2141 Amendments of Miguel VIEGAS
Amendment 18 #
2018/2204(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Draws attention to the fact that the Authority’s budget is financed partly from European Union funds and partly through direct contributions from the Member States’ supervisory authorities and supervised entities; highlights that the Authority’s revenue will decrease as a result of the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the Union, and stresses the need to find adequate arrangements for its funding. Stresses the importance of a dominant public financial sector as a necessary condition for meaningfully combating tax fraud and money laundering;
Amendment 22 #
2018/2203(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Draws attention to the fact that the Authority’s budget is financed partly from European Union funds and partly through direct contributions from the Member States’ supervisory authorities; highlights that the Authority’s revenue will decrease as a result of the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the Union, and stresses the need to find adequate arrangements for its funding. Underlines the importance of maintaining and enhancing public social welfare and social security systems as the most robust guarantee that the interests of the people and workers will be served.
Amendment 23 #
2018/2202(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasizes that the Authority’s budget is financed partly from European Union funds and partly through direct contributions from the Member States’ supervisory authorities; highlights that the Authority’s revenue will decrease as a result of the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the Union, and stresses the need to find adequate arrangements for its funding.; stresses the importance of a dominant public financial sector as a necessary and truly effective instrument in combating tax fraud and money laundering;
Amendment 10 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to P8_TA- PROV(2018)0475, European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework (2018/2900(RSP))
Amendment 18 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
Citation 18 a (new)
- having regard to P8_TA(2016)0453 European Parliament resolution of 24 November 2016 on towards a definitive VAT system and fighting VAT fraud(2016/2033(INI))
Amendment 42 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that capitalistic globalisation and the free movement of capital created the perfect conditions for the design of base erosion and profit shifting schemes and, at the same time, enshrined a structural bias in policymaking to the benefit of capital owners and multinational enterprises (MNEs), which has served to promote divergences and asymmetries between countries and social classes; emphasises, furthermore, that the free movement of capital, the deregulation and liberalisation of the financial and banking system, and the increasing tax competition among Member States – all promoted by EU institutions and legislation with the support of the European right wing and social democracy –are at the root of the rise of tax evasion and tax avoidance schemes and scandals;
Amendment 44 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
(1a) Points out that tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning are the direct consequence of the entire process of liberalising economies, given the privatisation and deregulation of the financial system and the free movement of capital. Therefore, public control of the financial system and the movement of capital should be a fundamental part of the fight against this scourge.
Amendment 46 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Notes that the lowering of wealth taxes, which prioritize the wellbeing of the most privileged casts of the society, can lead to social unrest, as has been the case in the recent episodes in France, as the rest of the society which does not benefit from such tax cuts, but is more and more affected by the reduction of the welfare state, is bound to feel abandoned and neglected by its governing State1a _________________ 1a See comments by Piketty of 9 December 2018; URL: https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/ 12/08/thomas-piketty-gilets-jaunes-et- justice-fiscale_5394443_3232.html
Amendment 55 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomNotes the fact that during its current term the Commission has put forward 22 legislative proposals aimed at closing some of the loopholes, improving theallegedly to fight against financial crimes and aggressive tax planning, and enhancing tax collection efficiency and tax fairness; calls for the swift adoption of initiatives that have not yet been finalised andbut which have had in origin sufficient loopholes, or thresholds so high so as not to affect the current level of tax evasion and continue legalising avoidance; calls for careful monitoring of their implementation to ensure efficiency and proper enforcement, in order to keep pace with the versatility of tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning;
Amendment 62 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Recalls the observation of the European Parliament in the interim report on MFF noting that effective measures against corruption and tax evasion by multinationals and the wealthiest individuals would make it possible to return to the Member States’ budgets an amount estimated by the Commission at one trillion euros per year, and that in this field there has been a serious lack of action by the European Union1a; _________________ 1a Par. 49 of theInterim report on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021- 2027 adopted inPlenary
Amendment 79 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Deplores the fact that the Council has not yet made any progress to enter into negotiations with the Parliament on the proposal for CBCR; notes however that Member States have already started implementation of OECD BEPS Action 13 on Country-by-Country Report, and DAC4; calls for the Commission to request information collected from the Member States under CBCR for quantitative impact assessments;
Amendment 95 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1.3
Subheading 1.3
Tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning (ATP)tax avoidance
Amendment 99 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that the fight against tax evasion and fraud tackles illegal acts, whereas the fight against tax avoidance addresses situations that are a priori within the limits of the law but against its spirit;– unless deemed illegal by the tax authorities or, ultimately, by the courts1a– but against its spirit. _________________ 1a 1] ‘Member States' capacity to fight tax crimes, Ex-post impact assessment’, Elodie Thirion and Amandine Scherrer, European Parliamentary Research Service, July 2017
Amendment 106 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that ATP describes the setting of a tax design aimed at reducing tax liability by using the technicalities of a tax system or of mismatchesarbitrating between two or more tax systems that go against the spirit of the law; that such acts, in the same way as tax avoidance, could be deemed illegal by tax authorities or by the courts
Amendment 110 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Understands then that there is no practical difference between tax avoidance, tax planning and aggressive tax planning; and that tax planning can also be considered systemic tax avoidance3a _________________ 3a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697
Amendment 117 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission and the Council to propose and adopt a comprehensive definition of aggressive tax planning indicators, building on both the hallmarks identified in the fifth review of the Directive on administrative cooperation (DAC6)26 after being strengthened in order to require the mandatory disclosure of dividend arbitrage schemes and all information on capital gains, including the granting of dividend and capital gains tax refunds1a and the Commission’s relevant studies and recommendations27 ; calls on Member States to use those indicators as a basis to repeal all harmful tax practices deriving from existing tax loopholes; _________________ 1a P8_TA-PROV(2018)0475. European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on thecum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework(2018/2900(RSP)) 26 Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements, OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1. 27 https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/ taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation /gen_info/economic_analysis/tax_papers/ta xation_paper_61.pdfand https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/ taxation/files/tax_policies_survey_2017.pd f
Amendment 124 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the similarity between corporate tax payers and high-net-worth individuals in the use of corporate structures and similar structures such as trusts and offshore locations for the purpose of ATPtax evasion and tax avoidance; recalls the role of intermediarieenablers and promoters in setting up such schemes;
Amendment 132 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Regrets that 7 EU Member States have been identified for their tax avoidance by the European Commission in the European Semester, namely, Ireland, The Netherlands, Cyprus, Malta, Belgium, Hungary and Luxembourg, and that little measures have been taken by such Member States to modify their legislation in order to make it less attractive for tax evasion and avoidance;
Amendment 134 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Notes that company restructures can be observed in the macro-economic data of Ireland from 2014-2017, particularly in the first quarter of 2015; notes that major changes occurred in Ireland’s GNP, GDP, exports, imports, investment, external debt and more; regrets that despite the relocation of sales income and intellectual property to Ireland, there was no observable corresponding increase in corporation tax received by Irish Revenue1a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 135 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Regrets that even when in Ireland, the capital allowance for depreciation of intangible assets has been lowered from a rate of 100% to 80% from 2017, this reduction was not applied to the intangible assets brought onshore from 2015-2016, which could still benefit from the 100% rate1a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 136 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Calls on the Commission to list the EU jurisdictions identified for providing opportunities for aggressive tax planning as tax havens and prepare a proposal on deterrent actions to be applied against such Member States;
Amendment 137 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13 c. Deplores that the Irish government introduced the 100% rate on capital allowances for intellectual property (IP) following a recommendation made by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland in 20141a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 138 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13 c. Regrets that the Irish government introduced the 100% rate on capital allowances for intellectual property (IP) following a recommendation made by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland in 20141a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 146 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Notes however, that self-regulation cannot be the answer to tackling tax fraud, tax evasion and avoidance; which can only be fought with adequate legislation, transparency, intra and inter institutional cooperation, inter- jurisdictional cooperation,and sufficient personnel and technical equipment employed by tax administrations
Amendment 172 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Notes however, that any debate concerning minimum taxation should make reference to minimum effective taxation, measured by the total income taxes paid by a corporation over its total profits, including in this measurement tax breaks to the base (that is, the income on which taxes are charged), as effective rates can often be much lower, and in many cases half, of the statutory rate;
Amendment 178 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16 c. Notes that a debate that does not consider effective taxation risks ending in lowering statutory rates even more and increasing tax competition;
Amendment 184 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Notes that taxing all earnings without deduction for interest and license fee payments in and by the source country could and should be at the center of any measures against tax avoidance1a _________________ 1a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697
Amendment 185 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17 b. Notes that any individual EU country can unilaterally enforce both withholding taxes and conditioned limitations on deductions, as comprehensive taxation at the source, including earnings paid for interest, license fees, and the like, is by no means ruled out by the relevant EU directive1a _________________ 1a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697
Amendment 186 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17 c. Notes that many countries have introduced withholding taxes, in particular for interest and license fee payments to related parties outside the EU. However, existing tax treaties considerably reduce the withholding tax rate1a _________________ 1a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) ‘What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS’, Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697; and Hearson M. (2018) ‘The European Union’s Tax Treaties with Developing Countries– Leading By Example?’, September 2018.
