995 Amendments of Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Peter van DALEN, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Suggests setting up a European C~~Calls on the Commission to increase the support under the Connecting Europe Facility post 2020 for clean Mmobility ~~Fund~~projects; notes that to cover the estimated necessary investment of EUR 25 billion up to 2025; calls for the fund to be co-financed, with the European Union contributing 10 % and 90 % coming from industry, notably manufacturers, suppliers, energy and fuel producers and other interested parties; suggests that, by contributing to the fund, companies or consortia should be granted preferential access to grants and loans provided by the CEF, EIB and EC IPE; requests that financial resources from the fund should be awarded according to the criteria of feasibility, European added value, the achievement of deployment goals and cohesion policy; asks that the INEA, which already oversees the CEF, become the responsible agency additional funding will be needed; calls on the Member States and the industry, notably manufacturers, suppliers, energy and fuel producers and other interested parties, to show more ambition and increase their investments to achieve the decarbonisation goals as signed up to in the Paris Agreement;

2018/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2018/0332(COD)

Proposal for a directive
–

The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.

2019/01/29
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) Evaluations have underlined that the variety of financial instruments delivered under the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework period has led to some overlaps. That variety has also produced complexity for intermediaries and final recipients who were confronted with different eligibility and reporting rules, thus acting as a further disincentive for investments. Absence of compatible rules also hampered the combination of several Union funds although such combination would have been beneficial to support projects in need of different types of funding. Therefore, a single fund, the InvestEU Fund, should be set up in order to achieve a more efficiently functioning support to final recipients by integrating and simplifying the financial offer under a single budgetary guarantee scheme, thereby improving the impact of Union intervention while reducing the cost to the Union budget.

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) In the last years, the Union has ~~adopt~~followed ambitious strategies to complete the Single Market and to stimulate sustainable growth and jobs, such as the Capital Markets Union, the Digital Single Market Strategy, the Clean Energy for all Europeans package, the establishment of the Connecting Europe Facility, the Union Action Plan for the Circular Economy, the Low- Emission Mobility Strategy, the Defence and the Space Strategy for Europe. The InvestEU Fund should exploit and reinforce synergies between those mutually reinforcing strategies through providing support to investment and access to financing.

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) The InvestEU Fund should contribute to improving the competitiveness of the Union, including in the field of sustainable infrastructure, innovation and digitisation, the sustainability of the Union's economic growth, the social resilience and inclusiveness and the integration of the Union capital markets, including solutions addressing their fragmentation and diversifying sources of financing for the Union enterprises. To that end, it should support projects that are technically and economically viable by providing a framework for the use of debt, risk sharing and equity instruments underpinned by a guarantee from the Union's budget and by contributions from implementing partners. It should be demand-driven while support under the InvestEU Fund should at the same time focus on contributing to meeting policy objectives of the Union.

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1

(1) With 1.8% of EU GDP, down from 2.2% in 2009, infrastructure investment activities in the Union in 2016 were about 20% below investment rates before the global financial crisis. Thus, while a recovery in investment-to-GDP ratios in the Union can be observed, it remains below what might be expected in a strong recovery period and is insufficient to compensate years of underinvestment. More importantly, the current investment levels and forecasts do not cover the Union’s structural investment needs in the face of technological change and global competitiveness, including for innovation, skills, infrastructure, small and medium- sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) and the need to address key societal challenges such as sustainability or population ageing. Consequently, continued support is necessary to address market failures and sub-optimal investment situations to reduce the investment gap in targeted sectors to reduce disparities in the level of development and to achieve the Union’s policy objectives.

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) Investment projects receiving substantial Union support, notably in the area of infrastructure, should be subject to an assessment of their European added value, particuarly including their sustainability ~~proofing~~, in accordance with guidance that should be developed by the Commission in cooperation with implementing partners under the InvestEU Programme and, using in an appropriate way the criteria established by [Regulation on establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment] for determining whether an economic activity is environmentally sustainable and coherently with the guidance developed for other programmes of the Union. Such guidance should include adequate provisions to avoid undue administrative burden.

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) As set out in the reflection paper on the social dimension of Europe16and the European Pillar of Social Rights17, building a more inclusive and fairer Union is a key priority for the Union to tackle inequality and foster social inclusion policies in Europe. Inequality of opportunities affects in particular access to education, training and health. Investment in the social, skills and human capital-related economy, as well as in the integration of vulnerable populations in the society, can enhance economic opportunities, especially if coordinated at Union level. The InvestEU Fund should be used to support investment in education and training, help increase employment, in particular among the unskilled and long-term unemployed, and improve the situation with regard to intergenerational solidarity, the health sector, homelessness, digital inclusiveness, community development, the role and place of young people in society as well as vulnerable people, including third country nationals. The InvestEU Programme should also contribute to the support of European culture and creativity. To counter the profound transformations of societies in the Union and of the labour market in the coming decade, it is necessary to invest in human capital, microfinance, social enterprise finance and new social economy business models, including social impact investment and social outcomes contracting. The InvestEU Programme should strengthen nascent social market eco-system, increasing the supply of and access to finance to micro- and social enterprises, to meet the demand of those who need it the most. The report of the High-Level Task-Force on Investing in Social Infrastructure in Europe18has identified investment gaps in social infrastructure and services, including for education, training, health and housing, which call for support, including at the Union level. Therefore, the collective power of public, commercial and philanthropic capital, as well as support from foundations, should be harnessed to support the social market value chain development and a more resilient Union. _________________ 16 17 18 Published as European Economy Discussion Paper 074 in January 2018Does not affect the English version.) COM(2017) 206. COM(2017) 250.

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) Each policy window should be composed of two compartments, that is to say an EU compartment and a Member State compartment. The EU compartment should address Union-wide market failures, particularly in the case of cross-border projects, or sub-optimal investment situations in a proportionate manner; supported actions should have a clear European added value. The Member State compartment should give Member States the possibility to contribute a share of their resources of Funds under shared management to the provisioning of the EU guarantee to use the EU guarantee for financing or investment operations to address specific market failures or sub- optimal investment situations in their own territory, including in vulnerable and remote areas such as the outermost regions of the Union, to deliver objectives of the Fund under shared management. Actions supported from the InvestEU Fund through either EU or Member State compartments should not duplicate or crowd out private financing or distort competition in the internal market.

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) The EU guarantee underpinning the InvestEU Fund should be implemented indirectly by the Commission relying on implementing partners with outreach to final recipients. A guarantee agreement allocating guarantee capacity from the InvestEU Fund should be concluded by the Commission with each implementing partner, to support its financing and investment operations meeting the InvestEU Fund objectives and eligibility criteria. The InvestEU Fund should be provided with a specific governance structure to ensure ~~the appropriate~~balanced use of the EU guarantee.

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33

(33) The InvestEU Fund should, where appropriate, allow for a smooth and efficient blending of grants or financial instruments, or both, funded by the Union budget or byany other ad hoc fund, such as the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Innovation Fund with that guarantee in situations where this is necessary to best underpin investments to address particular market failures or sub- optimal investment situations.

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

The EU guarantee for the purposes of the EU compartment referred to in point (a) of Article 8(1) shall be EUR 38 000 000 000 (current prices). It shall be provisioned at the rate of 40 %, that is to say EUR 15 200 000 000 (current prices).

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. In the event that new provisions should prove necessary, these shall be deducted from the margins of the EU's annual budget or the from the Flexibility Instrument, but under no circumstances from budget lines or funds that have already been allocated.

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36

(36) In order to ensure a wide geographic outreach of the advisory services across the Union and to successfully leverage local knowledge about the InvestEU Fund, a regional and local presence of the InvestEU Advisory Hub should be ensured, where needed, taking into account existing support schemes, with a view to provide tangible, proactive, tailor-made assistance on the ground.

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47

(47) The InvestEU Programme should address EU-wide market failures ~~and~~, sub- optimal investment situations, disparities in the level of development and provide for Union-wide market testing of innovative financial products, and systems to spread them, for new or complex market failures. Therefore, action at Union level is warranted,

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) balanced development and the reduction of disparities;

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Elsi KATAINEN, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

An additional amount of the EU guarantee may be provided for the purposes of the Member State compartment referred to in point (b) of Article 8(1), subject to the allocation by Member States, pursuant to [Article 10(1)] of Regulation [[CPR] number]28 and Article [75(1)] of Regulation [[CAP plan] number]29, of the corresponding amounts. ~~_________________ 28 null 29 null~~Member States may allocate, pursuant to Regulation CPR and Regulation CAP, an amount of ERDF, the ESF+, the Cohesion Fund, EARDF and the EMFF to contribute to InvestEU and be delivered through budgetary guarantees. The amount to be contributed to InvestEU shall not exceed 6 % of the total allocation of each Fund, except in duly justified cases.

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Financing and investment operations covered by the EU guarantee under the Member State Compartment which form part of blending operation combining support under this Regulation with support provided under one or more other Union programmes can be implemented under shared management.

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) sustainable infrastructure policy window: comprises sustainable investment in the areas of transport, energy, communication and digital connectivity, supply and processing of raw materials, space, oceans and water, waste, nature and other environment infrastructure, equipment, mobile assets and deployment of innovative technologies that contribute to the environmental or social sustainability objectives of the Union, or to both, or meet the environmental or social sustainability standards of the Union;

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) research, innovation and digitisation policy window: comprises research and innovation activities, transfer of research results to the market, demonstration and deployment of innovative solutions and support to scaling up of innovative companies ~~other than SMEs~~ as well as digitisation of Union industry;

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1 a (new)

In accordance with Article 4 of this Regulation, this distribution may be modified during the financial year in line with developments in the various objectives referred to in Article 3(2) of this Regulation.

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

(b) smart and sustainable urban mobility projects (targeting low-emission urban transport modes, accessibility, air pollution and noise, energy consumption and ~~accidents~~safety);

2018/10/02
Committee: TRAN

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) cross-border and interregional projects between entities located or established in one or more Member States and extending to one or more third countries, including acceding countries, candidate countries and potential candidates, countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy, the European Economic Area or the European Free Trade Association, or to an overseas country or territory as set out in Annex II to the TFEU, or to an associated third country, whether or not there is a partner in those third countries or overseas countries or territories;

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d

(d) achieves geographical diversification in relation to the need for balanced development;

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 4

The composition of the Investment Committee shall ensure that it has a wide knowledge of the sectors covered by the policy windows referred to in Article 7(1) and of the geographic markets in the Union and that it is geographical and gender- balanced as a whole.

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

When participating in the activities of the Investment Committee, its members shall perform their duties impartially and in the sole interest of the InvestEU Fund. They shall not seek or take instructions from the implementing partners, the institutions of the Union, the Member States, the regions or any other public or private body.

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0229(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1

1. The implementing partners shall acknowledge the origin and ensure the visibility of the Union funding (in particular when promoting the actions and their results), by providing coherent, effective and targeted information to multiple audiences, including the media and the public, according to the standards applicable to EU programs.

2018/10/10
Committee: REGI

2018/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. The Programme has the general objective to develop and modernise the trans-European networks in the fields of transport, energy and digital and to facilitate cross-border cooperation in the field of renewable energy, seriously taking into account the long-term decarbonisation commitments and with emphasis on synergies among sectors.

2018/09/13
Committee: REGI

2018/0228(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) In the energy sector, to contribute to the development of projects of common interest relating to further integration of the internal energy market, interoperability of networks across borders and sectors, facilitating decarbonisation through, amongst others, clean and innovative technologies, and ensuring security of supply, and to facilitate cross- border cooperation in the area of renewable energy;

2018/09/13
Committee: REGI

2018/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) Reflecting the importance of tackling climate change in line with Union’s commitments to implement the Paris Agreement, and the commitment to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, this Regulation should therefore mainstream climate action and lead to the achievement of an overall target of 25 % of the EU budget expenditures supporting climate objectives18. Actions under this Programme are expected to contribute 60 % of the overall financial envelope of the Programme to climate objectives, based inter alia on the following Rio markers: i) 100 % for the expenditures relating to rail~~way~~ and waterway and infrastructure, alternative fuels, clean urban transport, electricity transmission, electricity storage, smart grids, CO2 transportation and renewable energy; ii) 40 % for ~~inland waterways and~~ multimodal transport, and gas infrastructure - if enabling increased use of renewable hydrogen or bio-methane. Relevant actions will be identified during the Programme's preparation and implementation, and reassessed in the context of the relevant evaluations and review processes. In order to prevent that infrastructure is vulnerable to potential long term climate change impacts and to ensure that the cost of greenhouse gas emissions arising from the project is included in the project's economic evaluation, projects supported by the Programme should be subject to climate proofing in accordance with guidance that should be developed by the Commission coherently with the guidance developed for other programmes of the Union where relevant. __________________ 18 COM(2018) 321, p. 13. COM(2018) 321, p. 13.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) An important objective of this Programme is to deliver increased synergies between the transport, energy and digital sector. For that purpose, the Programme should provide for the adoption of cross-sectoral work programmes that could address specific intervention areas, for instance as regards connected and automated mobility or alternative fuels infrastructure. In addition, the Programme should allow, within each sector, the possibility to consider eligible some ancillary components pertaining to another sector, where such an approach improves the socio-economic benefit of the investment. Synergies between sectors should be incentivized through the award criteria for the selection of actions.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iii

(iii) actions implementing sections of the comprehensive network located in the outermost regions in accordance with Chapter II of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013, including actions relating to the relevant urban nodes, maritime ports, inland ports and rail-road terminals of the comprehensive network as defined at Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013;

2018/09/13
Committee: REGI

2018/0228(COD)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) In order to achieve the objectives laid down in the TEN-T guidelines, it is necessary to support with priority the cross-border links and the missing links of the TEN-T and to ensure, where applicable, that the supported actions are consistent with the corridor work plans established pursuant to Article 47 of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 and to the overall network development regarding performance and interoperability.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) In order to improve the completion of transport projects in less developed parts of the network, a Cohesion Fund allocation should be transferred to the Programme to finance transport projects in the Member States eligible for financing from the Cohesion Fund. In an initial phase ~~and within a limit of 70% of the transferred envelope~~, the selection of projects eligible for financing should respect the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund. ~~The remaining 30% of the transferred envelop~~At the end of the initial phase, resources transferred to the Programme which have not been committed to a transport infrastructure should be allocated on a competitive basis to projects located in the Member States eligible for financing from the Cohesion Fund with priority to cross-border links and missing links. The Commission should support Member States eligible for financing from the Cohesion Fund in their efforts to develop an appropriate pipeline of projects, in particular by strengthening the institutional capacity of the public administrations concerned.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) In order to improve the completion of transport projects in less developed parts of the TEN-T network, a Cohesion Fund allocation should be transferred to the Programme to finance transport projects in the Member States eligible for financing from the Cohesion Fund. In an initial phase and within a limit of 70 % of the transferred envelope, the selection of projects eligible for financing should respect the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund. The remaining 30 % of the transferred envelope should be allocated on a competitive basis to projects located in the Member States eligible for financing from the Cohesion Fund with priority to cross-border links and missing links. The Commission should support Member States eligible for financing from the Cohesion Fund in their efforts to develop an appropriate pipeline of projects, in particular by strengthening the ~~institu~~operational capacity of the public administrations concerned.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Pavel TELIČKA, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25

(25) In addition, building on the success of the WiFi4EU initiative, the Programme should continue to support the provision of free, high quality, secure, local wireless connectivity in the centres of local public life, including entities with a public mission such as public authorities and providers of public services as well as outdoor spaces accessible to the general public, in order to promote the Union's digital vision in local communities.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39

(39) The Financial Regulation establishes the rules concerning the award of grants. In order to take into account the specificity of the actions supported by the Programme and to ensure a consistent implementation among the sectors covered by the Programme, it is necessary to provide additional indications as regards eligibility and award criteria. Without derogating from the Financial Regulation, the work programmes may provide for simplified procedures, in certain cases where the objectives of the calls for proposals do not have strategic implications.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Pavel TELIČKA, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39 a (new)

(39a) In accordance with the Financial Regulation, selection and award criteria are defined in the work programmes. In the transport sector, the quality and relevance of a project should be assessed also taking into account its expected impact on the EU connectivity, its compliance with accessibility requirements and its strategy as regards future maintenance needs;

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. The Programme has the general objective to establish, develop and modernise the trans-European networks in the fields of transport, energy and digital and to facilitate cross-border cooperation in the field of renewable energy, taking into account the long-term decarbonisation commitments and with emphasis on synergies among sectors.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. TIn addition to reinstating the figures for the previous CEF in constant euros, on a pro rata basis for each budget heading; the financial envelope for the implementation of the Programme for the period 2021-2027 is set at EUR 462,265,493,000 in current prices.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a – introductory part

(a) up to EUR 350,615,493,000 for the specific objectives referred to in Article 3(2)(a), of which:

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a – point i i a (new)

(iia) EUR 20,000,000,000 transferred from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to be spent in line with this Regulation exclusively in Member States eligible for funding from the European Regional Development Fund;

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission shall not depart from the amount referred to in subparagraph 2 (a) (ii) and paragraph 2 (a) (iia) (new).

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8

8. As regards the amounts transferred from the Cohesion Fund, 30% of these amounts shall be made available immediately to all Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund to finance transport infrastructure projects in accordance with this Regulation, with priority to cross-border and missing links. Uuntil 31 December 20232, the selection of projects eligible for financing shall respect the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund ~~with regard to 70% of the resources transferred~~. As of 1 January 20243, resources transferred to the Programme which have not been committed to a transport infrastructure project shall be made available to all Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund to finance transport infrastructure projects in accordance with this Regulation, with priority to cross-border and missing links.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. As regards the amounts transferred from the European Regional Development Fund, 30% of these amounts shall be made available to all Member States eligible for funding from the European Regional Development Fund to finance transport infrastructure projects in accordance with this Regulation, with priority being given to cross-border and missing links. Until 31 December 2023, the selection of projects eligible for financing shall be consistent with the national allocations under the European Regional Development Fund as regards 70% of the resources transferred. As from 1 January 2024, resources transferred to the Programme which have not been committed to a transport infrastructure project shall be made available to all Member States eligible for funding from the European Regional Development Fund to finance transport infrastructure projects in accordance with this Regulation.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. Actions contributing simultaneously to the achievement of one or more objectives of at least two sectors, as provided for in Article 3(2) (a), (b) and (c) shall be eligible to receive Union financial assistance under this Regulation. Such actions shall be implemented through specific cross- sectoral work programmes addressing at least two sectors, including specific award criteria and financed proportionally with budget contributions from the sectors involved.

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Pavel TELIČKA, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) legal entities established in a Member State of the Union;

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)

(ea) soundness of the maintenance strategy proposed for the completed project;

2018/09/21
Committee: ITRE TRAN

2018/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) The ESF+ should contribute to the reduction of poverty by supporting national schemes aiming to alleviate food and material deprivation and promote social integration of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion and the most deprived. With a view that at Union level at least 4% of the resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management supports the most deprived, Member States ~~should~~are encouraged to allocate at least 2% of their national resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management to address the forms of extreme poverty with the greatest social exclusion impact, such as homelessness, child poverty and food deprivation. Due to the nature of the operations and the type of end recipients, it is necessary that simpler rules apply to support which addresses material deprivation of the most deprived.

2018/09/17
Committee: REGI

2018/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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, where relevant, allocate at least 25% of their national ESF+ resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management to fostering social inclusion.

2018/09/17
Committee: REGI

2018/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 30% 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.

2018/09/17
Committee: REGI

2018/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1

The ESF+ aims to support Member States to achieve high employment levels through sustainable job creation, 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 European Pillar of Social Rights proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 17 November 2017.

2018/09/17
Committee: REGI

2018/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point i

(i) improving access to employment of all jobseekers, ~~in particular youth~~through, amongst others, on-the-job training and apprenticeship programmes, including youth, people close to their retirement, and long-term unemployed, and of inactive people, promoting self-employment, the development of SMEs and the social economy;

2018/09/17
Committee: REGI

2018/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point xi a (new)

(xia) Enhancing and supporting growth and competitiveness of SMEs and social enterprises

2018/09/17
Committee: REGI

2018/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall concentrate the ESF+ resources under shared management on interventions that address the challenges identified in their national reform programmes, in the European Semester as well as in the relevant country-specific recommendations adopted in accordance with Article 121(2) TFEU and Article 148(4) TFEU, ~~and~~ take into account principles and rights set out in the European Pillar of Social Rights and their local, regional and national investment needs and particularities.

2018/09/17
Committee: REGI

2018/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. Member States sh~~all~~ould, where relevant, allocate at least 25% 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.

2018/09/17
Committee: REGI

2018/0206(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Member States sh~~all~~ould be encouraged to allocate at least 2% of their ESF+ resources under shared management to the specific objective of addressing material deprivation set out in point (xi) of Article 4(1).

2018/09/17
Committee: REGI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Invites the Commission and Member States to use fully the potential of the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund for European cross-border infrastructure projects, in order to complete the core and comprehensive Trans-European Transport Network;

2018/03/01
Committee: TRAN

2017/2285(INI)

4. Supports a wider application of the blending approach; calls, however, for an increase in the exchange of best practice, technical assistance and preparatory toolkits for Member States to disseminate information on financial instruments; also recalls that financial instruments are not always appropriate to finance railway, inland waterways or cross-border projects and that smaller countries face difficulties in implementing PPPs; stresses, therefore, the need to reinforce the grant part of the EU funds as grants remain an essential tool in attracting private financing and closing gaps between Member States.

2018/03/01
Committee: TRAN

2017/2285(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that the intervention logic behind EU transport infrastructure investment should remain a well-balanced construction of centrally managed and shared management sources in order to address policy and funding needs; recalls that the CEF aims to address centrally the EU-wide priority of TEN-T corridors, including safety and environmental aspects; recalls also that the ERDF and CF have a strong regional dimension that responds to local demand and they support the connectivity to TEN-T and mobility through secondary and tertiary nodes and multimodal terminals; underlines, in this context, that the relevant budgetary envelopes for the three funding sources need to be strengthened in a~~n even~~ balanced manner in order to avoid asymmetric distribution of investment between the levels;

2018/02/27
Committee: REGI

2017/2285(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Invites the Commission and Member States to continuing co-financing projects in the next programming period with the principle of "use it or lose it";

2018/03/01
Committee: TRAN

2017/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the role of additional sources such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) needs to be defined in view of their complementarity to the ERDF and CF and their additionality to EIB lending operations; notes in this regard that EFSI should serve as a platform for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in matching financial instruments to private investment and to national/regional financing at project level; notes that ~~the support available through the EU guarantee should be provided to bankable infrastructure projects which would not otherwise be supported through the~~bankable infrastructure projects should primarily be supported by loans, EU guarantee or blending, in addition to co- financing by ERDF, CF or CEF;

2018/02/27
Committee: REGI

2017/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the creation of an EU transport infrastructure index as an additional eligibility criterion in order to accurately reflect regional and local demand; proposes that the index help determine the overall envelope of investments as well as the co-financing rates; suggests that the EU transport scoreboard could be the basis for the proposed index with complementary elements such as road safety, regional specifics and environmental impact, which could contribute to the accuracy of the assessments;deleted

2018/02/27
Committee: REGI

2017/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses the view that the less developed regions with negative demographic trends or remote ones with low accessibility should be targeted ~~more intensively~~ by ERDF and CF transport infrastructure investments, ~~while additional sources and delivery methods should be expanded in the transition and more developed region~~if the EU-added value is provided by an adequate cost-benefit analysis;

2018/02/27
Committee: REGI

2017/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for a common European transport policy based on a funding framework that is integrated and coordinated with the EU transport instruments; considers that thematic concentration should be preserved in order to permit synergies between different funding sources at project level; ~~propos~~invites the ~~creation of~~Commission to explore a single set of rules for all financing sources related to the thematic objective of ‘promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures’; considers it necessary to streamline and accelerate procurement and state aid compliance procedures ~~through standardised public procurement~~as much as possible;

2018/02/27
Committee: REGI

2017/2285(INI)

Hannu TAKKULA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes the work of the Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS), the European Public- Private Partnership Expertise Centre (EPEC) and the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH); expects, however, that the transport infrastructure operations of the EIB Group within the EU devote significantly more resources to providing comprehensive advisory assistance to ~~authorities locally and to smaller municipal~~local, regional and national authorities at an earlier stage in the identification and pre-assessment of those projects with an EU-added value;

2018/02/27
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas cohesion policy aims to promote harmonious development of the whole Union, leading to a strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion, in a spirit of solidarity and with the aim of promoting growth, and reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Hannu TAKKULA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the 7th Cohesion Report draws attention to the diversity of regions and territories, including within current categories of regions, owing to their specific circumstances (ultraperipherality, sparse population, low income, low growth, etc.), making a tailored approach essential;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that cohesion policy investments provide European added value by contributing to ~~European public goods and to~~ the Treaty objective of reducing disparities;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Hannu TAKKULA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that European added value is ~~also~~strongly reflected in European territorial cooperation,; in all its dimensions (cross-border, transnational, interregional co-operation); calls for an increase in its share of the budget allocated to cohesion policy, while improving coordination between different programmes to avoid overlaps;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Recalls that the particular structural social and economic situation of the outermost regions justifies specific measures, in accordance with Article 349 TFEU, and stresses the need to improve the specific measures for these regions by adjusting them whenever necessary; calls on the Commission to take the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 15 December 2015 as the basis for ensuring that Article 349 TFEU is properly applied as regards the conditions governing access to the Structural Funds; ~~suggests in particular extending the specific allocation for the outermost regions to the social component and better tailoring the thematic concentration;~~

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that the introduction of integrated strategies for sustainable urban development has been a success and should be replicated in other sub-regional territories~~, for example by setting an integrated territorial objective alongside the thematic objectives~~;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Stresses that social and fiscal convergence help to foster cohesion while improving the functioning of the single market; takes the view that divergent practices in this area may run counter to the objective of cohesion and are liable to cause further problems for territories which are lagging behind or are the most vulnerable to globalisation; considers thatInvites the Commission to further explore in the European Semester how cohesion policy c~~ould~~an contribute to ~~the promotion of social~~economic and ~~fisc~~social convergence by ~~providing incentives; calls on the Commission to take better account of this aspect in the European Semester;~~building on investments and structural reforms

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Supports a strong thematic concentration on a limited number of priorities linked to major European political objectives, leaving managing authorities the task of drawing up their territorial strategies on the basis of their needs; stresses that employment, innovation, support for SMEs, climate change ~~and~~, the circular economy and digital and transport infrastructure should constitute priority areas for cohesion policy in future;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Hannu TAKKULA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Welcomes the adoption of the European Pillar for Social Rights, which represents a step forward in building a social Europe; reiterates its commitment to~~Acknowledges steps taken towards more social Europe; welcomes instruments such as the ESF, the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative in view of their role in meeting the challenges of employment, social inclusion, learning and vocational training;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises that future cohesion policy should focus more on protecting and supporting communities and territories adversely affected by globalisation (plant relocations, job losses); calls for the ~~scope for coordination between the Structural Funds and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to be explored;~~Commission to explore the mainstreaming and integration of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in the future European Structural and Investment Funds

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Advocates stepping up integrated approaches, and stresses that the ESF must remain an integral component of European regional policy~~, by virtue of its essential territorial dimension~~;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Emphasises that financial instruments can be an effective lever and that they should be promoted if they generate added value; stresses, however, that their effectiveness hinges on many factors (nature of the project, of the territory or of the risk) and that all regions, regardless of their level of development, must be ~~free~~incited to determine the most appropriate method of financing; ~~opposes any binding targets for the use of financial instruments;~~

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls for the conditions governing the use of financial instruments to be simplified and for the coordination of these instruments with grants to be facilitated; emphasises the importance of the complementary role played by national development banks and institutions in implementing financial instruments tailored to local needs; regards it as essential to harmonise the rules on financial instruments as much as possible, however they are managed;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Believes that it is both legitimate and necessary to establish a link between cohesion policy and the guarantee of an environment conducive to investment, effectiveness and the proper use of funds, while stressing that cohesion policy is not meant to be reduced to an instrument for serving priorities without reference to its objectives; expresses its support for a balanced link with economic governance where this helps to maximise the impact of ESI Funds; calls on the Commission to overhaul the European Semester to strengthen its territorial dimension and take account of other factors which contribute to the achievement of cohesion objectives, such as real convergence;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Calls for the smart specialisation strategies to be continued, and acknowledges the importance of ex-ante conditionalities, which have proved their worth, but stresses that they have been a source of complexity and delays in the development and launching of programming; calls on the Commission ~~to reduce~~and the nuMember ~~of ex ante conditionalities and, in this field, to improve compliance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, making~~States to make use to a maximum ~~use~~extent of existing strategic documents which could fulfil future ex ante conditionalities;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Notes that the quality of public administration is a decisive factor in regional growth and the effectiveness of ESI funds; emphasises the need to i~~ncrease administrative capacities~~mprove the quality of governance;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Stresses the need to provide a framework which guarantees legal stability through simple, clear and predictable rules, particularly as regards management and checks; calls, in the next programming period, for a reduction in the volume of legislation and guidelines, for the relevant documents to be translated into all the EU languages ~~and for any retrospective application and interpretation of rules to be banned~~;

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2279(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Considers that cohesion policy can help to meet new challenges, such as security or the integration of refugees under international protection~~, with due regard for the sovereignty of the Member States~~; stresses, however, that ~~cohesion policy cannot be the solution to all crises, and opposes the use of cohesion policy funds to cover short-term~~the use of ESIF should be based on the principles of cohesion policy and not to financ~~ing~~e needs outside its scope;.

