to present those observations, the coordinating authority of the host Member State shall decide, within oneeight weeks, whether to issue the European services e- card or reject the application for the European services e-card.
Amendment 172 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 7
Article 13 – paragraph 7
Amendment 195 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Amendment 196 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 198 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 3
Article 18 – paragraph 3
Amendment 199 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 4
Article 18 – paragraph 4
Amendment 200 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 5
Article 18 – paragraph 5
Amendment 63 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) It has emerged from evaluations and discussions within the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems that in the areas of long- term care benefits, unemployment benefits and family benefits the modernisation process should continue, in order to make such rules fairer, clearer and easier to apply.
Amendment 67 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) Freedom of movement is a cornerstone of the internal market. However, the internal market cannot function in the absence of mutual trust. In order to safeguard the benefits of mobility, the EU must fight abuse, fraud and unfair competition.
Amendment 74 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is necessary to guarantee legal certainty by clarifying that access to social security benefits for economically inactive mobile citizens in the host Member State, may be made conditional upon that citizen holding a legal right of residence in that Member State in accordance with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.33 For these purposes, an economically inactive citizen should be clearly distinguished from a jobseeker whose right of residence is conferred directly by Article 45in accordance with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 ofn the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Unionright of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. __________________ 33 OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77.
Amendment 82 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
Amendment 104 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In the area of unemployment benefits, the rules on the aggregation of periods of insurance should be applied uniformly by all Member States. With the exception of cross-border workers referred to in Article 65(2), the rules on the aggregation of periods for the purpose of conferring entitlement to unemployment benefits should be subject to the condition that an insured person has most recently completed at least threesix months of insurance in that Member State. The previously competent Member State should become competent for all insured persons who do not satisfy this condition. In this case, registration with the employment services of the Member State of most recent insurance should have the same effect as registration with the employment services of the Member State, where the unemployed person had been previously insured.
Amendment 108 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Following the recommendations in the EU Citizenship Report 2013,35 there is a need to extend the minimum duration of export of unemployment benefits from three to six months in order to improve the opportunities for unemployed persons moving to another Member State to look for work and their chances for reintegrationIntra-EU mobility can address mismatches between skills and employment opportunities, and help tackling unemployment in the EU. However, the exportability of unemployment benefits poses significant problems in terms of mutual cooperation between Member States for monitoring jobseeking activities. To avoid the misuse of rights, the competent Member State can take into account national labour needs as well as available opportunities into the labour market and to address skills mismatches across borderhost Member State before granting the exportation of unemployment benefits. __________________ 35COM(2013) 269 final.
Amendment 124 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 a (new)
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) While coordination rules cannot prevent that mobile citizens have lower protection than non-mobile citizens, Member States are encouraged to find bilateral solutions according to Article 16.
Amendment 140 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) With a view to expediting the procedure for the verification and withdrawal of documents (in particular concerning the social security legislation which applies to the holder) in case of fraud and error, it is necessary to strengthen the collaboration and the exchange of information between the issuing institution and the institution requesting a withdrawal. Where there is doubt about the validity of a document or about the correctness of supporting evidence or where there is a difference of views between Member States concerning the determination of the applicable legislation, it is in the interest of the Member States and the persons concerned that the institutions concerned reach an agreement within a reasonable period of time. In case of irrefutable fraud the receiving Member State can refuse these documents. The principle ‘fraus omnia corrumpit’ has an absolute character in Union law.
Amendment 167 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004
Recital 5a
Recital 5a
(5a) The Court of Justice has held that Member States are entitled to make the access of economically inactive citizens in the host Member State to social security benefits, which do not constitute social assistance within the meaning of Directive 2004/38/EC subject to a legal right of residence within the meaning of that Directive. The verification of the legal right of residence should be carried out in accordance with the requirement of Directive 2004/38/EC. For these purposes, an economically inactive citizen should be clearly distinguished from a jobseeker whose right of residence is conferred directly by Article 45in accordance with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 ofn the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Unionright of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member State. In order to improve legal clarity for citizens and institutions, a codification of this case law is necessary.
Amendment 370 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
2. Where an unemployed person does not satisfy the conditions for the aggregation of periods in accordance with paragraph 1 because the total duration of his or her most recently completed periods of insurance, employment or self- employment in that Member State is less than threesix months that person shall be entitled to unemployment benefits in accordance with the legislation of the Member State where he or she had previously completed such periods under the conditions and subject to the limitations laid down in Article 64a..
Amendment 383 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004
Article 64 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 64 – paragraph 1 – point c
(a) In paragraph 1(c) the word “three” shall be replaced by “six” and the words “of three months up to a maximum of six months” shall be replaced by the word, point (c) is replaced by the following: “(c) the competent Member State has assessed the national labour needs as well as the job opportunities in the host Member State and concludes that the exportability of unemployment benefits creates additional possibilities for activation. In that case entitlements to benefits shall be retained for a period of three months from the date when the unemployed person ceased to be available to the employment services “of six months up to the end of the perthe Member State which he left, provided that the total duration for which the benefits are provided does not exceed the total duration of the period of this entitlement to benefits under the legislatiodn of that person's entitlement to benefits”; Member State; the competent services or institutions may extent the period of three months up to a maximum of six months. The Member State which declines the exportability of unemployment benefits provides an individual motivation for this decision.”
Amendment 437 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004
Article 67 a (new)
Article 67 a (new)
22a. The following article is inserted: “Article 67a Indexation of family benefits The competent Member States may index the exportation of family benefits for family member residing in another Member State. "
Amendment 511 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EC) No 987/2009
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point e a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point e a
(ea) ‘fraud’ means any intentional act or omission to act, in order to obtain or receive social security benefits or, to avoid to pay social security contributions or to avoid the applicable law, contrary to the law of a Member State in accordance to the basic Regulation and the implementing Regulation;.
Amendment 521 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Regulation (EC) No 987/2009
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purposes of the application of the basic Regulation and of the implementing Regulation, and supporting evidence on the basis of which the documents have been issued, shall be accepted by the institutions of the other Member States for as long as they have not been withdrawn or declared to be invalid by the Member State in which they were issued. Such documents shall only be valid if all sections indicated as compulsory are filled in. However, such documents shall not be required to be accepted in the case of irrefutable fraud by the institution of the receiving Member State.
Amendment 540 #
2016/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Regulation (EC) No 987/2009
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where the institution of the receiving Member State refuses the validity of the document in the case of irrefutable fraud, it notifies, without delay, the issuing institution. The issuing institution has 25 days to proof the validity of the document or to withdraw the document. During those 25 days the document is considered to be invalid. In case proof of validity is not accepted by the receiving institution, and the issuing institution disagrees, it can bring the matter before the Administrative Commission.
Amendment 21 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Since the Investment Plan for Europe was presented in November 20143 , the conditions for an uptake in investment have improved and confidence in Europe’s economy and growth are returning. The Union is now in its fourth year of moderate recovery, with Gross Domestic Product growing at 2% in 2015. The comprehensive efforts iniIt is not yet possible to estimated with the Investment Plan are already delivering concrete results, despite the fact that the real impact that EFSI has had on growth as the macroeconomic effects of larger investment projects cannot be immediate. Investment is expected to pick up gradually throughout 2016 and 2017 although it remains below historical levels. __________________ 3 COM(2014) 903 final.
Amendment 23 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) That positive momentum should be maintained and efforts need to be continued to bring investment back to its long-term sustainable trend. TAs it is yet unclear if the mechanisms of the Investment Plan work and should be reinforced to continue the mobilisation of private investments in sectors important to Europe's future and where market failures or sub-optimal investment situations remaineffectively, considerations should only be given when reliable statistics and data are available and an external impact assessment is undertaken in line with the principles of better regulation. It is important to continue the mobilisation of private investments in all sectors that create growth and jobs.
Amendment 31 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The EFSI was established for an initial period of three years and with the aim of mobilising at least EUR 315 billion in investments. Given its success, the Commission is committed to the doubling of the EFSI, both in terms of duration and financial capacity. The legal extension covers the period of the current Multiannual Financial Framework and should provide a total of at least half a trillion euro investments by 2020. In order to enhance the firepower of the EFSI even further and reach the aim of doubling the investment target, Member States should also contribute as a matter of priorityThe current amount of the EFSI guarantee is sufficient to fund activities in 2017 and 2018 except for the SMEW 1a. Given the lack of sufficient data on the tangible impact of EFSI on growth and jobs, EFSI should continue to operate within the current parameters until an independent evaluation is available. Only for the SMEW an increase can be justified. __________________ 1a Court of Auditors Opinion No 2/2016.
Amendment 44 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Additionality, a key feature of the EFSI, needs to be defined more clearly and should be strengthened in the selection of projects. In particular, operations should only be eligible for EFSI support if they address clearly identified market failures or sub-optimal investment situations. Operations in infrastructure under the Infrastructure and Innovation Window linking two or more Member States, including e-infrastructure, should be considered additional given their inherent difficulty and their high added value for the Union.
Amendment 49 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Due to their potential to increase the efficiency of the EFSI intervention, blending operations combining non- reimbursable forms of support and/or financial instruments from the Union budget, such as those available under the Connecting Europe Facility, and financing from EIB Group, including EIB financing under the EFSI, as well as other investors should be encouraged. Blending aims to enhance the value added of Union spending by attracting additional resources from private investors and to ensure the actions supported become economically and financially viable, while the rules of co-financing need to be respected.
Amendment 51 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to reinforce the take-up of the EFSI in less-developed and transition regions, the scope of the general objectives eligible for EFSI support should be enlargedless-developed and transition regions greater advice and guidance must be given in order to facilitate and reinforce the take-up of EFSI.