Amendment 187 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17 d. Regrets, that within the EU, no withholding taxes are levied on payments between related parties even when the other party is not effectively subject to tax on the income deriving from those payments in that other Member State. Notes however, that recital 3 of the interest and royalty directive1a clearly states that “It is necessary to ensure that interest and royalty payments are subject to tax once in a Member State”. Therefore, the EU directive on interest and royalty payments does not forbid source taxation of all earnings produced by an enterprise, whether declared as profit or transferred to another enterprise domestic or abroad as payment for interest or license fees2a _________________ 1a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States 2a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697
Amendment 188 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 e (new)
Paragraph 17 e (new)
17 e. Encourages EU Member States to apply withholding taxes to payments within and outside the EU in order to ensure that interests and royalty payments are subject to tax once in a Member State; and to make the necessary re-negotiations of their tax treaties in order to allow for withholding taxes to be applied at source1a _________________ 1a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697
Amendment 194 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that the G20/OECD 15-point BEPS action plan is being implemented and monitored and further discussions are taking place, in a broader context than just the initial participating countries, through the Inclusive Framework; calls on Member States to support a reform of both the mandate and the functioning of the Inclusive Framework to ensure that remaining tax loopholes and unsolved tax questions such as the allocation of taxing rights among countries are covered by the current international framework to combat BEPS practices;
Amendment 217 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Calls on the Commission to review ATAD I in order to eliminate the 2 alternatives for implementing CFC rules and leave only the stronger, most efficient one in Article 7(2)(a): to tax interest, royalties and other relevant types of income of all low-tax foreign subsidiaries, as the second option (to tax income of low-tax subsidiaries arising from non- genuine arrangements which have been put in place for the essential purpose of obtaining a tax advantage)is very weak and open to abuse, because it only protects against profit-shifting out of the home country and requires the tax authority to analyse many individual transactions of low-tax subsidiaries;
Amendment 233 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls its concerns relating to the use of transfer prices in ATP and consequently recalls the need for adequate action and improvement of the transfer pricing framework to address the issue; stresses the need to ensure that they reflect the economic reality, provide certainty, clarity and fairness for Member States and for companies operating within the Union, and reduce the risk of misuse of the rules for profit-shifting purposes, taking into account the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administration 2010;to ensure that taxable earnings reflect the economic reality, and reduce the risk of misuse of the rules for profit-shifting purposes.
Amendment 235 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Notes that as has been highlighted repeatedly by numerous experts and publications, the use of the ‘independent entity concept’ or ‘arm’s length principle’ recommended by the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations of 1979, 1995, 2010 and 2017, is at the core of the problem of tax evasion, tax avoidance and double non-taxation;
Amendment 238 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Emphasises that the EU actions aimed at addressing BEPS and ATPtax avoidance have equipped tax authorities with an updatedinsufficient toolbox to ensure fair tax collection; stresses that tax authorities should be responsible for making effective use of the tools without imposing an additional burden on responsible taxpayers, particularly SMEs and to tackle tax avoidance from multinational companies; stresses that tax authorities should be cautious not to end up imposing an additional burden on SMEs, when incapable of taxing multinational companies ;
Amendment 248 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2.2
Subheading 2.2
Strengthening EU actions to fight against corporate aggressive tax planning (ATP)tax avoidance and supplementing BEPS action plan
Amendment 251 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2.2.1
Subheading 2.2.1
Scrutinising Member States’ tax systems and overall tax environment – ATPtax avoidance within the EU (European Semester)
Amendment 291 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Notes that CCCTB impact assessments have been carried out on the basis of incomplete data at a time when tax administrations will soon have access to more precise and complete information following the Member States’ implementation of country-by-country reporting, and that going ahead without proper analysis would be deeply irresponsible; calls on the European Commission to conduct a new impact assessment based on high-quality data which would allow for a more informed decision to be made between different possible apportionment formulas;1a _________________ 1a ‘Assessing the impact of the CC(C)TB: European tax base shifts under a range of policy scenarios’; a GUE/NGL Study by Alex Cobham, Petr Janský, Chris Jones and Yama Temouri (Tax Justice Network); November 2017;
Amendment 297 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 c (new)
Paragraph 33 c (new)
33 c. As already stressed by the PANA recommendations, implementing the CCCTB at EU level runs the risk of creating a situation in which current losses from Member States to the rest of world could be locked in, as could the exploitation of the rest of the world by some Member States; notes that an EU- only approach could eliminate the incentives to shift profit within the EU, but open the door to further incentives and opportunities to shift profit out of the EU1a _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 307 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34 a. Notes that digitalisation affects the whole economy with many firms using multi-channel models; thus, instead of creating special regimes for digital businesses, international tax rules should be reformed, based on a principle of neutrality between different business models, both digital and non-digital, and regardless of the extent or form of digitalisation, including multi-channel models, recognising the economic reality businesses operate in today;
Amendment 319 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35 a. Notes that changing the definition of permanent establishment to make it more aligned with that of the UN model tax convention in a way that also includes digital significant presence, would be the optimal solution to tackle problems not only affecting the digital market but rather the digitalization of the economy and the earnings created in jurisdictions where companies do not have any physical presence;
Amendment 369 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Calls for DAC6 hallmarks to be strengthened in order to require the mandatory disclosure of dividend arbitrage schemes and all information on capital gains, including the granting of dividend and capital gains tax refunds1a _________________ 1a P8_TA-PROV(2018)0475. European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework(2018/2900(RSP))
Amendment 402 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Stresses that the proposal for public CBCR was submitted to the co-legislators just after the Panama papers scandal on 12 April 2016, and that Parliament adopted its position on it on 4 July 2017; recalls that the latter called for an enlargement of the scope of reporting and protection of commercially sensitive information; deplores the lack of progress and cooperation from the Council since 2016; urges for progress to be made in the Council so that it enters into negotiations with Parliament;
Amendment 404 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Recalls the position of the European Parliament in the PANA recommendations when it called for ambitious public country-by-country reporting (CbCR) in order to enhance tax transparency and the public scrutiny of multinational enterprises (MNEs) as this would allow the wider public to have access to information about the profits made, subsidies received and the taxes paid by MNEs in the jurisdictions where they operate; urges the Council to reach a common agreement in order to adopt a public CbCR, one of the key measures for achieving greater transparency in relation to companies’ tax information for all citizens; 1a _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion(Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 411 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Notes that tax competition, with its detrimental effects, is not only allowed but encouraged by the European Commission, excluding only ‘special deals’ which are treated as State Aid, in an attempt to attract foreign investment even when the effectiveness of this strategy has been greatly questioned1a; _________________ 1a ICRICT, 'Four ways to tackle international tax competition', December 2016
Amendment 426 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49a. Is concerned with the fact that the Commission ruled that double-non taxation achieved by McDonald’s stemmed from a mismatch between Luxembourg and US tax laws and the Luxembourg-United States double taxation treaty, a mismatch from which McDonald’s profited by arbitrating between such jurisdictions; and that such tax avoidance is enabled by the current legal framework in the EU to a point that the only means found effective by the European Commission to tackle it is through State Aid rules, something which has proved not to be possible in the case of McDonald’s;
Amendment 432 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Reiterates its calls for guidelines clarifying what constitutes tax-related State aid and ‘appropriate’ transfer pricing, with a view to removing legal uncertainties for both compliant taxpayers and tax administrations, and providing a framework for Member States’ tax practices accordingly;
Amendment 435 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 a (new)
Paragraph 51 a (new)
51a. Regrets the fact that the current framework for tackling profit shifting between related parties through transfer pricing is based on the ‘arm’s length’ principle, a principle that grants a higher regard to the contractual arrangement among related parties than to the economic reality of the transactions taking place between one party and another one subject to it; deplores that the generalization of the ‘arm’s length principle’ has resulted in the ‘legalization’ of tax avoidance through transfer pricing; notes that in this context, the only effective solution within the European Union to tackle the tax evasion and tax avoidance of multinational companies has been through the identification of abuses to State aid rules;
Amendment 438 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 b (new)
Paragraph 51 b (new)
51b. Deplores that Apple’s new European tax structure remains shrouded in secrecy, partially due to a lack of financial transparency in Ireland and Jersey; and that most of its financial information remains secret globally1a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 439 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 c (new)
Paragraph 51 c (new)
51c. Deplores that with the assistance of the Irish government, Apple has successfully created a structure that has allowed it to gain a tax write-off against almost all of its non-US sales profits; calls on the Commission to further investigate Apple’s case in the context of State Aid rules;
Amendment 440 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 d (new)
Paragraph 51 d (new)
51d. Notes that the law governing the use of capital allowances for IP is not subject to Ireland’s transfer pricing legislation, but it includes a prohibition from being used for tax avoidance purposes; deplores that Apple is potentially breaking Irish law by its restructure and it exploitation of the capital allowance regime for tax purposes; notes that if the same legal reasoning used in the European Commission’s state aid ruling on Apple and Ireland is applied, Apple is in breach of Irish tax law, and owes Irish Revenue at least 2.5 billion additional euros in unpaid tax annually from the period 2015-2017;1a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 453 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a (new)
Paragraph 53 a (new)
53a. Regrets however that the banning of letterbox companies in Latvia cannot be used to ban letterbox companies resident in EU Member States, as that would be considered discriminatory in the current EU legislative framework1a;calls for the European Commission to propose changes in the current legislation that would enable to ban letterbox companies even if resident in EU Member States; _________________ 1a TAX3 Delegation to Riga (Latvia), 30- 31 August 2018, MISSION REPORT
Amendment 462 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Highlights that the high level of inward and outward foreign direct investment as a percentage of GDP in seven Member States (Belgium, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, and the Netherlands) can only be partially explained by real economic activities taking place in these Member States;40and therefore is a clear indicator of tax avoidance opportunities granted by such Member States; _________________ 40 Kiendl Kristo I. and Thirion E., An overview of shell companies in the European Union, EPRS, European Parliament, October 2018, p.23.
