Activities of Georgi PIRINSKI related to 2015/2284(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the activities, impact and added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund between 2007 and 2014
Amendments (8)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that in a lot of cases there are further difficulties for Member States to provide evidence that mass redundancies comply with EGF intervention criteria and this task is even more challenging when there are a number of SMEs affected; calls therefore for the Commission to address the aforementioned deficiencies in order to make the EGF a working solution for redundant workers;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the fact that the Member State authorities generally did nothave not been required to make a distinguishction between active labour market measures, such as training and aid for self- employment, and income support for paid workers; notes, in addition, the absence of specific information allowing the identification of ESF co-financed projects that could actually have met the EGF intervention criteria in order to help measure the impact of the EGF; asks the Commission to examine this issue and come up with a report on the number and scope of ESF projects that comply with EGF intervention criteria;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the functioning of the EGF has been slightly improved by reforms to the regulation;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. NotUnderlines that some Member States have preferred to use the ESF rather than the EGF because of higher ESF co- financing rates, swifter implementation of ESF measures, the lack of EGF pre- financing and the lengthy EGF approval procedure; believes however that the increased co-financing rate and the more timely application and approval process contained in the new regulation have helped address some of these concernsasks the Commission to examine this issue and come up with a report on the number and scope of ESF projects that comply with EGF intervention criteria; notes that the more timely application and approval process contained in the new regulation address some of these concerns; calls to the Commission to present a proposal for necessary legislative changes to ease and streamline the implementation of the EGF including raising the fund contribution rate as to match the ESF co-financing for the respective Member State and a non- binding but formal preliminary approval by the Commission prior to the decision of the Budgetary Authority;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. WelcomesIs concerned by the fact that just 6 % of EGF funds were spent on administrative and management costs;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Regrets the fact that one third of EGF funding compensates national workers’' income support schemes with no EU added value; notes the restriction in the current regulation where such costs are capped at 35 % and believes that this capsuch practices should not be allowed in the futured;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Is satisfied withNotes the conclusion that, generally, some Member States effectively coordinated the EGF with ESF and national labour market measures and that no instances of overlap or double-funding of individuals was detected during the Court of Auditors audit;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Notes that in a lot of cases there are further difficulties for Member States to provide evidence that mass redundancies comply with EGF intervention criteria and this task is even more challenging when there are number of SMEs affected; calls therefore to the Commission to address the aforementioned deficiencies in order to make the EGF a working solution for redundant workers by introducing lower threshold for the workers made redundant in Member States with smaller labour markets;