2018/02/28
Committee: REGI

2017/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas decarbonisation of transport and the use of low-emission technologies offer opportunities for the future of mobility and sustainable economic growth;

2018/03/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

E a. whereas applying the user and polluter pays principle in all transport modes, including road, rail, maritime and aviation, will contribute to create a level playing field between all transport modes;

2018/03/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission Communication entitled ‘Europe on the Move: an agenda for a socially fair transition towards clean, competitive and connected mobility for all’, which recognises that the mobility sector is undergoing profound changes and stresses that the digital mobility revolution should lead to a more innovative, integrated, sustainable, fairer and more competitive road transport sector;

2018/03/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that the digital revolution will reshape the automotive industry value chain, investment priorities and technological ~~choic~~opportunities, with implications for its global competitive position;

2018/03/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Stresses that automated driving would ultimately raise questions on the interpretation of existing EU legislation on driving time and rest periods; calls on the Commission to continuously monitor if legislative action is needed.

2018/03/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Highlights that Europe is a world leader in both manufacturing and transport operations and stresses that it is of crucial importance that the European transport sector continues to develop, invest and renew itself in a sustainable manner, in order to maintain its technological leadership and competitive position;

2018/03/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes that research at EU level, notably through Horizon 2020, will be key to delivering results, as demonstrated by projects such as the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, and calls for further financial support for the development of batteries and battery cell production and recycling, as the advancement of these technologies will play a key role in the future of clean mobility;

2018/03/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines that connectivity among autonomous vehicles and between vehicles and infrastructure will be crucial in order to ensure an unobstructed traffic flow; calls therefore on the Commission to address issues of data use and management while stressing the importance of data protection;

2018/03/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Underlines the importance of adequate safety legislation in order to achieve a safer road transport sector; calls upon the Commission to deliver on the announced legislation on road safety in a timely manner;

2018/03/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

– having regard to ex-ante conditionalities for smart specialisation strategies,

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the economic crisis in the EU has adversely affected economic growth at regional level, despite the fact that cohesion policy has contributed ~~significantly to~~with around one third of the EU budget aiming at boosting growth and employment and reducing disparities between EU regions;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the principal objective of the E~~uropean Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund~~SI Funds for the period 2014-2020 is invest~~ment~~ing in growth and employment ~~with a view to strengthening the labour market, regional economies and European regional cooperation and improving cross-border, transn~~taking into account EU strategies, ESI Funds specific objectives and Treaty’s objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion, linking it with relevant Country Specific Recommendationals and ~~interregional cooperation within the Union~~performing necessary Structural Reforms;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas according to the European Commission's report, 47 regions are lagging behind in eight Member States; ~~whereas, however, this difference is not reflected in the regulations;~~

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas lagging regions suffer more than others from the shortage of public and private investment~~, which is also due to public debt reduction requirements imposed by the Stability Pact~~;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas lagging regions are affected by the lack of Structural reforms which makes the limited public investments ineffective and which makes lagging regions less attractive to private investments;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas lagging regions have serious infrastructural shortcomings and are in need of ~~targeted investments to ensure that they are used more effectively and are more accessible~~more efficient and effective investments in order to increase the impact of public investments;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the Commission ~~hopes for~~is of the opinion that a closer relationship between cohesion policy and country-specific recommendations in the framework of the European Semester is needed;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas mass departures from lagging regions, especially on the part of young people and skilled labour, are making them less attractive in terms of ~~employ~~investments;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

~~J. whereas the definition of low- income and low-growth regions should take into account national programmes and general economic conditions;~~deleted

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas ~~the~~ efficient public services ~~contribute significantly to ensuring economic growth~~are also needed in lagging regions;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)

La. whereas obstacles limiting growth and gaps in infrastructures should be reduced in lagging regions;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L b (new)

Lb. whereas lagging regions' SMEs are financed with much higher interest rates and have more difficulties in receiving loans from the banking sector in order to co-finance ESI Funds projects;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L c (new)

Lc. whereas strengthening administrative capacity should be seen as improving efficiency and better using ICT tools, and not as continuing to increase the number of public administration staff only;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Not~~Welcomes the Commission's report on competitiveness in low-income and low- growth regions: the lagging regions (SWD (2017) 0132) and welcomes the solutions proposed to support growth and the economy in these regions;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that cohesion policy plays a key role in ensuring investment in all EU ~~regions, especially in lagging~~ regions;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to ~~better define regional categories (e.g. low- income, low-growth, transitional regions) based on general economic conditions and on reference periods in line with ESI fund programming cycle~~define lagging areas at NUTS III level within NUTS II regions, and to better target the financing of those areas;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses that in addition to SMEs' low development and investments, unemployment, particularly among young people, remains dramatically high and represents one of the most serious and pressing problems in a large majority of lagging regions; stresses the fundamental role of education and on-the-job training in combating the particularly alarming unemployment and departure levels among young people in these regions; stresses the importance of education and training in relation to the needs and the development of SMEs;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that the presence of a properly educated and trained workforce has a powerful impact on competitiveness, productivity and the attractiveness ~~of the labour market~~for investments;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that, in lagging regions especially, it is necessary to ~~strike the correct balance between structural interventions, social policies and~~invest in the real needs of those regions by better combining grants with financial industr~~ial policies in the programming of ESI funds~~uments in order to stimulate growth and employment;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

~~Public Debt and Economic Growth~~deleted

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that social development criteria, as set out in the Regional Social Progress Index, should be included alongside economic progress criteria in future Commission reports on lagging regions;deleted

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Highlights the adverse effects of ~~austerity policie~~public and private high debt rates and the past economic crisis, especially infor low- growth regions, ~~encouraging public investment cuts and giving priority to debt repayment over any other national budget item~~which have reduced the margins of budgetary policies, producing public investment cuts;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that ~~growth and employment, especially in the most disadvantaged regions, can only be properly stimulated through cohesion policies if the necessary co-funding is unaffected by budgetary constraint~~the commonly agreed position on the Stability and Growth Pact regarding flexibility for cyclical conditions, structural reforms uander the Stability Pact; reiterates in this regard the call for exemption of total national contributions to European structural and investment funding from Stability and Growth Pact constraints, given their objective of achieving Europe 2020 objectives and supporting competitiveness, growth and job creation, with particular regard to youth employment for government investments aiming at the implementation of major structural reforms, should be applied to the biggest extent possible, with a view to achieving Europe 2020 goals;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Stresses that applying the principle of ‘resilience’ to economic problems facing such regions would allow broader scope and greater flexibility in finding ad hoc solutions to specific crises such as those affecting lagging regions;deleted

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Calls for strengthened action to increase convergence between all regions also with a view to ensure their resiliency to sudden shocks;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2

Rdel~~ationship between cohesion policy and economic policy~~eted

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Considers it necessary to show greater flexibility than allowed under the~~Thinks that more positive incentives within the existing framework of macroeconomic conditions imposed by the European Semester ~~when it comes to funding lagging regions~~could be more effective;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Strongly reaffirms opposition to macroeconomic conditionality, given that it penalises regions and social groups already weakened by the crisis, involving suspension of payments with possibly serious repercussions, especially in lagging regions;deleted

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Takes into consideration the importance of sound economic governance for an effective increase of the overall performance of ESI Funds;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes that, with regard to cohesion policies and other Union policies, any conditionality should be centred on fundamental values, coexistence and solidarity rather than on macroeconomic parameters;deleted

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes that country-specific recommendations in the framework of the European Semester should be made on an multiannual basis and seen as positive incentives for the launch of structural reforms and in no case as instruments that could exclude access to the benefits of cohesion policy;deleted

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Constanze KREHL, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Believes that the measures linking the effectiveness of ESI Funds to sound economic governance as outlined in Regulation 1303/2013 should be carefully analysed, including through the involvement of all the stakeholders; furthermore, believes its rationale should be rethought, with a view to the next programming period and taking into account its 2014-2020 implementation; is of the opinion that the Commission should consider adjustments regarding the link of the European Semester to cohesion policy; in this regard, suggests a system of positive incentives, with margins to be created in the new MFF, that could serve as an envelope which can be used when member states comply with the Country Specific Recommendations (CSR) and other requirements under the European Semester;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers it necessary to support productive business activities specific to lagging regions, including sustainable tourism and agriculture, through the increasingly effective combination of funding ~~from regional and national bodies and from EU instru~~via integrated territorial investments.;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls on the Commission to consider reviewing the existing relationship between cohesion policy and macroeconomic governance, ~~stressing~~recalling that cohesion policy's legitimacy is based directly on the Treaties and is one of the most visible European policies and the most important expression of European solidarity and added value across all European regions; believes that the link between cohesion policy and economic governance processes in the framework of the European Semester must be balanced, reciprocal and ~~non- punitive towards all stakeholder~~focused on a system of positive incentives; supports a further recognition of the territorial dimension, which could be beneficial for the European Semester; notes that it is accordingly necessary to take a balanced approach to economic governance and economic, social and territorial cohesion objectives as laid down by the Treaties and to sustainable growth, employment and environmental protection;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Fernando RUAS, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Ruža TOMAŠIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. CRecalls on the ~~Commission~~need for all political actors to recognise the role played by cohesion policy as ~~an essential~~the main European economic policy instrument to promote investments that take into account the specific economic, social and territorial characteristics of the regions; stresses that such investment should therefore be exempt from the budgetary constraints of the Stability Pact, especially in lagging regions, where they promote growth, employment and improvement of the macro-economic framework throughout the EU;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls ~~for cohesion policy to continue to be a priority for the Union and accordingly provided with adequate funding, keeping in m~~on the Commission and Member States to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the funding within cohesion policy, and to increase the synergies with other EU Funds and financial instruments ind the review of the post-2020 multiannual programming framework.;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Calls on the Commission to better support the development of innovation systems and to strengthen the interaction between businesses, universities and research centres in lagging region;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)

22b. Calls on the Commission and Member States to explore the extension of the application of Article 7 of ERDF by financing the links of cities with their surrounding areas in the lagging regions;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 c (new)

22c. Calls on the Commission and Member States to increase the efficiency of the public sector administration involved in the management of ESI Funds, not necessarily by increasing its staff;

2017/12/19
Committee: REGI

2017/2181(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Is concerned that in its procedure for procurement services, the Joint Undertaking sets a maximum contract budget, which does not seem to be based on a cost estimation process and a reasonable market price reference system; asks the Joint Undertaking to put in place appropriate cost estimation processes before launching procurement procedures, in order to ensure the cost-effectiveness of its multi-annual service contracts;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2181(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes the publication of the “SESAR European Drones Outlook Study” in November 2016; considers that a variety of innovations, including technologies related to Air Traffic Management, are required to safely integrate drones into European airspace; notes with interest its overview of the development of the European drone market to 2050 and the huge potential for Europe and its global competitiveness, as well as the actions that need to be taken in the coming 5 to 10 years to unlock that potential, including support for research and development acheieved by setting up, at Union level, an ecosystem that encompasses both a regulatory framework and technology, and that brings together all key public and private stakeholders, and results in the provision of increased levels of Union funding;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2181(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. RNotes that European airspace management remains fragmented and the Single European Sky as a concept has not yet been achieved; reiterates the vital role of the Joint Undertaking in coordinating and implementing research into the SESAR project, which is a pillar project of the Single European Sky;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates the need to ensure the independence of Agency’s staff and external experts; in this context welcomes the ongoing efforts to ensure proper prevention and management of conflicts of interest, taking into account remarks by the Parliament; notes that the Agency provided relevant training to its staff, maintains a Conflict of Interest Register and continues the review of its “Policy on impartiality and independence: prevention and mitigation of Conflict of Interest” in order to further improve the internal process for the completion, review and update of Declarations of Interest for the Agency’s staff members; welcomes the fact that more than 80% of EASA staff were trained on anti-fraud matters by the end of 2016, and encourages the Agency to aim for training 100% of EASA staff; also notes that the Agency produced a Code of Conduct including a policy on Conflict of Interest and a declaration of interest for the external experts supporting the work of the Agency;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes the results of the third benchmarking exercise on the Agency’s posts, which showed that 12,5 % of the jobs were dedicated to administrative support and coordination, 81,0 % to operational tasks and 6,4 % to neutral (finance/control and linguistics) tasks; is pleased that a breakdown of staff by category and sector, as well as by source of funding for their activities (fees and charges versus Union subsidies), has been included in the 2016 Annual Report, which shows that that 60,4 % of posts, including 50,1 % of operational posts, are funded from fees and charges and 33,8 % of posts are funded from the Union subsidy; notes that for the second consecutive year the Agency has achieved full occupancy of all posts according to the establishment plan; notes a discrepancy in this establishment plan between the different AD and AST posts authorised under the EU budget and the posts actually filled, and calls upon the Agency to address this imbalance;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates that the revision of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council1 envisages broadening the scope of competence of the Agency and that, accordingly, the role played by new technologies, such as remotely piloted aircraft systems, must be taken fully into consideration when new competences are assigned; stresses the importance of allocating adequate funding to the Agency to ensure the successful uptake of these new responsibilities, as well as adequate staffing in order to fulfil additional tasks; notes, however, that the Agency should amend its Financial and Fees and charges regulations to better formalise the treatment of an accumulated surplus, in order to potentially reduce the Union subsidy; _________________ 1 Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ L 79, 19.3.2008, p. 1).

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Welcomes the political agreement on the revision of the common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency1a, as agreed in November 2017 by the Parliament, the Council and Commission; urges the Commission and Member States to provide necessary resources for the new and reinforced competences concerning, among others, risks to civil aviation arising from conflict zones, environmental related topics and the certification and registration of unmanned aircraft; _________________ 1aRegulation COM(2015) 613: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Safety Agency, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Welcomes the active role of the Agency in the call for proposals under the Horizont 2020 programme; urges the Agency to remain active in the field of research and development;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8 c. Supports the establishment of a working group to look into the potential risks and impact of Brexit; recommends the Agency to work closely together with the other European Institutions regarding this matter; proposes that the Agency presents the outcomes of this working group to the European Parliament in due time;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2136(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that ~~for~~, at the ~~area of "Competitiveness for growth and employment", to which transport belongs~~time when the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is under preparation, the Court did not provide any comprehensive information regarding the audits performed for transport sector under the area of “Competitiveness for growth and employment”, in particular regarding the ~~Connecting Europe Facility (~~CEF);

2018/01/25
Committee: TRAN

2017/2136(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Takes note of the Court’s observation as concerns the risk of backlog of unpaid claims in the final years of the current MFF and in the early years of the next MFF; invites the Commission to present to the Parliament and the Council an assessment of the implications with sector-specific recommendations;

2018/01/25
Committee: TRAN

2017/2136(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Regrets the fairly limited progress made in the completion of the TEN-T strategic networks planned under the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund; asks the Commission to investigate how problems related to implementation rates and imbalance between Member States could be improved; invites the European TEN-T Coordinators to conduct a thorough assessment of the projects completed and the improvements achieved along the TEN-T corridors under the current programming period, and to present it to the Commission and the Parliament;

2018/01/25
Committee: TRAN

2017/2136(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Regret~~Notes that the number of financial instruments has increased considerably, which allows for new blending opportunities in the transport sector, while at the same time creating a complex web of arrangements around the Union budget; is concerned that these instruments alongside the Union budget could risks undermining the level of accountability and transparency, as reporting, audit and public scrutiny are not aligned; regrets furthermore that with the use of the EFSI funds, implementation powers are delegated to the EIB with more limited public scrutiny than for other instruments supported by the Union budget;

2018/01/25
Committee: TRAN

2017/2136(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Calls upon the Commission to clearly present for the sector of transport an assessment of the impact of EFSI on other financial instruments, in particular with regard to the CEF as well as on the coherence of the CEF Debt Instrument with other Union initiatives in good time before the proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and for the next CEF; requests that this assessment presents a clear analysis on the geographical balance of investments in the transport sector; recalls, however, that the amount of money spent under a financial instrument should not be considered as the only pertinent criteria to assess its performance; invites, therefore, the Commission to deepen its assessment of the achievements completed under Union funded transport projects and measure their added-value;

2018/01/25
Committee: TRAN

2017/2136(DEC)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Notes that research and innovation accounts for 59% of spending of the MFF sub-heading "Competitiveness for growth and jobs"; is concerned that the level of errors is high (4,1%); emphasises that innovation is a cornerstone to ensure sustainability of transport; calls on the Commission to put forward further simplification measures and ensure that a technical and financial support is provided so that funding is adequately used and more participants, in particular SMEs, would profit from Union funds; reiterates the need to secure enough Union funds in the form of grants in the next MFF for research and innovation;

2018/01/25
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2017 on road transport in the European Union,

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the installation of driver assistance systems in vehicles for persons ~~of restrict~~with reduced mobility and the elderly enables their safe~~, active~~ participation in road traffic;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the move towards ~~completely~~ driver- free vehicles is progressing rapidly, so that a review of the General Safety Regulation needs to be submitted by the Commission no later than January 2018;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Believes that full cost-benefit analysis in the form of adequate ex ante impact assessments by the Commission is essential for any new Union safety requirements, and that particular consideration should be given to their potential impact on the price of new cars for European consumers, as well their effect on vehicle emissions; recommends, furthermore, that the implementation of new Union road safety requirements be synchronised with the activities of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE); recommends that Europe should remain ambitious as a global leader in order to come to higher, global safety standards and less road casualties;

2017/06/27
Committee: IMCO

2017/2085(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is of the opinion that any new Union safety measures should be proportional to the design and production challenges facing small-volume and bespoke manufacturers; is of the opinion that the Euro NCAP should always reflect the actual car safety of a specific model and strongly rejects the current practice where the normally high-ranked models actually perform less well in real life, because they are stripped of the non- mandatory advanced safety features in specific countries;

2017/06/27
Committee: IMCO

2017/2085(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the improvements that market-led technological developments have already brought to Union road safety, and encourages the continued exploration of the opportunities the digital revolution offers in that regard; emphasises that the protection of personal data is fundamental, and underlines that public administrations should handle personal data securely in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the EU Rules on Privacy; considers it important to further explore the principle of data ownership; calls for continuing research and the development of new standards in autonomous emergency braking, lane keeping assistance and reverse detection technologies for motor vehicles, and front-end blind spot cameras and detection for HGVs; calls for phasing in specific measures which significantly increase vehicle safety.

2017/06/27
Committee: IMCO

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Urges that Europe should remain ambitious and act as a global leader in car safety in order to come to higher, global safety standards and less road casualties;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Calls for a harmonised, European approach, which takes into account all existing international and national legislation and ensures its complementarity;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for a harmonised EU blood alcohol concentration limit of 0.0% for new drivers in the first two years and for professional drivers, and a harmonised EU blood alcohol concentration limit close to zero for all other drivers;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Observes that nearly half of all pedestrians and cyclist~~s killed on the road~~ deaths resulting from traffic accidents are aged over 65, and calls on Member States to ~~make it possible for older people to use the roads safely by developing programmes to avert age-specific risks of accidents;~~improve the conditions for all pedestrians and cyclists to safely use the roads.

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Observes that, in 43% of cases, fatal road accidents in urban areas occur to pedestrians and cyclists, and ~~calls on Member States to take greater account of the more vulnerable road users in building and maintaining roads, for example by building more cycle paths, or expanding them~~encourages cities to include targets into their Mobility plans to reduce the number of road and traffic accidents;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Is of the opinion that the Euro NCAP should always reflect the actual car safety of a specific model and strongly rejects the current practice where the normally high-ranked models actually perform less well in real life, because they are stripped of the non-mandatory advanced safety features in specific countries;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that a high level of data protection as required by the General Data Protection Regulation and by the right to protection of privacy and personal data should be ensured, as should high IT security, so that the possibility of new accident risks due to remote manipulation of on-board systems or conflicts of compatibility is excluded and recommends that the princple of ownership of data is explored;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that a high level of data protection as required by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the General Data Protection ~~Regulation~~ and by the right to protection of privacy and personal data should be ensured, as should high IT security, so that the possibility of new accident risks due to remote manipulation of on-board systems or conflicts of compatibility is excluded;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Calls on the Commission to elaborate and prioritize on the final list of potential measures and ranking these measures by their effectiveness;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26 a. Calls on the Commission that it makes sure that the market will have sufficient and realistic time to adapt to these measures;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2067(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the combination of C-ITS and environmentally-friendly cars will lead to a higher level of sustainability;

2017/11/27
Committee: TRAN

2017/2067(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Urges the European Union, for the sake of economic growth and competitiveness, to support its leading global position in the field of C-ITS through the promotion of European standards at international fora; encourages all stakeholders to speed up the deployment of C-ITS technologies; underlines, in this respect, the need for high-quality, safe, competitive, accessible, continuous and reliable services throughout the Union;

2017/11/27
Committee: TRAN

2017/2067(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Calls on car manufacturers to inform consumers adequately and in a clear manner about their rights as well as the benefits and limits of new C-ITS technologies in terms of safety; calls furthermore on them never to sell, keep, use or process for any other purpose in- car data without explicit prior consent;

2017/11/27
Committee: TRAN

2017/2067(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

14a. Stresses the need to develop a common policy on the security of C-ITS communications, including strict security standards, in order to protect the transport system against hacking and cyber-attacks;

2017/11/27
Committee: TRAN

2017/2067(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Stresses the importance of technology neutrality, backward compatibility, technical harmonisation and standardisation of data and definitions regarding C-ITS;

2017/11/27
Committee: TRAN

2017/2067(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Considers interoperability to be essential for both safety and consumer choice; asks the Commission together with the competent authorities of the Member States to ensure a successful roll- out and interoperability at all levels;

2017/11/27
Committee: TRAN

2017/2067(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Welcomes the strategy’s focus on user involvement; encourages the Commission to facilitate the exchange of best practices; underlines the need for dedicated cross-border C-ITS pilots, supported by adequate funding; encourages Member States to join urgently the C-Roads Platform, to jointly work on interoperability;

2017/11/27
Committee: TRAN

2017/2067(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Calls on the Commission to adopt a global approach to technical harmonisation and standardisation of data, in order to ensure the compatibility of cooperative intelligent transport systems, economies of scale for manufacturers and improved consumer comfort;

2017/11/27
Committee: TRAN

2017/2067(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Underlines the importance of opening a dialogue with the social partners at an early stage in order to establish an atmosphere of transparency and confidence and ~~ensure that there will be no~~finding a proper balance between positive and negative effects on social and employment conditions;

2017/11/27
Committee: TRAN

2017/2067(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Welcomes the Commission proposal for the extension of the time frame of the mandate to adopt delegated acts under the ITS Directive 2010/40/EU;

2017/11/27
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the second-hand car market in the European Union, which is two to three times larger than the market of new cars, has the lowest consumer trust among goods markets2 and odometer tampering seriously contributes to the loss of consumers’ trust in second-hand dealers and thus distorts the functioning of the internal market and fair competition; _________________ 2 Consumer Markets Scoreboard, European Commission 2014

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas tackling odometer tampering would benefit and better protect millions of European consumers;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas some Member States have already introduced instruments to minimise odometer manipulation like “Car-Pass” in Belgium and “Nationale AutoPas” (NAP) in the Netherlands; whereas both use a database collecting odometer readings at every maintenance, service, repair or periodical inspection of the vehicle, without collecting any personal data and have both almost eradicated odometer fraud in their domains within a short timeframe;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to pursue the overall goal of creating legal, technical and operational barriers to make odometer manipulations ~~either~~ impossible ~~or so time consuming, difficult and expensive that it is no longer lucrative~~;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. C~~onsiders a shorter period for the first mandatory PTI more useful and suggest~~alls on the Commission and the Member states to include mandatory odometer readings not only from PTIs, but also inspections and other garage visits;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Emphasises that shifting to a blockchain based solution could be more cost-effective while providing high quality and security; therefore call~~Calls on the Commission to assess the potential benefits onf the ~~Commission to explore the possible~~ establishment of a European odometer blockchain network;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on Member States to improve their legislation - or in case they do not have any, to create a specific one - on odometer fraud in order to make it a criminal offence;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Calls on the Commission to propose a legislative framework, within a timeframe of twelve months after the adoption of this report by the European Parliament, for Member States to set up national data collection mechanisms, based on best practices; these mileage data collection should be mutually compatible, exchanged and interconnected between Member States, within the existing framework of EUCARIS;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 4 a (new)

Consumers should be able, before buying a second-hand vehicle, to verify the accuracy of the odometer reading of the vehicle, based on the collected mileage data from that vehicle regardless of the Member State in which it was previously registered;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 5

Blockchain and connectivity as potential and complementary long-term solutions

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 7

The blockchain technology could offers a reliable tool to secure data in a network and successfully prevent manipulation of data entries. Combining those developments and technology could be a long-term solution to odometer fraud.