Amendment 470 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55 a (new)
Paragraph 55 a (new)
55a. Recalls that the European Parliament has called on the Commission to assess the role of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) and Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) revealed by the cum-ex papers and, where appropriate, to propose limiting the use of these instruments1a;calls on the European Commission to assess the role of the special purpose entities holding foreign direct investment in Malta, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; _________________ 1a P8_TA- (2018)0475European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework (2018/2900(RSP))
Amendment 474 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Notes that economic indicators such as an unusually high level of foreign direct investment, as well as foreign direct investment held by special purpose entities are ATPtax avoidance indicators42 ; _________________ 42 IHS, Aggressive tax planning indicators, prepared for the European Commission, DG TAXUD Taxation papers, Working paper No 71, October 2017.
Amendment 481 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
57. Notes that the ATAD anti-abuse rules (artificial arrangements) cover letterbox companies, and that the CCTB and CCCTB would ensure that the income is attributed to where the real economic activity takes place;
Amendment 488 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58 a (new)
Paragraph 58 a (new)
58a. Deplores that shell companies associated with anonymity, circumvention of the Posting of Workers Directive and treaty abuse, can generate serious risks of tax avoidance, tax evasion, money laundering and abuse of social rights; and that such abuses have an impact in the rise of inequalities and decreased trust in public institutions1a _________________ 1a Kiendl Kristo I. and Thirion E., An overview of shell companies in the European Union, EPRS, European Parliament, October 2018.
Amendment 491 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 a (new)
Paragraph 59 a (new)
59a. Notes that abusive conversions, mergers or divisions constituting artificial arrangements or social dumping, but also reducing fiscal obligations or undercutting social rights of employees are therefore to be avoided in order to respect Treaty principles;1a _________________ 1a OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the Committee on Legal Affairs on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions (COM(2018)0241 – C8 0167/2018 –2018/0114(COD))
Amendment 493 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 b (new)
Paragraph 59 b (new)
59b. Notes that cross-border conversions should be conditioned to the company moving its registered office together with its head office in order to carry out a substantial part of its economic activity in the Member State of destination1a _________________ 1a OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the Committee on Legal Affairs on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions (COM(2018)0241 – C8 0167/2018 –2018/0114(COD))
Amendment 494 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 c (new)
Paragraph 59 c (new)
59c. Calls for Member States to request that a set of financial information be published ahead of the execution of cross- border conversions, mergers or divisions; and for that financial information to be accompanied by public country by country reporting;
Amendment 569 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79 a (new)
Paragraph 79 a (new)
79a. Recalls that effective cross checks of the data held by tax authorities with data held by customs authorities are crucial to detect and eliminate VAT fraud linked to imports; and recalls on Member States and on the Commission to act in order to facilitate the flow of information between tax and customs authorities regarding imports under Customs Procedure 42, as recommended by the European Court of Auditors1a ;considering that experience has shown that administrative cooperation between tax authorities is suboptimal;1b _________________ 1a P8_TA(2016)0453European Parliament resolution of 24 November 2016 on towards a definitive VAT system and fighting VAT fraud (2016/2033(INI))[ 1b Study entitled ‘VAT fraud: Economic impact, challenges and policy issues’, European Parliament, Directorate- General for Internal Policies, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, 15 October2018.
Amendment 570 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79 b (new)
Paragraph 79 b (new)
79b. Notes that among the most used crimes in VAT fraud, the one known as "Missing Trader fraud (MTIC fraud) or Carousel fraud" is the most widespread and most used; notes that a particularity of this fraud is that it is carried out, for the most part, by organized crime; notes that in recent years, this fraud has diversified to include online commerce; notes that the extension of this type of fraud to online commerce is partly due to the suboptimal cooperation between tax administrations1a;calls for EU Member States and the European Commission to keep on developing swift cooperation between tax administrations; _________________ 1a Study entitled ‘VAT fraud: Economic impact, challenges and policy issues’, European Parliament, Directorate- General for Internal Policies, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, 15 October2018.
Amendment 571 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79 c (new)
Paragraph 79 c (new)
79 c. Notes that the extension of e- commerce is posing an important challenge for the economic and fiscal authorities, to whom, this type of economic transactions, poses enormous difficulties, e.g. absence of registration, VAT declarations well below the real value of the declared transactions, ghost transactions for criminal purposes, fraudulent use of customer data; notes that national legislations continue to present enormous deficiencies in the control of e-commerce; notes that the improvement of cooperation between administrations and a more efficient use of the resources available at European level can help to reduce the impact of this type of crime and its consequences, as well as the improvement of European legislation;
Amendment 572 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79 d (new)
Paragraph 79 d (new)
79d. Notes that the "reverse charge mechanism" should be used only and exclusively in exceptional cases, and that the Commission and the Council should encourage countries to use existing resources more effectively; notes that at present, a group of bodies and institutions such as Eurofisc, OLAF, Europol or EPPO (European Public Prosecutor Office) provide a panel of options with a very high potential to combat VAT fraud;
Amendment 576 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80 a (new)
Paragraph 80 a (new)
80a. Deplores that VAT fraud in the European Union reaches colossal magnitudes: approximately 150 billion euros in 2017; notes that the figure hide, however, huge differences between countries, from percentages of fraud of minor importance (less than 2%); to countries with fraud indicators of around 30%;1a _________________ 1a European Parliament; VAT Fraud, economic impact, challenges and policy issues. October2018.
Amendment 579 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80 b (new)
Paragraph 80 b (new)
80b. Notes that the preservation of VAT fraud has, in addition to the negative economic effects, perverse consequences for inadequate social commitment with the payment of taxes and with a view to improving tax justice;
Amendment 580 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80 c (new)
Paragraph 80 c (new)
80c. Regrets that tax fraud has become a crime whose effects are to be managed, rather than a crime to be suppressed; calls on the Commission and the EU Member States to have policy design as a guiding principle, and for such policy design to be driven by efficiency considerations; notes that when efficiency is focused only in the enforcement, but not in the policy design, the credibility of the tax system is undermined, representing a serious risk to the rule of law1a _________________ 1a De la Feria, Rita (2018) ‘Tax Fraud and the Rule of Law’; WP18/02; Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation; January 2018.
Amendment 604 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 a (new)
Paragraph 84 a (new)
84a. Notes that corporation and wealth taxes play a crucial role in reducing inequality through redistribution within the tax system and in providing revenues to fund social provisions and social transfers;
Amendment 606 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 b (new)
Paragraph 84 b (new)
84b. Calls on the Member States to eliminate gender gaps in wealth across the EU in terms of financial assets, property ownership, business assets, insurance entitlements, pension savings and stock options1a; notes that the reduction in capital gains and property taxes primarily benefits men, as they are more likely to control such resources1b; _________________ 1a Action Aid. Making tax work for women’s rights 1b Institute of Development Studies (2016). Redistributing Unpaid Care Work – Why Tax Matters for Women’s Rights. Policy Briefing. Issue 109.
Amendment 607 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 c (new)
Paragraph 84 c (new)
84c. Deplores the fact that, overall, the contribution of wealth-based taxes to overall tax revenues has remained rather limited, at 5.8 % of overall tax revenues in the EU-15 and4.3 % in the EU-281a; _________________ 1a European Parliament Policy Department C, Gender equality and taxation in the European Union, 2017.
Amendment 608 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 d (new)
Paragraph 84 d (new)
84d. Deplores the fact that the share of taxes on capital has shown a declining trend since 2002 as a consequence, inter alia, of the general tendency of no longer applying the regular personal income tax schedule to capital incomes, but rather taxing them at relatively moderate flat rates, observable in many Member States1a _________________ 1a European Parliament Policy Department C, Gender equality and taxation in the European Union, 2017.
Amendment 681 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
93. Urges the Commission to finalise its study on CBI and RBI schemes in the Union; urges the Commission to examine whether, and, if so, which of these schemes posed a threat to EU legislation; in particular AMLD and ATAD;
Amendment 699 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 100 a (new)
Paragraph 100 a (new)
Amendment 713 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103
Paragraph 103
103. RecCalls the need to use amnesties with extreme caution in order not tofor Member States to refrain from using tax amnesties as they encourage tax avoiders to wait for the next amnesty; calls on the Member States which enact tax amnesties to always require the beneficiary to explain the source of funds previously omitted;
Amendment 714 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103 a (new)
Paragraph 103 a (new)
103 a. Recalls the European Parliament’s position in the PANA recommendation whereby it called on the Member States to identify and stop all use of any form of tax amnesties that could lead to money laundering and tax evasion or that could prevent national authorities from using the data provided to pursue financial crime investigations1a _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 717 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103 b (new)
Paragraph 103 b (new)
103 b. Regrets the fact that EU Member States have prioritized short-term revenue benefits over the elimination of tax fraud by providing tax amnesties;1a _________________ 1a De la Feria, Rita (2018) ‘Tax Fraud and the Rule of Law’; WP18/02; Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation; January 2018.
Amendment 718 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103 c (new)
Paragraph 103 c (new)
103 c. Notes that tax amnesties allow tax fraudsters to voluntarily repay all or parts of unpaid taxes without being subject to criminal prosecutions or full penalties; regrets that tax amnesties have become popular in the last few years in the context of the financial crisis1a and the austerity policies; _________________ 1a De la Feria, Rita (2018) ‘Tax Fraud and the Rule of Law’; WP18/02; Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation; January 2018.