Amendment 62 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) OnAs the basis of there is still insufficient experience acquired with the investments supported by the EFSI, the enlargement and extension of the scope of EFSI including the addition of new political goals may affect the quality of projects. Therefore the target amount of the guarantee fund should be brought to 35 left at 50% of the total EU guarantee obligations ensuring an adequate level of protection. Only after a thorough external evaluation on risk management is concluded can a decrease be justified.
Amendment 126 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a
Regulation (EU) 2015/1017
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Amendment 128 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point b
Regulation (EU) 2015/1017
Article 18 – paragraph 7 and 8
Article 18 – paragraph 7 and 8
Amendment 184 #
2016/0264(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) time use - upon a decision of the Member State,
Amendment 241 #
2016/0264(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
In order to improve the data sets, the Commission (Eurostat) shall, where necessary, institute and Member States shall cooperate in several, where appropriate, choose to participate in feasibility and pilot studies, in particular, to improve quality including comparability, to contribute to modernising the consumption and time use domains, to explore and implement new ways of improving responsiveness to users' needs, to better integrate the collection of data and the use of other data sources, and to make data collection in Member States more efficient, taking into account technological developments.
Amendment 252 #
2016/0264(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Union does not foresee the creation of any new budget line for the establishment and implementation of this framework;
Amendment 303 #
2016/0264(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – point 2 – introductory part
Annex V – point 2 – introductory part
2. For Income and Living Conditions domain, the Member States shall, where appropriate, transmit pre-checked microdata without direct identifiers, according to the following deadlines:
Amendment 304 #
2016/0264(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – point 6
Annex V – point 6
6. For the Time Use domain, the Member States shall, where appropriate transmit the pre- checked microdata by at the latest fifteen months after the fieldwork is finished.
Amendment 1 #
2016/0205(NLE)
Draft opinion
Article 1
Article 1
The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament decline to give its consent to the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part.
Amendment 28 #
2016/0176(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The concept of highly skilled worker should replace the concept of highly qualified worker in order to emphasise that both formal educational qualifications and equivalent professional experience should be taken equally into account as criteria for admission. In addition, the fact that other non-formal skills, which are evaluated and validated by the competent authority in the Member State for nationals of another Member State can also be included in the concept of highly skilled worker should be taken into account. According to a Council Recommendation of 20 December 201232 , the validation of learning outcomes, namely competences (knowledge, skills and attitudes)33 acquired through non- formal and informal learning can play an important role in enhancing employability and mobility. It recommends Member States to have in place, no later than 2018, arrangements for the validation of non- formal and informal learning. As mechanisms and arrangements for the evaluation and validation of professional experience are not readily available in all Member States, an additional transposition period of two years after the entry into force of this Directive should be provided for the provisions related to recognising professional experience in order to enable Member States, where necessary, to develop such mechanisms and arrangements. Member States’ National Contact Points on the EU Blue Card should be involved in effective cooperation with stakeholders and networks in the education, training, employment and youth sectors, as well as other relevant policy areas, for the purpose of recognising professional experience under this Directive. __________________ 32 Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non- formal and informal learning (2012/C 398/01) (OJ C 398, 22.12.2012, p. 1). 33 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (OJ L 394, 30.12.2006, p. 10).
Amendment 33 #
2016/0176(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) In order to ensure a sufficient level of harmonisation in the admission conditions throughout the Union, both minimum and maximum factors for calculating the salary threshold should be determined. Member States should fix their threshold in accordance with the situation and organisation of their respective labour markets and their general immigration policies. The principle of equal treatment with workers who are nationals of the host Member State, in accordance with the national law and practice of the host Member State should be respected.
Amendment 61 #
2016/0176(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) "higher professional qualifications" means qualifications attested by evidence of higher education qualifications or higher professional skills attested via an evaluation and validation procedure established by the host Member State;
Amendment 110 #
2016/0176(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) access to goods and services and the supply of goods and services made available to the public, including procedures for obtaining housing, as well as information and counselling services afforded by employment offices.
Amendment 18 #
2015/2354(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that the establishment of the internal market in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured is an essential objective of the Union;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2354(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Believes that in order to secure the objectives of the Single Market and to generate growth and jobs, the EU must enhance competitiveness, along the lines set out in the Declaration of the European Council on competitiveness;
Amendment 31 #
2015/2354(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that without competitive professional and business services across the EU businesses may struggle to remain competitive and maintain and create new jobs;
Amendment 61 #
2015/2354(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes the aims of the labour mobility package to contribute to a deeper and fairer single market; stresses however the importance of ensuring that measures contained within this package are proportionate and take into account the consequences of large amounts of mobility to particular regions;
Amendment 84 #
2015/2354(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Believes that the lowering of administrative burdens and compliance costs on businesses, especially SMEs, and repealing unnecessary legislation, while continuing to ensure high standards of consumer, employee, health and environmental protection is key to deliver the objectives of the SMS;
Amendment 85 #
2015/2354(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Welcomes the services passport as a useful tool for simplifying the compliance with member states requirements; stresses the importance of ensuring flexibility in order to ensure that member states are free to set requirements subject to their own needs;
Amendment 1 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that the post-electoral revisionew of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) must address the new political challenges facing the EU; underlines that reallocation of funds for emergencies is not a sustainable solution; insists that the existing resource commit in order to enable the Union and Member States to reassess their priorities; underlines that the flexibility mechanisms within the MFF enable the EU to mobilise the necessary funds to react to unforeseen events; believes that the existing resources in both commitments and payments for achieving the Union’s strategic objectives and greater economic, social and territorial cohesion should be maintained;
Amendment 7 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Acknowledges that the MFF ceilings form only one aspect of future budgeting and that efficient and effective spending is equally – if not more – important; recalls, furthermore, that all EU spending must be targeted at those regions and Member States that need it most, in line with the principle of equality and solidarity;
Amendment 13 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Believes that the principle of European added value should represent the cornerstone of all future expenditures, which also must be guided by the principle of efficiency, effectiveness and value for money, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined by Article 5 TEU;
Amendment 15 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reminds that the EU budget is an investment budget with a strong leverage effect and can represent a strong tool to increase strategic investments with European added value consistent with an approach aimed at creating growth and jobs; Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2 %, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, and; calls for increased public investment in job creation and skillsa better use of existing funds by focussing spending on ‘smart growth’ allowing for a coherent and consistent long term strategic approach to the challenges faced by the Union;
Amendment 25 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that gaining the full support from citizens in the context of on-going budgetary constraints is extremely important in order to reaffirm and achieve our social and employment commitments under the EU2020 strategy; believes that the challenge facing the EU will not be to spend more, but to spend more efficiently;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Insists on the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative and calls for the resources for this initiative to be provided until 2020; Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative was introduced in the current programming period to foster employment in particular for young people with a budget of €6.4bn, and that co-legislators agreed to frontload the whole envelope for this programme for 2014 and 2015; Reminds the Commission of the joint statement as part of the 2016 Budget agreement in which the Commission committed to draw lessons from the results of the YEI evaluation; Insists on that any proposals for the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative must take the results of the evaluation fully into account in order to move towards performance based budgeting;
Amendment 39 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that new legislation on EURES and the European platform for tackling undeclared work will draw on Employment and Social Innovation programme resources and insists that adequppropriate funding for this programme be guaranteensured in the EU budget;
Amendment 44 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived are not sufficientcould be used to address the unprecedented flow of refugees and that competition for scarce funds may lead to social conflict; any increases in these budget lines must be matched by identifying savings elsewhere in the EU budget for example, in lines that are not achieving their policy objectives or in budget lines that have been under implemented; insists that the ESF share amount to 25 % of the total cohesion budget, that no reductions in the national envelopes for ESF measures be made and that sufficient cash flow be provided annually for payments from the EU budget;
Amendment 53 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that the policies for poverty reduction and social inclusion among vulnerable groups have failed to produce the expected results and calls for increased financial aid to social servicreminds the Commission of its commitment to make concrete proposals for the establishment of a performance-based public budgeting model in which each budget line is accompanied by objectives and the social economyoutputs to be measured by performance indicators;
Amendment 59 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Draws attention to the huge problem of child poverty in Europe, which is afflicting over 20 million children, and reiterates its call for the establishment of a Child Guarantee with dedicated special resources, together with programmes to assist parents in getting out of social exclusion and unemployment; strongly believes that EU funding, particularly that under Heading 1a and 1b should not be used to subsidise national approaches, but should be used to provide additional support to people facing social exclusion and unemployment in a way that complements and enhances national programmes according to the decision of the Member States;
Amendment 68 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 86 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that the premise for the creation of the Eurozone was the promise that there would be no fiscal transfers between Member States; reminds that fiscal transfers within Europe would be carried out by EU institutions such as the European Social Fund;
Amendment 90 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Believes that it is a mistake to increase the interdependence of the EU and the Eurozone; warns that there is increasing risk that a failure of the Euro- system will damage EU institutions or the entire EU; warns that problems economically caused by the Euro-system will be increasingly attributed by citizens on the EU; maintains that increased transfers from northern Europe to the South within the Eurozone system would help parties that want to abolish the EU altogether;
Amendment 91 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Believes that a budgetary capacity would make the EU still more opaque to the voter and reduce democratic control;
Amendment 92 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6d. Warns of the difficulty to correctly identify asymmetric economic shocks and their duration; warns that the fiscal capacity would be used to compensate not for temporary shocks but for permanent loss in competitiveness; reminds that countries such as Italy1a or France1b regularly devalued to the German Mark before the Euro-System but rarely and only temporarily revalued; indicating that loss of competitiveness usually must be absorbed by permanent and not temporary measures; notes that fiscal capacities such as the "Länderfinanzausgleich" in Germany rarely reverse and usually are permanent transfer systems; 1a http://fxtop.com/de/zoom-historischen- wechselkursen- graph.php?C1=DEM&C2=CHF&A=1&DD1=01& MM1=01&YYYY1=1953&DD2=06&MM2=05&Y YYY2=2016&LARGE=1〈=de&CJ=0&MM1Y=0. 1b http://fxtop.com/de/zoom-historischen- wechselkursen- graph.php?C1=DEM&C2=CHF&A=1&DD1=01& MM1=01&YYYY1=1953&DD2=06&MM2=05&Y YYY2=2016&LARGE=1〈=de&CJ=0&MM1Y=0.