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 8 – indent 1

- assess the potential costs and benefits of establishing a European blockchain network for odometer readings;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 8 – indent 2

- create the legal and regulatory framework for an automated transmission of odometer readings of cars that are equipped with connectivity functions to complete mileage recordings taken from manual entries at PTI and other sources;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2064(INL)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 8 – indent 3

- ~~include the additional option~~make mandatory to transmit odometer readings from PTI, garage visits and inspections and thus integrating but advancing from the database system;

2018/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ

Draft opinion
Paragraph –1 (new)

-1. Insists on the strategic importance of the MFF for sectors relying on long- term investment such as the transport sector; calls therefore on the Commission to put forward a proposal and to engage urgently with the Council and the European Parliament to define the MFF after 2020;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that transport infrastructures are the backbone of the single market and crucial to ensuring the four fundamental freedoms pertaining to persons, capital, goods and services; notes that ~~accomplishing a single European transport area connected~~connection to neighbouring countries ~~requires~~by means of major transport infrastructure ~~to be treated as a key~~is a priority for the EU’s competitiveness and for territorial, economic and social cohesion;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Wim van de CAMP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses the importance of the goals set by COP 21 (“Paris Agreement”) with regard to transport in order to combat climate change; underlines that financial means should be available to ensure a modal shift from road to rail as well as waterborne and inland waterway transport and encouraging Member States to invest in smart, sustainable, integrated public transport; recommends also paying attention to noise and vibration reduction in transport to provide citizens with an environment of high quality;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that European added value can be achieved in transport infrastructure projects only if the EU has the capacity to include in its next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) a regulatory framework and funding commensurate with its ambitions;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Wim van de CAMP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Considers th~~at c~~e Cohesion ~~policy’s share of the total EU budget should be maintained post-2020, as the Cohesion Fund makes a major contribution to closing infrastructure gaps between regions;~~ Fund as an important contributor inclosing infrastructure gaps between regions; calls therefore also for the inclusion of small scale cross-border infrastructure projects ("missing links") as key priority in the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC - Interreg);

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Invites the Commission to explore, in the next MFF, new possibilities to facilitate and encourage synergies between the European structural and investment funds (ESIF), CEF and Horizon 2020 for transport related projects, especially with a view to support those projects in cross border regions and along the TEN-T;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) should allow for adequate EU funding, including structural and investment funds, for projects which contribute, in particular, to the completion of the Trans- European Transport Network (TEN-T) core network and its corridors; rReiterates that financial instruments cannot replace grants for TEN-T projects, as only grants can maximise output on the ground; considers, furthermore, that better coordination of EU instruments related to transport, including blending of grants and innovative financial instruments, can facilitate project implementation and catalyse private financing; stresses the desirability of establishing, as part of the funding supported in the Union, a coordination system to optimise the linkage by projects of grants and financial instruments (blending);

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Invites the European Coordinators to conduct a thorough assessment of the projects completed and the improvements achieved along the TEN-T Corridors under the current programming period, and to present it to the Commission and the European Parliament; calls on the Commission to reflect upon this assessment in preparing the next MFF;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that Brexit will not only have a general impact on the budget but also particularly sizable direct and indirect effects on European transport policy, especially in aviation and sea transport;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Wim van de CAMP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that strengthening the governance of EU macro-regional strategies~~, such as in the Danube, Black Sea, Baltic, Adriatic and Ionian regions,~~ will contribute to developing EU added value projects;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses, in the context of what is nothing short of a global revolution in the field of transport (the energy shift, driverless and connected cars), the absolute necessity for the EU to invest in research and development and infrastructure in order not to become completely uncompetitive in a globalised world; considers adequate financing to be an absolute must in the next MFF;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Wim van de CAMP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Considers that an upgraded and more effective Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), which covers all modes of transport, including road~~Reiterates the importance of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) funding instrument for the completion of the TEN-T network and for achieving a Single European Transport Area; believes that CEF is a vital instrument with significant Union-added value to optimise the transport network across the Union, linking and/or modernising new and existing transport infrastructure,s and ~~focuses on interconnections, is necessary~~ensuring interoperability of transport services; considers that necessary funds should be safeguarded in order to achieve the primary scope of CEF-Transport, targeting the core network;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recalls the specific problem of transport in policies on the environment and climate, and emphasises the need for the MFF to include sufficient funding, in particular, for research and development, modal shift, the low-carbon energy transition and horizontal infrastructure in the sectors of transport, energy and IT;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that funding for completing the single European rail area should be safeguarded and stresses the importance of renovating and maintaining secondary rail connections, which feed the national central networks and the European corridors; stresses further that the deployment of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) should be brought forward in order to further implement common technical standards and maximise the benefits in terms of interoperability;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates the importance of ~~enabling the full use~~the full implementation of the Single European Sky as a crucial step forward for European airspace; stresses the need for adequate funding to implement the components of Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) in order to ensure the deployment of ATM functionalities;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Underlines that the revision of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 envisages broadening the scope of competence of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA);stresses the importance of allocating adequate funding to the EASA to ensure the successful uptake of these new responsibilities;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Reiterates the importance of securing appropriate funding for Joint Undertakings, among others SESAR, SHIFT2RAIL and CLEAN SKY; considers that SHIFT2RAIL Joint Undertaking should prioritise interoperability projects and maximise the benefits for interoperability in the Single European Rail Area; considers it to be important to allocate funding that will enable infrastructure to be maintained and quality criteria to be respected, in order to guarantee greater consumer protection and safety;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Underlines the importance of secured funding to achieve an integrated maritime policy, as a flagship initiative for cross-sectoral and trans-national governance, as well as for optimising multimodal connections and shifting to digital transport services ~~and~~, promoting the use of alternative fuels with low emissions of pollutants and the transition to sustainable transport modes, including inland waterways;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Stresses the role of European transport agencies in harmonising and integrating the various modes of transport in the European (economic) area; calls, in view of the ever greater role and workload entrusted to them by legislation, for their operational resources to be negotiated accordingly in the future budgetary framework;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2052(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the importance of shifting towards a sustainable tourism sector, which requires better coordination between tourism and infrastructure projects, as recalled at the high-level conference on tourism at the European Parliament on 27 September 2017; considers that a specific heading for tourism should be created in order to move towards a genuine European tourism policy;

2017/10/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2044(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Stresses the importance of the goals set by COP 21 with regard to transport in order to combat climate change;underlines that financial means should be available to ensure a modal shift from road to rail, as well as to waterborne and inland waterway transport, and to encourage Member States to invest in smart, sustainable, integrated public transport;also recommends paying attention to noise reduction in transport to provide citizens with an environment of high quality;

2017/07/19
Committee: TRAN

2017/2044(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Underlines that the revision of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council envisages broadening the scope of competence of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA);stresses the importance of allocating adequate funding to the EASA in order to ensure the successful uptake of these new responsibilities;

2017/07/19
Committee: TRAN

2017/2044(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. U~~nderstands~~rges the Commission that the new initiative ~~InterRail is foreseen to be elaborated during the mid-term revision of the multi- annual financial framework (MFF) but believes that such a project~~Move2Learn, Learn2Move should not jeopardize budgetary lines within the Heading 1a related to the transport sector and other sectors important to Union’'s competitiveness and growth;

2017/07/19
Committee: TRAN

2017/2037(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on partnerships working in the framework of the Urban Agenda to swiftly adopt their recommendations and action plans; furthermore, calls on the Commission to demonstrate how these concrete proposals are taken into consideration, in particular with reference to better regulation, funding and knowledge, and to project them into future legislative proposals; calls on the Commission to consistently report to the European Parliament on these outcomes;

2018/04/05
Committee: REGI

2017/2037(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the importance of associations representing cities, such as EUROCITIES and the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR); calls for their closer involvement in relevant Commission expert groups and Council working groups, if and when appropriate;

2018/04/05
Committee: REGI

2017/2037(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Is convinced that the arguments set out above conclusively demonstrate the need for the role of cities in shaping future EU policies to be considerably strengthened; calls for the EU, therefore, especially with a view to long-term considerations, to reassess the establishment of a European Urban Policy, within the framework of the Cohesion Policy.

2018/04/05
Committee: REGI

2017/0336(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)

(1 a) Whereas structural reforms are recognised to accelerate the process of upward social and economic convergence among the Member States; the effects of such convergence and strengthening of resilience are expected to lead to greater prosperity.

2018/07/20
Committee: REGI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1

Without prejudice to social tariffs, railway undertakings or ticket vendors shall offer ~~contract~~transport contract and ticketing conditions and tariffs to the general public without direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of the final ~~custom~~passenger’'s nationality or residence, or the place of establishment of the railway undertaking or ticket vendor within the Union or the means through which passengers bought the ticket.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Passengers shall be entitled to take bicycles on board the train, where appropriate for a reasonable fee. They shall keep their bicycles under supervision during the journey and ensure that no inconvenience or damage is caused to other passengers, mobility equipment, luggage or rail operations. The carriage of bicycles may be refused or restricted for safety or operational reasons, provided that railway undertakings, ticket vendors, tour operators and, where appropriate, station managers inform passengers, at the latest when purchasing the ticket, of the conditions for such a refusal or restriction in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 454/2011.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5

5. The compensation of the ticket price shall be paid within one month after the submission of the request for compensation. The compensation may be paid in vouchers and/or other services, or through an automatic compensation system where in place, if the terms are flexible (in particular regarding the validity period and destination). The compensation shall be paid in money at the request of the passenger.

2018/04/17
Committee: IMCO

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. Railway undertakings and ticket vendors offering transport contracts on behalf of one or more railway undertakings shall provide the passenger, upon request, with at least the information set out in Annex II, Part I in relation to the journeys for which a transport contract is offered by the railway undertaking concerned. For this purpose, railway undertakings shall provide this information to ticket vendors and other railway undertakings, selling their service. Ticket vendors offering transport contracts on their own account, and tour operators, shall provide this information ~~where available.~~

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 8

8. A railway undertaking shall not be obliged to pay compensation if it can prove that the delay was caused by severe weather conditions or major natural disasters endangering the safe operation of the service and could not have been foreseen or prevented even if all reasonable measures had been taken.deleted

2018/04/17
Committee: IMCO

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. Railway undertakings ~~and, where possible, ticket vendors~~ shall provide the passenger during the journey , including at connecting stations, with at least the information set out in Annex II, Part II. The same shall apply to ticket vendors except in cases where they do not have the possibility to connect with the passenger and inform him/her. For the purpose of this paragraph, railway undertaking shall provide information set out in Annex II, Part II to ticket vendors and other railway undertakings, selling its service.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. Railway undertakings and ticket vendors shall offer tickets and, where available~~, through-tickets and reservations. They shall make all possible efforts to offer through-tickets, including for journeys across borders and with more than one railway undertaking~~ reservations. They shall offer through-tickets, including for journeys across borders and with more than one railway undertaking, where according to the time schedules known at the time of the purchase of the ticket, there is time for the passenger to transfer between one service to another. Ticket vendors and railway undertakings shall make available to station managers, infrastructure managers, and each other the data concerning sold tickets and the related passengers on a real-time basis in a non- discriminatory way, in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 1a. _________________ 1aRegulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) assistance shall be provided on condition that the railway undertaking, the station manager, the ticket vendor or the tour operator with which the ticket was purchased is notified of the person’s need for such assistance at least 483 hours before the assistance is needed. Where a ticket or season ticket permits multiple journeys, one notification shall be sufficient provided that adequate information on the timing of subsequent journeys is provided. Such notifications shall be forwarded to all other railway undertakings and station managers involved in the person’s journey;

2018/04/17
Committee: IMCO

2017/0237(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) ~~accept upon request~~encourage the participation, in the training, of employees with disabilities, passengers with disabilities and with reduced mobility, and/or organisations representing them.

2018/04/17
Committee: IMCO

2017/0237(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5

5. Where there is no ticket office or accessible ticketing machine in the station of departure, p~~ersons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility~~assengers shall be permitted to buy tickets on board the train at no extra cost.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1

1. All railway undertakings, ticket vendors, station managers and infrastructure managers of stations ~~handling more than 10 000 passengers per day on average over a year~~ shall each set up a complaint-handling mechanism for the rights and obligations covered in this Regulation in their respective field of responsibility. They shall make their contact details and working language(s) widely known to passengers.

2018/04/17
Committee: IMCO

2017/0237(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 3

3. Details of the complaint handling procedure shall be easily available to passengers and accessible to persons with disabilities and with reduced mobility.

2018/04/17
Committee: IMCO

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6

6. Where a passenger receives separate tickets for a single journey comprising successive railway services operated by one or more railway undertakings, his rights to information, assistance, care and compensation shall be equivalent to those under a through-ticket and cover the whole journey from the departure to the final destination, unless the passenger is explicitly informed otherwise in writing. Such information shall in particular state that when the passenger misses a connection, he or she would not be entitled to assistance or compensation based on the total length of the journey. The burden of proof that the information was provided shall lie with the railway undertaking, its agent, tour operator or ticket vendor.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jasenko SELIMOVIC, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The Commission shall adopt a standardised EU complaint form that passengers may use to apply for compensation in accordance with this regulation.

2018/04/17
Committee: IMCO

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Gesine MEISSNER, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2

2. For the purposes of point (b) of paragraph 1, cin case of missed connection due to delay or cancellation, of an earlier leg of the passenger’s journey, the passenger shall be allowed to take the next service available in order to reach his/her final planned destination. Comparable re-routing may be operated by any railway undertaking and may involve the use of transport of a higher class and alternative modes of transport without generating additional costs to the passenger. Railway undertakings shall make reasonable efforts to avoid additional connections. The total travel time when using an alternative mode of transport for the part of the journey not completed as planned shall be comparable to the scheduled travel time of the original journey. Passengers shall not be downgraded to transport facilities of a lower class unless such facilities are the only re-routing means available.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5

5. The compensation of the ticket price shall be paid within one month after the submission of the request for compensation. The compensation may be paid in vouchers and/or other services, or through an automatic compensation system where in place, if the terms are flexible (in particular regarding the validity period and destination). The compensation shall be paid in money at the request of the passenger.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 8

8. A railway undertaking shall not be obliged to pay compensation if it can prove that the delay was caused by severe weather conditions or major natural disasters endangering the safe operation of the service and could not have been foreseen or prevented even if all reasonable measures had been taken.Deleted

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) assistance shall be provided on condition that the railway undertaking, the station manager, the ticket vendor or the tour operator with which the ticket was purchased is notified of the person’s need for such assistance at least 483 hours before the assistance is needed. Where a ticket or season ticket permits multiple journeys, one notification shall be sufficient provided that adequate information on the timing of subsequent journeys is provided. Such notifications shall be forwarded to all other railway undertakings and station managers involved in the person’s journey;

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) ~~accept upon request~~encourage the participation, in the training, of employees with disabilities, passengers with disabilities and with reduced mobility, and/or organisations representing them.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Lucy ANDERSON, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1

1. All railway undertakings, ticket vendors, station managers and infrastructure managers of stations ~~handling more than 10 000 passengers per day on average over a year~~ shall each set up a complaint-handling mechanism for the rights and obligations covered in this Regulation in their respective field of responsibility. They shall make their contact details and working language(s) widely known to passengers.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 3

3. Details of the complaint handling procedure shall be easily available to passengers and accessible to persons with disabilities and with reduced mobility.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The Commission shall adopt a standardised EU complaint form that passengers may use to apply for compensation in accordance with this regulation.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) lays down a framework for the establishment of European cybersecurity certification schemes for the purpose of ensuring an adequate level of cybersecurity of ICT products, processes and services in the Union. Such framework shall apply without prejudice to specific provisions regarding voluntary or mandatory certification in other Union acts. (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10

(10) ‘European cybersecurity certificate’ means a document issued by a conformity assessment body attesting that a given ICT product, process or service fulfils the specific requirements laid down in a European cybersecurity certification scheme;

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The Agency shall assist Member States and Union institutions in establishing policies and practices for the responsible management and coordinated disclosure of vulnerabilities in ICT products and services that are not publicly known.

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. The Agency shall assist and advise Member States and Union institutions in establishing policies and practices for the responsible management and coordinated disclosure of vulnerabilities in ICT products and services that are not publicly known, inter alia by establishing government vulnerability disclosure review processes and coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies.

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2

2. assisting Member States to implement consistently the Union policy and law regarding cybersecurity notably in relation to Directive (EU) 2016/1148, including by means of opinions, guidelines, advice and best practices on topics such as risk management, incident reporting and information sharing, technical and organisational measures, in particular the establishment of coordinated vulnerability disclosure programmes, as well as facilitating the exchange of best practices between competent authorities in this regard;

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)

2a. proposing a blueprint which establishes the roles, responsibilities and legal rights and obligations of information security researchers, vendors, manufacturers, CERTs and CSIRTs in a coordinated vulnerability disclosure programme, in particular in cases of multi-party vulnerability disclosures that affect multiple vulnerability finders and vendors in different Member States;

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point 2 a (new)

(2a) the development and promotion of policies that would sustain the general availability or integrity of the public core of the open internet, which provide the essential functionality to the Internet as a whole and which underpin its normal operation, including, but not limited to, the security and stability of key protocols (in particular DNS, BGP, and IPv6), the operation of the Domain Name System (including those of all Top Level Domains), and the operation of the Root Zone

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) Members States and Union institutions in establishing and implementing coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies and government vulnerability disclosure review processes, whose practices and determinations should be transparent and subject to independent oversight.

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 8 – point e a (new)

(ea) assisting and advising Member States on establishing and implementing coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies and government vulnerability disclosure review processes.

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(ca) support and promote the development and implementation of coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies and government vulnerability disclosure review processes;

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) lays down a framework for the establishment of European cybersecurity certification schemes for the purpose of ensuring an adequate level of cybersecurity of ICT products, processes and services in the Union. Such framework shall apply without prejudice to specific provisions regarding voluntary or mandatory certification in other Union acts.

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10

(10) ‘European cybersecurity certificate’ means a document issued by a conformity assessment body attesting that a given ICT product, process or service fulfils the specific requirements laid down in a European cybersecurity certification scheme;

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. The Agency shall assist Member States and Union institutions in establishing policies and practices for the responsible management and coordinated disclosure of vulnerabilities in ICT products and services that are not publicly known.

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. The Agency shall assist and advise Member States and Union institutions in establishing policies and practices for the responsible management and coordinated disclosure of vulnerabilities in ICT products and services that are not publicly known, inter alia, by establishing government vulnerability disclosure review processes and coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies.

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2

2. assisting Member States to implement consistently the Union policy and law regarding cybersecurity notably in relation to Directive (EU) 2016/1148, including by means of opinions, guidelines, advice and best practices on topics such as secure software and systems development, risk management, incident reporting and information sharing, technical and organisational measures, in particular the establishment of coordinated vulnerability disclosure programmes, as well as facilitating the exchange of best practices between competent authorities in this regard;

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)

2 a. proposing a blueprint which establishes the roles, responsibilities and legal obligations of vendors, manufacturers, CERTs and CSIRTs, and which further clarifies the legal rights and protections of information security researchers in the context of a coordinated vulnerability disclosure programme, in particular in cases of multi-party vulnerability disclosures that affect multiple vulnerability finders and vendors in different Member States

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point 2 a (new)

(2 a) the development and promotion of policies that would sustain the general availability or integrity of the public core of the open internet, which provide the essential functionality to the Internet as a whole and which underpin its normal operation, including, but not limited to, the security and stability of key protocols (in particular DNS, BGP, and IPv6), the operation of the Domain Name System (including those of all Top Level Domains), and the operation of the Root Zone

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(a a) Members States and Union institutions in establishing and implementing coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies and government vulnerability disclosure review processes, whose practices and determinations should be transparent and subject to independent oversight.

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. The Agency shall prepare, together with the EEAS, a regular global Cybersecurity Situational Report on incidents and threats towards individuals, including towards vulnerable users outside the EU such as lawyers, journalists, or human rights defenders, in order to help the Union institutions respond to external needs and uphold its human rights responsibilities abroad

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 8 – point e a (new)

(e a) assisting and advising Member States on establishing and implementing coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies and government vulnerability disclosure review processes.

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(c a) support and promote the development and implementation of coordinated vulnerability disclosure policies and government vulnerability disclosure review processes

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – point j

(j) rules ~~concerning how previously undetected cybersecurity vulnerabilities in ICT products and services are to be reported and dealt with;~~requiring vulnerabilities in ICT products and services that are not publicly known to be reported expeditiously by the appropriate authorities to relevant vendors and manufacturers using a coordinated vulnerability disclosure process.

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – point m a (new)

(ma) Rules concerning how and when Member States are to inform each other when they acquire knowledge of a vulnerability that is not publicly known in an ICT product or service that is certified under this certification scheme.

2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The methodology to distinguish between the different assurance levels should be guided by a test which assesses the resistance of the security functionalities against attackers that have significant to unlimited resources.

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – point j

(j) rules ~~concerning how previously undetected cybersecurity vulnerabilities in ICT products and services are to be reported and dealt with;~~ requiring vulnerabilities in ICT products and services that are not publicly known to be reported expeditiously by the appropriate authorities to relevant vendors and manufacturers using a coordinated vulnerability disclosure process.

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0225(COD)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Julia REDA, Urmas PAET, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Neena GILL, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – point m a (new)

(ma) rules concerning how and when Member States must inform each other when they acquire knowledge of a vulnerability that is not publicly known in an ICT product or service that is certified under this certification scheme.

2018/04/30
Committee: ITRE

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)

(5 a) Toll chargers should be obliged to give access to their EETS domain to EETS providers on a non-discriminatory basis.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 b (new)

(5 b) To ensure transparency and non- discriminatory access to EETS domains for all EETS providers, toll chargers should publish all the necessary information relative to access rights in an EETS domain statement.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 c (new)

(5 c) The EETS being a market-based service, EETS providers should not be forced to provide the service at once across the continent. However, in the interest of the users, EETS providers should be required to cover all EETS domains in any country in which they decide to provide their services. Furthermore, the Commission should ensure that the flexibility given to EETS providers does not lead to the exclusion from EETS of small or peripheral EETS domains.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)

(6 a) The EETS domain statement should describe in detail the framework commercial conditions for EETS providers' operations in the EETS domain in question. In particular, it should describe the methodology used for calculating the remuneration of EETS providers.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 b (new)

(6 b) EETS users should pay no more toll than they would for the corresponding national/local toll. All OBE user rebates or discounts on tolls offered by a Member State or by a toll charger should be available under the same conditions to clients of EETS Providers.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 c (new)

(6 c) Where a new electronic toll collection system is being launched or an existing system is being substantially modified, the toll charger should be required to publish the new or updated EETS domain statements with sufficient notice to allow EETS providers to be accredited or re-accredited to the system at the latest one month before the day of its operational launch. The toll charger should be required to design and follow the procedure for, respectively, the accreditation or re-accreditation of EETS providers in such a way that the procedure can be concluded at the latest one month before the operational launch of the new or substantially amended system. Toll chargers should be made bound to respect their part of the planned procedure as defined in the EETS domain statement.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 d (new)

(6 d) The EETS domain statement should set out in detail the procedure of accreditation of an EETS provider to the EETS domain, in particular the procedure for checking conformity to specifications and suitability for use of interoperability constituents. The procedure should be the same for all EETS providers.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 e (new)

(6 e) Toll chargers should not be permitted to request or require from EETS providers any specific technical solutions which may jeopardise interoperability with other toll domains and with the existing interoperability constituents of the EETS provider.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)

(7 a) EETS providers should be entitled to fair remuneration, calculated based on a transparent and non-discrimatory methodology.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 b (new)

(7 b) EETS providers should be allowed to issue invoices to the users. However, toll chargers should be allowed to request that invoices are sent on their behalf and in their name, as invoicing directly in the name of the EETS provider can in certain toll domains have adverse administrative and tax implications.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 c (new)

(7 c) If a legal entity being a toll service provider also plays other roles in an electronic toll collection system, or has other activities not directly related with electronic toll collection, it should be required to keep separate profit and loss accounts for each type of its activities. Cross subsidies between these different activities should be excluded. However, physical or legal unbundling of the different activities (separation of companies) would be too intrusive and should therefore not be required.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)

(8 a) Each Member State with at least two EETS domains should designate a contact office in the national administration for EETS Providers wishing to provide the EETS in its territory in order to facilitate their contacts with the Toll Chargers.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15 a (new)

(15 a) Toll chargers should be allowed to request from the EETS provider, within the framework of toll enforcement activities and where it is presumed that the driver of a vehicle has failed to pay a road fee data relating to the vehicles and to the owners or holders of vehicles who are the EETS provider's clients. The toll charger should prevent this data, which can be commercially sensitive, from being used for any purpose other than enforcement. In particular, the toll charger should be required not to disclose the data to any of the EETS provider's competitors.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 a (new)

(16 a) A conciliation procedure should be ensured in view to settle disputes between toll chargers and EETS providers during contract negotiations and in their contractual relationships. National Conciliation Bodies should be consulted by toll chargers and EETS providers in search of a dispute settlement relating to non-discriminatory access to EETS domains.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 b (new)

(16 b) The Conciliation Bodies should be empowered to verify that the contractual conditions imposed on any EETS provider are non-discriminatory. In particular, they should be empowered to verify that the remuneration offered by the toll charger to the EETS providers respects the principles of this Directive.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point –a (new)

(-a) 'toll service' means the service enabling users having one contract and one set of OBE to use a vehicle in one or more toll domains;it includes, notably: - providing a customized OBE to the users and maintaining its functionality; - guaranteeing that the toll charger is paid the toll due by the user; - providing the payment means to the user or accepting an existing one; - collecting the toll from the user; - managing the customs relations with the user; - implementing and adhering to the security and privacy policies for the toll systems;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point –a a (new)

(-a a) 'toll service provider' means a legal entity providing customer toll services on one or more toll domains for one or more classes of vehicles;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) 'European Electronic Toll Service (EETS)' means the toll services provided, under a contract, by an EETS provider to an EETS user. Those services shall include making available and guaranteeing the correct parametrisation and functioning of on-board equipment necessary to pay road fees in all electronic toll domains agreed upon in the contract, processing the payment of road fees due by the user to the toll charger on behalf of the user, and providing other services and assistance required for the user in order to comply with the obligations imposed by the toll chargers in the toll domains agreed upon in the contract;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) 'electronic toll domain' means a road, a road network, a structure such as a bridge ~~or a~~, tunnel, or ferry, where road fees are collected using, exclusively or partially, automatic detection mechanisms such as communication with on-board equipment inside the vehicle or automatic number plate recognition;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)

(f a) 'main service provider' means a toll service provider on which the toll charger puts specific obligations (such as the obligation to sign contracts with all interested users) or grants specific rights (such as specific remuneration or a guaranteed long term contract) different from the rights and obligations of other service providers;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f b (new)

(f b) ‘interoperability constituents’ means any elementary component, group of components, subassembly or complete assembly of equipment incorporated or intended to be incorporated into EETS upon which the interoperability of the service depends directly or indirectly, including both tangible objects and intangible objects such as software;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f c (new)

(f c) ‘suitability for use’ means the ability of an interoperability constituent to achieve and maintain a specified performance when in service, integrated representatively into EETS in relation with a toll charger’s system;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f d (new)

(f d) ‘toll’ means a charge or duty levied in relation with circulating a vehicle in a toll domain;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f e (new)

(f e) ‘toll context data’ means the information defined by the responsible toll charger necessary to establish the toll due for circulating a vehicle on a particular toll domain and conclude the toll transaction;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f f (new)

(f f) ‘toll declaration’ means a statement to a toll charger that confirms the presence of a vehicle in a toll domain in a format agreed between the toll service provider and the toll charger;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f g (new)