Amendment 719 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103 d (new)
Paragraph 103 d (new)
103 d. Notes that tax amnesties are very negative they affect the most affluent sectors of society and extend the idea that having many resources guarantees impunity and makes it easy to circumvent legality; calls for Member States to stop tax amnesties and that economic and penal sanctions against the fraudsters be increased;
Amendment 731 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 107
Paragraph 107
107. Stresses that money laundering can assume various forms, and that the money laundered can have its origin in various illicit activities ranging from terrorismdifferent types of crimes such as corruption, weapon and human trafficking and drug dealing to tax evasion and fraud; notes with concern that the proceeds from criminal activity in the EU are estimated to amount to EUR 110 billion per year64 , corresponding to 1 % of the Union’s total GDP; highlights that the Commission estimates that in some Member States up to 70 % of money laundering cases have a cross-border dimension65 ; further notes that the scale of money laundering is estimated by the UN66 to be the equivalent of between 2 to 5 % of global GDP, or around EUR 715 billion and 1.87 trillion a year; _________________ 64 From illegal markets to legitimate businesses: the portfolio of organised crime in Europe, Final report of Project OCP – Organised Crime Portfolio, March 2015. 65 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pre ss-room/20171211IPR90024/new-eu-wide- penalties-for-money-laundering; Commission proposal of 21 December 2016 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on countering money laundering by criminal law (COM(2016)0826. 66 UNODC - https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/money- laundering/globalization.html
Amendment 732 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 107 a (new)
Paragraph 107 a (new)
107 a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to report on the effects money laundering on women’s rights, as money laundering impacts on gender inequality by concealing the origin of assets obtained via human trafficking, in which women and girls amount to 70%of the victims, as reported by FATF1a,UNODC2a,among others; _________________ 1a FATF (2011) Money Laundering Risks Arising from Trafficking in Human Beings and Smuggling of Migrants. Seehttp://www.fatf- gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Tra fficking%20in%20Human%20Beings%20 and%20Smuggling%20of%20Migrants.pd f 2a See UNODC’s reports on Trafficking in Persons.
Amendment 760 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112 a (new)
Paragraph 112 a (new)
112 a. Is concerned with the reliance of the AMLD on self-regulation by obliged entities; and notes that this is a matter of concern as all leaks so far have exposed the role of banks, lawyers, traders, insurance companies, and other enablers and promoters, as accomplices in money laundering cases;
Amendment 779 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116 a (new)
Paragraph 116 a (new)
116 a. Regrets that no action were taken by EU institutions in relation to the ABLV Bank, in advance of those by the US Fin CEN; is concerned by what seems to be acknowledged by experts in this matter which observe that US standards are much stricter than European ones, that even when EU banks manage to apply EU rules, they are not sufficiently capable of applying US rules, and that the EU system seems to be guaranteed by the US one 1a _________________ 1a TAX3 Delegation to Riga (Latvia), 30- 31 August 2018, MISSION REPORT
Amendment 792 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117 a (new)
Paragraph 117 a (new)
117 a. Calls on the Commission to take into consideration the recommendations of the EPRS study on ‘Offshore activities and money laundering: recent findings and challenges’ from 20171a,and consider that in order to reach a harmonized anti- money laundering policy in Europe, it needs to be noted that European countries are too different to all comply in the same way, and therefore different groups of countries within the EU should be targeted differently and some be trained and supported by other Member States; _________________ 1a http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e tudes/STUD/2017/595371/IPOL_STU(201 7)595371_EN.pdf
Amendment 798 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117 b (new)
Paragraph 117 b (new)
117 b. Calls on the Commission to assess the way in which derivatives can be used for money laundering, as ‘mirror trading’ can allow brokers to create multiple trades where it can conveniently locate washed funds1a; calls on the Commission to investigate whether this has been the case in the exposed cum-ex and cum-cum scandals; _________________ 1a EPRS (2017) ‘Offshore activities and money laundering: recent findings and challenges’. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e tudes/STUD/2017/595371/IPOL_STU(201 7)595371_EN.pdf
Amendment 824 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125 a (new)
Paragraph 125 a (new)
125 a. Recalls the request made by the European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal, on ESMA and EBA to assess potential threats to the integrity of financial markets and to national budgets; to establish the nature and magnitude of actors in these schemes; to assess whether there were breaches of either national or Union law; to assess the actions taken by financial supervisors in Member States; and to make appropriate recommendations for reform and for action to the competent authorities concerned;
Amendment 861 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129 a (new)
Paragraph 129 a (new)
129 a. Calls for the Commission to report on the status quo and improvements in EU Member States FIUs in relation to dissemination, exchange and processing of information, following the PANA Recommendations and the mapping report carried out by the EU FIUs Platform 1a _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 880 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 133 a (new)
Paragraph 133 a (new)
Amendment 923 #
2018/2121(INI)
141. Recalls that EU AML legislation requires Member States to lay down sanctions for breaches of anti-money laundering rules against banks and intermediaries that are knowingly, wilfully and systematically involved in illegal tax or money laundering schemes; stresses that these sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive;
Amendment 931 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 143 a (new)
Paragraph 143 a (new)
143 a. Recalls the position of the European Parliament in the PANA recommendations regarding the application of sanctions to enablers and promoters involved in illegal, harmful proven to have facilitated illegal, harmful or wrongful corporate tax arrangements; that the sanctions should be targeted towards the companies themselves as well as the management-level employees and board members responsible for the schemes; calling for the stringent application of effective sanctions on banks, providing for the suspension or withdrawal of the banking licence of financial institutions that are proven to be involved in promoting or enabling money laundering, tax evasion or aggressive tax planning; and encouraging Member States to ensure that the fines and pecuniary sanctions imposed on tax evaders and intermediaries are not tax- base deductible; 1a _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 934 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5.7 a (new)
Subheading 5.7 a (new)
An EU anti-money laundering list of high-risk third countries
Amendment 937 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 145 a (new)
Paragraph 145 a (new)
145 a. Notes that EU Member States are not treated in the same way as third countries, when they should be according to the Financial Action Task Force, and that this represents a problem when aiming at having common standards in respect of AML; calls for Member States to be peer reviewed in the same way third countries are in FATF; calls the Commission, as a founding member in 1989 of the Financial Action Task Force, to be peer reviewed by FATF as well1a _________________ 1a TAX3 PUBLIC HEARING“RELATIONS WITH SWITZERLAND IN TAX MATTERS AND THE FIGHT AGAINST MONEYLAUNDERING” held on October 1, 2018.
Amendment 938 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 145 b (new)
Paragraph 145 b (new)
Amendment 952 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 149 a (new)
Paragraph 149 a (new)
149 a. Notes that two FATCA Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) were developed to help FATCA fit with international laws: an IGA Model 1 by which foreign financial institutions report relevant information to their home authorities, which then passes this on to the US IRS, and an IGA Model 2 by which foreign financial institutions do not report to their home governments but directly to the IRS; notes that under Model 1 there are 2 versions, one of which is reciprocal and is the most common one; deplores that reciprocity is highly unbalanced with the US getting far more information from overseas than foreign governments; deplores that even in the best scenario of a reciprocal FATCA, the information compiled by the US institutions is full of loopholes, as it allows for senior managers to be registered if there is no person owning more than 25% of the bank's corporate client1a; calls on the EU Member States, to ensure that they are receiving reliable information when they get into a reciprocal FATCA with the US; _________________ 1a https://financialsecrecyindex.com/PDF/U SA.pdf
Amendment 955 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 149 b (new)
Paragraph 149 b (new)
149 b. Calls on the Commission and EU Member States to demand that the US enters into the CRS instead of following with the exchange of information under FATCA;
Amendment 962 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 150 a (new)
Paragraph 150 a (new)
150 a. Considers that tax havens, tax evasion and tax avoidance have been contributing to the rise in inequalities, by depriving countries of the revenue needed to provide public, quality and free education and healthcare services, social security, and affordable housing and transportation, and to build essential infrastructure for achieving social development and economic growth;
Amendment 968 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 151
Paragraph 151
151. WelcomNotes the adoption by the Council of the first EU list on 5 December 2017 and the ongoing monitoring of the commitments made by third countries; notes that the list has been updated several times on the basis of the assessment of those commitments; underlines that this assessment is based on criteria deriving from a technical scoreboard and that Parliament had no legal involvement in this process; calls in this context on the Commission and the Council to inform Parliament in detail ahead of any proposed change to the list; calls on the Council to publish a regular progress report regarding black- and grey-listed jurisdictions as part of the regular update from the CoC Group to the Council;
Amendment 969 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 151 a (new)
Paragraph 151 a (new)
151 a. Regrets that given that 2 out of the 3 criteria used by the Council refer to the OECD, the blacklist process seems more an extortive means of getting developing countries to implement standards that they have not participated in setting; than a serious effort to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance;
Amendment 979 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 152 a (new)
Paragraph 152 a (new)
152 a. Calls on the Council to provide clear information on the specific criteria used to clear 20jurisdictions from the 92 that were originally assessed, as at the moment only the names of such jurisdictions1a and the letters of comfort are available, but those do not allow for a clear understanding on why jurisdictions that are such relevant trade partners of the EU, such as the US who was identified to have a lack of transparency and preferential Corporate Income Tax regimes, were so rapidly cleared and not listed; _________________ 1a Council of the EU.2018, June 8. Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation): Report to the Council/Endorsement. 9637/18
Amendment 993 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 a (new)
Paragraph 154 a (new)
154 a. Is concerned with the fact that even when Switzerland does repeal its non-compliant tax regimes, it may create new ones -as noted by some organizations and experts-, and that in that case the Council would still remove Switzerland from the grey list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions1a;calls for the Council to re- consider their assessment on Switzerland and on any other third country that could be having a similar legislative change; _________________ 1a TAX3 PUBLIC HEARING“RELATIONS WITH SWITZERLAND IN TAX MATTERS AND THE FIGHT AGAINST MONEY LAUNDERING” held on October 1, 2018; and TAX3 Exchange of views with Fabrizia Lapecorella, Chair of the Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation, held on October 10,2018.