Amendment 93 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
6e. Believes that quantitative easing policies are damaging capital allocation and are damaging long-term growth and job creation; maintains that current debt levels in some member states are unsustainable;
Amendment 94 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 f (new)
Paragraph 6 f (new)
6f. Acknowledges that ECB policies are reducing pressure to reform in Member States; fears that a EU budgetary capacity will have the same effect; reminds that the OECD has concluded that France and Italy have made little progress since 2013; reminds that Mario Draghi has repeatedly asked the member states to use the time gained by ultra-loose monetary policy to carry out structural reform; maintains that a fiscal capacity will massively build moral hazard and disincentive to reform;
Amendment 95 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 g (new)
Paragraph 6 g (new)
6g. Acknowledges that the introduction of the common currency has eliminated tried and tested policy options for counterbalancing economic shocks such as exchange rate fluctuation; maintains that a currency union need not have transfer mechanisms as long as labour markets are sufficiently flexible; points out that this was known at the start of the currency union1a and reforms should have been implemented when joining the currency union; 1a http://www.zvab.com/W%C3%A4hrungsunion- Arbeitsmarkt-Auftakt-unabdingbaren-Reformen- Dohse/14988303120/bd.
Amendment 96 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 h (new)
Paragraph 6 h (new)
6h. Deplores that there is no figure of the size of the envisioned budgetary capacity mentioned except for the Community Budget of 5-7% of GDP as mentioned in the 1977 McDougall Report;
Amendment 97 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 i (new)
Paragraph 6 i (new)
6i. Acknowledges that the rules of the Euro and the institutions dealing with it (ECB, ESM) were broken numerous times and there is no indication that the rule of law would be observed in a budgetary capacity; reminds that when Jean Claude Juncker was questioned about the continual failure of France to fulfil its debt criteria he responded "we should not blindly apply the stability pact”;
Amendment 98 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 j (new)
Paragraph 6 j (new)
6j. Warns that the fiscal capacity might issue equities; warns that debt- based Keynesian deficit spending will only have short temporary effect on the labour markets; warns that while they will be backed by the strongest countries the control over debt issuance will currently be in the hands of the deficit countries; warns that debt issuance of the facility will further undermine the deficit criteria of the Maastricht treaty; demands that national parliaments will have a veto over debt issuance as they will be held accountable for backing this debt;
Amendment 99 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 k (new)
Paragraph 6 k (new)
6k. Demands that any country taking money from the fiscal capacity will have to subject the entirety of its labour laws to the Commission; demands that countries can only be eligible for money from the budgetary capacity if their retirement age is set to the highest retirement age of any country currently paying into the system;
Amendment 1 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
— having regard to Article 5 TEU and 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
Amendment 3 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
Citation 17 a (new)
- having regard to the European Court of Auditors special report number 3/2015 on the EU Youth Guarantee: first steps taken but implementation risks ahead1 a ; __________________ 1a http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocu ments/SR15_03/SR15_03_EN.pdf
Amendment 16 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 24 a (new)
Citation 24 a (new)
- Having regards to the fifth and sixth European working conditions survey 2010 and 2015 1 a __________________ 1a http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/europea n-working-conditions-surveys-ewcs
Amendment 17 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 26 a (new)
Citation 26 a (new)
- having regard to the European Employment and Social situation quarterly review March 20151 a __________________ 1a http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId= 89⟨Id=en≠wsId=2193&furtherNews=yes
Amendment 41 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas unemployment has been diminishing since 2013 thanks to supportive macroeconomic policies, low energy costs which have increased spending power and the impact of structural reforms; whereas it nevertheless remains too high in many Member States, currently affecting 9.9 % of active citizens, i.e. 23 million Europeans, about half of them being long-term unemployed;
Amendment 45 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. Whereas the effects of the Eurozone- crisis, especially high public and private debt, have yet to be solved and continue to have a negative economic and social effect on the economies of the EU; whereas the Eurozone continues to be susceptible to asymmetric economic shocks and lags behind the rest of Europe in regards to economic growth;
Amendment 55 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. Whereas the primary responsibility for tackling youth unemployment rests with the Member States in terms of developing and implementing labour market regulatory frameworks, education and training systems and active labour market policies;
Amendment 56 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Amendment 144 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that good and quality jobs constitute an essential pillar for social fairness, promoting human dignity; believes that in this sense employment and growth must be placed at the centre of Member States and EU policies, especially for youth, as a way to construct a more sustainable social economies in the European Union;
Amendment 146 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Is concerned of the effects that brain drain of highly qualified graduates from the EU to more competitive and wealthy economies such as Switzerland, USA and Norway combined with the influx of migrants with lower average qualifications will have on the EU's ability to regain competitiveness and create more high skilled jobs;
Amendment 156 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to foster, at the exchange of best practice between Member State level,s on new forms of cooperation involving governments, enterprises, educational institutions and social partners, with a view to adapting Member States’ education and training systems to the needs of the labour market;
Amendment 166 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls the importance of skills and competences acquired in non-formal and informal learning environments in terms of improving the employability of young people; stresses, therefore, thecalls, therefore, on the Member States to consider the strong social and economic importance of creating a validation system for non- formal and informal forms of knowledge and experience, especially those acquired via voluntary activities;
Amendment 167 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomNotes the Commission´s proposal to enhance the Youth Guarantee at national, regional and local level, and stresses its importance for school-to-work transitions; stresses the need to guarantee suitable forms of collaboration between public and private employment services; ; deplores the fact that according to the ECA the youth guarantee has not been effectively implemented in many Member States1 a ; Believes there is a role for the Commission to focus Member States attention on the need for action and to facilitate the exchange of best-practice on how best to combat youth unemployment; __________________ 1a http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocu ments/SR15_03/SR15_03_EN.pdf #38,39
Amendment 182 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Recognises the potential value of the EU as a means to focus Member States attention on the need for action, and for brokering exchanges of advice and assistance for those Member states that need it;
Amendment 189 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Believes that effective active labour market policies should include a combination of support for immediate action at Member State and EU level where appropriate to tackle the problems caused by the cyclical economic downturn and for action aimed at addressing long term structural and systemic issues in the labour market;
Amendment 193 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Recognises the growing trend of companies returning production and services back to the EU and the opportunities this brings for job creation in the Member States; believes that the economies of the EU have a unique opportunity to accelerate this trend of re- shoring by reinforcing a stable and predictable regulatory environment;
Amendment 205 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the EUmany EU Member States continues to suffer from structural problems that need to be addressed urgently, pointing up the need to continue prioritising investment, structural reforms and responsible fiscal consolidation, thus reinforcing a favourable environment for business with a view to creating more quality jobs while balancing the social and economic dimensions; stresses that those priorities will only be achieved if investment in human capital is prioritised as a common strategy;
Amendment 250 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Member States to graduallconsider the strong arguments in favour of and to exchange best practice on policies that have proven to be successful in term of job creation for example by shifting taxes from labour to other sources, and to implement tax rules that foster incentives to entrepreneurship and employment creation, especially for highly qualified young people, in order to boost research and innovation projects within European enterprises;
Amendment 304 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Is concerned that "quantitative easing" policies as currently used by the ECB are leading to more financial speculation and detracting from investment and will damage job creation and growth prospects in the EU;1 a __________________ 1a http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fed- has-hurt-business-investment- 1445899627 http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-little- humility-please-mr-summers-1446669213
Amendment 309 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Reminds the Commission of its Budget Review 2010 which identified 'EU added value' as one of its core principles; insists that this principle represents the cornerstone of all expenditures, which must also be guided by efficiency, effectiveness and value for money, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined by Article 5 TEU;
Amendment 338 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Agrees on the need to develop a process of upward economic and social convergence in order to foster social and economic cohesion between Member States and their regions, but points out that this must be viewed as a goal of a common projectcommon goal in which social dialogue can plays a key role;
Amendment 343 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25 a. Is concerned of the effects that the migration crisis is having on genuine intra-EU labour mobility; calls therefore on the Commission to consider the extension of the "smart borders" system in order to ease genuine intra-EU labour mobility;
Amendment 366 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 372 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls on the Member States to implement the necessary measures for the inclusion of refugees within the regulation of the Dublin III regulation; stresses that such an approach will require the allocation of funds that, in so fragile a situation, cannot be provided solely by Member States; calls on the Commission to provide the funding required to develop such a strategy as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) by identifying savings within the agreed financial ceilings;
Amendment 389 #
2015/2330(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to work together on removing the obstacles to fair labour mobility, to combat fraud and ensuringe that EU mobile workers are not treated abusively;
Amendment 30 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the Commission, when drafting and assessing legislation, to take greater account of the burden ithat legislation may impose on SMEs, which create 85% of new jobs; calls therefore upon the Council, the Commission and the Parliament to ensure the 'think-small- first' principle is applied when drafting and amending legislation;
Amendment 41 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Believes that an Annual Burden Survey would allow legislators to more easily identify where the administrative burden of EU legislation could be reduced with a view to increasing compliance, aiding swift implementation and cutting red-tape; calls on the Commission to introduce Burden Reduction Targets;
Amendment 42 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Believes that impact assessments should include SME and competitiveness tests in order to ensure that companies and SMEs in particular, are not overburdened by new legislation;
Amendment 53 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to coordinate their efforts at an earlier stage of the legislative process with a view to ensuring that future EU law can be implemented more effectively; underlines the important role and democratic legitimacy of the Member States in this respect;
Amendment 55 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls Article 155 TFEU; Calls on the social partners to embrace better regulation tools, to increase the use of impact assessments in their negotiations and to refer agreements proposing legislative action to the Commission's Impact Assessment Board;
Amendment 34 #
2015/2320(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A g (new)
Recital A g (new)
Ag. having regard to skills' scarcity and disparities across the EU, as well as skills' flows mostly from the post-2004 enlargement Member States and Eurozone crisis countries to other Member States, creating peripheral regions with difficult access to skilled workers, suffering from the brain drain phenomenon;
Amendment 35 #
2015/2320(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A h (new)
Recital A h (new)
Ah. whereas, despite of the internal market rules, important differences across the European Union persist in terms of the SMEs' regulatory frameworks, in particular regarding the levels of certainty of future regulatory developments and of the legal quality of regulation in general;
Amendment 99 #
2015/2320(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is concernedRecognises the growing significance of self-employment and micro enterprises, which are of vital importance for boosting innovation and entrepreneurship; is concerned, however, at the growing phenomenon of bogus self- employment across the EU, which cannot be considered in positive terms as contributing to the ‘growing number of micro-enterprises’, but, rather, undermines the image of entrepreneurship;
Amendment 103 #
2015/2320(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Highlights that the administrative burden of regulation is disproportionately higher for the self-employed and micro enterprises than for larger companies; considers in this regard that any measures concerning 'bogus self-employed workers' must be clearly targeted and must not place additional administrative burden on the individual;
Amendment 256 #
2015/2320(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Draws attention to the insolvency and bankruptcy risks for SMEs facing delays in payments; calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve the enforcement of the Late Payment Directive; calls, furthermore, on the Member States to consider adequate financial mechanisms, such as bank guarantees;
Amendment 26 #
2015/2210(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that there needs to be a competitive system for education and professional qualification in the EU to enhance EU competitiveness; notes that harmonization in this area will damage proven structures like the German crafts system; is convinced that the harmonization of training and professional qualification does not meet national or regional needs;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2210(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Regrets that there are many complaints about implementation deficits; asks the Commission for a better monitoring and feedback system for legal implementation; asks the Commission to re-evaluate legal frameworks that have severe implementation deficits;
Amendment 45 #
2015/2210(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that the Member States have to step up their efforts to modernise their public administrations by providing more, and better accessible, digital services for citizens and businesses; supports the implementation of capacities for evaluation and exchange of best practice in digital services;
Amendment 54 #
2015/2210(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Regrets the implementation of too high standards in public procurement legislation; calls on the Commission to introduce certificates that will enable officials to easily check environmental and social requirements in public procurement; calls on the Commission to accept self-declarations of companies in regards to technical or professional requirements in international procurement; calls on the Commission to limit the examination requirements when awarding contracts to 2 applicants.