(f g) ‘vehicle classification parameters’ means the vehicle related information according to which tolls are calculated based on the toll context data;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f h (new)

(f h) 'back office' means the central electronic system used by the toll charger, a group of toll chargers who have created an interoperability hub, or by the EETS provider to collect, process and send information in the framework of electronic toll collection;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f i (new)

(f i) 'substantially modified system' means an existing electronic toll collection system that has undergone or undergoes a change which requires EETS providers to make modifications to the interoperability constituents that are in operation, such as reprogramming or retesting OBE or adapting the interfaces of their back office;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f j (new)

(f j) 'accreditation' means the process defined and managed by the toll charger, which an EETS provider must undergo before it is authorised to provide the EETS in an EETS domain;

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 a (new)

Article 4 a Requirements to be fulfilled by the EETS providers EETS providers shall seek registration in a Member State where they are established, which shall be granted if they fulfil the following requirements: (a) hold EN ISO 9001 certification or equivalent; (b) demonstrate having the technical equipment and the EC declaration or certificate attesting the conformity of the interoperability constituents to specifications; (c) demonstrate competence in the provision of electronic tolling services or in relevant domains; (d) have appropriate financial standing; (e) maintain a global risk management plan, which is audited at least every 2 years; (f) be of good repute.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 b (new)

Article 4 b Rights and obligations of EETS Providers 1. EETS providers shall conclude EETS contracts covering all EETS domains on the territories of at least 4 Member States within 36 months following their registration in accordance with Article 4a. They shall conclude contracts covering all EETS domain in a given Member State within 24 months from concluding the first contract in that Member State, except for those EETS domains in which the responsible toll chargers do not comply with the provisions of Article 4d. 2. EETS providers shall maintain at all times the coverage of all EETS domains once they have concluded contracts therefor. Where an EETS provider is not able to maintain coverage of an EETS domain because the toll charger does not comply with its obligations, it shall re- establish the coverage of the concerned domain as soon as possible. 3. EETS providers shall cooperate with toll chargers in their enforcement efforts. Where a failure by a road user to pay a road fee is suspected, the toll charger may request that the EETS provider provide it with data relating to the vehicle involved in the suspected failure to pay a road fee and to the owner or holder of that vehicle who is a client of the EETS provider. The EETS provider shall ensure that such data is instantly available. The toll charger shall ensure that such data is not disclosed to any other toll service provider. If the toll charger is integrated with a toll service provider in one entity, it shall put in place appropriate measures and procedures to ensure that the data is used for the sole purpose of enforcement.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 c (new)

Article 4 c Rights and obligations of the Toll Charger 1. Each toll charger shall develop and maintain an EETS domain statement setting out the general conditions for EETS providers for accessing their toll domains. 2. Where a new electronic toll collection system is created, the future toll charger responsible for this system shall publish the EETS domain statement with sufficient notice to allow for an accreditation of interested EETS providers to conclude at the latest one month before the operational launch of the new system, with due regard to the length of the process of assessment of the conformity to specifications and of the suitability for use of interoperability constituents. 3. Where an electronic toll collection system is substantially modified, the toll charger shall publish the revised EETS domain statement with sufficient notice to allow already accredited EETS providers to adapt their interoperability constituents to the new requirements and obtain re- accreditation where required at the latest one month before the operational launch of the modified system, with due regard to the length of the process of assessment of the conformity to specifications and of the suitability for use of interoperability constituents. The toll charger shall establish and publish in the EETS domain statement the detailed planning of the process of assessment or reassessment of the conformity to specifications and of the suitability for use of interoperability constituents, which allows for the accreditation or reaccreditation of interested EETS providers at the latest one month before the operational launch of the new or substantially modified system. The toll charger shall be bound to respect its side of the planning.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 d (new)

Article 4 d Toll chargers shall accept on a non- discriminatory basis any EETS provider requesting to provide EETS on the EETS domain(s) under the toll charger’s responsibility. Acceptance of an EETS provider in a toll domain shall be subject to the provider's compliance with the obligations and general conditions set out in the EETS domain statement. Toll chargers shall not require the EETS provider to use any specific technical solutions or processes which hinder the interoperability of an EETS provider's interoperability constituents with electronic toll collection systems in other EETS domains. If a toll charger and an EETS provider cannot reach an agreement, the matter may be referred to the conciliation body responsible for the relevant toll domain.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 e (new)

Article 4 e Each Member State shall ensure that the contracts between the toll charger and the EETS provider, regarding the provision of EETS on the territory of that Member State, permit that the invoice for the toll is issued to the EETS user directly by the EETS provider. The Toll Charger may require that the EETS Provider invoices the user in the name and on behalf of the toll charger, and the EETS provider shall comply with that request.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 f (new)

Article 4 f Each Member State with at least 2 EETS domains on its territory shall designate a single contact office for EETS providers. At the request of the EETS provider, the contact office shall facilitate and coordinate early contacts between the EETS provider and the toll chargers responsible for the EETS domains on the territory of the Member State. The contact office may be a person, a public or a private body.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Massimiliano SALINI, Wim van de CAMP, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 g (new)

Article 4 g The toll charged by toll chargers to EETS users shall not exceed the corresponding national/local toll. All on-board- equipment user rebates or discounts on tolls offered by a Member State or by a toll charger should be available under the same conditions to clients of EETS providers.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 h (new)

Article 4 h Remuneration 1. EETS providers shall be entitled to remuneration by the toll charger. 2. The methodology for defining the remuneration of the EETS providers shall be transparent, non-discriminatory and the same for all EETS providers accredited to a given EETS domain.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 i (new)

Article 4 i 1. The toll shall be determined by the toll charger according inter alia to the vehicle’s classification. A vehicle’s classification shall be determined on the basis of the vehicle classification parameters. In the event of a discrepancy between the vehicle classification used by the EETS provider and the toll charger, the toll charger’s classification shall prevail, unless an error can be demonstrated. 2. In addition to requiring payment from an EETS provider for any substantiated toll declaration, a toll charger may require payment from an EETS provider for any substantiated toll non-declaration relative to any user account managed by that EETS provider. 3. Where an EETS provider has sent a toll charger a list of invalidated on-board equipment, the EETS provider shall not be held liable for any further toll incurred through the use of such invalidated on- board equipment. The number of entries in the list of invalidated OBE, the list’s format and its updating frequency shall be agreed between toll chargers and EETS providers. 4. In microwave-based toll systems toll chargers shall communicate substantiated toll declarations to EETS providers for tolls incurred by their respective EETS users.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 j (new)

Article 4 j Conciliation Body 1. Each Member State with at least one EETS domain shall designate or establish a conciliation body in order to facilitate mediation between toll chargers with an EETS domain located within its territory and EETS providers which have contracts or are in contractual negotiations with those toll chargers. 2. The conciliation body shall be empowered, in particular, to verify that the contractual conditions imposed by a toll charger on EETS providers are non- discriminatory. It shall be empowered to verify that the EETS is remunerated in line with the principles provided in this Directive. 3. The Member States referred to in paragraph 1 shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their conciliation bodies are independent in their organisation and legal structure from the commercial interests of toll chargers and toll service providers.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 k (new)

Article 4 k Registers 1. For the purposes of the implementation of this Decision, each Member State shall keep a national electronic register of the following: (a) the EETS domains within their territory, including information relating to: – the corresponding toll chargers, – the tolling technologies employed, – the toll context data, – the EETS domain statement, – the EETS providers having EETS contracts with the toll chargers active in their area of competence. (b) the EETS providers to whom it has granted registration. (c) the details of a contact office referred to in Article 4j , for EETS including a contact e-mail address and telephone number. Unless otherwise specified, Member States shall verify at least once a year that requirements (a), (d), (e) and (f) in Article 4a are still met and update the register accordingly. The register shall also contain the conclusions of the audit foreseen in Article 4a(e). A Member State shall not be held liable for the actions of the EETS providers mentioned in its register. 2. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that all the data contained in the national electronic register is kept up-to-date and is accurate. 3. The registers shall be electronically accessible to the public. 4. These registers shall be available as of the day of entry into force of this Directive. 5. The Member States authorities in charge of the registers shall communicate by electronic means to their counterparts in the other Member States and the Commission the registers of EETS domains and EETS providers at the end of each calendar year. Any inconsistencies with the situation in a Member State shall be brought to the attention of the Member State of registration and of the Commission.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 l (new)

Article 4 l Pilot toll systems To allow for EETS technical development Member States may temporarily authorise, on limited parts of their toll domain and in parallel to the EETS compliant system, pilot toll systems incorporating new technologies or new concepts which do not comply with one or more provisions of this Directive. Such authorisation shall be subject to the prior approval of the Commission. The initial period of such authorisation shall not exceed 3 years. EETS providers shall not be required to participate in pilot toll systems.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

~~The Commission shall, b~~1. By [54 years after the entry into force of this Directive], ~~submi~~the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the ~~application of Articles 6 and 7 of this Directive by the Member States. In its report, the Commission shall focus in particular on, and shall, as~~implementation and effects of this Directive, in particular as regards the advancement and deployment of the EETS and the effectiveness and efficiency of the mechanism for the exchange of data in the framework of the investigation of events of failure to pay road fees. The report shall analyse in particular the following: (a) the effect of the provisions of Article 4b on the deployment of EETS, with a particular focus on the availability of the service in small or peripheral EETS domains; (b) the effectiveness of Articles 6 and 7 on the reduction in the number of failures to pay road fees in the Union. 2. The report shall be accompanied, if appropriate, ~~make~~by a proposals to ~~cover, the following aspects:~~the European Parliament and the Council for further revision of this Directive, regarding notably the following elements: (a) additional measures to ensure that the EETS is available in all EETS domains, including small and peripheral ones; (b) a mechanism of assistance by the Member State of registration to the Member State in whose territory there was a failure to pay a road fee in the recovery of road fees, to further facilitate the cross- border enforcement of the payment of road fees in the Union.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0128(COD)

Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with article 11 concerning the definition of the specifications referred to in letter (b) of Article 4a.

2018/02/21
Committee: TRAN

2017/0123(COD)

2017/0113(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) Directive 2006/1/EC does not enable undertakings to fully benefit from the advantages of using hired vehicles. That Directive allows Member States to restrict the use by their undertakings of hired vehicles with a maximum permissible laden weight of more than six tonnes for own account operations. Moreover, Member States are not required to allow the use of a hired vehicle on their respective territories if the vehicle has been registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws in a Member State other than the one of establishment of the undertaking hiring it. These restrictions need to be lifted in order to improve the functioning of the internal market.

2018/02/23
Committee: TRAN

2017/0113(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) The level of road transport taxation still differs considerably within the Union. Therefore, certain restrictions, which also indirectly affect the freedom to provide vehicle hiring services, remain justified in order to avoid fiscal distortions. Consequently, Member States should have the option to limit, under conditions, the length of time a vehicle hired in a Member State other than the one of establishment of the undertaking hiring it can be used within their respective territories.

2018/02/23
Committee: TRAN

2017/0113(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

Directive 2006/1/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a

1a. Where the vehicle is not registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws of the Member State where the undertaking hiring the vehicle is established, Member States may limit the time of use of the hired vehicle within their respective territories. However, Member States shall in such a case allow its use for at least four consecutive months in any given calendar year. Member States may limit the number of hired vehicles that can be used by any undertaking, provided that they allow use of a minimum number of vehicles at least corresponding to twenty-five percent of the overall vehicle fleet owned by the undertaking. Where the fleet consists of less than four vehicles, the use of at least one hired vehicle should be allowed.

2018/02/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

– having regard to its Resolution of 9 July 2015 on “Implementation of the 2011 White Paper on transport”1a; __________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0310

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)

– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU1a, __________________ 1a OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1.

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)

– having regard to Communication from the Commission COM(2016)766, A European strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems, a milestone towards cooperative, connected and automated mobility,

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas ~~road~~ transport ~~is responsible for over 70 % of overall g~~plays a significant role in climate change, accounting for some 23.2% of EU Greenhouse gGas total emissions ~~in transport and much of air pollution, and whereas action is mainly needed in this area, while efforts should be intensified in all sectors of~~, and road transportation for 72.8% of the EU transport ~~to reduce~~GHG emissions in 2014;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the maritime sector is responsible for about 2.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, predicted to increase between 50% and 250% by 2050; whereas CO2 emissions in the shipping sector relates to the amount and type of fuel consumed; whereas cutting nitrogen oxides emissions from the shipping sector through a taxation system could save €28.3 billion in health costs over the next 23 years1a; __________________ 1aStudy by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute (2017)

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas direct emissions from the aviation sector accounts for about 3% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions and more than 2% of global emissions;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)

Bc. whereas ambitious low-emission strategies, in among others China and India, illustrate that it offers major economic opportunities;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that the shift towards low- emission mobility offers major opportunities for ~~car~~vehicle manufacturers, suppliers and for innovative energy and service providers;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Underlines that the implementation of new innovative technologies, in a market-driven approach, is a key element to achieve an effective reduction of the GHG emissions within the transport sector;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Encourage the Commission to act as the leading actor for global, harmonised measures, with regards to more sustainable and efficient transport;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recognises the need for a clear change in transportation demand management in order to make the necessary shift to a~~n inter~~ multimodal approach; reiterates that transport should be seen as a service and not a goal as such; supports to this end the full implementation of Trans- European Transport Network (TEN-T);

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines the importance of Research & Development for tackling technological challenges regarding low- emission mobility; urges the Commission to continue its strong support for research programmes, such as CleanSky and SESAR;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Invites the Commission to ensure full implementation of existing legislation ~~and to come forward with a ‘transport and climate’ legislative package with a view to achieving the climate objectives, covering all modes, including urban mobility~~;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to introduce and improve CO2 standards for all road transport as a matter of urgency; ~~points out that~~welcomes cost-effective vehicle standards ~~probably represent the most effective measure~~ for improving energy efficiency in the EU in the period up to 2030;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to review the EU approach to aviation connectivity; ~~stresses that connectivity should focus on connecting remote and disadvantaged regions of the Union;~~ underscores that this shcould be combined with investments in ~~green alternatives such as cross-border (night) train~~sustainable transport alternatives;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses the potential benefits of light-weighting and of a more efficient use of the current infrastructure, including better distribution of traffic and enhanced inter-modal solutions;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes the Commission’s efforts at developing standards for inter- operable electronic tolling systems in the EU and the forthcoming revision of the Eurovignette Directive, which should include distance-based charging and differentiation on the basis of ~~carbon dioxide~~ emissions; calls for the extension of distance-based charging to cover all passenger cars and vans, and for the principle to be extended to urban areas;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Stresses that kerosene taxation needs to be introduced for aviation, which represents the mode furthest away from internalising its external costs; calls, furthermore, for the removal of the VAT exemption on air passenger tickets; encourages Member States to introduce or retain flight ticket taxes and/or levies in the interimRecommends the Commission to explore the possibilities for harmonised, international measures for kerosene taxation and the removal of the VAT exemption on air passenger tickets;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Considers that autonomous vehicles can be an important asset in improving the efficiency of transport; ~~insists, however, that autonomous vehicles should be electric, shared, and include smart measures to mitigate increasing use;~~

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Supports initiatives on mobility management for achieving more efficient and environmentally friendly intermodal transport services and smart mobility~~, which can be key to promoting the shift from car ownership to~~ and to increase the promotion of mobility as a service;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Encourages the shift towards Cooperative Connected and Automated mobility, and supports the Commission’s European Strategy in this regard;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Welcomes efforts to ~~ensure~~deploy comprehensive and interoperable infrastructure for ~~electric vehicle charging~~supplying energy and/or sustainable alternative fuels for vehicles;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that an obligation for fuel suppliers to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of energy supplied through renewable electricity, sustainable advanced biofuels or synthetic fuels would be the most effective approach for reducing the climate impact of ~~road~~ transport;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Urg~~Welcomes the Commission's and the Member States to limit European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), Trans- European Transport network (TEN-T), Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) financing to initiatives that contribute to climate action' initiative to introduce financial incentives for projects which contribute to climate action in the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF);

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 – point 1 (new)

(1) Stresses that research and development are vital to attaining the Union’s objectives in terms of decarbonisation of transport and clean mobility; calls on the Commission, in its Horizon 2020 research programme, to pursue its efforts to encourage European innovation and the new technologies in all areas of transport;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Encourages cities to include GHG targets into their ~~Sustainable Urban M~~mobility Pplan~~s (SUMPs)~~ and calls for the Commission to link EU co-financing of urban mobility projects to achieving such targets;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Stresses the opportunities of Green Public Procurement for more sustainable transport, in particular for (sub)urban buses;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls ~~for~~the Commission to come swiftly with new standards for CO2 emissions from cars and vans to be set for 2025 and 2030 on the basis of a linear trajectory ~~and at a level corresponding to an annual imp~~towards a zerov-em~~ent of at least 6-8 %, corresponding to 70 g New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) in 2025 and 50g NEDC in 203~~ission economy in 2050;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls for the Commission to introduce a minimum target for the share of ~~electric vehicle~~zero-emission cars for all manufacturers ~~of at least 25 % for 2025~~;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Stresses that any legislative proposal to reduce CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles has to take account of the key features of trucks, as all these variables result in different CO2 emissions; strongly supports the use of simulation tool VECTO and certified data provided by manufacturers to calculate the CO2 results for a complete vehicle or truck-trailer combination, considering its possible missions;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – point 1 (new)

(1) Endorses the priority given by the Commission to investments in rail infrastructure, in particular regarding missing links and cross-border connections; recalls in this context that for freight transport in particular, rail is an efficient and sustainable mass transport system;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Urges the Commission to come forward with an ambitious proposal for the Combined Transport Directive that better promotes efficient freight transport and encourages the modal shift towards rail and sustainable inland waterways of 30 % by 2030 and 50 % by 2050;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Asks the Commission to ~~improve aviation efficiency, including by means of the proposal on landing fees and CO2 standards beyond those enshrined in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) agreement~~participate actively in the work of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in order to secure international standards that improve aviation efficiency and reduce its emissions, without damaging the competitiveness of European aviation;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)

28a. Recalls that airspace is also part of the EU single market, and that any fragmentation resulting from its inefficient use, as well as diverging national practices (concerning, for instance, operational procedures, taxes, levies, etc.), causes longer flight times, delays, extra fuel burn, and higher levels of CO2 emissions, in addition to negatively impacting the rest of the market and hampering the EU's competitiveness; urges therefore the Council and Member States to make swift progress for the completion of the Single European Sky;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Considers that the EU should implement the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) through the Union Emissions Trading System (ETS)~~, while allowing for 50 % of the journeys to be excluded, provided that the destination is implementing CORSIA through national measures~~; proposes that, at least, the EU ETS should be retained for flights within the European Economic Area (EEA);

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)

31a. Calls for the harmonization and full implementation of European land based infrastructure for maritime transport, such as onshore power supply and LNG-terminals, through concrete financial incentives and regulatory measures, in order to reduce GHG;

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 b (new)

31b. Underlines that innovative financing solutions and the use of the EU investment support facilities available from the European Investment Bank should provide useful tools to help ship- owners to shoulder/cover the initial cost in order to reduce GHG.

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2327(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Gesine MEISSNER, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Asks the Commission to come forward with a review of the Directive on River Information Services (RIS)21 in 2018, including on how to promote the use of RIS for reducing inland waterways emissions; __________________ 21 Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community, OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 152-159.

2017/05/23
Committee: TRAN

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas these principles should be maintained and consolidated after 2020 in order to ensure sound economic governance, continuity, legal certainty, accessibility and transparency of policy implementation;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas in order to render the cohesion policy a success, it is essential to reduce the administrative burden for its beneficiaries, as it today often is perceived as too complex;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Notes that European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) has become an important goal of cohesion policy for 2014-2020; underlines, however, that the current ETC budget does not match the great challenges that Interreg programmes have to meet, and does not reflect the high level of its European added value;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that the current categorisation of regions, the thematic objectives and the performance framework have demonstrated the value of cohesion policy and should be consolidated; asks the Commission to present ideas for greater flexibility, such as ~~an unallocated reserve or~~ a simplification of re- programming, in order to adapt ESIF investments to unforeseen events ~~and to the specific needs of each region~~; reiterates, nevertheless, that re- programming should only take place in exceptional circumstances, in order to ensure the stability and predictability of the multiannual investment strategy;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Underlines that Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) are supporting the strategic programming of the ESI Funds and have led to an increased performance orientation on the ground; pleads, therefore, to maintain this ex ante conditionality in the next policy framework;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Oppos~~Welcomes macro-economic conditionalities a~~nd highlights that the link between cohesion policy and economic governance~~s it improves the effectiveness of cohesion policy and, at the same time, creates process~~es should be reciprocal and that a greater recognition of~~ ure on Member States to comply withe t~~erritorial dimension would be beneficial for the European Semester~~he EU economic governance rules;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Highlights the need to simplify the cohesion policy’s management system at all governance levels in order to make it more accessible and effective; believes that there is a need for greater legal certainty and clarity and the that the prevention of goldplating, when implementing the ESI Funds, is essential; supports the conclusions and recommendations hitherto adopted by the ‘High Level Group monitoring simplification for beneficiaries of ESI Funds’;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Asks the Commission to reflect on solutions based on proportionality and risk based differentiation, especially with regard to the multiple layers of audit and the number of controls, to a greater harmonisation between cohesion policy and competition policy, in particular state aid rules, as well as with regard to the possibility of a single set of rules for all ESI Funds;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Suggests a~~n increased~~ better use of ESI Funds ~~in order to tackle~~to create jobs and growth in regions facing demographic change and ~~address~~to tackle its regional and local consequences; notes the increasing importance of the Territorial Agenda and of successful rural-urban partnerships, as well as the exemplary role of smart cities as microcosms and catalysts for innovative solutions for regional and local challenges;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Calls for a substantially increased budget for ETC in the next programming period to provide adequate support to cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation projects;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Underlines the importance of the current Interreg Europe cooperation programme for European public authorities to facilitate the exchange of experience and transfer of good practice; suggests to set enlarge the funding possibilities in the succeeding Interreg Europe-programme after 2020 to enable investments in physical pilot projects and demonstration projects with involvement of stakeholders across Europe also to be taken into account;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)

17c. Is of the opinion that creating synergies between transnational RIS3s and world-class clusters will bolster the economic development of the European Union's regions and contribute to the competitiveness of the EU;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Recalls the great interest in the new instrument called Urban Innovative Actions; believes that urban authorities should be equipped with more financial resources in order to answer increasingly complex challenges they face; calls, therefore, to continue with this instrument in the post 2020 period and to increase its financing;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2326(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls for the fostering of economic, social and territorial cohesion and ~~solidarity across the EU~~the steering of EU Funds towards growth, jobs and competitiveness to be put at the top of the EU agenda~~, and~~; further, asks to maintain the fight against poverty and social exclusion, as well as against discrimination;

2017/04/04
Committee: REGI

2016/2323(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gérard DEPREZ, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Kaja KALLAS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses that investments in research and innovation represent a pre- condition for achieving genuine competitiveness in the EU~~; regrets the fact that, a~~, and for having an innovative and competitive EU economy on a global level; regrets that Member States a re~~sult of an alarmingly low success rate of applications, fewer high- quality projects in the field of research and innovation are receiving EU funding~~ cutting their funding for R&I activities and recognises that more applications are directed towards the EU as a result and notes that many interested parties, many of which are new comers or SME's, are being deterred from submitting time-consuming Horizon 2020 project proposals due to lower success rates; calls in this respect for an adequate level of appropriations to be ensured for Horizon 2020;

2017/02/15
Committee: BUDG

2016/2323(BUD)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Nils TORVALDS, Fredrick FEDERLEY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the proposal to launch an ‘18th birthday Interrail pass for Europe’; underlines that this project has the potential to become a key component in increasing European consciousness and identity, especially in the face of threats such as populism and the spread of misinformation; stresses, however, that such a project should not be financed at the expense of other successful EU programmes and should be as socially inclusive as possible; intends to secure adequate financing for the programme in the 2018 budget;deleted

2017/02/15
Committee: BUDG

2016/2323(BUD)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Acknowledges that only a controlled level of commitments assures control over the future level of payments and expects, therefore, a more orderly relation between commitments and payments; Stresses that delays in the implementation of 2014-2020 programmes under shared management led to a drop in payment claims for 2016 and 2017; is particularly concerned about the lack of transparency and a possible reconstitution of a backlog of unpaid bills towards the end of the current MFF period, and recalls the ~~unprecedented level of EUR 24.7 billion reached at the end of 2014~~refore on the Commission to provide a regular, detailed update on scrapped projects to ensure the best use of EU funds and to enable transfers to new political priorities should the need arise; welcomes the fact that the Commission, on the occasion of the MFF mid-term revision, provided for the first time a payment forecast until 2020, but stresses that it needs to be duly updated every year, in order to allow the budgetary authority to take the necessary measures in time;

2017/02/15
Committee: BUDG

2016/2306(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey 2017 as an important part of the European ~~investment~~recovery process based on a strategy of investment, structural reforms and responsible public finances;

2016/12/16
Committee: REGI

2016/2306(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Is concerned about patchy implementation of country-specific recommendations (CSRs) in the European economic recovery; calls therefore on euro-area members for strong individual commitments to implement structural reforms and to reduce their debt-to-GDP ratio and their budget deficit to foster growth and create jobs; highlights the role of local and regional authorities and other relevant stakeholders, as well as European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) themselves, in supporting these structural reforms and investments;

2016/12/16
Committee: REGI

2016/2306(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recognises the potential of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), which is designed to support high- risk investment projects, in boosting growth and employment; is concerned, however, about the enormous imbalance in use of the Fund between the EU15 (91% of funding) and the EU13 (9% of funding); welcomes the Commission’s proposal to strengthen synergies between the EFSI and the ESI Funds; emphasises, however, that there is a lack of evidence about the impact of EFSI which creates the potential for exaggeration its contribution to growth and jobs; from this perspective, underlines that this should by no means undermine the role of Cohesion Policy as the main investment policy of the European Union;

2016/12/16
Committee: REGI

2016/2306(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Shares the view of the Commission that, in the context of the European Semester and efforts to simplify the Cohesion Policy, Member States need to step up their efforts to implement the necessary structural reforms aimed at boosting growth and jobs by removing obstacles encountered by beneficiaries of the Cohesion Policy;

2016/12/16
Committee: REGI

2016/2306(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the fact that the Commission’s proposal to suspend parts of the ESI Funds for Spain and Portugal has been ~~abandoned in the face of constructive criticism from Parliament which has shown conclusively that this proposal is superfluou~~held in abeyance; is of the opinion that euro-area members should comply with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact and that an infringement of the SGP should have political or legal consequences; recalls in this respect the role of the Commission as guardian of the treaties.