Amendment 995 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 b (new)
Paragraph 154 b (new)
154 b. Notes that as of December 2018 there are only 5 countries remaining in the list; is concerned by what seems to soon end up in an empty listing process similar to that of the OECD which resulted in only Trinidad and Tobago remaining in the list; calls for the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to work on a more serious, and objective methodology,which does not rely in commitments but rather on an assessment of the effects of effectively implemented legislation;
Amendment 999 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 c (new)
Paragraph 154 c (new)
154 c. Recalls the European Parliament’s position on the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions regretting that the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions approved and published by the Council focuses only on jurisdictions outside the EU, omitting countries within the EU that have played a systematic role in promoting and enabling harmful tax practices and that do not meet the fair taxation criterion1a;and calls for the Commission and the Council to come up with an EU list of EU tax havens; _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 1003 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 d (new)
Paragraph 154 d (new)
154 d. Points out that for the EU to hold a leading role in the global fight against tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and money laundering, it would be important for the European Commission to get its own house in order by ensuring that those with a commercial or vested interest in promoting tax avoidance and tax evasion should not have a role in guiding or advising the EU’s policy-making on tax avoidance and tax evasion;
Amendment 1013 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 a (new)
Paragraph 156 a (new)
156 a. Recalls the position of the European Parliament in the interim report on MFF, urging for a genuine fight against tax evasion and avoidance, with the introduction of dissuasive sanctions, for offshore territories and for the enablers or promoters of such activities, particularly and as a first step those operating on the European mainland; believes that Member States should cooperate by establishing a coordinated system for monitoring capital movements in order to fight taxevasion, tax avoidance and money laundering; 1a _________________ 1a Par. 48 of the Interim report on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021- 2027 adopted in Plenary
Amendment 1024 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 a (new)
Paragraph 158 a (new)
158 a. Regrets that the current OECD tax committee cannot be nor is sufficiently inclusive, as it is not the United Nations; the OECD is integrated only by 34 countries that tend to be industrialized ones, is not democratically governed and its decisions on recommendations are not guided by democratic rules
Amendment 1026 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 b (new)
Paragraph 158 b (new)
158 b. Regrets that the G20/OECDBEPS Action Plan did not intend nor did it resulted in addressing the problem of source and residence taxation which is at the core of the base erosion problem;
Amendment 1027 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 c (new)
Paragraph 158 c (new)
158 c. Underlines that given its lack of representation and of democratic governance, the OECD is not the place to discuss the allocation of taxing rights among industrialized and developing countries;
Amendment 1028 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 d (new)
Paragraph 158 d (new)
158 d. Calls on Member States to support the creation of a global body within the UN framework, well-equipped and with sufficient additional resources to ensure that all countries can participate on an equal footing in the formulation and reform of global tax policies1a, and for such body to address unsolved tax questions such as the allocation of taxing rights among countries; _________________ 1a European Parliament resolution of 6 July 2016 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0310); and European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted,P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 1031 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 a (new)
Paragraph 159 a (new)
159 a. Acknowledges that the G77and China have also called in 2017 for the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters to be upgraded to an intergovernmental UN Global Tax Body;
Amendment 1034 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 b (new)
Paragraph 159 b (new)
159 b. Calls for Member States to revise their positions regarding the creation of a global tax body within the UN in order to incorporate this global call to their agendas
Amendment 1035 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 c (new)
Paragraph 159 c (new)
159 c. Regrets that the G20/OECD’s inclusive framework is stopping a discussion on international taxation that should take place in the context of the United Nations; calls on Member States to support a reform of the United Nations tax committee to turn it into a UN tax body; and ensure that the such body has sufficient resources to ensure all countries can participate on an equal footing;
Amendment 1048 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161 a (new)
Paragraph 161 a (new)
161 a. Believes that such support can take different forms, but that care should be taken not to impose models thought for tackling the problems of the North, which are convenient for the economic circumstances of the North, into the South; believes that the best cooperation for the South can most generally come from the South, from developing countries that have similar problems and similar economic circumstances; calls for the EU institutions to respect South-South cooperation;
Amendment 1058 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 164
Paragraph 164
Amendment 1079 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 a (new)
Paragraph 168 a (new)
Amendment 1080 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 b (new)
Paragraph 168 b (new)
168 b. Calls for the Commission to strive for a greater degree of specification of the AML/CFT and tax-related requirements in its free trade and association agreements;1a _________________ 1a Ioannides, I., Douma, W. T., Güven, O., Jancic, D., Pantaleo, L., van der Velde, S., de Vries, F. (2016). The inclusion of financial services in EU free trade and association agreements: Effects on money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance; EPRS.
Amendment 1081 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 c (new)
Paragraph 168 c (new)
168 c. Calls for the Commission to ensure that all free trade and association agreements contain provisions on tax cooperation and that such provisions guarantee cooperation at the bilateral level in addition to any regional or international instruments or arrangements; 1a _________________ 1a Ioannides, I., Douma, W. T., Güven, O., Jancic, D., Pantaleo, L., van der Velde, S., de Vries, F. (2016). The inclusion of financial services in EU free trade and association agreements: Effects on money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance; EPRS.
Amendment 1082 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 d (new)
Paragraph 168 d (new)
168 d. Calls on the Commission to include in its free trade and association agreements provisions aimed at combating mispricing and misinvoicing of internationally traded goods and services;1a _________________ 1a Ioannides, I., Douma, W. T., Güven, O., Jancic, D., Pantaleo, L., van der Velde, S., de Vries, F. (2016). The inclusion of financial services in EU free trade and association agreements: Effects on money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance; EPRS.
Amendment 1083 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 e (new)
Paragraph 168 e (new)
168 e. Calls on the Commission to include in its free trade and association agreements provisions on public country by country reporting of corporate tax, the establishment of public registers of beneficial owners, and the establishment of public commercial registers; 1a _________________ 1a Ioannides, I., Douma, W. T., Güven, O., Jancic, D., Pantaleo, L., van der Velde, S., de Vries, F. (2016). The inclusion of financial services in EU free trade and association agreements: Effects on money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance; EPRS.
Amendment 1084 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 f (new)
Paragraph 168 f (new)
Amendment 1085 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 g (new)
Paragraph 168 g (new)
168 g. Calls on the Commission to pursue a strategy of imposing a measure of conditionality during trade negotiations, where structural weaknesses in rule of law enforcement – mainly due to corruption, organised crime and shadow economy – undermine the EU’s trade goals and the trading partner’s legislative and administrative endeavours in combating money laundering and tax evasion; 1a _________________ 1a [1][1] Ioannides, I., Douma, W. T., Güven, O., Jancic, D., Pantaleo, L., van der Velde, S., de Vries, F. (2016). The inclusion of financial services in EU free trade and association agreements: Effects on money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance; EPRS.
Amendment 1101 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 a (new)
Paragraph 171 a (new)
171 a. Notes that developing countries need tax revenue, not least from the profits of multinational companies, to achieve their development goals; yet the taxation of most of those profits is regulated by a global network of bilateral tax treaties; notes that more than half of these treaties, and 40 percent of those with developing countries, have an EU Member State as signatory;1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson(2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1104 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 b (new)
Paragraph 171 b (new)
171 b. Recalls that the European Parliament has resolved that the “global network of tax treaties…often impedes developing countries from taxing profits generated in their territory”1aand that “when negotiating tax treaties, the European Union and its Member States should comply with the principle of policy coherence for development;2a _________________ 1a Tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (TAXE 2) 2a European Parliament resolution of 8 July 2015 on tax avoidance and tax evasion as challenges forgovernance, social protection and development in developing countries(2015/2058(INI)). URL:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides /getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA- 2015-0265 uage=EN˚=A8-2015-0184
Amendment 1105 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 c (new)
Paragraph 171 c (new)
171 c. Notes that the European Economic and Social Committee has recommended that “when negotiating double tax agreements with developing countries, EU Member States take more account of the needs of developing countries”1a _________________ 1a European Economic and Social Committee. EU development partnerships and the challenge posed by international tax agreements. REX/487.https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/o ur-work/opinions-information- reports/opinions/eu-development- partnerships-and-challenge-posed- international-tax-agreements
Amendment 1106 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 d (new)
Paragraph 171 d (new)
171 d. Notes that tax treaties place too much emphasis on the taxing rights of the countries of residence of multinational companies, imposing too many restrictions on the countries that are the source of those companies’ income, often developing countries; 1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson (2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1107 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 e (new)
Paragraph 171 e (new)
171 e. Regrets that on average, the treaties developing countries have concluded with EU Member States impose more restrictions on their source taxing rights than their treaties with other countries, even other OECD members; notes that EU Member States’ treaties with developing countries more closely resemble the OECD model convention, which is not designed with developing countries in mind, than the UN model, which is; notes that a study of 172 treaties signed between EU Member States and developing countries noted that the average EU treaty leaves intact 40% of its developing country signatories’ taxing rights;1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson(2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1108 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 f (new)
Paragraph 171 f (new)
171 f. Calls on EU Member States and the European Commission to conduct spillover analyses incorporating reviews of EU Member States’ double taxation treaties, based on the principle of policy coherence for development and taking into account the recommendations of the European Parliament and the EESC;1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson(2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1109 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 g (new)
Paragraph 171 g (new)
171 g. Calls on EU Member States to undertake a rolling plan of renegotiations with a focus on progressively increasing the source taxation rights permitted by EU Member States’ treaties; calls on such renegotiations to introduce development- friendly measures such as anti-treaty shopping.1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson (2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1110 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 h (new)
Paragraph 171 h (new)
171 h. Calls on EU Member States and the European Commission to formulate and publish an EU Model Tax Convention for Development Policy Coherence, setting out source-based provisions that EU Member States are willing to offer to developing countries as a starting point for negotiations, not in return for sacrifices on their part; 1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson(2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1120 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 175 a (new)
Paragraph 175 a (new)
175 a. Recalls relevant Member States to make use of the opportunity afforded by their direct relations with the countries concerned to take the necessary steps in order to put pressure on their overseas countries and territories (OCTs) and outermost regions that do not respect international standards pertaining to tax cooperation, transparency and anti- money laundering; takes the view that the EU transparency and due diligence requirements should be effectively enforced in these territories;1a _________________ 1a PANA recommendations adopted on December 13, 2018.