Amendment 11 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that whilst it is impossible to hold backthe digital revolution is transforming Europe's economy and is changing labour markets and whereas new jobs requiring digital skills will emerge; emphasizes that the digital revolution, it is possible to shape its courses an opportunity for the European economy;
Amendment 25 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Believes that barriers to do business digitally and across borders are barriers to growth and job creation;
Amendment 29 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Notes that start-ups are important drivers of net job creation across the EU and that at times of high unemployment in many Member States the digital single market offers a unique opportunity for SMEs, micro-enterprises and start-ups to drive growth and job creation;
Amendment 32 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Highlights the need to create a robust and thriving digital single market, within which unnecessary barriers are removed so that consumers and businesses are given the opportunities and confidence to operate across the EU which in turn will generate new long term sustainable employment opportunities;
Amendment 33 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Highlights the recent trend of companies returning production and services to Europe and the opportunities this brings for job creation; believes that the completion of the digital single market can help accelerate this trend of re- shoring jobs;
Amendment 35 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that employment and social policy need to keep pace with the digitalisation of societythe digitalisation is an opportunity for job creation; acknowledges that there can be effects that require adjustments in labour and social policy; points out that there might have to be changes to the legal framework but that these have to be flexibly done on a national level to deal with the speed of upcoming change in the digital economy and specific issues of national industry structures;
Amendment 50 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses the importance of ensuring that all new policy initiatives are innovation friendly and are subject to a digital stress test as part of their impact assessment; and that the existing legislation including in the area of employment and social policy should be reviewed to ensure it is still fit for purpose for the digital age;
Amendment 55 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to undertake a thoroughn assessment of the projected impact which digitalisation will have on the number and types of jobs available and to gather information on new forms of employment, such as crowdsourcing and crowdworkingjob opportunities across the EU and the skill sets required to fulfil these opportunities;
Amendment 75 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that as job and skills profiles become more complex, new demands are being placed on training and further education; emphasises the importance of social dialogueat social dialogue takes place on a subsidiary level in close cooperation between employees and employers in efforts to bring course content up to date and develop skills strategies;
Amendment 88 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Acknowledges that digitalization will lead to structural change; points out that structural change is a continuous process and that digital skills are more flexible in regards to diverse industry needs and are less affected by structural change;
Amendment 128 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that the digitalisation-driven trend towards more flexible working practices may also give rise to precarious forms of employment to which current standards as regards social security, working time, working location, worker participation and employment protection no longer apply; calls for self-employed persons with quasi-employee status to be placed on an equal footing with employed persons under employment law; of the economy can offer more flexible working arrangements for both employers and employees which can result in high participation rates amongst groups that might otherwise be excluded from the labour market; stresses in this regard the importance of striking a balance between worker protection with the ability for individuals and employers to agree ways of working that suit both their needs; notes that since 2000 the average labour productivity growth in the ICT industry has been 43%, beating every other sector 1 a ; underlines that growth in productivity leads to corresponding wage growth; __________________ 1aEU Structural Change Report 2015 page 48
Amendment 147 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Underlines the potential of the platform economy to generate jobs and flexible complementary income; emphasizes that this kind of flexible income is especially needed in those areas most hit by the economic crisis;
Amendment 165 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 180 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission, the Member States and the social partners to suggest ways of enhancing social security for self- employed persons in need of protection, in order to safeguard the effectiveness of existing national systems.Highlights that the provision of social security is a Member State competence;
Amendment 3 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that the 2016 budget has to play a key role in enhancing the Union's contribution to growth and jobs, especially in combating youth unemployment; emphasizes that the EU cannot compensate for a growing lack of reforms on the Member State level;
Amendment 7 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Strongly believes that EU funding, particularly that under the ESF, should not be used to subsidise national approaches, but should be used to provide additional support in a way that complements and enhances national programmes according to the Member States;
Amendment 8 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Reiterates that achieving European added value and ensuring sound financial management - should be, now more than ever, guiding principles of the EU budget;
Amendment 9 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Recognises the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation which must be reflected at European level;
Amendment 10 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Urges that financial support be provided for programmCalls for EU funds to be directed towards programmes that will help Member States creatinge jobs and growth which in turn can have a positive impact on social inclusion particularly for those with multiple disadvantages on the labour market, such as the long-term unemployed, people with disabilities and people from minority backgrounds;
Amendment 20 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that growth is the key to more jobs and increased prosperity and that it is necessary to direct the structural funds more effectively towards promoting growth; believes that a necessary requirement for growth are structural reforms on a Member State level;
Amendment 22 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the importance of sufficientappropriate funding and goosound budgetary management of the programmes within the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework that aim to address unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, such as the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), the different axes of the Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD);
Amendment 29 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes realistic budgeting to be the key principle of sound financial management given the fiscal and economic challenges facing the Union; takes the view, moreover that the 2016 appropriations should be based on a careful analysis of payment appropriation outturn in 2015 as well 2014, with a view to view to making savings on budget lines where problems have arisen in implementation, considers that real savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across budget lines;
Amendment 31 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Believes supporting Member States in achieving Europe 2020 targets will require a prioritisation of objectives, such as promoting growth, job creation and social inclusion; believes that funding for such priorities should not be increased for 2016 unless accompanied by savings elsewhere in the budget, thus allowing for an inflationary freeze in both commitment and payment appropriations;
Amendment 32 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. TakStresses the view that the EU budget shouldimportance of EU budget discipline; believes that appropriate measures should be taken to encourage member states to support vocational training and professional qualification measures; to match the needs of the labour market;
Amendment 39 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 43 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises employ many workers in the EU and that one of the main problems in setting up such enterprises and keeping them going is that of obtaining finance; proposes, therefore, that the microfinance element be expandednot be reduced and maintains that strengthening EIB support for SMEs should also be considered a key priority;
Amendment 49 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the EU budget should support efforts to promote the completion of the single market, competitiveness and social convergence, the development of a policy on socially responsible enterprises, and the monitoring of the application of statutory social standards by enterprises in order to ensure the creation of decent job and competitiveness;
Amendment 53 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for a sustained effort to be made through the budget to provide forFinds that EU expenditure is excessive, national requirements very heterogeneous, and that programmes that can be provided on a subsidiary level should be provided there, such as appropriate training and re-skilling in sectors with labour shortages and in key sectors with high job-creation potential, such as the green economy and the healthcare and ICT sectors;
Amendment 8 #
2015/2061(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines the democratic legitimacy of referenda and the need to respect the outcome whilst adhering to the rule of law;
Amendment 9 #
2015/2061(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes note of the result of the popular initiative of 9 February 2014; calls, however, on the European Union to remain firm on the fundamental principle of free movement of persons so that Switzerland continues to grant upon the Commission to work with Switzerland and the Member States to find a satisfactory solution that takes into consideration the outcome of this vote whilst respecting the priovileged access to Union workers and enterprisesions of the concerned agreements;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2061(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Acknowledges that prior agreement by all the EEA EFTA states regarding the determination of EEA-relevance is necessary and that technical adaptations may be required before incorporation; is concerned, however, that increasing requests for adaptations and exceptions arecan leading to unnecessary to delays and fragmenting the Single Market; strongly calls on these countries to remedy this situation andwork closely with the EU in order to ensure a level playing field in the extended Single Market;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2061(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Points out that since the signing of the EEA agreement the EU has resorted to an increased use of agencies; welcomes that the EEA EFTA states participate in the operations of these agencies; calls on the EEA EFTA states and the European Commission to continue to improve this cooperation and participation;
Amendment 30 #
2015/2061(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Recalls that a comprehensive free trade and investment agreement is currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States; notes that the EEA EFTA states are affected by the decisions made in the TTIP; asks for a close dialogue between EEA EFTA States and the EU in order to avoid new trade barriers and ensure the working of the single market;
Amendment 45 #
2015/2061(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Commends the strong, continuously flourishing and longstanding relations between the EU and Switzerland, which have contributed to peace, prosperity and growth in Europe over the past decades; is convinced that these relations can be deepened to the benefit of both Parties by comprehensively revising the sectoral agreements in full compliance with the fundamental principles of the EUwith regard to evolving democratic and political requirements and can extend the numerous commonalities and mutual interests;
Amendment 47 #
2015/2061(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Underlines the democratic legitimacy of referenda and the need to respect the outcome whilst adhering to the rule of law;
Amendment 48 #