2016/12/16
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that ensuring the visibility of cohesion policy investments should remain primarily the responsibility of the managing authorities, local and regional authorities, as they constitute the most effective interface of communication with citizens by bringing Europe closer to them;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that providing visibility for a policy involves a two-sided process of communication and interaction with partners; highlights, moreover, that, in the context of complex challenges, and in order to ensure legitimacy and provide effective long-term solutions, public authorities need to involve relevant stakeholders ~~in the decision-making proces~~at all stages in the implementation of Partnership Agreements and programmes;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Acknowledges the limitations of the legal framework as regar~~Refers to Article 115 and Annex XII of the Common Provisions Regulation (EU) 1303/2013 on information and communication on support from the Funds, ensuring that cohesion policy has adequate visibility; ~~stresses that, as a result,~~is of the opinion that the prescripted communication ~~on its~~activities on tangible achievements has not so far been a priority for the different stakeholders; especially deplores the fact that the technical assistance of the ESI Funds contains no dedicated envelope for communication, which negatively impacts on both the scale and qualshould be constantly updated; deplores the fact that effective communication has not always been a priority ofor the di~~ssemination proces~~fferent stakeholders;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls also the long-term strategic nature of cohesion policy investments, meaning that sometimes results are not seen immediately, which is detrimental to the visibility of its instruments, especially in comparison with other Union tools such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI); is of the opinion, therefore, that more attention should be paid to the ex post evaluation and the communication about the contribution of ESI Funds to the Union's strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Underlines the need to adjust the communication arrangements in the Common Provisions Regulation (EU) 1303/2013, ~~in the sense of providing a specific envelope for communication within the technical assistance,~~ as well as increasing the binding publicity requirements for cohesion policy projects;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that there is a need for a communication strategy for digital and social media that focuses on reaching end- users through interactive on-line ~~survey~~means, developing more accessible mobile-based content and ensuring that information is available in different languages where appriopriate;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Suggests, furthermore, that the monitoring and evaluation of current communication activities be improved and proposes setting up aregional taskforces on communication that involves multilevel actors;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Commission to increase the attractiveness of EU cohesion policy funding through further simplification, and ~~flexibility measures, as well as through reducing~~to consider the reduction of the number of regulations;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Taking into consideration how EU cohesion policy contributes to positive identification with the European integration project, calls ~~for the introduction of a compulsory percentage of technical assistance set aside for communication, both at programme and project level, and also of a mandatory project selection criterion linked to~~on management authorities and local and regional authorities to improve the quality of their communication on project results; points out that the main project selection criteria should be based on the quality of the project, expresses its wish that in future there will be also be balanced link with the quality of ~~the~~ communication activities proposed by each project promoter;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Stresses, moreover, that involving citizens and organisations in the decision- making process could contribute to enhancing the ownership of policy implementation; calls therefore on the Member States to consider implementing existing models of participatory governance, bringing together all relevant societal partners and involving stakeholders in a participatory budgeting process to determine the resources for the national, regional and local co-financing where it is appropriate;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2304(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Further asks the Commission ~~to set up an EU e-communication platform on cohesion policy implementation that would collect all relevant data on ESI Funds projects, feedback from end-users~~and Member Sates to strenghten the role and position of already existing national communication and in~~dic~~formation~~s of whether or not the message communicated has been rece~~ networks, and to constantly evaluate if communication on cohesion policy is effectived;

2017/03/29
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that Article 349 TFEU has ~~not~~ been sufficiently utilised in an innovative and positive manner, particularly with a view to establishing ad hoc programmes and specific new European policies, making use of the strong points of the outermost regionsutilised in a limited manner;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Deplor~~Notes the fact that, for nearly 20 years, the articles of the Treaties concerning the outermost regions have been implemented and applied only in a~~n extremely~~ rather limited and restrictive manner;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Considers that this interp~~Recommends that the articles of the Tretati~~on by the Commission has damaged the capacity of the outerm~~es concerning the outermost regions should be used appropriately and in a balanced manner so that thoste regions tocan take full advantage of their belonging of the Union and to develop in a way which takes full account of their specific characteristics and structural constraints;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Deplor~~Notes the fact that the small number of programmes, policies and funds specific to the outermost regions which drew on the success of POSEI have disappeared, in favour of the incorporation of provisions specific to the outermost regions in horizontal European programmes, which dilutes the specific approach to the outermost regions, damages the objective and proportionate definition of the adjustments which are necessary in the outermost regions and considerably restricts the implementation of Article 349 TFEU;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Deplor~~Notes the fact that the various European strategies for the outermost regions have so far been only partially implemented and fleshed out; considers that the outermost regions have wasted much time on defending the upholding of specific policies for them; considers that confidence needs to be restored between the outermost regions and the European Institutions;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls therefore on the European Union Institutions, in concert with the outermost regions, to open a new chapter in relations between the EU and the outermost regions, based on a ~~genuine new~~ European strategy for the outermost regions which takes full advantage of the possibilities offered by Article 349 TFEU, ~~particularly for the creation of specific programmes and policies appropriate to~~if that proves necessary, particularly to support their sustainable development ~~needs~~;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Calls on the Commission to adopt a long-term overall common strategy detailing the approach to the outermost regions, accompanied, in the case of each outermost region, by a specific ~~legislative package, strategic frameworks and appropriate, precise, attainable and assessable objectives~~action plan;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses the need to ~~ensure that the instruments, provisions and derogations adopted for the purpose of maintaining~~guarantee the stability conducive to the real/structural development of the outermost regions ~~remain in force for a long time~~;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Deplor~~Notes the fact that Article 349 TFEU has been applied only to a limited extent in many European policies (trade, maritime affairs, fisheries, cohesion, competition, environment, etc.), policies for which the specific approach and the desire for adaptation have been either abandoned in favour of inclusion in regulations partially adapted to the specific characteristics of the outermost regions or never really implemented;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls on the Commission to compile a precise overview of the approach to the outermost regions and to examine the economic and social situation of each outermost region, including in particular putting figures on needs for investment in order to compensate for disadvantages and achieve sustainable development, so as to enable the outermost regions to approach the average levels of development which exist in Europe;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Deplor~~Notes the fact that the successive reforms of the common organisations of the market (COMs) have ~~not sufficiently taken account of the specific characteristics~~had an impact ofn the outermost regions;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Observes that the disappearance of quotas and guaranteed prices which began with the reform of the COM in sugar in 2005 is damaging cane sugar producers in the outermost regions; calls for the establishment of a support scheme for sugar-cane growers in the event of a fall in world sugar prices;deleted

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Deplores the fact that~~Welcomes the efforts made in the outermost regions to modernise and to render their traditional industries competitive ~~are increasingly being jeopardised by free trade agreements signed between the EU and third countries~~;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Deplores the fact that~~Encourages the trade negotiations conducted by the Union ~~fail~~ to take into account ~~either~~ the specific characteristics orand the sensitive products of the outermost regions;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Consider~~Notes that the Union’s trade policy ~~endangers the small number of products which are exported and the traditional industrie~~takes into consideration, by way of the existing safeguard clauses, the sensitive products on which the economies of the outermost regions depend;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Commission to ~~systematically~~ produce impact assessments relating to the outermost regions, if deemed necessary, before initiating any trade negotiations ~~and to systematically adopt a policy of protecting the products of the outermost regions in trade agreements~~;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls for the Union’s trade policies to ~~be adjusted so as to~~ take ~~full~~into account of the competitive disadvantages of the outermost regions; calls for ~~the pres~~considervation ~~of tariff and non-tariff barriers which are vital for the protection of the products of the outermost regions and for~~to be given to activating safeguard clauses and stabilisation mechanisms ~~to be activated~~, if necessary;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. C~~alls for the system of tolerance of imports to be abandoned which makes it possible for goods to enter the Union that have been treated with active substances not authorised ther~~onfirms that all products entering the European market must comply with European standards and criteria; notes that it is primarily a matter for the Member States to ensure that this is the case;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Considers that the Union ~~has~~and, primarily, the Member States involved have, overall, under-invested in the seas and oceans and more specifically in the case of the outermost regions, and that ithey hasve not ensured sustainable and efficient economic development of the exclusive economic zones of the outermost regions~~, and that it has left these marine areas at the mercy of pillage of their resources by fishing fleets, both foreign and European~~;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

~~29. Deplores the fact that, by means of this under-investment, the Union ends up almost exclusively becoming, and regarding itself as, a continental entity and not also a maritime power;~~deleted

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Recalls that Article 349 TFEU provides for specific access to structural funds for the outermost regions ~~and that, on that basis, all the outermost regions should be regarded as ‘least developed regions’~~;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Considers that, for the next programming period, the outermost regions should be able to define, in compliance with European strategies, some of their priorities for the use of the structural funds; ~~calls for the continuation of budget allocations to the outermost regions, of compensation of excess costs, and of all derogations intended to compensate them for their structural disadvantages;~~

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

~~33. Calls, in the context of the mid- term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), for revision of the allocation for Mayotte;~~deleted

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. ~~Deplores the fact that~~Recommends that more attention be paid, in the implementation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) ~~has not ad~~, to the least developted ~~either geographical distribution criteria or criteria specific to the outermost region~~and most isolated regions in all the Member States;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Recalls, in the light of youth unemployment in the outermost regions, the need to ~~create specific~~use measures to support and train young people in the outermost regions, particularly by means of the Youth Employment Initiative;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Calls on the Commission to ~~undertake to guarantee that~~evaluate retaining and extending exceptional tax regimes for the outermost regions ~~will be retained and extended~~ after 2020;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Does not consider that any of the Union’s horizontal programmes provides for access conditions specific to the outermost regions; ~~regards this situation as particularly discriminatory;~~

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Recalls the need to make the sustainable energy autonomy of the outermost regions a priority;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. Calls for the ~~establishment of a research programme specific to the outermost regions~~opportunities for the outermost regions within the framework of the EIA and Horizon 2020 funds to be optimised, which would make it possible to network their respective universities, research centres and innovative businesses better;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

~~46. Questions the determination of the Commission and Member States to integrate the outermost regions into the trans-European transport, energy and telecommunications networks;~~deleted

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2250(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. ~~Deplore~~Recalls the fact that the ~~Natura 2000 programme is not applicable to the French outermost regions; considers this situation to be particularly damaging to the~~BEST programme (voluntary scheme for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the outermost regions and the European overseas countries and territories) exists and has an objective of supporting conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of ecosystem services, and an approach to climate change adaptation and mitigation based on ecosystems in the outermost regions and the European overseas countries and territories (OCTs); points out that, in addition to this programme, Directive 2014/89 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning lays down a mechanism that is very useful for protecti~~on of~~ng biodiversity ~~and~~in the ~~environment in those regions;~~ maritime areas chosen;

2017/04/12
Committee: REGI

2016/2195(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Points out that to ensure the proper deployment of SESAR, and in the interest of achieving global interoperability, a specific and ambitious budget, other than the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) budget, should be allocated for its implementation;

2017/02/06
Committee: TRAN

2016/2195(DEC)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Welcomes the successful delivery of the work mandated by the European Commission concerning the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) Definition phase; underlines the importance of a preliminary agreement with the wider Aviation industry on prerequisites for the safe integration of drones into civilian air space; notes also that a “"Drones outlook study”", intended to form the basis for the proper coverage of RPAS activities in the ATM Master Plan was kicked off in December 2015;

2017/02/06
Committee: TRAN

2016/2173(DEC)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights the Agency's vital role in ensuring the highest possible level of aviation safety throughout Europe; stresses that a ~~proper coordinated alert system and information structure~~common European assessment and alerting system is needed in Europe, in particular in the context of flights over conflict zones; stresses that, in the context of a fast-developing civil aviation sector, the Agency should be given the necessary financial, material and human resources to perform its regulatory and executive tasks successfully, in the fields of safety and environmental protection, without compromising its independence and impartiality;

2017/02/06
Committee: TRAN

2016/2151(DEC)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Deplores that the creation of the EFSI and of the Guarantee Fund with a 50% target rate has limited the budgetary flexibility in the 2014-2020 MFF by reducing the unallocated margins under the MFF expenditure ceiling and that the planned budget for CEF has been reduced; ~~is concerned with the proposal of~~considers as irresponsible that the Commission proposes to prolong EFSI without any impact assessment nor a thorough and convincing evaluation regarding this instrument;

2017/02/06
Committee: TRAN

2016/2151(DEC)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Points out that the EIB’'s evaluation report notes geographical imbalances and sectoral concentrations in the Infrastructure and Innovation Window portfolio (IIW) and that financing under the IIW is concentrated (63%) in three Member States; calls on the Commission to urgently assess the impact of EFSI for the Union as a whole; regrets that EFSI is not sufficiently used for the financing of in~~frastructure for more sustainable modes, such as for rail, sustainable inland waterways, cycling and walking~~novative transport projects in all modes of transport, for instance to promote sustainable means of transport or to further encourage the digitalisation process as well as barrier-free accessibility;

2017/02/06
Committee: TRAN

2016/2151(DEC)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Regrets that the Commission (DG MOVE) has not yet established a formalised consolidated strategic document for the supervision on the TEN-T core network corridors development; encourages the Commission to adopt such strategic document regarding supervision activities~~; further encourages the Commission to focus in this regard on transparency for large projects with a cost of more than 1 billion euros and to guaran~~ and transparency; recalls that transparency and consultation with all stakeholders contributee t~~he participation of representative citizens’ organisations in decision making~~o the success of transport projects;

2017/02/06
Committee: TRAN

2016/2151(DEC)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Points out that transport projects in 2014-2020 will be financed from several sources, including the CEF, the Cohesion Fund, the European Fund for Regional Development and the EFSI; calls on the Commission, therefore, to develop synergies that will enable these different sources of funding to allocate the funds available more efficiently, as well as the blending of these resources; calls on the Commission to annually deliver and publish, inter alia on its websites, easily accessible lists of transport, including modal share percentages, and tourism projects, that are co-financed through the mentioned funds;

2017/02/06
Committee: TRAN

2016/2151(DEC)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Takes the view that the Commission should ~~ensure total~~further improve transparency in the management of funds, ensuring that the public interest is protected and always, in all circumstances, takes precedent over any private interest; insists that Public Private Partnerships should not lead to privatising profits whilst socialising losses;

2017/02/06
Committee: TRAN

2016/2151(DEC)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Regrets that appropriations for ~~sustainable and accessible~~ tourism are not yet adequate ~~to support the development of the sector, also with a view~~, in particular to promote the development of sustainable and accessible tourism projects, and to support SMEs ~~and~~, micro-enterprises as well as ~~the new sharing~~developments in the collaborative econom~~ies~~y;

2017/02/06
Committee: TRAN

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the significant contribution made by the European Structural and Investment Funds to the construction of an efficient and safe European transport network; Stresses the importance of synergies and complementarity between the various funds, programmes and instruments, in order to obtain the maximum added value of the investments effected;

2016/09/12
Committee: TRAN

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the study by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies (Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies) of September 2016 entitled "Evaluation of the Report under Article 16(3) of the CPR",

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the importance of national general transport plans as well as sustainable urban mobility plans for the effective spending of funds;

2016/09/12
Committee: TRAN

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds to complement the gaps that exist between completed infrastructure projects, particularly in cross-border regions; recalls that ESI Funds can be used for investments in smart mobility and intelligent transport systems (ITS), and in particular sustainable public transport in cities and regions;

2016/09/12
Committee: TRAN

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas cohesion policy in the programming period 2014-2020 has gained a more focused policy approach through thematic concentration~~, supporting the priorities of the Juncker Commission~~;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that Europe has been going through a difficult phase in ~~both~~ economic ~~and political~~ terms, so that a ~~decent~~n effective investment policy that is close to citizens is needed more than ever;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Points out that the ESI Funds play an important role in facilitating the shift towards a low-carbon economy and combating climate change;

2016/09/12
Committee: TRAN

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that an analysis of thematic concentration should point out how the strategic choices of Member States and allocation of resources across TOs meet the specific needs of the territories; regrets that this aspect is less apparent in the Commission's Article 16 report;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Insists that cohesion policy should continue to have thematic focus~~, while allowing for~~; notes that the thematic objectives cover a very large scope which provides some degree of flexibility ~~in order~~ to take on board the specific needs of each region;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that funding under the cohesion policy is exceptionally important for the development of transport infrastructure in ~~the countries of Central and Eastern~~ Europe; calls for the necessary resources to be secured and for the level of financing to be maintained in the next multiannual financial framework;

2016/09/12
Committee: TRAN

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called ‘lagging regions’ and regions with permanent natural or geographical handicaps (northernmost regions with very low population density, and cross-border, insular, mountainous or outermost regions); recalls in this context that it is important to support new policy challenges, such as immigration, as well as the broadly understood digital dimension of cohesion policy (including ICT and broadband access issues, which are linked to the completion of the Digital Single Market); points to the Energy Union Strategy, as the ESI Funds have an important role to play in its delivery;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Supports the shift from a focus on infrastructure-related projects towards a~~Welcomes an increased focus on stimulating the knowledge economy, innovation and social inclusion in cohesion policy;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Notes that more than two thirds of the Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) that were adopted in 2014 are relevant to cohesion policy investments and welcomes the fact that they have been taken into account in Member States’ programming priorities;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Acknowledges that in the near future CSRs might trigger amendments to ESIF programmes, ensuring support to structural reforms in Member States;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Points out that Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) and National Reform Programmes (NRPs) represent a clear linkage between the ESI Funds and the processes of the European semester;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Notes that the European Commission's Article 16 Report does not include a lot of information about coordination and synergies among different programmes and with instruments of other policy areas;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is presented as a success story when it comes to fast implementation, and against this background asks the Commission to come forward with learning pointsRequests the Commission to come forward with learning points on the implementation of the EFSI which can be used for further reflection for the ESI Funds for the new programming period;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses that state aid rules apply to ESI Funds, but not to EFSI and Horizon 2020, causing problems in increasing the level of synergy among the ~~instruments; underlines the fact that if there is an ambition to extend EFSI or any similar types of financial instrument, the question of state aid rules needs to be adapted accordingly;~~funds, programmes and instruments; asks the European Commission to examine possible adjustments of the state aid rules to enhance synergies:

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

~~19. Supports a further balanced increase in financial instruments; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward with incentives for managing authorities to achieve this;~~deleted

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ANotes that one of the main goals of the 2014-2020 programming period is simplification for beneficiaries of ESI Funds and acknowledges that simplification is an important factor in access to funding;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Welcomes the fact that the new modernised regulatory framework of the ESI Funds provides new possibilities for simplification in terms of common eligibility rules, simplified cost options and e-governance; however regrets that the European Commission's Article 16 Report does not include any specific information as regards the use of Simplified Cost Options (SCOs);

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Underlines that there is a need for further efforts to develop the full potential of SCOs in terms of alleviating administrative burden;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Regrets that an assessment of administrative burden, including in particular components such as time, cost and paperwork, has not yet been undertaken; calls on the Commission in consequence to produce a fully fledged study of the cost of administrative burden in EU funding based on evidence from the 2007-2013 period and the start of the new period;deleted

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Notes that the Member States have different ~~administrative cultures, translating into different levels of performance~~levels of performance in their policy framework, which the ex-ante conditionalities are helping to overcome;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Highlights the European added value of ETC, which should be reflected in an increased level of appropriations ~~for this~~in the new cohesion policy ~~objective, to be introduced as soon as practicable~~programming period;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Proposes th~~e establishment of a permanent~~at a link between RIS3 and interregional cooperation on an EU- wide scale should be encouraged and made possible, preferably in the form of a ~~permanent~~n element of the INTERREG programme;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Is of the opinion that ~~GDP~~population size might not be the only legitimate indicator for ensuring a fair distribution of money that takes account of specific territorial needs; is of the opinion that many regions in Europe are facing a situation of demographic change, as well as shrinking population numbers in rural areasthe allocation of sources under ETC; is of the opinion that specific territorial characteristics and socio- economic specificities should also be taken into account;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Recalls that the ETC, which serves the broader principle of territorial cohesion, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, ~~is not yet properly appli~~could be improved; therefore encourages all stakeholders involved in negotiations on the future policy to strengthen this dimension of territorial cohesion;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)

37a. Expresses the need for a further assessment how ESIF funding contributes to the implementation of structural reforms by Member States, in particular to those which were put forward in CSRs;

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2148(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions~~, and to the governments and national and regional parliaments of the Member States~~.

2016/09/19
Committee: REGI

2016/2147(INI)

2. Notes the divergences in aims and focus between the Framework Programme and the ESI Funds; takes the view, however, that efforts must be made to maximise synergies at programme level, as research and innovation are substantially supported under the ERDF thematic objectives, especially under thematic objection 1: Strengthening research, technological development and innovation;

2017/02/14
Committee: REGI

2016/2147(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Takes the view that RIS3 is a suitable vehicle ~~for the~~to reform ofand build regional innovation ecosystems and that ESI Funds ~~must~~can be used for ~~capacity building;~~ enhancing R&I infrastructure and capacities to develop R&I excellence, the promotion of centres of competence and innovation hubs, in particular those of European interest; points out that ESI Funds also can be used for promoting business investment in R&I and developing links and synergies between enterprises, research and development centres and the higher education sector;

2017/02/14
Committee: REGI

2016/2147(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Points out that the European Commission, Member States and regions should intensify their efforts to improve the quality of smart specialisation strategies and the effective implementation of their strategies;

2017/02/14
Committee: REGI

2016/2147(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the EU Member States to improve the conditions for innovation, research and development, in particular with the aim to increase combined public and private investments in R&D to 3% of GDP by 2020; observes that there is a clear linkage between national investments in R&D and the amount of successful project applications under the Framework Programmes;

2017/02/14
Committee: REGI

2016/2147(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the principle and the potential of the Seal of Excellence, but notes that it is insufficiently applied in practice; expresses that projects that have been submitted for funding under Horizon 2020, passed stringent selection and award criteria but could not be funded due to budget constraints should be financed by ESI Funds resources, if these resources are available for that purpose;

2017/02/14
Committee: REGI

2016/2147(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Regrets that the budget of Horizon 2020 has been cut to finance EFSI’s guarantee fund; is of the opinion that the EU must stay internationally competitive and should not lose its R&I potential; proposes therefore to increase the budget for FP9 towards a total amount of 100 billion euro, which should be secured for the whole duration of the programme;

2017/02/14
Committee: REGI

2016/2147(INI)

Lieve WIERINCK, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Angelika MLINAR, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Kaja KALLAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission, in drawing up the 9th Framework Programme and the ESI Funds regulations, to ensure that framework conditions are improved so as to boost synergies and complementarity between sector-specific R&I policyies, the Structural Funds, and R&I funds and programmes.; calls in particular for a review of the relevant state aid rules, especially regarding Seal of Excellence projects;

2017/02/14
Committee: REGI

2016/2147(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Underlines that several Member States are not respecting their national R&D investment commitments; calls for the earmarking of Structural Funds for R&D activities, especially investments in capacity building, and infrastructure ~~and salaries~~, asks that the 3% of GDP target be met, and hopes that this can be raised to 4%the level of our largest global competitors in the not too distant future;

2017/04/04
Committee: ITRE

2016/2147(INI)

Lieve WIERINCK, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Angelika MLINAR, Fredrick FEDERLEY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Confirms that ‘excellence’ should remain the key criterion across the three pillars, while noting that it is only one of the three evaluation criteria, alongside ‘impact’ and ‘quality and efficiency of the implementation’; calls for the ~~reweighting~~continuation of these criteria and invites the Commission to ~~set out additional sub- criteria by adding ‘SSH integration and geographical balance’ under ‘impact’ and ‘project size’ under ‘efficiency of the implementation’~~find alternative ways to ensure SSH integration and geographical balance, for instance through capacity building and better synergies with other EU funding programmes;

2017/04/04
Committee: ITRE

2016/2147(INI)

Lieve WIERINCK, Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Angelika MLINAR, Fredrick FEDERLEY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes that the R&I capabilities of North/South and West/East Member States are very different; recognises the European dimension to the problem of the participation gap, which must be addressed b~~y the FP~~oth at EU and national level, including through ESIF, if the EU is to exploit its full potential; welcomes, in this respect, the Widening Programme; calls on the Commission to assess whether the three Widening instruments have achieved their specific objectives and to clarify the rational and general goal of the Programme, to review the indicator used to define ‘underrepresented’ countries, and to keep a dynamic list that allows Member States to be in or out depending on how their capabilities evolve; calls on the Commission and Member States to adapt or adopt new measures with ESIF to bridge this gap;

2017/04/04
Committee: ITRE

2016/2147(INI)

Lieve WIERINCK, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Angelika MLINAR, Fredrick FEDERLEY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to look for a solution to the research deficiencies facing convergence regions in some Member States, in application of the principle of additionality; regrets that financial allocations from the Structural and Investment Funds can lead to a reduction in national R&D expenditure in regions where they apply, but insists that these must be additional to national public expenditure; calls also on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that ~~investment in R&D is not accounted for as investment in relation to deficit objectiv~~R&I programmes are seen as investments rather than purely funding programmes;

2017/04/04
Committee: ITRE

2016/2147(INI)

Lieve WIERINCK, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Angelika MLINAR, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Kaja KALLAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Underlines the need for more synergies with Structural Funds to build new higher excellence centres and regions and the importance of continuing to develop the ERA; calls for policies to remove barriers such as lower salaries that are faced by Eastern and Southern countries in order to avoid brain drain, and for the excellence of the project to be prioritised over the excellence of ~~‘elite’~~leading science centres;

2017/04/04
Committee: ITRE

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to show greater political will towards ~~complet~~further developing and strengthening the single market for transport and establishing an equal level playing field, in order to ensure open and fair competition between public and private operators in the transport, postal and tourism sectors;

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that EU transport legislation is often poorly implemented by Member States; believes that proper implementation of existing EU legislation, which the Commission should be enforcing more strictly, would bring additional benefits to business ~~and~~, industry and consumers;

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Recognis~~Welcomes the advances in digital technologies in the transport and tourism sectors, ~~which promote competition,~~in particular for facilitating the development of the collaborative economy, for bringing into play new operators and for challenging existing monopolies to the benefit of consumers; points out that an appropriate and crlea~~te jobs and~~r legal framework is required to grasp the benefits of the ~~consumer;~~ digitalisation process and calls on the Commission to monitor its development so that it does not give rise to dominant market positions;

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the Commission’'s intention to negotiate external aviation agreements with several key countries and regions in the world; believes that these will not only improve market access, but will also provide new business opportunities for a world-beating European aviation sector, creating jobs and benefiting consumers; stresses that the European parliament has an important role to play in these negotiations;

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2100(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that increased competition brought about by the gradual opening up of the EU road haulage market can bring benefits to consumers, but expresses concern that certain measures being applied by some Member States are undermining the integrity of the single market in this field; welcomes the readiness of the Commission to confront such protectionist measures;

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2100(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses that postal services and especially cross-border parcel delivery are of fundamental importance for the development of the e-commerce sector across the EU; welcomes the Commission antitrust inquiry into the e-commerce sector and encourages it to continue monitoring the development of the parcel and postal markets;

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2099(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas decarbonising transport is a major challenge, and significant reductions in CO2 emissions from transport are needed if the EU is to achieve its long-term climate goals; whereas congestion and air pollution are major problems in developing urban mobility and protecting human health;

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2099(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the plan to review the Regulation on the European Fund for Strategic Investments announced by Commission President Juncker~~’s plan~~, which aims to increase the capacity of the Investment Plan for Europe from EUR 315 billion to EUR 630 billion until 2022; underlines, however, that it should not lead to a reduction in ~~well-functioning sources of transport infrastructure funding;~~effective sources that are indispensable to the appropriate funding of transport infrastructure, such as subsidies under the Connecting Europe Facility.