Amendment 1126 #
Amendment 1127 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177
Paragraph 177
177. Welcomes the broad definition of both ‘intermediary’ and regrets the incompleteness of the ‘reportable cross- border arrangement’ in the recently adopted DAC683 ; _________________ 83 OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1. OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1.
Amendment 1135 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 a (new)
Paragraph 177 a (new)
177 a. Urges the Commission, Member States and all EU bodies to refer to “enablers” or “promoters” as opposed to "intermediaries", which disguises the agency of the facilitators and promoters of tax avoidance schemes; notes that Ireland has already classified them as “promoters” in legislation (eg, Mandatory Disclosure of Certain Transactions Regulation 2011);
Amendment 1136 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 b (new)
Paragraph 177 b (new)
177 b. Recalls that the EU’s existing definition of control required to create a group of companies should be applied to accountancy firms that are members of a network of firms associated by legally enforceable contractual arrangements that provide for the sharing of a name or marketing, professional standards, clients, support services, finance or professional indemnity insurance arrangements, as anticipated by Directive2013/34/EU on annual financial statements1a; and calls for the European Commission to present a proposal for professional networks subject to these arrangements to be required to file full country-by-country reports, adapted to meet the particular needs of the sector, on public record;2a _________________ 2a Murphy, R.; Stausholm, S.N. (2017) ‘The Big Four, a study of opacity’; GUE/NGL, July 2017. 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 1137 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 c (new)
Paragraph 177 c (new)
177 c. Calls for the Commission to present a proposal whereby the networks of professional service firms (e.g. accountancy firms, tax and legal advisors) to be required to apply for a single license to provide audit, taxation services or legal advice of any sort in the Member States, and that all abusive tax schemes promoted by the firm that have an impact on the tax revenue of a Member State be reported, whether sold in or outside the EU by a network member; 1a _________________ 1a Murphy, R.; Stausholm, S.N. (2017) ‘The Big Four, a study of opacity’; GUE/NGL, July 2017.
Amendment 1138 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 d (new)
Paragraph 177 d (new)
177 d. Calls on the Commission to present a proposal for all audit firms to be required to be entirely separate from those selling any other service;
Amendment 1139 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 e (new)
Paragraph 177 e (new)
177 e. Calls on the European Commission and member states to recognise that there is an inherent conflict of interest between the commercial interests of the tax avoidance industry and the public mandate of the EU to minimise tax avoidance;
Amendment 1140 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 f (new)
Paragraph 177 f (new)
177 f. Stresses that this conflict of interest can come in several forms, including via public procurement contracts that require the provision of paid advice on these issues; the provision of informal or unpaid advice via official advisory and expert groups; and via the revolving door;
Amendment 1141 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 g (new)
Paragraph 177 g (new)
177 g. Notes that in the same way as has been done by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to reduce the effects of the lobbying powers of the Tabaco industry in health policies, measures can be implemented in national, EU and international institutions to protect fiscal policies from commercial and other vested interests of the accountancy industry;
Amendment 1142 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 h (new)
Paragraph 177 h (new)
177 h. Calls on the European Commission and member states to put in place a firewall to ensure that those with a commercial or vested interest in promoting tax avoidance and tax evasion should not have arole in advising the EU and member states on action to tackle tax avoidance and tax evasion. Elements of this firewall should include restrictions on the membership of advisory and expert groups, and on the awarding of public contracts for tax-related studies and impact assessments; restrictions on lobbying on tax avoidance and tax evasion; revolving door regulations; and full lobby transparency;
Amendment 1177 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 182 a (new)
Paragraph 182 a (new)
182 a. Deplores that even when in the area of financial services, the added value of sectorial whistleblower protection was already acknowledged by the Union legislator, and measures for the protection of whistleblowers were introduced in a significant number of legislative instruments in this area1a,a number of high profile cases involving European financial institutions have proven that protection of whistleblowers within such financial institutionsstill remains unsatisfactory and that fears of reprisals from both employers and authorities still prevents whistleblowers from coming forward within formation on breaches of law;2a _________________ 1a Communication of 8.12.2010 "Reinforcing sanctioning regimes in the financial services sector".[ 2a A8-0398/2018. Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliamentand of the Council on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law (COM(2018)0218 – C8 0159/2018 – 2018/0106(COD))
Amendment 1181 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 183 a (new)
Paragraph 183 a (new)
183 a. Notes that it has been proven that keeping a reporting person’s identity confidential is an essential element in avoiding backsliding and self-censorship. The duty of confidentiality should, therefore, only be waived in exceptional circumstances in which disclosure of information relating to the reporting person’s personal data is a necessary and proportionate obligation required under Union or national law in the context of subsequent investigations or judicial proceedings or to safeguard the freedoms of others including the right of defence of the concerned person, and in each case subject to appropriate safeguards under such laws. Appropriate sanctions should be provided for in the event of breaches of the duty of confidentiality concerning the reporting person’s identity; 1a _________________ 1a A8-0398/2018. Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law (COM(2018)0218 – C8 0159/2018 – 2018/0106(COD))
Amendment 1183 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 183 b (new)
Paragraph 183 b (new)
183 b. Notes that even when appropriate channels should be allowed for internal reporting, experts have noted that internal reporting should not be mandatory and that ultimately a whistleblower must have the right to be able to report externally1a _________________ 1a TAX3 Public hearing “Combatting money laundering in the EU banking sector”, Panel I: Danske Bank and money laundering allegations.
Amendment 1184 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 183 c (new)
Paragraph 183 c (new)
183 c. Notes that in addition to guarding the confidentiality of the identity of whistleblowers as it is essential for the protection of the reporting person, anonymous reporting should be further protected against the generalised threats and the attacks that aim to discredit the anonymously reporting person, by those offended;
Amendment 1205 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188 a (new)
Paragraph 188 a (new)
188 a. Deplores that Swiss libel laws are used to silence critics in Switzerland and worldwide because the burden of proof lays on the defendant not the plaintiff; that this not only affects journalists and whistle-blowers, but also reporting entities in the European Union and obliged persons under the beneficial owner register; as in case of having the obligation of reporting a beneficial owner which is Swiss, then the reporting person may end up being sued in Switzerland for libel and slander, being such criminal offences;1a _________________ 1a TAX3 Public hearing “Relations with Switzerland in tax matters and the fight against money laundering”, October 1, 2018.
Amendment 1209 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188 b (new)
Paragraph 188 b (new)
188 b. Calls on EU Member States and the Commission not to recognise the Swiss and British libel laws because they are used for libel tourism if in an EU Member States it were not possible to sue a journalist or a whistleblower;1a _________________ 1a TAX3 Public hearing “Relations with Switzerland in tax matters and the fight against money laundering”, October 1, 2018.
Amendment 1211 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188 c (new)
Paragraph 188 c (new)
188 c. Notes that money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance often involve highly complex international corporate and financial arrangements, which are likely to be within the remit of differing jurisdictions; and recalls the need for provisions to be taken for a unified point of contact for whistleblowers1a _________________ 1a A8-0398/2018. Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law (COM(2018)0218 – C8 0159/2018 – 2018/0106(COD))
Amendment 1212 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 189
Paragraph 189
189. Welcomes the work done by the Platform for Tax Good Governance; notes that the mandate of the Platform applies until 16 June 2019; calls for it to be extended or renewed to ensure that civil society concerns and expertise are heard by Member States and the Commission; but considers that intermediaries with a commercial interest in tax avoidance should no longer be members; encourages the Commission to broaden the scope of the experts invited to the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (EGMLTF) to include experts from the private sector (business and NGOs) so long as they do not have a commercial interest in these issues;;
Amendment 1217 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 192
Paragraph 192
192. NotDeplores that, despite requests to the Council, no relevant documents have been made available to the TAX3 Committee; calls into question, therefore, the political will of the Council to enhance transparency and cooperation in the fight against money laundering, tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning or to comply with the TEU and the principle of sincere cooperation;
Amendment 1242 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 9.5 a (new)
Subheading 9.5 a (new)
Regrets that even when TAXE, TAX2 and PANA committees have managed to make valuable contributions to the legislative discussions, they have not gone in-depth enough to reveal anything new that had not already been said by the media or by the civil society, partly due to the limitations of the powers granted to European Parliament’s special and inquiry committees.