2015/2061(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Takes not of the result of the popular initiative of 9 February 2014; calls upon the Commission to work with Switzerland and the member States to find a satisfactory solution that takes into consideration the outcome of this vote whilst respecting the provisions of the concerned agreements;
Amendment 51 #
2015/2061(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes in this context the opening of the negotiations in May 2014 for an institutional framework as a precondition for the further development of a bilateral approach; stresses that without such a framework agreement no further agreements on Swiss participation in the internal market, includingit is of high importance for the economies of neighbouring countries and the Switzerland to make progress on the Electricity Agreement, will be concluded; urges the Swiss Government to step up its efforts to progress with the negotiations on the outstanding issues;
Amendment 54 #
2015/2061(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes note ofRespects the outcome of the referendum of 9 February 2014 on the ‘Against Mass Immigration' popular initiative and the decisions taken on 11 February 2015 by the Swiss Federal Council in relation to its implementation of a draft implementing law and new flanking measures; exrespects Switzerland to respect's need to renegotiate its obligations in particular those stemming from the Free Movement of Persons Agreement (FMPA) due to the democratic referendum; points out that the question of migration of citizens from third countries should not be confused with the free movement of persons as enshrined in the Treaties; notes in this respect that Switzerland has introduced unilateral measures in order to avoid discrimination against Croatian citizens but considers that these measures fall short of the Protocol extending the FMPA to include Croatia;
Amendment 59 #
2015/2061(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. ReiteratesPoints out that the free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms and a pillar of the Single Market and that it always has been an inseparable part of and precondition for the bilateral approach between the EU and Switzerland; therefore fully supports the EU's rejection of July 2014 of the Swiss Authorities' request to renegotiate the FMPA with a view to introducing a quota or a national preference system; notes that an increase in the movement of people is not enough to compensate for the labour market problems caused by the Euro-crisis; points out that Switzerland has never been fully part of the single market and that the bilateral approach between the EU and Switzerland has produced good results even though there is no full integration;
Amendment 8 #
2015/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the lack of a unitaryminimum system for the protection of geographical indications relating to non-agricultural products creates a highly fragmented situation in Europe, arising from different national and local, sectoral or transversal rules, which have distorting effects, which hamper the harmonious development of the common market, as well as homogeneous protection and effective competition on equal terms, which prevent consumers from receiving accurate, truthful and comparable information and which areis an obstacle to consumer protection;
Amendment 12 #
2015/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes, therefore, the publication of the Green Paper (COM(2014)469) by the Commission and looks favourably uponconsideration of the possible extension of the European Union's geographical indications to non- agricultural products;
Amendment 15 #
2015/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that such a system should establish minimum standards, based on proposals by the regional or national level, as appropriate, in order to allow for registered geographical indications;
Amendment 17 #
2015/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Hopes, furthermore, that the Commission will submit without delayafter careful consideration a legislative proposal with the aim of establishing a single European system of protection of geographical indications for non-agricultural products;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is strongly convincedConsiders that extending protection of geographical indications to non- agricultural products could have many and varied positive effects for citizens, consumers, producers and the whole European economic and social fabric, and which will require careful study in any future proposal;
Amendment 68 #
2015/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Believes that any new proposal in this area should not negatively affect the possibility for commercial products where a particular style or characteristic is replicated or inspires a product, but which is only similar and does not represent itself as being from that geographic locations;
Amendment 75 #
2015/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that this system must be accompanied by the creation of a single European register, that it should be characterised by a cross-cutting approach in order to maximise its economic and social impact, and that it should significantly enhance the existing link between products and their area of origin, in order to increase the credibility and authenticity of a product and guarantee its origin and traceabilityregisters on a regional or national level;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas 60% of the individuals for whom data are available were either unemployed or inactive at the time of their microloan application; 84% of recipients were in the main age group of 25 - 54 years and 36% of recorded entrepreneurs supported by the loans were female;
Amendment 21 #
2015/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas take-up of the Facility has been strongest in the Southern and Eastern EU Member States;
Amendment 32 #
2015/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that as a result of the economic crisis bank balance sheets in many southern and south eastern EU Member States have been weakened; strongly believes that the Facility should not be used as a tool to replace traditional banking structures; calls for the EIF to introduce a system whereby applicants for the Facility need to provide proof that their loan applications from a private institution has been refused in order to be eligible for the Facility;
Amendment 50 #
2015/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Deplores the fact that, owing to the lack of well-defined social reporting, the social impact of the Facility has not been measured more accurately in terms of job creation, business sustainability and minority groups outreach; suggests, therefore, that suitable empirical indicators be developed, and encourages the Commission to assess whether the definition of target groups needs to be clarified further;
Amendment 67 #
2015/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recognises the importance of the targeted ratio between female and male entrepreneurs; believes however, that the success of the Facility should not be measured solely by blanket targets but on the ability of the Facility to enable micro entrepreneurs and small SME's get their projects off the ground and contribute to economic growth and social cohesion;
Amendment 71 #
2015/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Calls on the EIF to consider the need to develop selection criteria that are based on empirical evidence possibly including regional, age or gender differences;
Amendment 81 #
2015/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Deplores the factBelieves that business development services, including mentoring and training, cannotould be considered to be directly financed under EaSIor part financed under EaSI if rigorous performance indicators can be developed accordingly, and calls on the Commission to investigate future financing avenues;
Amendment 112 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) It should be specified in this Directive that the activities of a dealer include not only the manufacturing but also the modification or conversion a firearm, such as the shortening of a complete firearm, and in addition the commercial modification or conversion of parts of firearms and of ammunition, and that, therefore, only authorised dealers should be permitted to engage in those activities. This Directive should not apply to reloading of ammunition for personal use or making legal modifications and conversions to a firearm for which a person has an authorization.
Amendment 152 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) BCollectors and bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established and shoulding in their possession firearms classified in category A acquired before the date of entry into force of this Directive should be able to keep those firearms in their possession subject to authorisation by the Member State concerned and provided that those firearms have been deactivat be able to keep and acquire firearms classified in category A subject to authorisation by the Member State concerned.
Amendment 172 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 220 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 279 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Furthermore, the risk of alarm weapons and other types of blank firing weapons being converted to real firearms is high, and in some of the terrorist acts converted arms were used. It is therefore essential to address the problem of converted firearms being used in criminal offences, notably by including them in the scope of the Directive. Technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons as well as for salute and acoustic weapons should be adopted in order to ensure that they cannot be converted into firearms.
Amendment 316 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 1b
Article 1 – paragraph 1b
1b. For the purposes of this Directive, "essential component" shall mean the barrel, frame, receiver, slide or cylinder, bolt or breaech block and any device designed or adapted to diminish the sound caused by firing a firearm which, being separate objects, are included in the category of the firearms on which they are or are intended to be mounted.
Amendment 330 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point b
Article 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 –paragraph 1e
Article 1 –paragraph 1e
1e. For the purposes of this Directive, "broker" shall mean any natural or legal person, other than a dealer whose trade or business consists wholly or partly in buying, selling or arranging the transfer within a Member State, from one Member State to another Member State or exporting to a third country or importing into a Member State from a third country fully assembled firearms, their parts and ammunition.
Amendment 361 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point c
Article 1 – point 1 – point c
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 1h
Article 1 – paragraph 1h
Amendment 406 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive shall not apply to the acquisition or possession of weapons and ammunition, in accordance with national law, by the armed forces, the police, the public authorities or by collectors and bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established. Nor shall it apply to commercial transfers of weapons and ammunition of warproducts of the defence industry.
Amendment 434 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that any firearm or parand any essential component placed on the market has been marked and registered in compliance with this Directive.
Amendment 452 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
For the purposes of identifying and tracing each assembled firearm, Member States shall, at the time of manufacture of each firearm or at the time of import into the Union or as soon as possible thereafter, require a unique marking including the name of the manufacturer, the country or place of manufacture, the serial number and the year of manufacture, if not already part of the serial number. This shall be without prejudice to the affixing of the manufacturer's trademark.
Amendment 460 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 519 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 536 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The acquisition and possession of firearms shall only be permitted if, inter alia, there is good cause. Member States, whilst not being under any obligation in that regard, may decide that the acquisition and possession of firearms for the purpose of, for example, hunting, target shooting, self-defence, reservist training, various scientific, technical and testing activities and re-enactment of historical events, filmmaking or historical study constitutes good cause.
Amendment 549 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall provide for standard medical tests for issuing or renewing authorisations as referred to in paragraph 1 and shall withdraw authorisations if any of the conditions on the basis of which it wasthey were granted is no longer met.
Amendment 578 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. This Directive is without prejudice to the ownership of firearms and ammunition acquired through inheritance. Member States shall prohibit the possession of such firearms by owners who are not duly authorised.