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2099(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Encourages the EIB to continue to support sustainable, safe~~, climate-friendly~~ and innovative transport; underlines that it is the European ~~Parliament~~Union’s priority to ~~provid~~ensure sufficient funding for projects with European added value, including the cross- border transport links;

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2099(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Believes that an innovative and effective economy needs advanced infrastructure and that transport infrastructure should be among the priorities, with a special focus on innovative multimodal ~~infrastructure solutions such as short multimodal tunnels or bridges in sparsely populated areas or local communities;~~solutions.

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2099(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Underlines the need for European investment policy to pay more attention to horizontal issues, particularly as regards future means of transport, which will require the simultaneous and coherent development of alternative energy and telecommunications networks.

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2099(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the importance of ~~geographical balance in~~a distribution of investments with EIB involvement that is balanced in proportion to the Member States’ GDP, and expects the EIB and the Commission to deliver appropriate technical and administrative assistance to project preparation in countries that need it;

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2099(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines the need for greater consistency between the projects supported by the EIB under EFSI and the projects that meet European priorities (European added value).

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2099(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Calls on~~Supports the Commission in its attempt to drev~~elop new common EU regulations on~~ise the current Financial Regulation, and in particular its provisions concerning the use of innovative financial instruments such as ~~public-private partnerships or~~ project bonds;

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2099(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the importance in combating climate change of the goals set by COP 21 with regard to road, rail and inland waterway transport; underlines that the financial means should be available to bring about a modal shift from road to rail and waterborne and inland waterway transport; insists also that attention should be paid to investment in clean power for transport; proposes, to this end, increasing the capacities of financing tools that are specialised for this purpose, such as the European Clean Transport Facility (ECTF);

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2099(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Underlines the importance of optimising the Union’s investment policies by harmonising the various investment support tools (EFSI, ESIFs, CEF, projects bonds, the various funds, etc.); calls for a coordination structure to be set up between the EIB and the Commission in order to optimise the joint use of these various tools on a project-by- project basis so that loans, subsidies and guarantee mechanisms can be mixed for the same project under the best possible conditions.

2016/10/17
Committee: TRAN

2016/2064(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

~~8. Requests that integrated ESIF- EFSI projects should be excluded from calculations of budgetary adjustments under the Stability and Growth Pact;~~deleted

2016/09/16
Committee: REGI

2016/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)

- having regard to the Commission proposal of 7 December 2015 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council,

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the EU Single Aviation market is the most successful example of regional liberalisation of air transport that strongly contributed to unprecedented levels of air connectivity by broadening travel opportunities within and outside Europe while lowering prices;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the aviation sector is a fundamental part of the European transport network, indispensable to ensure connectivity and regional cohesion within the EU and worldwide, and a driver with multiplier effect for growth and jobs creation;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’'s Communication on an Aviation Strategy for Europe and its effort to identify sources to boost the sector by finding new market opportunities and dismantling barriers, and for its proposals to meet and anticipate new challenges by developing modern regulatory frameworks (e.g. revised Basic Regulation for common rules in the field of civil aviation safety); believes that, in a longer-term perspective, a further holistic and ambitious approach should be embraced;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission to rethink on-going initiatives and propose alternatives to remove the deficiencies of the aviation sector resulting from the late and incomplete implementation of EU legislation such as the Single European Sky (SES); ~~urges the Member States finally to make progress on other essential dossiers such as~~stresses that to provide legal clarity and certainty, although helpful, the publication of guidelines does not substitute the proper revision of existing regulations, in this respect urges the Council and the Member States finally to make progress on other essential dossiers such as the Recast of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Single European Sky and the revision of the Slot Regulation and the Passenger Rights Regulations;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Council to make progress on the aforementioned essential aviation dossiers by unblocking discussions related to the status of the Gibraltar Airport in line with the Ministerial Statement on Gibraltar Airport, agreed in Cordoba on 18 September 2006 during the first Ministerial meeting of the Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar (the so-called Cordoba agreement);

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes the initiative to negotiate at EU-level air transport agreements and bilateral aviation safety agreements with third countries representing emerging and strategic markets (China, Japan, ASEAN, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, Armenia, Mexico, China, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Saudi- Arabia) and encourages fast negotiations; calls on the Commission and the Council, in respect of Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to fully involve and inform the European Parliament at all stages of negotiations;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Deplores the fact that Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 on protection against unfair pricing practices in the air transport sector has proved to be inadequate and ineffective;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the Commission to promptly submit a proposal to revise Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 in order to safeguard fair competition in EU external aviation relations by eliminating unfair competition more effectively and reinforce the competitive position of the EU aviation industry,

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Strongly believes that the aviation sector should fully rely on European satellite-based technologies, such as EGNOS and Galileo, which allow safer and more efficient navigation and approach procedures while enabling the full deployment of SESAR; Therefore insists on the need for a wide implementation of these technologies;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Reiterates that the TEN-T corridors are the backbone for the development of multimodal options where airports are core hubs; regrets that multimodal initiatives across Europe are fragmented and limited in number; calls on both the Commission and the Member States to give greater priority to the multimodal objective within the TEN-T corridors while removing bottlenecks; calls on the Commission promptly to present its proposal for a multimodal approach to transport, with the aviation sector fully integrated;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Welcomes the innovation and economic development which can be fostered by the further development of the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPASs); underlines the fact that innovation is a prerequisite for competitive European industries in the field of manned and unmanned aviation;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Believes that the whole aviation value chain has the potential to be a strategic sector for investments, which needs to be further exploited by setting long-term objectives and by granting incentives to smart initiatives fulfilling those objectives such as greener airports or aircrafts, noise reduction, connection between airport facilities and public transport; invites the Commission and the Member States to look into further measures to promote such initiatives, including through the use of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, and to continue promoting and financing programmes such as Clean Sky and SESAR;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Urmas PAET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Takes note of the CO2 emissions generated by the aviation sector; stresses the wide range of actions already taken to achieve carbon neutral growth from 2020, both by developing alternative fuels and lighter aircraft, and by abiding to international agreements; ~~welcom~~invites the Commission~~’s intention to review EU measures to reduce CO2 emissions from aviation in light of~~ to assess the outcome of the 39th Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO); is of the opinion that, in view also of the Commission’'s Circular Economy Package, further initiatives reducing emissions of operational activities from, to and within airports should be encouraged;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Acknowledges the substantial costs spent on security measures; stresses that security challenges, including cybersecurity, posed to the aviation sector will only be greater in the future, requiring an immediate shift to a more intelligence- based and reactive security system, and an improvement of the security of airports’' facilities so that they can adapt to evolving threats without requiring constant updates, in this respect welcomes the Commission's proposal for a EU certification system for aviation security screening equipment; insist on the need for a consistent implementation of the existing regulation regarding staff recruitment and training; calls on the Commission to look into the possibility of deepening the one-stop security concept, and of developing a EU pre-check system allowing pre-registered EU travellers to go through a lighter and faster screening; urges the Member States to commit to share intelligence systematically and to exchange best practices on airport security systems; also underlines that security concerns arising from non-cooperative military flights with no active transponders and from conflict zones overflight must continue to be addressed;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2062(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that relative to other transport modes, the aviation sector is already well ahead in putting the benefits of digitalisation, information and communication technologies, and open data to use, and encourages the sector to continue to take a lead in this process, while ensuring interoperability of systems and neutrality and transparency of access to information for consumers; welcomes the Commission’'s proposal for an aviation big data project and asks for clarification on its implementation;

2016/10/13
Committee: TRAN

2016/2047(BUD)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that, given that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) did not produce the expected results as regards transport infrastructures; stresses therefore that cuts in the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) should not be further used to finance EFSI; strongly requests that the cuts in CEF to finance the EFSI programme are restored within the framework of the reviwas set up only recently, it seems premature to form a firm and definitive conclusion about the desired results as regards transport infrastructures; stresses the need, as part of the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework, to restore the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) credits which were redeployed to form the EFSI guarantee fund or to at least earmark those credits for transport infrastructure projects with European added value; calls, in order to ensure a genuine additionality of infrastructure projects, for an informal group to be set up which brings together the stakeholders concerned (the Commission of, the ~~Multiannual Financial Framework or are at least earmarke~~EIB and private investors) that would be in charge of coordinating and optimising the combination of subsidies from the European budget (particularly from the CEF and the European Fund for Stra~~nsport infrastructure projects with European added value~~tegic Investment) and innovative financial instruments (loans, loan guarantees, venture capital, etc.);

2016/07/29
Committee: TRAN

2016/2047(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the conclusion of~~Takes note that the fourth railway package~~; underlines the~~ foresees a greater role ofor the European Railway Agency in terms of certification and technical infrastructure development, which must therefore be adequately financed; believes that continuous efforts should also be put on research and innovation in the rail sector and calls on adequate funding for the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking;

2016/07/29
Committee: TRAN

2016/2047(BUD)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Underlines that the revision of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 envisages broadening the scope of competence of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); stresses the importance of allocating adequate funding to the EASA to ensure the successful uptake of these new responsibilities;

2016/07/29
Committee: TRAN

2016/2047(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the importance of the goals set by COP 21 with regard to transport in order to combat climate change; underlines that financial means should be available to ensure a modal shift from road to rail ands well as waterborne and inland waterway transport and encouraging Member States to invest in smart, sustainable, integrated public transport; recommends also paying attention to noise reduction in transport to provide citizens with an environment of high quality;

2016/07/29
Committee: TRAN

2016/2047(BUD)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for the introduction of a direct budgetary line for tourism in the Union budget for 2017, given the importance of this economic activity in Europe and the need to further improve its attractiveness and competitiveness in a worldwide competitive environment; calls on the Commission to ensure the availability in all EU languages of the Guide on EU funding 2014-2020 for the tourism sector; asks the Commission to present a yearly overview of the Tourism projects financed; underlines the importance of this economic activity in Europe and the need to further improve its attractiveness and competitiveness in a worldwide competitive environment;

2016/07/29
Committee: TRAN

2016/2047(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Considers that ensuring security of the transport means and infrastructures is of high priority and that adequate funding must be safeguarded to this purpose.

2016/07/29
Committee: TRAN

2016/2045(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

— having regard to Articles 175~~, 212~~ and 22212 (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

2016/07/20
Committee: REGI

2016/2045(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6

— having regard to the Commission report entitled ‘The European Union Solidarity Fund - Annual Report 2014’ (COM(201~~1)0694~~5)502),

2016/07/20
Committee: REGI

2016/2045(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10

— having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 28 November 20153 - European Union Solidarity Fund,

2016/07/20
Committee: REGI

2016/2045(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up in 2002 in reaction to that summer’s serious flooding in Central Europe, to respond to serious natural disasters and to demonstrate solidarity with the European regions affected; whereas it funds only emergency and recovery operations carried out by governments following natural disasters;

2016/07/20
Committee: REGI

2016/2045(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas investments in the prevention of natural disasters are of utmost importance in response to climate change; whereas significant amounts of EU funding have been allocated for investments in the prevention of natural disasters and in risk management strategies, in particular under the ESI Funds;

2016/07/20
Committee: REGI

2016/2045(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Emphasises the main components of the reform, such as the introduction of advance payments of up to 10 % of the anticipated financial contribution available on demand soon after an application for a financial contribution from the Fund has been submitted to the Commission (upper limit of the contribution set at EUR 30 million), the eligibility of ~~technical assistance directly linked to project~~costs relating to the preparation and implementation of the emergency and recovery operations (a key European Parliament request), the extension of the deadlines by which Member States must make applications (12 weeks after the first damage) and set up the project (18 months), as well as the introduction of a six-month deadline by which the Commission must respond to applications;

2016/07/20
Committee: REGI

2016/2045(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Welcomes the clarification of the rules on the eligibility of regional natural disasters, but points out that the final agreement maintains the eligibility threshold at 1.5 % of regional GDP, in line with the Commission proposal, in spite of Parliament’s efforts to reduce it to 1 %; believes that the vulnerability of the outermost regions has been taken into account, with the threshold being reduced to 1 % in their case;

2016/07/20
Committee: REGI

2016/2045(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Member States to optimise the use of EU funding, in particular the ESI Funds, for investments to prevent natural disasters from occurring and to mitigate their effects;

2016/07/20
Committee: REGI

2016/2045(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Emphasises that, following the Commission’s rejection of two applications for recognition as extraordinary regional disasters~~Recalls that two applications have been rejected under the former EUSF Regulation, on the grounds that the disasters in question could not be deemed ‘extraordinary’, in spite of the fact that they caused serious damage and had direct repercussions for the economic and social development of the regions concerned~~, a realistic~~; therefore welcomes the revised EUSF Regulation in which an adequate eligibility threshold ~~should~~has been set for regional natural disasters;

2016/07/20
Committee: REGI

2016/2045(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Gesine MEISSNER, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Reiterates its call, therefore, that in the near future the eligibility threshold for regional natural disasters should be set at 1 % of regional GDP, in particular for the regions worst affected by the economic crisis and the refugee crisis;deleted

2016/07/20
Committee: REGI

2016/2010(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the use of ICT has been continuously boosting the postal services sector by providing opportunities for innovation and allowing the market to expand;

2016/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2016/2010(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Believes that obligations of independence can only be fulfilled if NRAs’ regulatory functions are separated from activities associated with ownership or control of a postal operator; considers that senior NRA officials should not be permitted to work for the public postal operator or other interested parties ~~immediately~~within at least six months after leaving the NRA, with a view to preventing conflicts of interest;

2016/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2016/2010(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Member States to use ~~State aid tools~~, only in exceptional cases, State aid tools in accordance with State Aid Rules, in a transparent and non- discriminatory manner and to ensure that customers continue to have access to postal services, by maintaining a minimum number of services at the same access point;

2016/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2016/2010(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Hannu TAKKULA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission to work on a harmonised definition of universal service which stipulates a minimum level of service for consumers; calls on the Member States to further harmonise licensing procedures in order to reduce unjustified barriers within the internal market, without creating any unnecessary administrative burden;

2016/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2016/0282(COD)

Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 265 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013
Article 9 – subparagraph 2a

“The priorities established for each of the ESI Funds in the Fund specific rules shall in particular cover the appropriate use of each Fund in the areas of migration and asylum, in particular in relation to the reception of asylum seekers and the participation in the corrective allocation mechanism under the Dublin Regluation.”

2017/03/13
Committee: REGI

2016/0282(COD)

Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 265 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013
Chapter IV – heading

~~Measures linked to sound economic governance~~5a. The heading of Chapter IV is replaced by the following: “Measures linked to sound economic governance and solidarity among Member States in the reception of asylum seekers”

2017/03/13
Committee: REGI

2016/0282(COD)

Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 265 – paragraph 1 – point 5 b (new)

Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013
Article 23a

5b. The following Article 23a is inserted: “Article 23a 1. When a Member State does not fulfil its obligations under Chapter VII of the Dublin Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council], the procedure as provided for in paragraphs 2 to 14 will apply. 2. The Commission shall make a proposal to the Council to suspend part or all of the commitments or payments for the programmes of a Member State where that Member State does not take any action to assume participation in the corrective allocation mechanism under the Dublin Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council] within 6 months. In making its proposal, the Commission shall take account of all relevant information in that regard, and it shall give due consideration to any elements arising from and opinions expressed by the Member State concerned. 3. A proposal by the Commission referred to in paragraph 2 in relation to the suspension of commitments shall be deemed adopted by the Council unless the Council decides, by means of an implementing act, to reject such a proposal by qualified majority within one month of the submission of the Commission proposal. The suspension of commitments shall apply to the commitments from the ESI Funds for the Member State concerned from 1 January of the year following the decision to suspend. The Council shall adopt a decision, by means of an implementing act, on a proposal by the Commission referred to in paragraph 6 in relation to the suspension of payments. 4. The scope and level of the suspension of commitments or payments to be imposed on the basis of paragraph 3, shall be proportionate. The impact of suspensions on programmes of critical importance to address adverse economic or social conditions shall be a specific factor to be taken into account. Detailed provisions for determining the scope and level of suspensions are set out in Annex III. The suspension of commitments shall be subject to the lower of the following ceilings: (a) A maximum of 50 % of the commitments relating to the next financial year for the ESI Funds in the first case of non- compliance with the corrective allocation mechanism under the Dublin Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council]. (b) a maximum of 0,5 % of nominal GDP applying in the first case of non- compliance with the corrective allocation mechanism under the Dublin Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council]. If non-compliance relating to the corrective allocation mechanism persists, the percentage of that GDP cap shall be gradually increased up to a maximum of 1 % of nominal GDP applying in the event of persistent non-compliance with the corrective allocation mechanism in line with the seriousness of the non- compliance. In determining the level of the suspension and whether to suspend commitments or payments, the stage of the programme cycle shall be taken into account having regard in particular to the period remaining for using the funds following the re-budgeting of suspended commitments. 5. Without prejudice to de- commitment rules set out in Articles 86 to 88 the Commission shall lift the suspension of commitments, without delay, as soon as the Member State concerned starts participation in the corrective allocation mechanism as set out in Chapter VII of the Dublin Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council] and notifies this to the European Commission. The Commission shall inform the Council and the Parliament immediately. 6. When lifting the suspension of commitments, the Commission shall re- budget the suspended commitments in accordance with Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013. 7. A decision concerning the lifting of the suspension of payments shall be taken by the Council on a proposal from the Commission where the applicable conditions set out in paragraph 5 are fulfilled. 8. This Article shall not apply to programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal. 9. The Commission shall keep the European Parliament informed of the implementation of this Article. In particular the Commission shall, when a Member State is not fully assuming its responsibility under the corrective allocation mechanism under the Dublin Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council], immediately inform the European Parliament and provide details of the ESI Funds and programmes which could be subject to a suspension of commitments or payments. 10. The European Parliament may invite the Commission for a structured dialogue on the application of this Article. 11. The Commission shall transmit the proposal for suspension of commitments or payments or the proposal to lift such a suspension to the European Parliament and the Council immediately after its adoption. The European Parliament may invite the Commission to explain the reasons for its proposal. 12. In 2019, the Commission shall carry out a review of the application of this Article. To this end, the Commission shall prepare a report which it shall transmit to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied where necessary by a legislative proposal. 13. Where there are major changes in the social and economic situation in the Union, the Commission may submit a proposal to review the application of this Article, or the European Parliament or the Council, acting in accordance with Articles 225 or 241 TFEU respectively, may request the Commission to submit such a proposal.”

2017/03/13
Committee: REGI

2016/0280(COD)

Julia REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way works and other subject-matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited. New business models and new actors continue to emerge. The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright framework remain sound. However, legal uncertainty remains, for both rightholders and users, as regards certain uses, including cross-border uses, of works and other subject-matter in the digital environment. As set out in the Communication of the Commission entitled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework’26 , in some areas it is necessary to adapt and supplement the current Union copyright framework. This Directive provides for rules to adapt certain exceptions and limitations to digital and cross-border environments, as well as measures to facilitate certain licensing practices as regards the dissemination of out-of- commerce works and the online availability of audiovisual works on video- on-demand platforms with a view to ensuring wider access to content. In order to achieve a well-functioning marketplace for copyright, there should also be rules on ~~rights in publications, on the use of works and other subject-matter by online service providers storing and giving access to user uploaded content and on~~ the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts. _________________ 26 COM(2015) 626 final. COM(2015) 626 final.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Julia REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31

(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Julia REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32

(32) The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Julia REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Monika VANA, Bodil VALERO, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to ~~define~~clarify the sco~~ncept~~pe of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weeklotection set out in Article s2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC. In order to improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, and to ensure the freedom to carry out certain acts necessary for ~~monthly magazines of general or special i~~the normal functioning of the Internest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection doess well as to take account of certain fundamental rights, these Articles should not extend to acts of hyperlinking, which do not constitute communication to the public.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Julia REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

(34) The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Julia REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Marietje SCHAAKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Julia REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4

(4) ‘press publication’ means a fixation of a collection of literary works of a journalistic nature, which may also comprise other works or subject-matter and constitutes an individual item within a periodical or regularly-updated publication under a single title, such as a newspaper or a general or special interest magazine, having the purpose of providing information related to news or other topics and published in any media under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Julia REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Article 11

Protection of press publications 1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject- matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. 3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.Article 11 deleted concerning digital uses

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Julia REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2

~~2. The provisions of Article 11 shall also apply to press publications published before [the date mentioned in Article 21(1)].~~deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0276(COD)

Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)

(7a) The strict implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact needs to be respected as it affects in no way the ability to utilise EFSI.

2017/02/08
Committee: TRAN

2015/2353(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises, in this context, the vital importance of adequate EU funding for the projects identified in the TEN-T Core Network Corridor Work Plans; highlights that this also requires enhanced coverage of transport policy related areas such as multi-modality and efficient logistics, intelligent transport systems and clean fuel equipment for the better integration of urban nodes and their sustainable development within the transport system;

2016/04/20
Committee: TRAN

2015/2353(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights that the EFSI makes a worthwhile contribution to the financing of TEN-T projects, ~~provided that grants~~but that it cannot replace grants, which remain a vital and necessary funding source for projects generating little or no income but which contribute to the achievement of EU policy goals; underlines, in particular, that grants could be combined together with innovative financial instruments and the EFSI to facilitate the implementation of additional projects and catalyse private finance (blending); is concerned that almost no funds remain available for new projects in the remaining four years of the MFF;

2016/04/20
Committee: TRAN

2015/2353(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Highlights the substantial and permanent investment deficit in Europe, particularly in major transport infrastructure, and stresses that this risks undermining the competitiveness of the EU as a whole; notes that investment needs relate not only to the creation of infrastructure but also to its maintenance and modernisation;

2016/04/20
Committee: TRAN

2015/2353(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that, through various forms of financial support (grants, financial instruments), the EU budget has played a decisive role in launching or relaunching numerous projects in the transport sector; believes that any revision of the MFF must now make it a priority;

2016/04/20
Committee: TRAN

2015/2353(INI)

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. PoRemintds t~~o the fact that a~~he current seven-year period of the multiannual financial framework ~~has proved its worth in the past and that the programming period should not be shorter~~; calls to explore the ways how the period could be more aligned with the mandate of the Commission and the European Parliament as it will increase democratic accountability and legitimacy.

2016/04/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2353(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Considers that all EU budgetary instruments which support investment and innovation should be maintained and further developed, and that there is no need to favour one of these instruments to the detriment of the others; notes the essential role of the EU budget in providing an incentive for future spending and in supporting cohesion and effective implementation of policies within the EU.

2016/04/20
Committee: TRAN

2015/2349(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Deplor~~Welcomes the anti-competitive practices resulting from inequality in the application of the rules, notably between residents and non-residents, in particular as regards pay and social security systems, which may lead to distortions such as social dumpingnew opportunities afforded by small transport businesses and new collaborative business models while at the same time deploring possible anti-competitive practices resulting from inequality in the application of the rules;

2016/06/16
Committee: TRAN

2015/2349(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Regrets that the Member States’ response to the development of collaborative business models has so far been very fragmented, and considers that a coordinated, overall European level approach is ~~indispens~~desirable; notes the Commission’s reasonable approach to this ‘new business model’ and ~~eagerly awaits~~awaits with interest the publication of its guidelines on this topic;

2016/06/16
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

- having regard to the White Paper - Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (COM(2011)144);

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)

- having regard to Commission Communication on Strengthening European Investment for jobs and growth: towards a second phase of the European Fund for Strategic Investment and a new European External Investment Plan (COM 2016/581);

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)

- having regard to the Commission Communication on Accelerating Europe's transition to a low-carbon economy (COM(2016)0500),

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

- having regard to the Corridor Work Plans, drawn up by the European TEN-T Coordinators,

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET, Gesine MEISSNER

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

EU logistics a~~nd the need for additional measures in the TEN-T programme: a logistics coordinator~~s an integral part of EU transport policies

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights the importance of ensuring free movement of persons, goods and services, including by an efficient and sustainable freight transport system, for the development of the internal market, prosperity and economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET, Gesine MEISSNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that a ~~seamless~~n EU infrastructure system ~~will only~~that is seamlessly implemented and consistent with the TEN-T already adopted will deliver ~~its~~ benefits to the logistics sector ~~if the Union’s agreed legislation is properly transposed into national law, avoiding additional legal requirements tha~~; urges the Member States to transpose legislation correctly into national law without hampering the free exchange of goods; calls on the Member States to ~~refrain from introducing new barriers~~apply and abide by European legislation, and urges the Commission to bring to the Court of Justice Member States that delay the implementation of EU law;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Dominique RIQUET, Gesine MEISSNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Is concerned about the negative impact on the logistics sector of closures of, and checks at, internal borders in connection with the ‘refugee ~~crisis’~~and migrant crisis and terror threat in the European Union; calls on the Member States and the Commission to take freight flows into account when adopting such measures;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that the ~~further~~ implementation of the core TEN-T network ~~must serve to boost integrated multimodal freight transport in the EU, in particular its core network corridors to be completed by 2030~~within the time- frames laid down, completed by 2030, will eliminate bottlenecks, improve interoperability between the various modes of transport and national, regional and local infrastructure and will deliver integrated multimodal freight transport in the EU, and also ~~the~~ national planning ~~included in~~of the comprehensive network in line with the core network, which will have to be completed by 2050;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Gesine MEISSNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that the further implementation of the TEN-T network must serve to boost integrated multimodal freight transport in the EU, in particular its core network corridors to be completed by 2030, and also the national and regional planning included in the comprehensive network;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the distribution of a large number of nodes and freight traffic in the TEN-T network follows highly populated areas in cross-border zones and dense networks that share capacity with passenger traffic; considers it necessary to ~~rethink how~~implement freight infrastructure ~~should be shaped~~ in the TEN-T, in particular in highly congested areas; calls on the Commission ~~to reassess the methodology for establishing freight networks and to pay increased attention to alternative freight routes linking less congested nod~~, in coordination with the European coordinators, to assess progress in the implementation of the projects and to urge Member States, t~~erminals and ports~~o deliver;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Gesine MEISSNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Regrets that too often Member States’ national infrastructure plans are decided without reference to the TEN-T objectives; urges the Commission to increase coordination between the two levels of planning and suggests adding to the European Semester a chapter on supervising its coherence with appropriate corrective measures; calls on the Commission ~~not~~ to prioritise Member State projects that are ~~not~~ in line with the TEN-T ~~programming~~;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Notes that Member States experiencing economic and budgetary difficulti~~Advocates the optimal use of the public and private funding schemes, are unable to co-finance freight projects as a result of a strict interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP); advocates a more flexible application of the SGP by excluding genuine European infrastructure projects (i.e. Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) projects) frlso in the light of blending Connecting Europe Facility and Horizon 2020 with the European Fund for Strategic Investments and other financial instruments; welcomes the promotion of more sustainable investments across sectors to further meet COP21-targets and help delivering on the transition to a resource efficient, circular and zero- carbon economy; calls on the Commission to assess the main challenges and to present a road map to overcome th~~e calculation of the public debt;~~ose, concerning investments in transport and infrastrucure.

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that an efficient EU logistics system requires further coordination beyond physical connectivity and an operational TEN-T network; calls on the Commission to ~~appoint a TEN-T European logistics coordinator that could effectively complement, coordinate and give coherence to the ongoing~~make logistics an integral part of the Core Network Corridors and the work of the cEuropean Coordinators ~~in the area of multimodality;~~.