Amendment 1252 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 204
Paragraph 204
Amendment 1258 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 205
Paragraph 205
Amendment 1276 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 206
Paragraph 206
206. Stresses that all scenarios should be envisaged and not only shifting from unanimity to qualified majority voting through a passerelle clause; calls on the Commission to issue its proposal before ththe unanimity rule ensures that the smaller Member States are able to defend themselves and is the most reliable guarantee that we will have proposals that are bend of its current mandate, early 2019;eficial for all and not just for some.
Amendment 24 #
2018/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas economic growth remains vulnerable to continued geopolitical tensions, which have an impact on global trade, and persisting uncertainties surrounding the Union’s future relations with the UK; whereas this residual growth is well below the potential level achievable by the economy because of the intrinsic contradictions of the integration process and its neoliberal orientation;
Amendment 59 #
2018/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas according to the Commission forecast, ten Member States are expected to have debt-to-GDP ratios of more than 60 % in 2019, while the increase in debt levels, which were controlled prior to the entry into force of the euro, have resulted largely from the need to recapitalize the financial system;
Amendment 91 #
2018/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 97 #
2018/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that the euro has become a factor of divergence within the euro zone and calls for the creation of a support programme for an orderly exit from the euro for Member States that wish for it or whose situation within the euro area has become unsustainable ;
Amendment 101 #
2018/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Amendment 173 #
2018/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the importance of reviewingat national public pension schemes, largely financed on a pay-as-you-go basis, in order to reduce their budgetary burdenare a fundamental pillar of the welfare state and must not be replaced by any capitalisation system;
Amendment 179 #
2018/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the importance of increasing the labour force participation ratediversifying social security funding, especially with regard to highly profitable economic sectors, in order to keep social security systems sustainable, particularly in the context of an increasing dependency ratio;
Amendment 187 #
2018/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for a tax shift away from the high tax burden on labour in Europe, transferring it towards the banks and multinationals;
Amendment 308 #
2018/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls that the degree of implementation of the country-specific recommendations is too low; believes that the focus of the European Semester should be on national ownershipis is because the recommendations are failing to serve the interests of the Member States and their populations; urges national and regional parliaments to debate country reports and country-specific recommendations;
Amendment 10 #
2018/2113(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. WelcomCriticises the fact that the Commission renewed its commitment to performance and to results-based budgeting in its proposals for a new MFF and insists that the EU budget should strengthen its focus on stability, simplicity, more effective spending, low operating costs, efficient allocation of resources, the delivery of key policy priorities, European added value, results, impact, and increased accountability and transparency;
Amendment 11 #
2018/2113(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls that the current performance framework of the programmes reported in the programme statements of operational expenditure includes 716 indicators of different types measuring the performance against 61 general and 228 specific objectives, which gives an indication of the complexity of evaluations and makes clear that objective indicators do not necessarily reflect the underlying reality;
Amendment 13 #
2018/2113(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 27 – point a – indent 1
Paragraph 27 – point a – indent 1
Amendment 33 #
2018/2102(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that, generally speaking, European competition policy is applied with the aim of systematically defending consumers at the expense of agricultural producers; considers that these two interests should be placed on an equal footing; notes that this has effectively concentrated power into the hands of the large retail sector which is now clearly able to abuse its dominant position in every way at the expense of producers;
Amendment 47 #
2018/2102(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that the specific characteristics of agricultural activities make it essential to have collective organisations to enable the objectives of the CAP to be attained and that such organisations must be considered compatible with Article 101 TFEU; stresses that the liberal economic model is not applicable to the agricultural sector, which is characterised by rigid supply patterns, necessitating the creation of public regulatory mechanisms to control production and protect the agricultural sectors and farmers' incomes in each Member State;
Amendment 2 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomeRejects the approach presented during plenary debates on the ‘Future of Europe’, whereby and on the future EU budget should promote European added value, ensure finances for new challenges and continue supportin particular; condemns, therefore, the militaristic, security-focused approach being Epuropean solidarity, stability and growth as well as the modernisation of EU policisued at the expense of territorial, social, and economic cohesion as well as peace and solidarity among countries and peoples;
Amendment 7 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Urges the Commission to halt the neo-liberal right-wing policy trends; considers it imperative to terminate the Treaties governing European integration, specifically by repealing the Treaty of Lisbon and, in particular, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, the ‘Six Pack’, and the ‘Two Pack’, since these are a straitjacket on sovereign economic and social development; calls for an intergovernmental conference to be convened by the European Council to discuss the termination and repeal of the Treaties; maintains that Member States must, as a matter of urgency, regain the ability to determine the economic policies best suited to their needs;
Amendment 10 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Points out that the level of debt in some Member States remains among the highest in the world; calls, therefore, for the Commission and the Member States to embark on and support a process for renegotiating government debt (as regards the amounts involved, maturities, and interest rates) and for the illegitimate speculative component to be removed in the most indebted countries so as to make debt servicing compatible with economic and social development; notes that economic recovery in Member States is impossible without debt relief;
Amendment 12 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines the importance of commitment toreversing the Banking Union, since theis process of completingject has merely brought about concentration in the Bbanking Union and the need to ensure openness and equal treatment of all Member States participating insector and exacerbated systemic risk and the ‘too big to fail’ problem; maintains that public control of banks, and shifting their focus towards each country’s specific needs, are the only way to make the Bbanking Unionsector stable;
Amendment 19 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls the importance of the common agricultural policy (CAP) in terms of the budget and of its legacy to the history of the Union; recalls that the CAP is still one of the most important and most integrated policies, and that it will continue to contribute to building Europe’s future; regrets that successive CAP revisions have all been seeking to deregulate the markets and open the EU to world markets, resulting in huge income losses for farmers;
Amendment 23 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises the urgent need to completeTakes the view that, by increasing the degree of 'financialisation' of Member States' economies, the Capital Markets Union; stresses that deep and well-integrated capital markets are complementary to the Banking Union, due to its contribution to private risk-sharing, increasing economic convergence and helping to cushion future shockserves only the interests of financial investors and nothing else, adding greatly to the danger of a fresh financial crisis; calls for an immediate halt to the process of establishing a Capital Markets Union and reiterates the need to separate investment banking from retail banking in order to avoid contamination and concentration in the industry;
Amendment 26 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 29 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 36 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that, should a Member State decide to withdraw from the euro because its participation had become unsustainable and intolerable, that decision must be fully respected and open the way to an orderly negotiated exit, carried out fairly, without pressures, penalties, or blackmail, under a comprehensive support programme; believes that any such programme should allow for the possibility of proper compensation, to be determined according to the social and economic damage done;
Amendment 40 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 43 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Condemns the fact that, even though the economic adjustment programmes have ended, the Member States which underwent them are continuing to face serious economic and social problems; calls, therefore, for an emergency plan to be drawn up to support the economies of those countries subjected to Troika intervention and for that plan to provide for financial resources and the necessary exceptions to the functioning of the single market and common policies;
Amendment 64 #
2018/2094(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the importance of a well reformed CAP to respond to the maximum number of the challenges that will face the Union in the future; stresses the importance of the future CAP in fostering innovation and research and development, including the agricultural aspects of the future Horizon Europe programme; stresses the importance of creating public supply regulation instruments to safeguard the food sovereignty of Member States and farmers' incomes;
Amendment 1 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the 2019 draft Union Budget amounts at EUR166 billion in commitments, corresponding to a 3% increase over 2018, investing in a stronger and more resilient European economy and promoting solidarity and security on boEuropean economy, but once again falling far short of what is required to reverse the sides of the Union’s borderocial and economic divergence resulting from EU and euro policy objectives;
Amendment 7 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for the 2019 budget to focustake account onf the priorities outlined inconstraint to which a group of countries in the euro area are subject within the framework of the European Semester, and on addressing the main concerns of EU citizens that are within EU full or partial responsibility as outlined e.g. in the Eurobarometer 2018; underlines that the most pressing issues lie especially in the area of security and defence, while economic development, growth and, youth unemployment are among other crucial areas to be addnd social progressed;
Amendment 10 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Calls for a 2019 EU budget that can promote effectively social development, sustainable growth, economic, social and territorial cohesion, innovation, public investment, respect for the environment and the protection of biodiversity, peace and external and internal solidarity, in particular towards migrants;
Amendment 12 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that the support measures for the Russian embargo have not been prolonged given that numerous EU producers are still being negatively affected; calls for the effects of the Russian embargo to be offset by the EU general budget and not CAP funds, since farmers cannot be made to shoulder the responsibility for EU diplomatic policy;
Amendment 13 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 15 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to carefully analyse the causes of the overall decline in farmer income since 2013 and to define a new key performance objective accompanied by outcome and impact indicatoCAP safeguarding the production rights of each Member State and guaranteeing fair prices for producers, aiming at mitigating the income inequalities between famers;
Amendment 17 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Calls for increased funding for programmes to promote employment with rights and for the social inclusion of young people, ensuring that EU funds do not encourage the creation of unpaid internships, precarious working conditions or the replacement of permanent jobs with temporary posts or unpaid internships;
Amendment 18 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Denounces the fact that, despite the conclusion of the economic adjustment programmes, Member States that were subjected thereto face serious problems at economic and social level and are still affected by the consequences and the policies imposed by the Troika; calls, therefore, for the creation of an emergency plan to support the economy of those countries that were subjected to the Troika’s intervention, and for this plan to provide financial resources and the necessary exceptions to the functioning of the single market and common policies;
Amendment 19 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Calls for the creation of specific support programmes for countries which consider that membership of the euro area has become unsustainable and unbearable, providing for adequate compensation for the losses caused, within the framework of a negotiated exit from the single currency for those Member States which seek to leave it;
Amendment 20 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines thatStresses that despite the creation of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) role is essential in fostering consistent application of Union law and better coordination between national authorities, ensuring financial stability, promoting better func, it is clear that new banking and financial crises are far from being avoided, especially because the fundamental questioning of financial markets and assuring consumer protection; calls on the Committee on Budgets to ensure adequate resources for the ESAsspeculation has not been changed yet;
Amendment 20 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the increased funding proposed by the European Commission for promotion measures, which are crucial to expand the share of European exports on markets across the world; notes, however, that any strategy based on exports and the opening up of the agricultural market to the outside can only lead to the ruin of European farmers;
Amendment 21 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 28 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 30 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Deplores the insufficient execution of payments to young farmers in recent years and encourages Member States to promote the use of those appropriations the following year in order to boost generation renewal; notes that, for farmers, such renewal implies, above all, a new CAP embodying a set of public supply regulation mechanisms that guarantee fair prices for producers, while ensuring food sovereignty for the Member States;
Amendment 36 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 39 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Is deeply concerned about the CAP cuts envisaged in the European Commission's proposal for 2021-2027 and in particular for the ORs and POSEI.