Amendment 590 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take all appropriate steps to prohibit the acquisition and the possession of the firearms and ammunition classified in category A and to destroy those. In exceptional and duly reasoned cases, the competent authorities may grant authorisations for the acquisition and possession of such firearms and ammunition wheld in violation of this provison and seizedre this is not contrary to public security or public order.
Amendment 620 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Member States may authorise persons or bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established to keep in theiracquire and possession firearms classified in category A acquired before [the date of entry into force of this Directive] provided they have been deactivated in accordance with the provisions that implement Article 10(b)when this is not contrary to public security or public order.
Amendment 660 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 7
Article 1 – point 7
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Amendment 731 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall submit every five years submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive, including a fitness check of the new provisions, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals in particular as regards the categories of firearms of Annex I and the issues related to new technologies such as 3D printing. The first report shall be submitted by ... [two years after the date of entry into force of this Amending Directive].
Amendment 748 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
Amendment 751 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
6. Automatic firearms which have been converted into semi-automatic firearms; which have not been authorised in accordance with Article 10ba, with the exception of firearms converted prior to ... [the date of entry into force of this Amending Directive1a]; __________________ 1a In this case, Article 10ba shall be amended as follows: "Member States shall take measures to ensure that long semi-automatic firearms which have been converted from originally automatic firearms cannot be reconverted into automatic firearms. Mechanical design of any particular type of long semi- automatic firearms including conversions of any particular type of originally automatic firearms into semi-automatic firearms must be authorised for civilian use by a competent public authority before being placed on the market."
Amendment 755 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
6. AComponents with which a semi- automatic firearms which have can been converted into semi-an automatic firearm without sophisticated skills and tools;
Amendment 762 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 7
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 7
Amendment 778 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 8
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 8
Amendment 811 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category C – point 5
Annex I – part II – point A – category C – point 5
5. Alarm and signal weaponsFirearms under categories A, B and points 1 to 4 of category C, after having been converted to alarm, signal, salute and, acoustic weapons as well as replicas;, gas, paintball or airsoft, Flobert, or percussion lock weapons.
Amendment 822 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category C – point 6
Annex I – part II – point A – category C – point 6
Amendment 830 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 14 – point a
Article 1 – point 14 – point a
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part III – point a
Annex I – part III – point a
Amendment 838 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 14 – point c
Article 1 – point 14 – point c
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part III – paragraph 2
Annex I – part III – paragraph 2
Amendment 843 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive [36 months after publication toin the OJ]. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
Amendment 26 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The economic and financial crisis has led to a lowering of the level of investments within the Union. Investment has fallen by approximately 15% since its peak in 2007. The Union suffers in particular from a lack of investment as a consequence of structural problems, unsustainable debt and market uncertainty regarding the economic future and the fiscal constraints on Member States. This lack of investment slows economic recovery and negatively affects job creation, long-term growth prospects and competitiveness.
Amendment 37 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Comprehensive action is required to reverse the vicious circle created by a lack of investment. SAs a precondition for EFSI investment structural reforms and fiscal responsibility are necessary preconditions for stimulating investment, which can help create an environment to stimulate further investment, growth and job creation. Along with a renewed impetus towards investment financing, these preconditions can contribute to establishing a virtuous circle, where investment projects help support employment and demand and lead to a sustained increase in growth potential.
Amendment 65 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The investment environment within the Union should be improved by removing barriers to investment, reinforcing the Single Market, keeping labour markets sufficiently flexible, ensuring labour costs including wages are in line with productivity, encouraging social protection systems that make work attractive, restructuring and capitalizing banks, improving the efficiency of public administration and tax systems, and by enhancing regulatory predictability. The work of the EFSI, and investments across Europe generally, should benefit from this accompanying work.
Amendment 117 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) The impact of the EFSI on employment should be systematically monitored, especially with a view to identifying tangible societal gains in the form of sustainable employment.
Amendment 139 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) The guiding principle for the EFSI should be results-based and not solely an input-orientated approach; the success of EFSI should be based on assessing real growth, job creation and stimulating member state's economies.
Amendment 165 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Provided that all relevant eligibility criteria are fulfilled, Member States may, where appropriate, use European Structural Investment Funds to contribute to the financing of eligible projects that are supported by the EU guarantee. The flexibility of this approach should maximise the potential to attract investors to the areas of investment targeted by the EFSI. The EFSI may not be used for co- financing projects eligible under European Structural and Investment Funds.
Amendment 211 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The purpose of the EFSI shall be to support investments in the Union and to ensure increased access to financing for companies having up to 3000 employees, with a particular focus on small and medium enterprises, through the supply of risk bearing capacity to the EIB ('EFSI Agreement'). The overall objective of the EFSI shall be to promote long-term growth and job creation in the Union.
Amendment 311 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Provided that all relevant eligibility criteria are fulfilled, Member States may use European Structural and Investment Funds to contribute to the financing of eligible projects in which the EIB is investing with the support of the EU guarantee. The EFSI may not be used for co-financing projects eligible for European Structural and Investment Funds.
Amendment 15 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
– having regards the consistently declining turnout in the European elections, from 61.9% in 1979 to 42.6% in 2014 according to final results TNS/Scytl in cooperation with the European Parliament; and simultaneously rising criticism of the EU,
Amendment 20 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)
Citation 16 a (new)
– having regard to negative referenda decisions concerning the current Union and/or policies as expressed by majorities of people in France on the 29th of May 2005, the Netherlands on the 1st of June 2005, Ireland on the 12th of June 2008, Greece on July 5, 2015, Denmark on the 3rd of December 2015, Netherlands on the 6th of 2016, in addition to renouncing the candidacy of Norway on the 28th of November 1994, Switzerland on the 4th of March 2001 and Iceland on the 12th of March 2015,
Amendment 33 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the ‘polycrisis’ currently faced by the Union, including its financial, economic, social, democratic, cultural, identity, safety and migratory consequences, have all led to the rejection by a growing part of the population of the current European Union;
Amendment 41 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas progress towards a Union that can really deliver on and achieve its goals are impaired by a failure of governance owing to a continuous and systematic search for unanimity in the Council (which is still based on the so- called Luxembourg Compromise) and the lack of a credible single executive authority enjoying full democratic legitimacy and competence to take effective action across a wide spectrum of policies; whereas recent examples such as the uncontrolled migration flow, the slow clean-up of our banks after the outbreak of the financial crisis and the lack of an immediate common response to the internal and external threat of terrorism have aptly demonstrated the Union’s incapacity to respond effectively and quickly;
Amendment 66 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the culture of compromise and consensus is a fundamental value of the European Union;
Amendment 94 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, as regards Schengen, the free movement of people and the resulting abolition of internal border controls, all formally integrated into the Treaties, ‘opt- outs’ were given to the UK and Ireland; whereas four other Member States are also not taking part, but have the obligation to do so, while ‘opt-ins’ were accorded to three countries outside the European Union; whereas this fragmentation not only prevents the total abolition of some remaining internal borders, but also hinders the establishment of a true internal market and of a fully integrated area of freedom, security and justice;
Amendment 104 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas, last but not least, this ‘variable geometry’ endangers the uniform application of EU law, leads to excessive complexity in terms ofambitions, visions and capacities of EU Member States differs, the variable geometry approach appears now as the most pragmatic way to avoid disintegration, facilitate and deepen sincere cooperation between EU Members; a goivernance, jeopardises the cohesion of the Union and undermines solidarity among its citizenn level of flexibility shall offer differentiated degrees and areas for common policies and mediate divergent national preferences;
Amendment 138 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
Amendment 157 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the European Union is a constitutional system based on the rule of law; whereas the Treaties must be rooted in the sovereignty of its Member States as authors of the EU Treaties and noting that if the exercise of certain competences changed to give the European C obviously be delegated, sovereignty by itself cannot be divided, shared, limited or transferred ourt of Justice (ECJ) jurisdiction over all aspects of EU law, in particular common foreign and security policy (Article 24(1) TEU) and monetary and economic policy (Article 126(10) TFEU)people’s control without de facto dissipating and undermining the rule of law ; whereas ultra vires ECJ teleological interpretations lead to unilateral judicial amendment to the Treaties against the very will of its signatory representative governments ; whereas in case of risk of conflict of laws, nobody else than relevant national parliament(s), the competent national high Court or/and the people itself deciding by referendum shall now decide which legal provision, national or European shall have the primacy over the other;
Amendment 199 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the decline of Europe’'s Member States defence capabilities has limited itstheir ability to project stability beyond our immediate borders; whereas this goes hand in hand with the reluctance of our US allies to intervene if Europe is not ready to take its fair share of responsibility; whereas this leads inevitably to the need for more intense cooperation among the Member States and an integration of some of their defence capacities into a European defence community, both in line with a new European security strategy as well as to protect our internal territories which face now an unprecedented and multifaceted terrorist risk ; whereas this leads inevitably to the need for more intense cooperation among the Member States to meet objective of a new European security strategy based on internal border controls and combat the ideology that justifies terrorism that attacks our European societies, values and freedoms;
Amendment 269 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the time of crisis management by means of ad hoc and incremental decisions has passed, as it only leads to measures that are too little, too late; is convinced that it is now time to address the shortcomings of the governance of the European Union by undertaking a comprehensive, in-depth reform of the Lisbon Treatyprinciple of mutual trust and loyal cooperation between the Member States and the institutions of the European Union should be the basis of all planned institutional changes; sovereignty and constitutional identity of the states should be respected for the sake of the Union; in turn, states are jointly responsible for the Union;
Amendment 277 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. NoStates that the direction of the Union’s reform should lead towards its modernisation by establishing new effective European capacities and instruments, rather than its renationalisation by means of greater intergovernmentalismbasic criterion for review of the powers and their distribution should be the full respect of the three fundamental principles anchored in the Treaty : the principle of conferral that concerns delimitation of EU competences; the principle of subsidiarity which should be now understood as opposing centralism and allocating competencies and tasks at those levels of authority, which, due to the proximity of the issue are the best predestined ; and finally the principle of proportionality of the intervention of the Union;