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Stresses the urgency of a greater simplification of documents and administrative and customs procedures across all modes; calls on the Commission and the Member States, under the ‘better regulation’ agreement to analyse redundant EU legislation on transport and mobility and additionally to monitor national, regional and local rules that could be in contradiction with EU law;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Urges the Commission to propose a digital framework for electronic information exchange and transport management in multimodal transport (e- freight) in order to facilitate a simplified, paperless, seamless, transparent information flow among businesses and authorities;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Underlines the need to ensure enough EU funding for the implementation of the TEN-T beyond the present MFF; expects the Commission to present the CEF mid-term review in 2017, proposing ~~streamlining of measures~~resources for the implementation of the priority projects in good time; insists on the ‘use it or lose it’ principle, whereby unspent CEF funds are made available for upcoming calls for proposals; ~~suggests launching~~urges the Commission to assess a proposal for a specific call on logistics in 2017, including multimodal transport and freight solutions in urban nodes;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Stresses the importance of improving the provision of and access to information on EU multimodal and logistics services, in particular to SMEs that have limited access to this information; calls on the Commission, in cooperation with network operators, to ~~present a handbook on multimodal transport in the EU that includes~~facilitate the exchange of current agreements, tools, conventions, legislation and best practices on multimodal transport in the EU;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Notes with concern that the logistics sector will face a shortage of workforce in the coming years and that slow adaptation of its workforce to digital technologies could undermine the sector’s performance; calls on the Commission to identify training and learning needs at EU level, and working conditions, costs and barriers that discourage the workforce from entering the transport sector, and to propose as a matter of urgency measures to make it more attractive to young people and to future generations; regards this as an opportunity to increase the proportion of women and new entrants on the transport labour market, for example EU migrants;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2348(INI)

Hannu TAKKULA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take ~~into consideration~~note of the recent EP recommendations on ~~fighting ‘social dumping’ in~~social-economic aspects of the transport sector;

2016/10/19
Committee: TRAN

2015/2282(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Believes in this respect that it is important to continue efforts to promote the green competitiveness of SMEs by improving access to finance, providing more information, simplifying legislation, cutting red tape and strengthening a green business culture;

2016/03/03
Committee: REGI

2015/2282(INI)

Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Hannu TAKKULA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Iskra MIHAYLOVA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Asks the Commission to establish a participatory platform for the dissemination of SME project results, including examples of good practice also carried out under the ERDF during the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 programming periods;deleted

2016/03/03
Committee: REGI

2015/2280(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Iskra MIHAYLOVA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Considers that the basic cooperation philosophy and current structure of ETC should be maintained, as well as the emphasis on the cross-border component; ~~stresses that there should be a fair distribution of funds under ETC programmes, on the basis not only of population size but also of a set of harmonised criteria, considering territorial specificiti~~calls on the European Commission to analyse the possible development of a set of harmonised criteria, on the basis not only of population size but also on the basis of socio-economic and territorial specificities for a fair distribution of funds under ETC programmes;

2016/04/06
Committee: REGI

2015/2278(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Hannu TAKKULA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Is of the opinion that the S3 platform in Seville plays a key role in advising and benchmarking regions on their innovation strategies, helping lagging regions and enhancing multi-level governance and synergies between regions~~; stresses that the platform should develop mentoring activities in lagging regions, as well as~~ by providing information, methodologies, expertise and advice to national and regional policy makers; stresses that the platform should make a continuous effort to update its database, taking into account the local needs, specificities and priorities of regions and cities;

2016/02/29
Committee: REGI

2015/2278(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Highlights the importance of close coordination throughout the whole implementation phase between the ~~development of the RIS3 and the management of the~~ operational programmes and the RIS3;

2016/02/29
Committee: REGI

2015/2278(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Hannu TAKKULA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for the development of flexibility and coordination mechanisms ~~linking the S3 platform~~to facilitate an integrated use of different funds and the Horizon 2020 programme, and encourages regions to use tools such as the Vanguard Initiative, the Seal of Excellence, the Knowledge Exchange Platform (KEP), the S3 platform and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) , as well as strategic cluster partnerships, with a view to boosting investment, enhancing coordination, creating synergies and promoting exchanges of views in order to avoid duplication and inefficient spending of public resources;

2016/02/29
Committee: REGI

2015/2278(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on authorities to simplify procedures and reduce bottlenecks in the administrative process of the strategies; encourages ~~investments in human capital, including via EU interregional partnerships, to increase administrative capacities and to manage and implement~~efforts to manage, implement and monitor the RIS3 process successfully;

2016/02/29
Committee: REGI

2015/2278(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Hannu TAKKULA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Welcomes the concentration of ~~these regional strategies on energy, health, information and communicat~~strategies on the region's technology, advanced food materials, services, tourism, sustainable innovation, manufacturing systems and cultural and creative industries; regrets that only a few regions have created clusters in fields reflecting popular priorities, suchspecific specialisations and most competitive sectors; encourages the development of clusters in fields as renewable energy, sustainability, transport, the digital agenda, KETs and public health, and encourages ~~more regions to do so~~all stakeholders to seek for cross-overs between sectors, as these cross-overs can foster innovations;

2016/02/29
Committee: REGI

2015/2278(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for the use of existing tools like the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) for periodic monitoring – both quantitative and qualitative – of the implementation of the strategies; criticises the fact that both regions and Member States face similar problems in terms of evaluation of monitoring, and calls on regions to develop strong qualitative and quantitative measures, and to publish regular reports on achievements of their objectives, in order to better analyse the impact of RIS3;

2016/02/29
Committee: REGI

2015/2278(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Encourages regions and Member States to be proactive in the framework of the action plans, established with the Commission, in view of the target date of December 2016; asks them to set and implement their monitoring mechanism ~~in a continuous review of the RIS3~~, focused on specifying priorities and strengthening the links between priorities and concrete economic, regional structure and the future development perspectives;

2016/02/29
Committee: REGI

2015/2278(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Asks DG Regio and the S3 platform to draft, and widely disseminate, a short policy paper on the past RIS3 experience, focused on the following areas: a SWOT analysis of the experience; lessons learned by regions and main pitfalls observed for each of the six steps described in the RIS3 guide; ~~recommendations and standardised templates for a continuous improvement of the RIS3 to better design the strategies after 2020;~~ human capacity needed to successfully design and implement a RIS3;

2016/02/29
Committee: REGI

2015/2255(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas, in the transport sector, ~~security, safety of passengers and high working conditions are interlinked~~certain working conditions may impact safety of passengers;

2016/02/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/2255(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas ~~equal work, equal right~~decent working conditions and fair competition ~~must b~~are at the heart of a well- functioning single market;

2016/02/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/2255(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recognises the economic growth and thus job-creating potential in the EU transport and tourism sectors; firmly believes that employment in the EU transport sector should be made more attractive for future generations; considers in particular that women’s participation must be ~~boost~~encouraged;

2016/02/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/2255(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ~~suspend such~~fight socially problematic business practices as precarious contracts ~~(bogus self-employment, zero-hour contracts, pay-to-fly-schemes, etc.)~~, letter-box companies and flags of convenience in order to ensure the social protection of workers;

2016/02/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/2255(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Underlines the need for~~Encourages the Commission to treat social aspects as a ~~major~~ priority of the road package, including measures to ensure legal clarity and better implementation of rules governing working conditions~~, social and welfare rights, wages and social responsibility~~ and social rights;

2016/02/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/2255(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for the EU and the Member States to cooperate across borders in relation to enforcement information, to ~~giv~~facilitate monitoring authorities access to data registered in the Member States’ national electronic registers and in the European Register of Road Transport Undertaking (ERRU) and to consolidate the list of infringements leading to the loss of good repute of road transport operators ~~by including illegal cabotage and non- compliance with Community social and labour legislation~~;

2016/02/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/2255(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that the social dimension of the Aviation Package published by the Commission must be strengthened as employment and working conditions ~~are directly linked to the maintenance of~~may impact the safety and security of both passengers and staff; underlines furthermore, in this connection, the need for the Commission and the Member States to monitor and ensure proper enforcement of national social legislation and collective agreements for airlines having operational bases on EU territory;

2016/02/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/2255(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Jozo RADOŠ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Stress~~Urges the ~~need for a new groundhandling regulation, that will provide~~Commission to evaluate as soon as possible the groundhandling services directive and if the need be propose a revision with the aim to provide the necessary social protection for workers; calls for an improved Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 to ensure binding application of national labour legislation for airlines having European operational bases and to ~~improve~~review the definition of ‘homebase’ for crew members;

2016/02/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/2255(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Stresses that, without prejudice to national and Union law, including collective agreements between social partners, the competent authority should require the designated provider of port and railway services to establish staff working conditions on the basis of binding national, regional or local social standards ~~and to implement the compulsory transfer of staff in the event of a change in service provider~~;

2016/02/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/2255(INI)

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

~~13. Calls on the Commission to establish minimum training requirements for maintenance personnel in the railway sector and to safeguard the economic equilibrium of public service obligations.~~deleted

2016/02/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/2233(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Hannu TAKKULA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Supports the negotiations on the Trade in Services Agreement, noting that services are increasingly important to the EU's economy and that while the European market is already very open, these negotiations present an important opportunity to achieve reciprocity with other markets which are more closed and thereby stimulate jobs and growth in the EU;

2015/10/21
Committee: REGI

2015/2233(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Hannu TAKKULA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission and especially the member state governments, which have given the Commission the mandate to negotiate, to investigate and analyse the impact of TiSA on cohesion and local and regional governance in the EU; urges the ~~Commission~~m to collect and make available comprehensive and comparable data and to include territorial impact assessments;

2015/10/21
Committee: REGI

2015/2233(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Hannu TAKKULA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses that the TiSA negotiations are a key opportunity to strengthen worldwide rules-based trade, which is essential for the EU's economy, as it is heavily dependent on trade;

2015/10/21
Committee: REGI

2015/2233(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Hannu TAKKULA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Is concerned~~Stresses that the competences of local and regional authorities (LRAs), which are responsible for a large share of public investment under the EU’s cohesion policy and are also actively involved in the delivery of key public services across the territory, ~~will~~should not be limited by TiSA, ~~thus~~and should not reduc~~ing~~e their ability to foster local and regional development and to protect the general interest of their citizens;

2015/10/21
Committee: REGI

2015/2233(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Hannu TAKKULA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Opposes any encroachment on the discretionary power of LRAs with regard to services, as laid down in Article 14 of the TFEU and Protocol N°26 of the TFEU, especially through provisions on domestic regulation, standstill and ratchet clauses, as well as provisions on public procurement; ~~call~~welcomes, therefore, onthe fact that the Commission ~~to fully~~has stated publically and repeatedly that it will exclude public services, both publicly and privately funded, from the TiSA negotiations ~~and to further strengthen flexibilities on the enforcement of commitments at local level, as laid down in GATS Article 1.3~~including those provided at the local level;

2015/10/21
Committee: REGI

2015/2224(INI)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas CLLD has a bottom up approach with the aim to set up objects and finance projects linked with the local needs of the community rather than impose objectives at national level;

2015/12/17
Committee: REGI

2015/2224(INI)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Is concerned that certain Member States are reluctant to embrace the bottom-up approach and to entrust an adequate level of responsibilities to local groups; calls on the Commission, while fully remaining within its competences, to provide recommendations and concrete guidelines to Member States on how to overcome the trust issue between the different levels of governance related to the implementation of CLLD and ITI;

2015/12/17
Committee: REGI

2015/2224(INI)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers SMEs lack of financing and youth unemployment to be one of the most pressing issues facing a large number of Member States; stresses that local and territorial development strategies have to recognise tackling youth unemployment as one of their top priorities as well as supporting the access to finance for SMEs;

2015/12/17
Committee: REGI

2015/2224(INI)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Encourages the Member States to increase the use of CLLD and ITI while preparing their new OPs and to allow more flexible rules in areas referred to in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union~~, such as islands, mountainous and rural regions~~;

2015/12/17
Committee: REGI

2015/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Encourages the Member States to increase the use of CLLD and ITI and to allow more flexible rules in areas referred to in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, such as islands, mountainous and rural regions; moreover, requests that the multi fund approach should be used while financing CLLDs and ITIs;

2015/12/17
Committee: REGI

2015/2224(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Points out that in the 2014 -2020 programming period ITI and CLLD are addressed in the applicable legislative framework, but that there is a need for further guidance; therefore calls on the European Commission to provide this guidance before the start of new programming periods after 2020 in order to increase legal certainty for all parties;

2015/12/17
Committee: REGI

2015/2224(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Is concerned about the results that CLLD will deliver, as small entities might get lost in the complexity of the regulation; therefore encourages Member States to embrace CLLD initiatives and to incorporate flexibility in their national policy frameworks;

2015/12/17
Committee: REGI

2015/2224(INI)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Regrets the fact that in some Member States the CLLD is restricted by national authorities to only one specific policy objective which is contrary to the bottom- up approach;

2015/12/17
Committee: REGI

2015/2224(INI)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Urges the Commission to provide guidance to Member States for financing CLLD through multi funds as well as encouraging the use of financing instruments;

2015/12/17
Committee: REGI

2015/2132(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 b (new)

67b. Stresses that Parliament and the Council must address the need for a roadmap to a single seat, as requested by a large majority in this Parliament in several resolutions, in order to create long term savings in the Union budget;

2015/10/06
Committee: BUDG

2015/2127(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the EIB to increase its support to projects covered by the EU macro- regional strategy; ~~stresses the importance of continuing to support the traditional economic sectors in the EU, such as agriculture, shipbuilding and tourism;~~ calls, furthermore, for the establishment of financial and investment platforms in order to enable the bundling of funds from various sources and the mobilisation of investments needed for such macro- regional projects;

2015/10/21
Committee: REGI

2015/2103(INL)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Citation 1 a (new)

- having regard to the Declaration of Amsterdam of the Council, of 14-15 April 2016, on Cooperation in the field of connected and automated driving,

2016/10/07
Committee: TRAN

2015/2103(INL)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Citation 1 b (new)

- having regard to the to the European Parliament's resolution of 29 October 2015 on safe use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), commonly known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), in the field of civil aviation,

2016/10/07
Committee: TRAN

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein's Monster to the classical myth of Pygmalion, through the story of Prague's Golem to the robot of Karel Čapek, who coined the word, people have fantasised about the possibility of building intelligent machines, more often than not androids with human features;deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. takes view that the impact of automated vehicles on enhancing transport safety might potentially be a major one, since human errors are currently responsible for about 90% of road accidents; notes however that ~~it will be impossible for automated vehicles to eliminate all accidents, which raises~~without an appropriate internal market regulatory framework it will be difficult to decrease the risk of accidents involving automated vehicles, This raises liability issues and questions of responsibility for car accidents;

2016/10/07
Committee: TRAN

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas now that humankind stands on the threshold of an era when ever more sophisticated robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of artificial intelligence ("AI") seem poised to unleash a new industrial revolution, which is likely to leave no stratum of society untouched, it is vitally important for the legislature to consider all its implicationthe growing development and use of artificial intelligence applications is increasingly reducing the marginal cost of producing and distributing goods and services, raising the need to comprehensively assess the implications of these developments on the EU's values and fundamental rights as well as on fundamental principles related to the rule of law and ethics;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. welcomes the numerous developments concerning robotics in all modes of transport, such as self-driving cars, ships and drones;

2016/10/07
Committee: TRAN

2015/2103(INL)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. stresses the importance of supporting further innovation in robotics, such as connected and automated vehicles and drones, to strengthen the global market position of Union industry;

2016/10/07
Committee: TRAN

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas machine learning offers enormous economic and innovative benefits for society by vastly improving the ability to analyse data, while also raising challenges to ensure non- discrimination, due process, transparency and understandability in decision-making processes;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Kaja KALLAS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas similarly, assessments of economic shifts and the impact on employment as a result of robotics and machine learning need to be assessed;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Kaja KALLAS

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influence; widespread use of robots might not automatically lead to job replacement, but lower skilled jobs in labour-intensive sectors are likely to be more vulnerable to automation; whereas this trend could bring production processes back to the EU; whereas research has demonstrated that employment grows significantly faster in occupations that use computers more; whereas the automation of jobs has the potential to liberate people from manual monotone labour allowing them to shift direction towards more creative and meaningful tasks; whereas automation requires governments to invest in education and other reforms in order to improve reallocations in the types of skills that the workers of tomorrow will need;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. notes that automated vehicles, vessels and aircraft systems can play an important role in developing sustainable transport (for example, through the potential for making savings in emissions) and calls on the Commission and Member States to ~~pay attention to upcoming technical progress~~fully and timely reflect technical progress and promote innovation;

2016/10/07
Committee: TRAN

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas assessing the impact of the automation of jobs could benefit from a European debate on the desirability of a universal basic income;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the causes for concern also include physical safety, for example when a robot's code proves fallible, and the potential consequences of system failure or hacking of connected robots and robotic systems at a time when increasingly autonomous applications come into use or are impending whether it be in relation to cars and drones or to care robots and robots used for maintaining public order and policing;trend towards automation requires that those involved in the development and commercialisation of artificial intelligence applications build in security and ethics at the outset, thereby recognizing that they must be prepared to accept legal liability for the quality of the technology they produce

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. underlines that automated ~~car~~vehicles, vessels and aircraft systems will require a high level of safe interaction with ~~the~~corresponding and developing transport infrastructure and that the high volume of data will need to be securely transferred in real time between automated vehicles and such infrastructure, while ensuring privacy and data protection;

2016/10/07
Committee: TRAN

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas ultimately there is a possibility that within the space of a few decades AI could surpass human intellectual capacity in a manner which, if not prepared for, could pose a challenge to humanity's capacity to control its own creation and, consequently, perhaps also to its capacity to be in charge of its own destiny and to ensure the survival of the species;deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. underlines that it is necessary to focus on ensuring and strengthening the security of IT regarding automated ~~cars~~modes of transport;

2016/10/07
Committee: TRAN

2015/2103(INL)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Jozo RADOŠ, Gesine MEISSNER, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. calls on the Commission to ~~propose a single roadmap~~develop a shared European strategy for automated and connected vehicles and ~~other transportation and for closer collaboration of all relevant stakeholder~~to review and adapt where necessary the Union regulatory framework to support the development and use of automated and connected vehicles;

2016/10/07
Committee: TRAN

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital M

M. whereas~~, nevertheless,~~ a series of rules, governing in particular liability ~~and ethics and~~, transparency and accountability, are useful, reflecting the intrinsically European and universal humanistic values that characterise Europe's contribution to society~~, are necessary~~;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital Q

Q. whereas, thanks to the impressive technological advances of the last decade, not only are today's robots able to perform activities which used to be typically and exclusively human, but the development of autonomous and cognitive features – e.g. the ability to learn from experience and take independent decisions – has made them more and more similar to agents that interact with their environment and are able to alter it significantly; whereas, in such a context, the legal responsibility arising from a robot’s harmful action becomes a ~~crucial~~n important issue;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital T

T. whereas, ultimately, robots' autonomy raises the question of their nature in the light of the existing legal categories – of whether they should be regarded as natural persons, legal persons, ~~animals~~ or objects – or whether a new category should be created, with its own specific features and implications as regards the attribution of rights and duties, including liability for damage;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that a system of registration of advanced robots shcould be introduced, and calls on the Commission to establish criteria for the classification of robots with a view to identifying the robots that would need to be registered;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that the potential for empowerment through the use of robotics is nuanced by a set of tensions or risks relating to human safety, privacy, integrity, dignity, autonomy, non-discrimination, ethics, security and data ownership;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6

~~A European Agency~~deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for the creation of a European Agency for robotics and artificial intelligence in order to provide the technical, ethical and regulatory expertise needed to support the relevant public actors, at both EU and Member State level, in their efforts to ensure a timely and well-informed response to the new opportunities and challenges arising from the technological development of robotics;deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the potential of robotics use and the present investment dynamics justify the European Agency being equipped with a proper budget and being staffed with regulators and external technical and ethical experts dedicated to the cross-sectorial and multidisciplinary monitoring of robotics-based applications, identifying standards for best practice, and, where appropriate, recommending regulatory measures, defining new principles and addressing potential consumer protection issues and systematic challenges; asks the Commission and the European Agency to report to the European Parliament on the latest developments in robotics on an annual basis;deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 10

~~Care robots~~deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

Marietje SCHAAKE, Kaja KALLAS, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

~~16. Points out that human contact is one of the fundamental aspects of human care; believes that replacing the human factor with robots could dehumanise caring practices;~~deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2103(INL)

José Inácio FARIA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Bearing in mind the effects that the development and deployment of robotics and AI might have on employment and, consequently, on the viability of the social security systems of the Member States, consideration should be given to the possible need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions; takes the view that in the light of the possible effects on thTakes the view that in the light of the possible effects on the labour market of robotics and AI, an inclusive debate labou~~r market of robotics and AI~~t a general basic income should be s~~eriously consider~~tarted, and invites all Member States and other stakeholders to do so;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

2015/2095(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses that the migration crisis in the Mediterranean has put the commercial maritime sector under great pressure, increasing its share of burden and the risk to the crew safety;

2015/09/21
Committee: TRAN

2015/2095(INI)

José Inácio FARIA, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises~~, therefore,~~ that merchant vessels have a significant role in search and rescue operations both in terms of volume and activity; points out the fact that merchant vessels have not been equipped and their staff have not been trained to make them sufficiently prepared to systematically take part in rescue operations;

2015/09/21
Committee: TRAN

2015/2095(INI)

José Inácio FARIA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is concerned that without vessels and their crew being sufficiently prepared~~, the situation will result in~~ to deal with search and rescue operations and without the regular presence of medical and nursing staff on board, the situation for both migrants and ship crews can be aggravated as a result of accidents in the Mediterranean Sea that might lead to loss of human lives and also entail environmental risks;

2015/09/21
Committee: TRAN

2015/2095(INI)

José Inácio FARIA, Dominique RIQUET, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recalls that assistance to rescue operations offered by private ships should not replace the assistance to migrants at sea which should continue to be carried out by competent Member State authorities, Frontex and Europol; stresses that measures should be created in order to make sure private ship operators are not at a loss when fulfilling their international obligations inscribed in paragraph 1 of this opinion;

2015/09/21
Committee: TRAN

2015/2074(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Requests the Commission to report to the Parliament, in addition to the quantitative indicators such as RAL ("Restant à liquider") and RAC ("Restant à contracter"), also on efficiency and effectiveness of the spent budget appropriations;

2015/05/13
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas cohesion policy is first and foremost a Treaty-based policy, aimed at strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union, and in particular at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regshall provide support, through multi-annual programmes, which complements national, regional and local intervention, to deliver the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as the Fund-specific missions pursuant to their Treaty-based objectives, including economic, social and territorial cohesion taking account of the relevant Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines and the relevant country-specific recommendations;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas there is evidence that good governance and efficient public institutions are basic conditions for ~~strong~~ economic ~~and social development, although less attention has been paid to the impact of macroeconomic factors on the framework in which cohesion policy operates~~growth and job creation;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas economic and financial instability and unpredictability of regulatory framework may result in decreasing levels of public and private investment;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Considers that a sound economic governance is the basis for an efficient, effective and result-oriented cohesion policy which could contribute to economic growth and jobs creation;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that an increased emphasis on economic governance mechanisms can~~not jeopardise~~ support the achievement of the ESI Funds' policy objectives and goals;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that macroeconomic conditionality must ~~only~~also be used to contribute to a more focused and result- driven implementation of the ESI Funds;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls the multiannual and long-term nature of programmes and objectives under the ESI Funds, as well as their strong result-driven nature, as opposed to the annual cycle of the European semester ~~and the rather weak implementation of the semester recommendations~~;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that cohesion policy has played a vital role and has shown significant responsiveness to macroeconomic and fiscal constraints in the context of the current crisis, through the reprogramming of more than 11 % of the available budget between 2007 and 2012, in order to support the most pressing needs and strengthen certain interventions; highlights therefore that in several Member States the Cohesion policy represented more than 80 of public investments over the period 2007-2013;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the partnership agreements and programmes adopted in the current programming period have taken account of the relevant CSRs and the relevant Council recommendations~~, thus making any reprogramming unnecessary in the medium term~~;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Is of the view that reprogramming should be avoided ~~to the greatest extent~~, when possible, in order not to disrupt fund management or undermine the stability and predictability of the multiannual investment strategy; welcomes the cautious approach of the Commission in this regard and its intention to keep any reprogramming requests to a minimum;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Deplores any disproportionate increase of the administrative burden for all levels of administration, given the tight deadlines and the complexity of the reprogramming procedure under Article 23 CPR; warns against any overlapping of reprogramming procedures under Article 23 CPR with subsequent European semester cycles;deleted

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Does not accept~~Is concerned that the inability ~~to properly address macroeconomic issues at national level may penalise subnational authorities or call in question the territorial approach of cohesion policy~~of national governments to follow a sound economic policy may penalise beneficiaries and applicants in case of payment suspensions triggered by the second stand of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Recalls that it is for Member States and regions to select the thematic objectives in function of their needs, and notes that the application of Article 23 CPR may restrict the flexibility of Member States in setting their priorities; recalls in this regard the principle of subsidiarity provided for in Article 4(3) CPR;deleted

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Asks the Commission to apply Article 23 CPR in line with the principle of proportionality, ~~by properly taking into account the real situation of those Member States and regions which are facing socio-economic difficulties and where ESI Funds represent a significant share of investment;~~

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Points out that the decision on the suspension of payments should be taken as a last resort, because suspending payments could have serious consequences for the respective programmes and regions severely hit by crisis, as well as for the achievement of cohesion policy goals as a whole;

2015/05/22
Committee: REGI

2015/2005(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – indent 3

– an Aviation Dialogue with the Gulf States and Turkey with a view to enhancing financial transparency and safeguarding fair competition; inclusion of ‘fair competition clauses’ in air transport agreements, detailed provisions on subsidies, unfair practices and competition, and efficient means of action in the event of non-compliance with those provisions;

2015/04/24
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) Application of sound safety management principles is essential for continuous improvement of civil aviation safety in the Union, anticipating emerging safety risks, and making best use of limited technical resources. It is therefore necessary to establish a common framework for planning and implementing safety improvement actions. To that end a European Plan for Aviation Safety and a European Aviation Safety Programme should be drawn up at Union level. Each Member State should also draw up a National Aviation Safety Programme in accordance with the requirements contained in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention. That programme should be accompanied by a plan describing the actions to be taken by the Member State to mitigate the identified safety risks. The European Aviation Safety Programme and European Plan for Aviation Safety, as well as the National Aviation Safety Programmes and National Plans for Aviation Safety, shall be established with the involvement of relevant parties, affected by aviation safety.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23

(23) ‘commercial air transport’ means an aircraft operation to transport passengers, cargo or mail, for remuneration or other valuable consideration ~~between two different aerodromes~~;

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) the type, the complexity and performance of the aircraft involved;

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) the mandatory registration, marking and identification of unmanned aircraft;

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)

(ea) the conditions and procedures under which the operator of an unmanned aircraft shall demonstrate the required competence through a license or a declaration as applicable;

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4

In all other cases, the national competent authority of the Member State where the natural person applying for the certificate or making the declaration resides, or, in case of legal persons, where the person has its pri~~mary~~nciple place of business, or is establish~~ment~~ed, shall be responsible for those tasks, unless the delegated acts adopted pursuant to paragraph 10 provide otherwise.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 2

2. The Agency shall coordinate at Union level the gathering, exchange and analysis of information on matters falling within the scope of this Regulation. For that purpose, the Agency may enter into administrative arrangements with legal and natural persons subject to this Regulation, or associations of such persons, on information gathering, exchange and analysis, through, as far as possible, existing channels, avoiding additional administrative burden.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 75 – paragraph 4

4. In order to inform interested parties and the general public, the Agency shall, at least every three years, publish an environmental review, which shall give an objective account of the state of environmental protection relating to civil aviation in the Union. and make recommendations with the aim of achieving a higher level of environmental protection performance.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 76 – paragraph 3

3. To protect civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference, the Agency may ~~take the necessary measures under Article 65(6) and Article 66(1)(i). Before taking such measures, the Agency shall obtain the agreement of the Commission and consult the Member States.~~:

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 76 – paragraph 3 – point a (new)

(a) take the necessary measures under Article 66(1)(i) to address vulnerabilities in the design of products, parts and non- installed equipment;

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 76 – paragraph 3 – point b (new)

(b) determine corrective action to be taken by national competent authorities or legal and natural persons subject to the provisions of this Regulation by issuing binding directives or recommendations and disseminate relevant information to those authorities and persons, when the problem affects aircraft operations, including risks to civil aviation arising from conflict zones.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 76 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Before taking such measures, the Agency shall obtain the agreement of the Commission and consult the Member States. The Agency shall base these measures, where possible, on common Union risk assessments and take into account the need for rapid action in emergency cases.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 85 – paragraph 4

4. The Management Board shall establish an advisory body representing the full range of interested parties affected by the work of the Agency, which it shall consult prior to making decisions in the fields referred to in paragraph 2(c), (e), (f), (i), (t) and (iu). The Management Board may also decide to consult the advisory body on other issues referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3. The Management Board shall not, in any case, be bound by the opinion of the advisory body.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 90 – paragraph 4

4. The Executive Board shall be composed of the Chairperson of the Management Board, two representatives of the Commission and six other members appointed by the Management Board from among its members with the right to vote. The Chairperson of the Management Board shall also be the Chairperson of the Executive Board. The Executive Director shall take part in the meetings of the Executive Board, but shall not have the right to vote. The Advisory Bo~~ard~~dy, referred to in Article 85, may appoint one of its members as observer.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 109 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Charges referred to in paragraph 1(f) shall be based on the division of ATM/ANS tasks assigned respectively to the Agency and Eurocontrol and shall apply under the oversight of Performance Review Body. Member States and Commission shall ensure that the tasks mentioned above are not double-charged.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Michael GAHLER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 123 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a

2. A dry lease agreement ~~to which~~between a Community air carrier ~~is a party~~and a third country operator or a wet lease agreement under which the Community air carrier is the lessee of the wet-leased aircraft operated by a third country operator shall be subject to prior approval in accordance with Regulation (EU) No [XX/XXX reference to this Regulation to be inserted] and the delegated and implementing acts adopted on the basis thereof.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0277(COD)

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Norica NICOLAI, Urmas PAET, Hannu TAKKULA

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IX – point 1 – point a

(a) ~~A person operating the~~The operator of an unmanned aircraft must be aware of the applicable Union and national rules relating to the intended operations, in particular with regard to safety, privacy, data protection, liability, insurance, security orand environmental protection. The oper~~son~~ator must be able to ensure the safety of operation and safe separation of the unmanned aircraft from people on the ground and from other airspace users. This includes ~~being familiar with~~adequate knowledge of the operating instructions provided by the manufacturer and ~~with~~of all relevant functionalities of the unmanned aircraft and applicable rules of the air and ATM/ANS procedures.