Amendment 282 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the direction of the Union’s reform should lead towards its modernisation by establishing new effective European capacities and instruments, rather than its renationalisation by means of greater intergovernmentalismprinciple of subsidiarity, which precludes centralism and requires competences to be vested at such levels of government that are best placed due to proximity with a given case, should be the basic criterion for reviewing and distributing competences;
Amendment 431 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines the fact that, until the Treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom, it will continue to participate in all decision-making of the Union throughout its institutions, with the exception of the negotiations and the agreement concerning its own withdrawal; considers that intermediate arrangements will need to be made concerning the UK’s participation in European decision- making, as it will be politically difficult to allow a Member State in the process of leaving to influence decisions affecting the Union of which it will soon cease to be a member;
Amendment 603 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 638 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 650 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 688 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 736 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Notes that the Treaties provide ample means to set up a humane, well- functioning migration management system including a European Border and Coast Guard; believes, however, that the Treaties, particularly Article 79(5) TFEU, are too restrictive regarding other aspects of migration, especially on the establishment of a genuine European legal migration system; insists that democrat that forms of solidarity in this field require mutual trust between the Union and the Member States, which scrutiny by Parliament is needed on the implementation of border control,hould remain competent in the issues of asylum and immigration policies, and that the safeguarding of national security cannot be used as a pretext to circumvent European action;
Amendment 743 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. NRecalls that mass immigration to the European Union undermines the Schengen agreements which now need urgent and serious reform ; notes that the Treaties should have provided ample means to set up a humane, well- functioning migration management system including a European Border and Coast Guard;, believes, however, that the Treaties, particularly Article 79(5) TFEU, are too restrictive regarding other aspects of migration, especially on the establishment of a genuine European legal migration system; insists that democratic scrutiny by Parliament is neededright of asylum and the right to accept refugees should be solely the competence onf the implementation of border control, asylumMember States and mhigration policies, and that the safeguarding of national security cannot be used as ahlighting that if one doesn’t preotexct to circumvent European actionits own borders nobody else will ;
Amendment 747 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Takes the view that the European Union urgently needs an effective external border control instrument, which is a pre-condition for the survival of the Schengen area;
Amendment 760 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Considers it necessary, in view of the intensity of the terrorist threat, to upgrade the EU’s capacities in the fight against terrorism and international organised crime; stresses that, beyond strengthening it is necessary to enhance coordination between the competent authorities and agencies in the Member States, Europol and Eurojust must receive genuine investigation and prosecution competences and capabilit through the activities within Europol and Eurojust agencies;
Amendment 778 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 799 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Stresses that for the Union to strengthen the defence of the EU territory, as a pillar within NATO, which remains the cornerstone of the European security architecture, and to enable the Union to act autonomously in operations abroad, mainly with a view to stabilising its neighbourhood, the Treaties should provide for the possibility of establishing a European defence union ;
Amendment 813 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Believes, finally, that it is essential that the restrictions in Article 24(1) TEU on the authority of the European Court of Justice in the field of CFSP be removed; calls, in the same spirit,Calls for Parliament to gain greater powers of scrutiny and accountability over CFSP, including full co-decision powers over the budget together with national parliaments ;
Amendment 842 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
Amendment 852 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Considers that a new debate on reforming the EU institutions to strengthen the Member States’ influence on the EU decision-making process could be a response to the threats;
Amendment 875 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. WBelcomieves the successful new procedure whereby European political parties promote their top candidates for the President of the European executive, but believes that they should be able to stand during the next elections as official candidates in all Member States; proposes, therefore, following its legislative proposal on the reform ofat a mechanism should be introduced to ensure transparency in the electoral lawion of the European Union, empowering the electorate by giving them two votes, one for the national or regional lists and a second one for the European party lists; these European lists will be headed by the parties’ nominees to become President of the European executive or government and will be composed of candidates dCommission President; further notes that it is necessary to increase representativeness of the European Parliament and thereby to refrawin from at least one third of the Member Stateestablishing compulsory electoral thresholds;
Amendment 890 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Believes that any given Member of the European Parliament should be nominated as the President for a maximum of two terms of office, either consecutive ones or with an interval between the first and the second term of office;
Amendment 895 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Reiterates its call for a single seat for the European Parliament; proposes that Parliament and the Council each decide the location of their own seat after having obtained the consent of the other; further proposes that the seats of all the other EU institutions, agencies and bodies be determined by Parliament and the Council on a proposal by the European executive, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure;
Amendment 907 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Reiterates its call for a single seat for the European Parliament; reminds that the European Parliament is the only EU institution directly elected by EU citizens ; recalls that over one million of them endorsed a petition asking for a single seat ; proposes accordingly changes to Article 341 TFEU and Protocol 6 and to allow the EP to decide on its internal organisation;
Amendment 933 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
Amendment 965 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Recogniszes the significant role that should now be played by national parliaments in the constitutional order and the democratic legitimation of the European Union, and in particular their role in transposing EU legislation into national law and the role they wshould play in both ex-ante and ex-post control of legislative decisions and policy choices made by their members of the new Council of States, including its specialised configurations; suggests therefore complementing and enhancing the powers of national parliaments by introducing a ‘green card’ procedure whereby national parliaments could submit legislative proposals to the Council for its considerationbinding instructions to the Commission in the exercise of its initiative power ; as well emphasizes the need to strengthen the role of national parliaments by an efficient use of ‘yellow’ and ‘red card’ to make it possible for a group of national parliaments acting together to block an indicated legislative proposal whose author would then be forced to withdraw it ;
Amendment 967 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Recognises the significant role played by national parliaments in the constitutional order of the European Union, and in particular their role in transposing EU legislation into national law and the role they would play in both ex-ante and ex-post control of legislative decisions and policy choices made by their members of the new Council of States, including its specialised configurations; suggests therefore complementing and enhancing the powers of national parliaments by introducing a ‘green card’ procedure whereby national parliaments could submit legislative proposals to the Council for its consideration; also stresses the need to strengthen the role of national parliaments through effective use of the ‘yellow and orange card’ procedure, whereby a group of national parliaments, acting together, could block a particular legislative proposal;
Amendment 976 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Further suggests that the application by national parliaments of the yellow card procedure referred to in Article 7 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality was a sufficient reason to stop a legislative procedure;
Amendment 995 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Recalls its conviction that the financing of the EU budget should respect the letter and the spirit of the Treaty and return to a system of genuine, clear, simple and fair own resources regarding corrective taxation of negative externalities arising from economic activity, as with taxes on financial transactions and Carbon tax; stresses that the reintroduction of such resources would put an end to the share of GNI-based contributions and thus lessen the burden on national treasuries; awaits with interest the proposals from the high-level group on own resources in this respect;
Amendment 999 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
Amendment 1015 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Believes, finally, that the current Treaty ratification procedure is too rigid to befit such a supranational polity as the European Union; proposes allowing amendments to the Treaties to come into force if not by an EU-wide referendum then after being ratified by a qualified majority of four-fifths of the Member States, having obtained the consent of Parliament; correspondingly, once this threshold has been met, Member States which still decline to ratify the amended Treaty should decide, in accordance with their own constitutional requirements, whether to start the process of secession or to that respect for the Treaties, legitimacy and continuity of the Union require strict compliance with the Treaties revision procedure, as set oput for an associate statusin Article 48 TEU;
Amendment 1017 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Believes, finally, that the current Treaty ratification procedure is too rigid to befit such a supranational polity as the European Union; proposes allowing amendments to the Treaties to come into force if not by an EU-wide referendum then after being ratified by a qualified majority of four-fifths of the Member States, having obtained the consent of Parliament; correspondingly, once this threshold has been met, Member States which still decline to ratify the amended Treaty should decide, in accordance with their own constitutional requirements, whether to start the process of secession or to opt for an associate status that respect for the Treaties, its signatory Members’ legitimacy, State of Law, democratic will expressed through every referenda organized in Europe for more than 10 years, and viability of the Union itself require strict compliance with procedures for revision of the Treaties provided in Article 48-1 to 5 TEU;
Amendment 1029 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Commits itself to playing a leading part in these important constitutional developments, and is determined to make its own proposals forRequests the Council and the European Commission to hold an interinstitutional debate that will initiate a process for enhancing the Union within the applicable Treaty framendment in a timely fashionwork and evaluate the execution of tasks and competences in the context of Union legitimacy, efficiency and accountability;
Amendment 6 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas global trends such as the inefficient use of resources, the unsustainable pressure on the environment, climate change and growing social exclusion and inequalities are close to the limits beyond which irreversible impacts on our societies and the natural environment cannot be prevented and growing social exclusion and inequalities are a challenge to societies;
Amendment 10 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the lack of a coherent policy response to tackle these challenges is needed where there is cross-border pollution or other common pool problems, risks leaving a significant part of the employment potential of a green and socially inclusive transition unused;
Amendment 12 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas in response to these threats, we are seeing the development of new sectors, a change within many others and the decline of some sectors, such as those which are heavily pollutinga focus to innovate and reduce pollution where possible; whereas, with regard to the lattersome declining sectors, special attention needs to be paid to the workforce in terms of retraining and alternative employment;
Amendment 18 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the EU and its Member States made a commitment, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference in Cancun in 2010, to ensure ‘'a just transition of the workforce that creates decent work and quality jobs’; '; whereas a just transition for all towards an environmentally sustainable economy needs to be well managed and mustshould contribute to the objective of decent work for all,sustainable and long-term employment which will result in social inclusion and the eradication of poverty;
Amendment 28 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas there is clearonflicting evidence that shifting from labour to environmental taxation, investing in energy and resource efficiency, and developing the supply chain through a cleasetting incentives for environmental goals while aiming for industrial strategygrowth has a positive impact on job creation;
Amendment 36 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas clear, fixed, mid- to long-term pollution targets can be important drivers of change, and whereas EU regulation also has an important role to play in this regard; whereas targeted investment leading to job creation should stem from, and be consistent with, a clear national policy framework;
Amendment 40 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas SMEs are important generators of employment and have led the way in many ‘green’ sectors, but may face particular difficulties in fulfilling the job potential of the transition;
Amendment 59 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the transition bears significant potential to either destroy local jobs or create local jobs, some of which cannot be offshored, including in sectors hit by the crisis;
Amendment 65 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In order to maximise on net job potential of the green economy, believes it is crucial that we provide our existing workforce with right opportunities to acquire the new skills needed for the circular economy;
Amendment 72 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to commit to a ‘'just transition roadmap’' that combines ambitious environmental goals with strong social requirementaims, including the promotion of decent work, healthy and safe working conditions, and training and skills programmes, and the strengthening of worker information, consultation and participation rights regarding matters concerning sustainable development as well as of effective workforce representation, emphasizes that these requirements need to be goals but not requirements for the national governments;
Amendment 75 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that the revised EU Health and Safety strategy should take into account specific risks, where appropriate specific risks that are identified by robust scientific evidence in new sectors;
Amendment 78 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that anticipating change in employment needs proactive transformation management and that long-term planning is essential for ensuring an effective transition and stable employmentcannot be reliably done by a bureaucracy due to a lack of ability to anticipate change, emphasizes that the principle of subsidiarity and reliance on market forces need to be upheld;
Amendment 95 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the tools for skills development and the forecasting of skill needs proposed by the Commission; stresses, however, that more ambitious action is needed; that skills development should encourage the development of STEM skills that are widely useful in an economy;
Amendment 107 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that these strategies should include the identification of skill gaps and targeted vocational and lifelong training programmes; stresses the need to actively include in the strategies both displaced workers and low-skilled workers at risk of being excluded from the labour market; stresses that steps need to be taken to counter the gender imbalance in certain sectors;
Amendment 123 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Member States to put in place a regulatory environment that encourages innovation in the green economy;
Amendment 178 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Highlights the fact that investing in energy efficiency can promotes local job creation and local economic development, and that ensuring energy efficiency in buildings is the most cost-effective way to offer long-term solutions to energy povertyreduce energy poverty, but stresses that insulation of buildings currently leads to great safety problems in regards to fire protection; requests that the opinion of independent experts is required for solutions dealing with energy efficiency in buildings;
Amendment 194 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 197 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Calls for measures that will improve the quality of information, advice and guidance available on careers and the skills needed to capitalise on employment opportunities provided by the greening of the economy;
Amendment 208 #
2014/2238(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Stresses the need to ensure that the costs involved for businesses are justified by expected outcomes; underlines the need to avoid unnecessary burdens, to mitigate the cumulative impact of legislation on businesses, as particularly SMEs and micro-enterprises need the right regulatory environment to maximise the job creation potential of green employment;.
Amendment 1 #
2014/2213(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Observes that towns and cities have an important role to play in attainchieving the EuropeU 2020 objectives and must therefore be involved in the whole process of formulating policies at EU level, which can be achieved, inter alia, by means of the systematic inclusion of representatives of towns and cities in groups of expertsemployment targets and should, in accordance with the institutional and legal framework of the member state, be involved in the policy cycle;
Amendment 20 #
2014/2213(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 34 #
2014/2213(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 42 #
2014/2213(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Believes that the focus of an EU urban agenda must be on the exchange of information and best practice, calls on the Commission to find new ways to enhance the flow of information in both directions and to take into account the specific needs of urban regions when drafting legislation in order to reduce local government's bureaucratic needs when dealing with EU legislation;
Amendment 43 #
2014/2213(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 47 #
2014/2213(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 55 #
2014/2213(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Maintains that the provision of social and employment policy is best delivered at national and local levels, believes that low debt, economic freedom, favourable conditions for innovation and low taxes are the best basis for growth and job creation; asks the Commission to identify best practice at urban level and communicate it to other interested stakeholders, and to facilitate member states to work together on the issues of most interest to them;
Amendment 56 #
2014/2213(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Notes however that more than two thirds of European citizens are living in towns and cities and that this rate is growing; believes that towns and larger urban areas are important centres of economic activity and have, due to their culture, size, infrastructure and economic structure, specific social problems and are in need of tailored solutions; stresses that, in this regard, local structures are best placed to provide appropriate solutions and that the concept of subsidiarity needs to be upheld.
Amendment 57 #
2014/2213(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Strongly believes that any initiative under the EU urban agenda must be taken in the wider context of Article 4 TFEU which requires the EU to respect the national identities of member states including "their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government".
Amendment 58 #
2014/2213(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5 d. Notes that cooperation between member states on urban development currently takes place on an intergovernmental basis; believes that the development of an EU urban agenda must demonstrate clear EU added value; believes that EU policies must compliment and not contradict national or regional policies.
Amendment 7 #
2014/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the decline in the EU unemployment rate, from 20.8 % in the first quarter of 2010 to 12.1 % in the third quarter of 2013Recognizes that the EU unemployment level has reached a high mark in 2013 and that the general economic situation remains very difficult;
Amendment 26 #
2014/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Acknowledges that the ongoing process of balance sheet adjustment in the financial and non-financial sectors, combined with high unemployment and ongoing fiscal consolidation, continued to dampen economic activity in the euro area in 2013;
Amendment 30 #
2014/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Believes that poor balance sheets not only affects banks, but also has a negative knock on effect on businesses and other private actors, as a lack of capital and finance inhibits a business’s ability to remain competitive, grow and ultimately maintain and create jobs;
Amendment 32 #
2014/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Believes that the transferring of bad debt to the ECB balance sheet is not an appropriate solution and unfairly burdens EU taxpayers; believes that this is not a sustainable solution to reduce the EU unemployment rate;
Amendment 35 #
2014/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 46 #
2014/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Welcomes the acknowledgement by the ECB that all four programme countries made significant progress in reducing their economic imbalances by addressing structural rigidities, especially in their labour markets;
Amendment 55 #
2014/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes the ECB’s call for continuous improvement of the institutional setting of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), and reiterates in this context its call for ex ante coordination of major economic reform plansat 2013 saw a continuation of intense cooperation among EU institutions and bodies including the ECB; highlights the point that experience with the 2013 European Semester showed that implementation of policy recommendations, in particular with regard to structural reforms, is still an issue that warrants stronger monitoring;
Amendment 66 #
2014/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the ECB’s call on Member States to carry out the necessarypush ahead with labour market reforms, in particular throughorder to improve competitiveness, raise potential growth, generate employment opportunities in particular by increasing flexibility and optimising the conditions for businesses to create jobs;
Amendment 1 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that the 2015 budget has to play a key role in enhancing the Union’s contribution to growth and jobs; with a particular focus on the creation of jobs to addressing the persisting issue of youth unemployment in the European Union;
Amendment 3 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that there should be budgetary restraint over the coming years and this should be reflected in the Draft Budget 2015; welcomes the Commission’s shift towards the growth, jobs and competitiveness programmes; considers that the aim needs to be to reduce waste and inefficiency and to direct funds to those areas that create jobs and deliver the best value for money. In order to balance our books, any increase in funding in one area should be matched by cuts in other parts of the budget;
Amendment 5 #
2014/2040(BUD)
1b. Strongly believes that EU funding, particularly that under the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), should not be used to subsidise national approaches, but should be used to provide additional support to young people in a way that complements and enhances national programmes according to the decision of the Member States;
Amendment 6 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Considers that EU funding should be directed to areas that help SMEs, micro- enterprises and business growth; acknowledges at the same time that small enterprises especially need a reduction in national regulations; considers that EU programmes should not lead to the postponement of necessary national structural reforms;
Amendment 7 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 9 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 17 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 20 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 21 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 177 #
2014/0107(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 a (new)
Article 38 a (new)
Article 38a Union safeguard procedure 1. Where, on completion of the procedure set out in Article 38b(3) and (4), objections are raised against a measure taken by a Member State, or where the Commission considers a national measure to be contrary to Union legislation, the Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the Member States and the relevant economic operator or operators and shall evaluate the national measure. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the national measure is justified or not. The Commission shall address its decision to all Member States and shall immediately communicate it to them and the relevant economic operator or operators. 2. If the national measure is considered justified, all Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the non-compliant subsystem or safety component is withdrawn from their market, and shall inform the Commission accordingly. If the national measure is considered unjustified, the Member State concerned shall withdraw that measure. 3. Where the national measure is considered justified and the non- compliance of the subsystem or safety component is attributed to shortcomings in the harmonised standards referred to in point (b) of Article 38b(5) of this Regulation, the Commission shall apply the procedure provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012.
Amendment 178 #
2014/0107(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 b (new)
Article 38 b (new)
Article 38b Compliant subsystems or safety components which present a risk to health or safety 1. Where, having carried out an evaluation under Article 38b(1), a Member State finds that although a subsystem or safety component is in compliance with this Regulation, it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons, it shall require the relevant economic operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the subsystem or safety component concerned, when placed on the market, no longer presents that risk, to withdraw the subsystem or safety component from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, as it may prescribe. 2. The economic operator shall ensure that corrective action is taken in respect of all the subsystems or safety components concerned that he has made available on the market throughout the Union. 3. The Member State shall immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States. That information shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the subsystem or safety component concerned, the origin and the supply chain of the subsystem or safety component, the nature of the risk involved and the nature and duration of the national measures taken. 4. The Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the Member States and the relevant economic operator or operators and shall evaluate the national measures taken. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the national measure is justified or not and, where necessary, propose appropriate measures. 5. The Commission shall address its decision to all Member States and shall immediately communicate it to them and the relevant economic operator or operators.