2016/06/15
Committee: TRAN

2015/0263(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) Support under the Programme should be provided by the Commission upon request by a Member State, in areas such as regional and urban policy, budget and taxation, public function, institutional and administrative reforms, the justice system, anti-fraud, anti-corruption and anti-money laundering, business environment, private sector development, investment, competition, public procurement, privatization processes, access to finance, investment, trade, sustainable development, innovation, education and training, labour policies, public health, asylum, migration policies, agriculture and rural development and financial sector policies.

2016/09/20
Committee: REGI

2015/0263(COD)

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Norica NICOLAI, Urmas PAET, Hannu TAKKULA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)

(24a) Member States that request support from the Programme might contribute with additional funds to the financial envelope of the Programme. Currently, Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 limits the possibility of a transfer of resources dedicated to technical assistance at the initiative of a Member State to those Member States which face temporary budgetary difficulties. Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 should therefore be amended in order to allow all Member States to participate financially to the Programme. The resources transferred to the Union budget should be used for supporting actions contributing to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth or Fund-specific purposes in the Member States concerned. The transfer of the additional funds from the Member States' technical assistance, mentioned above, should be approved by means of a delegated act.

2016/09/20
Committee: REGI

2015/0263(COD)

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Norica NICOLAI, Urmas PAET, Hannu TAKKULA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

The general objective of the Programme shall be to contribute to institutional, administrative and structural reforms in the Member States by providing support to national authorities for measures aimed at reforming institutions, governance, administration, economic and social sectors in response to economic and social challenges with a view to enhancing competitiveness, of EU enterprises, in particular SMEs and their access to finances, economic growth, jobs, creation and investment, ~~in particular~~ in the context of economic governance processes, including through assistance for the efficient and effective use of the Union funds.

2016/09/20
Committee: REGI

2015/0263(COD)

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Norica NICOLAI, Urmas PAET, Hannu TAKKULA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 a (new)

Article 10a Additional financial contributions to the budget of the Programme 1. In addition to the financial envelope set out in Article 9, the Programme may be financed through additional contributions from Member States. 2. The additional contributions referred to in paragraph 1 may consist of contributions from resources provided for technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States under Article 59 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 and transferred pursuant to Article 25 of that Regulation. 3. These additional contributions referred to in paragraph 1 shall be used to support actions which contribute to delivering the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. A contribution made by a Beneficiary Member State in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be used exclusively in that Member State. 4. Each additional contribution from Member States, as mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 10a, to the financial envelope set out in Article 9, shall be approved through a delegated act.

2016/09/20
Committee: REGI

2015/0263(COD)

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Norica NICOLAI, Urmas PAET, Hannu TAKKULA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 a (new)

Article 17 a Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 is amended as follows: 1. Article 25 is amended as follows: (a) the title is replaced by the following: 'Management of technical assistance for Member States' (b) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: '1. On the request of a Member State pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/ XXX of the European Parliament and the Council(*), a part of the resources provided for under Article 59 of this Regulation and programmed in accordance with Fund-specific rules may, in agreement with the Commission, be transferred to technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission for implementation of measures in relation to the Member State concerned in accordance with point (l) of the third subparagraph of Article 58(1) of this Regulation through direct or indirect management." (*) OJ [...]' (c) in paragraph 3, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following: 'A Member State shall request the transfer referred to in paragraph 1 for a calendar year by 31 January of the year in which a transfer is to be made. The request shall be accompanied by a proposal to amend the programme or programmes from which the transfer will be made. Corresponding amendments shall be made to the Partnership Agreement in accordance with Article 30(2) which shall set out the total amount transferred each year to the Commission.' (d) the following paragraph 4 is added: '4. Resources transferred by a Member State according to paragraph 1 shall be subject to the decommitment rule set out in Article 136.' 2. in the third subparagraph of Article 58(1), point (l) is replaced by the following: '(l) actions financed under Regulation (EU) 2015/XXX in order to contribute to delivering the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.'

2016/09/20
Committee: REGI

2014/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas heavy cuts to public services as a consequence of the crisis have led to numerous problems, often resulting in severe budgetary problems for municipalities, leading to a lack of options when dealing with marginalised groups and seeking to improve their inclusion and prevent further segregation;deleted

2015/07/24
Committee: REGI

2014/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Finds regrettable that the Commission has accepted partnership agreements that do not include marginalised communities; asks the Commission to ensure inclusion of marginalised communities in the implementation of projects; suggests recommendations in the European Semester as a suitable tool to promote action to be taken by the Member States;deleted

2015/07/24
Committee: REGI

2014/2247(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

~~23. Calls on the Commission to issue a communication outlining its intention to ensure that marginalised communities are included in EU funds;~~deleted

2015/07/24
Committee: REGI

2014/2246(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Emphasises the need for a truly territorial approach to the Europe 2020 strategy with a view to adjusting public interventions and investments to different territorial characteristics; ~~underlines, in this context, the necessity of tailor-made Europe 2020 regional targets;~~

2015/07/07
Committee: REGI

2014/2246(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Highlights the importance of the new EU investment instrument, the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), and emphasises that it should be complementary and additional to the ESI Funds; points out that the EFSI is not clearly linked to the Europe 2020 strategy, but that through its objectives it might contributes to the implementation of the strategy; stresses, moreover, the imperative of ensuring full coherence and synergies between all EU instruments, in order to avoid overlapping or contradictions among them or between the different levels of policy implementation; appreciates that the review of the Europe 2020 strategy, as the EU's long-term strategic framework for growth and jobs, must address this challenge with a view to using all the available resources effectively and achieving the expected results as regards the overarching strategic goals;

2015/07/07
Committee: REGI

2014/2246(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18 a. Welcomes the plan of the Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation and the Commissioner for Regional and Urban Policy to introduce a "seal of excellence" for applicants that are evaluated as excellent but cannot obtain financing from Horizon 2020, to help them access Structural Funds;

2015/07/07
Committee: REGI

2014/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas it is justifiable that the goals of cohesion policy have evolved over time and that the policy itself has become more closely linked to the overall policy agenda of the EU; whereas, nevertheless, the original role of cohesion policy – the strengthening of economic, social and territorial cohesion in all EU regions – should be reinforced; whereas cohesion policy ought ~~not~~ to be regarded as ~~mere~~principally an instrument to attain the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy and other EU development strategies;

2015/03/16
Committee: REGI

2014/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Expresses its serious concern about the s~~ignificant~~tructural delays in ~~the implementation of cohesion policy 2014-2020, including the delay in~~commencing the new cohesion policy planning periods resulting from the late adoption of the Operational Programmes~~, with only just over 100 Operational Programmes adopted at the end of 2014~~ by the Commission, as well as a backlog in payments amounting to ca EUR 25 billion for the 2007-2013 programming period; stresses that these delays are undermining the credibility of cohesion policy, effectiveness and sustainability, challenging national, regional and local authorities’ capacity to plan effectively and implement the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) for the 2014- 2020 period;

2015/03/16
Committee: REGI

2014/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Welcomes the~~Is curious as to the future implications of the proposed new European Fund for Strategic Investment ~~(EFSI)~~ and its potential leverage effect; advises the parties concerned to build on the experiences gained from the implementation of the European Economic Recovery Plan in 2008, in particular regarding smart investments; calls for the coordination of all EU investment policies – in particular cohesion policy – to ensure complementarity and avoid overlaps; suggests that the implementation of this new EU investment plan build on the experiences of the three joint initiatives JEREMIE, JESSICA and JASMINE, which allowed an increase in the delivery of Structural Funds from EUR 1.2 billion in 2000-2006 to EUR 8.4 billion in 2007- 2012;

2015/03/16
Committee: REGI

2014/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Welcomes the thematic concentration supporting investments in smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; ~~maintains, at the same time, the requirement of some flexibility for the regions, depending on local and regional specificities, especially in the context of the severe crisis;~~ calls for a genuinely integrated and territorial approach to target programmes and projects that address the needs on the ground;

2015/03/16
Committee: REGI

2014/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Points out that a simplification of management and procedures would also allow for error rates in the implementation of cohesion programmes to be reduced; ~~underlines that these err~~stresses the need for efforts ~~stem to a considerable degree from legislation outside of cohesion policy, such as public procurement and state aide rule~~to minimise administrative burdens for beneficiaries arising from the verifications necessary to ensure proper use of European Structural and Investment Fund appropriations; is concerned about the low rates of disbursement of financial instruments to beneficiaries, in particular in view of the objective to increase the use of these instruments;

2015/03/16
Committee: REGI

2014/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Welcomes the introduction of new tools to integrate coordination of stakeholders and EU policies, and to focus investments on the real needs on the ground, such as the Integrated Territorial Investments and the Community-Led Local Development instruments; points to the importance of adopting instruments for assessing the territorial impact of policies, the main objective of which is to consider the territorial impact of EU policies on local and regional authorities and to draw greater attention to that impact in the legislative process; calls for an overall integrated EU investment strategy, and a strengthening of the EU Territorial Agenda 2020 that was adopted under the Hungarian Presidency 2011 and that is scheduled to be evaluated by the presidencies of 2015; is of the opinion that particular attention should be paid to strengthening the role of ~~small- and medium-sized~~ urban areas in the framework of an EU Urban Agenda;

2015/03/16
Committee: REGI

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

- having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 4(2)(g) and Title VI and Article 16 thereof,

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 b (new)

- having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Articles 7 and 8 thereof,

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 c (new)

- having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data,

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 d (new)

- having regard to the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on "A new era for aviation - Opening the aviation market to the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in a safe and sustainable manner",

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)

- having regard to the Concept of Operations for Drones ´A risk based approach to regulation of unmanned aircraft´ of the European Aviation Safety Agency

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas technology developed primarily for military purposes is now being applied commercially, pushing legislative boundaries; whereas today RPAS also provide significant benefits for different civil uses, such as safety inspections and monitoring of infrastructure (rail tracks, dams, and power facilities), for assessing natural disasters, precision farming operations and media use; whereas the use of RPAS also provide significant environmental benefits; whereas the rapid developments of new applications can be foreseen in the near future, which illustrates the innovative and dynamic nature of the RPAS industry;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas RPAS regulations exist or are being developed in ~~Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Spain and the UK1~~many members states; whereas many approved flying schools ~~in Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands, and more than 500~~, and licenced RPAS pilots ~~in the Netherlands and the UK are already operational; __________________ 1 http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1 995&pageid=16012~~are already operational;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas all RPAS rules in place in Europe are tailored to assessing the safety risk of the operation; whereas such RPAS rules are ‘operator centric' and do not take the ‘aircraft centric' approach used in manned aviation; whereas the risk depends not only on the type of machine, but also on additional factors, such as the area overflown, the expertise of the operator ~~and~~, the particular type of operation and the ability of the operator to deal with unforeseen circumstances;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the potential for economic growth in this industry, from the manufacturer to the end user is immense, for both large businesses and the supply chain composed of thousands of SMEs alike as well as innovative start-ups; whereas it is imperative to maintain world class standards of manufacturing and standards of operations;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas in recognition of the rapid development of this market, RPAS are rightly being incorporated into existing aviation programmes, such as the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking and Horizon 2020; whereas industry has already invested significant financial resources; additional funding for further Research and Development (R&D) will be crucial to supporting this new industry and the safe and secure integration of RPAS into airspace.

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas this nascent market offers significant opportunities for ~~both~~ investment, innovation and job creation across the supply chain, and to the benefit of society, whilst recognising at the same time that the public interest must be safeguarded, covering in particular issues related to privacy, data protection, accountability and civil liability;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the US is seen by many as the leading market for the use of RPAS, albeit for military operations; stresses however that Europe is the leader in the civilian sector ~~with 2 500 operators compared to 2 342 operators in the rest of the world~~, and should do its utmost to boost its strong competitive position;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the RPAS sector urgently requires ~~competent authorities to create global rules in or~~European rules in order to ensure cross-border RPAS development while fostering the set-up of global rules; considers that a clear European legal framework is neederd to ensure ~~cross- border RPAS development~~investment and development of a competitive European RPAS sector; underlines the fact that if no action is taken promptly, there is a risk that the economic potential and positive effects of RPAS will not be fully realised;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Underlines the fact that the subject of data protection and privacy is key in order to promote broad public support for the use of civil RPAS, and is therefore also key in order to facilitate the growth and the safe integration of RPAS into civil aviation, in line with Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and therefore calls on the Commission to foster the development of standards on the concepts of privacy by design and privacy by default;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Stresses that in the short term, from an ATM perspective, operational procedures are already in place to allow RPAS to fly outside specific and restricted areas; ~~recalls that many civil and military RPAS are flown using dedicated corridors by increasing the standard separation criteria normally used for manned aircraft;~~

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Notes that~~Recognises the impact of RPAS on manned traffic ~~is limited due to the small ratio of RPAS to manned aircraft; recognises, however,~~; notes that air traffic management (ATM) pressures may increase due to the welcome growth of ~~sports and recreational~~civil use of RPAS, ~~but~~and calls for this factor to be taken into account by the relevant authorities in order to ensure a continued efficient standard of ATM across Member States;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that a clear, ~~global,~~ harmonised and proportionate European regulatory framework needs to be developed on a risk assessed basis, which avoids burdensome regulations for businesses that would deter investment ~~and~~, job creation and innovation in the RPAS industry;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Considers that rules at EU and national level should clearly indicate the provisions applicable to RPAS in relation to the internal market ~~and~~, international commerce (production, sale, purchase, trade and use of RPAS) and the fundamental rights of privacy and data protection; believes also that privacy, data protection and any other applicable law, such as criminal, intellectual property, aviation and environmental law should be specified in a clear notice for purchasers;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers that industry ~~and regul~~, regulators and commercial operators must come together in order to avoid the ‘chicken-and-egg' problem, whereby industry is reluctant to invest in developing the necessary technologies without certainty about how they will be regulated, while regulators are reluctant to develop standards until industry comes forward with technologies for authorisation;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that in order to ensure the safe operation of RPAS, European regulatory requirements will need to be based on ~~either a case-by-case or a type/class-based approach, whichever is appropriate~~a "risk based approach" in line with the Riga Declaration and the Concept of Operations as developed by EASA, and shall ensure a high level of safety and interoperability; considers that in order to ensure the success of RPAS manufacturers and operators, it is vital that the European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment's (EUROCAE) standardisation requirements be validated by the relevant regulatory body;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – introductory part

19. Considers that future European rules on RPAS should address issues relating to:

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 4

– owner/operator traceability, accountability;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Underlines that RPAS must be equipped with ‘~~see~~detect-and-avoid' technology in order to detect aircraft using the same airspace, ensuring that RPAS do not put at risk the safety of manned aircraft, and in addition, take into account no-fly zones, such as airports and other critical infrastructure;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – point a (new)

(a) Notes that RPAS in line with a risk based approach should be equipped with an ID-chip and registered to ensure traceability, accountability and a proper implementation of civil liability rules;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – point a (new)

(a) Therefore supports the Concept of Operations for drones developed by EASA which defines three different categories of RPAS and corresponding rules;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – point b (new)

(b) Notes that enforcement of RPAS legislation is key to the safe and successful integration of RPAS in European airspace;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – point c (new)

(c) Calls on the European Commission and Member States to ensure sufficient means of enforcement of RPAS legislation;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Strongly believes that JARUS is, therefore, ideally placed to quickly and effectively draft global safety regulations for RPAS operations; believe~~Considers that JARUS shcould ensure that any future EU rules will be co~~mpatible~~ordinated with international arrangements in other countries, through a process of mutual recognition;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Considers that Members States' Data Protection A~~genc~~uthorities should work together in order to share ~~data and~~best practices, ensureing compliance with existing data protection guidance;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2243(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Recalls that additional technology- specific data protection legislation for RPAS should not be necessary according to the Commission; b~~Believes that Member States' data protection agencies should share existing specific data protection guidance for commercial RPAS, and calls on Member States to carefully implement data protection legislation in such a way that both fully addresses the public's concerns regarding privacy and does not lead to a disproportionate administrative burden on RPAS operators;

2015/07/24
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Wim van de CAMP

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19

- having regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 20104 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors5 , __________________ 5 OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1. OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas up to 80 % of EU citizens will soon live in urban areas~~, which offer the best opportunities for jobs, education, cultural activities and mobility~~;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas about 50 % of journeys in urban areas are shorter than 5 km and could therefore possibly be made on foot or by bicycle or public/collective transport;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to promote the use of bicycles in cities, along with investments in cycling lanes and measures to raise awareness for road users regarding safety for cyclists; reiterates in this respect that increased use of bicycles in cities improves the traffic flow, stimulates public health and reduces the carbon footprint; stresses that an increased use of bicycles in cities could deliver a contribution to the Europe 2020 objectives;

2015/05/13
Committee: REGI

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission to work towards standards with a view to general harmonisation and coherence concerning the categorisation of vehicles, the different classes of emissions, ~~the regulation of access in urban areas, road signs,~~ and technical standards in intelligent transport systems;

2015/05/13
Committee: REGI

2014/2242(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Is convinced that the provision of information to, and the participation of, EU citizens, retailers, freight transport operators and any other stakeholders involved in urban mobility are crucial for transparent planning, development and decision- making in respect of urban mobility projects;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Invites cities to define transport mode hierarchies based on the needs of pedestrians first and foremost, followed by cyclists, public transport, business and logistics, and private-car users, taking into account local condcarefully assess the needs of each mode in their sustainable urban mobility plans and foster a modal shift towards sustainable modes of transport to improve the quality of life in citiones;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Invites the European Commission and Member States to take preventive measures, in accordance with the precautionary principle, to improve air quality in cities and to guarantee pollutant concentrations ~~below~~in line with the levels set in the World Health Organisation guidelines~~, in particular by providing free public transport or by alternating traffic~~;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Calls on the Member States~~Reminds to the objective of the 2011 White paper on transport to reduce the use of cars running on traditional fuels in urban areas by 2030, and to ban them by 2050 on a gradual basis;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Is convinced that air pollution has a local, regional, national and cross-border dimension and requires action by all levels of governance; therefore asks for a strengthening of the multi-level governance approach where all actors take the responsibility and measures that can and should be taken at that very level;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Calls for the EU and national and local authoriti~~Encourages authorities within the Member States to draw up ~~electric~~ mobility plans which give priority to ~~trams, urban~~sustainable modes of trains~~, sky ropes, electric bicycles and shared/pooled e-cars~~port, including electric mobility and the use of intelligent transport systems (ITS);

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Asks for authorities within the Member States to develop an appropriate alternative fuels infrastructure in close cooperation with regional and local authorities and with the industry concerned;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Invites the Commission to present a ‘transport and climate' legislative package which is fully compatible with, and integrates, EU objectives in respect of the climate, the environment, health, energy and mobility, and which integrates cities;deleted

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is convinced that sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs) arcould be the backbone of sustainable cities with adequate mobility provision for all citizens~~, including enhanced walking and cycling infrastructure and smoother and safer services networks~~;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Emphasises the importance of SUMPs for achieving EU targets in respect of CO2 emissions, noise, air pollution and accident reduction; ~~considers that the development of SUMPs should be a precondition for financing EU projects in the area of urban transport;~~

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Emphasises that ~~afforda~~highly developed and accessible public transport is an essential element for inclusive public services and for securing access to jobs;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that urban mobility m~~ust~~ay be integrated into the Connecting Europe Facility / Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) measures wherever appropriate and in line with TEN-T legislation, including support for urban nodes and the integration of mobility plans for cross-border cities;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Commission to ~~promote ‘Car-free Sunday' events each month and to organise an ‘EU Bicycle Day'~~raise awareness for cycling and alternative transport modes to contribute to a modal shift towards sustainable transport modes;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Believes that innovative green urban logistics is of the utmost importance for solving congestion and environmental problems in cities, and that logistics should be based on sustainable modes of transport ~~such as cargo bikes, electric vans, inland vessels, trams and buses~~;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for the Commission to develop policies to encourage the freight industry to ~~clean up~~green its fleets and to encourage local authorities to provide incentives to operators to act in a more sustainable way; ~~recalls that rail should be at the core of urban freight policies;~~

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Invites the Member States and local authorities to rethink speed management ~~in cities and to introduce a default speed limit of 30 km/h by 2020~~and the development and design of safer road infrastructure;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. ~~Calls for the Commission to propose a framework of guidelines and criteria for~~Reminds that urban road and parking pricing based on the non-discrimination, interoperability and polluter-pays principles can be part of an integrated urban mobility policy;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Recalls the ‘use of revenues' principle with regard to road charging, and requests that ~~50 % of~~a considerable percentage of the Eurovignette revenue be dedicated to improving urban mobility ~~and that 75 % of urban tolls be used for developing and maintaining urban transport infrastructure~~;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Wim van de CAMP, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Encourages the Commission to ~~set aside at least 20 % of EU transport fund~~make an appropriate use of EU-instruments for sustainable urban mobility projects when reviewing ~~regional,~~the cohesion ~~and~~policy and the European Fund for Strategic Investments budgets;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to intensify efforts on Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), including technological innovation in the field of highly automated vehicles and smart infrastructure. Harmonized data communication standards and protocols are essential preconditions to achieve the full potential of cooperative ITS in urban areas to improve traffic flows, road safety and sustainability;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2242(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)

26b. Asks for the Commission when managing EU funded urban transport projects that: a) management tools will be put in place to monitor the quality of the service and the level of user satisfaction once projects are operational; b) urban transport projects are included in a sound mobility policy, and c) the above mentioned points are also addressed by the Member States' authorities;

2015/06/08
Committee: TRAN

2014/2213(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Asks the Commission to propose ways to introduce an early warning mechanism, giving the subnational government the possibility to observe whether the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality have been taken into account;deleted

2015/03/26
Committee: REGI

2014/2213(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Asks the Commission to systematically introduce a territorial impact assessment on the urban dimension and the practical feasibility at regional and local level of all relevant EU policy initiatives and to make sure that all relevant sectorial EU policies adequately address the challenges that towns, cities and larger functional urban areas are facing; calls on the Commission to concentrate these territorial impact assessments on the following elements: balanced territorial development, territorial integration and territorial governance;

2015/03/26
Committee: REGI

2014/2213(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Is of the opinion that urban platforms and networks (such as URBACT, ~~the Urban Development Network~~Civitas, the Covenant of Mayors, Smart Cities and Communities Initiative, Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities) have provided an excellent opportunity for the engagement of local and regional actors in urban development and knowledge sharing between actors; urges the Commission to consolidate and ensure better coordination between these platforms in order to allow local actors to better understand them and engage with them in a more efficient way;

2015/03/26
Committee: REGI

2014/2213(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes that in order to formulate ~~better informed and~~ tailored policies the~~re is a~~ Urban Audit Database needs to ~~develop uniform basic data~~be updated and improved; encourages Eurostat and the Commission to provide and compile more detailed data, collected where policies are implemented – in many cases at local level; underlines that the collection of flow data – measuring the relationships between cities and their surrounding areas – is also becoming increasingly important in order to improve the understanding of complex functional areas, and therefore urges the Commission to gather and analyse that data, turning it into evidence for policy developments;

2015/03/26
Committee: REGI

2014/2213(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Believes that in order for the European Urban Agenda to be an effective tool it should be a shared and regularly updated conceptual framework with a thematic focus on a limited number of challenges in the larger context of the Europe 2020 goals of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth~~, with particular attention being given to social inclusion, demographic change and environmental sustainability~~;

2015/03/26
Committee: REGI

2014/2213(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Urges the Commission and the Member States to make sure that a higher degree of cross-sector coordination of policies with an urban dimension is ensured at all levels of government to allow better mainstreaming of integrated urban development; calls on DG REGIO, responsible for the EU’s urban policies, to drive this process and to make sure that the urban dimension is taken into account in all relevant new initiatives, while assigning a central role in this to the Commission’s Inter-service Group on Urban Development;

2015/03/26
Committee: REGI

2014/2213(INI)