Amendment 18 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 4 April 2017 on women and their roles in rural areas,
Amendment 20 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)
Citation 6 b (new)
– having regard to the European Parliament resolution on the ‘State of play of farmland concentration in the EU: how to facilitate the access to land for farmers’, adopted on 27 April 2017,
Amendment 77 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas it is vital to halt and reverse the current concentration of power into the hands of the large retail sector and big business;
Amendment 120 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the CAP must play an important role in overcoming stagnation and volatility of prices at source and farm incomes which, despite the concentration and intensification of production and increasing productivity, are still lower than in the rest of the economy;
Amendment 129 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas concentration, intensification and increased productivity have also resulted in negative effects, such as the loss of farmers and the abandonment of villages, as well as affecting the environment and product quality;
Amendment 134 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas the volatility of international markets is conditioned by variables – often of a speculative nature – which are incompatible with the production of healthy food and with sustaining small and medium-scale farming and adequate incomes;
Amendment 151 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Recital F b (new)
Fb. whereas the international market, which represents a minimal percentage of European agricultural production, is having a more decisive impact on the future of farmers in Europe than CAP aid;
Amendment 186 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas there is a need for an updated and fairer system of payments, as in many Member States the current system of entitlements is based on historic benchmarks which are now almost 20 years old and which constitute an obstacle to generational renewal and hinder young farmers’ access to farmland, – this being especially the case for young female farmers – as new entrants do not possess entitlements and are thus at a disadvantage;
Amendment 198 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas the low level of some pensions further hinders generational renewal;
Amendment 217 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the emergence of new challenges, such as increasing global trade, is necessitating fair and sustainable conditions for the global exchange of goods and services, something which is not possible within the framework of the WTO and in accordance with existing EU social, economic and environmental standards, which should be promoted;
Amendment 221 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas free trade agreements, which have been undermining countries’ sovereignty, and food sovereignty in particular, and shutting local farmers out of their own markets, have added to inequality and poverty;
Amendment 226 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas while the focus on research and development for both product and process innovation is to be welcomed, more must be done to translate the results of research into farming practice, facilitated by EU-wide agricultural extension servicesresearch and innovation are necessary to establish a new European agricultural model based on agroecology;
Amendment 258 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the agriculture and food sector must be incentivised to continue togeared towards a smallholder farming model which contributes to the environmental care and the climate action objectives of the EU set out in international agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the UN SDGs;
Amendment 353 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the intention to simplify and modernise the CAP, but emphasises that the integrity of the singsimplification and modernisation are insufficient to maintain food production in the hands of small/medium-scale mfarket and a truly common policy must be the overriding priorities of reformmers, to ensure measures are taken to combat climate change and to establish a type of farming in which genuine commitments are made concerning the environment;
Amendment 361 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the intention to simplify and modernise the CAP, but emphasises that the integrity of the single market and a truly common policyprotection of domestic production and small-scale farmers must be the overriding priorities of reform;
Amendment 369 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. States that, as an imperative, food chains should be decentralised, local production and consumption supported and promoted, and the shortest possible supply chains and local markets fostered (including using innovative media such as the Internet), thus reducing the energy flows generated by food production and distribution;
Amendment 371 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Urges the Commission and the Council to place at the heart of the Common Agricultural Policy farm gate prices which cover production costs and wages;
Amendment 375 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Draws attention to the very important role played by small and medium-sized farms, a role which must be acknowledged and valued;
Amendment 442 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 480 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to ensure that financial and performance control and audit functions are performed to the same standard and under the same criteria across all Member States, irrespective of enhanced flexibility for Member States in rural development programme design and management, and with a view, in particular, to ensuring a timely disbursement of funds across Member States to all eligible famers;
Amendment 558 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the current CAP architecture can only deliver its objectives if sufficiently funded; calls, therefore, for the CAP budget to be maintainincreased in the next MFF at at least the current level in order to achieve the ambitions of a revised and efficient CAP beyond 2020; rejects, therefore, any attempt to renationalise the costs of the CAP and the attempt to replace investment support with financial instruments;
Amendment 563 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the current CAP architecture can only deliver its objectives if sufficiently funded; calls, therefore, for the CAP budget to be maintained in the next MFF at at least the current level in order to sufficient level to meet the needs that enable achievement of the ambitions of a revised and efficient CAP beyond 2020;
Amendment 608 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that more targeted support for family farms is necessary and can be achieved by introducing a compulsory higher support rate for small farmand medium-scale farms as social, environmental and economically- sustainable models; considers, moreover, that support for larger farms should be digressive, reflecting economies of scale, with the possibility for capping to be decided by the Member States;at EU level.
Amendment 635 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Points out that equality between women and men is a core objective of the EU and its Member States;
Amendment 642 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Believes it necessary to cap farm payments for large farms Europe-wide;
Amendment 644 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Calls on the Commission and Council to ensure that gender equality is mainstreamed into all EU programmes, actions and initiatives, and calls therefore for gender mainstreaming to be applied to the CAP and to rural cohesion policies;
Amendment 696 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls for that new system to take into account persons who are active and the equalisation of average incomes;
Amendment 705 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Advocates convergence of direct support (pillar I);
Amendment 751 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the need for a fair distribution of direct payments between Member Statesfarmers throughout the European Union, which must take into account socio-economic differences, and different production costs and the amounts received by Member States under Pillar II;
Amendment 757 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls, in the redistribution of direct payments to family farms, for payments to be split equally between both members of a couple;
Amendment 818 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that generational renewal is a challenge faced by famers in many Member Statwhich should be tackled through public policies and that each national strategy must therefore address this issue through a comprehensive approach, including top-ups in Pillar I and targeted measures in Pillar II, as well as by means of new financial instruments and national measures, in order to incentivise famers to pass on their farming operations;
Amendment 842 #
2018/2037(INI)
15a. Stresses that it is almost impossible for people from outside the world of farming to enter agriculture; in this context, consideration should be given to ways of supporting small and medium- sized farms and gradual integration in the sector, ensuring that first-pillar aid is provided, given that there are small and medium-sized farms that currently receive no aid;
Amendment 864 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Recalls that mechanisms should be put in place to ensure shared ownership, in order to safeguard the rights of women;
Amendment 872 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15c. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to put measures in place to ensure equitable access to land;
Amendment 899 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Calls on the Commission to urge the Member States to invest in rural areas to provide high-quality public facilities and services to meet people’s everyday needs: health care, education, social services, child care, care of the elderly and other dependent persons, transport services, postal services, internet access and cultural services, among others; believes that the rural development funds will not meet their objectives if the States do not implement decisive policies to ensure that rural areas have an acceptable level of public services;
Amendment 913 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Believes that it has been proven that rural areas need women and men to engage in small and medium-scale farming;
Amendment 999 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Stresses the need for payments under rural development to farmers in areas with natural constraints, difficult climatic conditions, steep slopes or limitations in terms of soil quality; calls for a simplification and improved targeting of the ANC plan after 2020;
Amendment 1004 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Rejects attempts of any kind to patent life, plants and animals, genetic material or essential biological processes, especially where native strains and species are concerned;
Amendment 1066 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Condemns the imposition of agricultural policies biased towards multinational companies, to the detriment of small-scale farmers;
Amendment 1072 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Urges the Commission and the Member States to safeguard and promote access to seeds and agricultural inputs for small-scale farmers and marginalised groups, and to promote and safeguard the exchange of seeds and their public ownership, along with sustainable traditional techniques that guarantee the human right to proper food and nutrition;
Amendment 1102 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. States that, for reasons of environmental, economic and social sustainability, international trade should be geared towards complementarity rather than competition between producers, products and countries;
Amendment 1142 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Insists on the critical need for the future CAP to support farmers more efficiently in order to cope with price and income volatility due to climate, health and market risks, by creating additional incentives for flexible risk management and stabilisation tools while ensuring broad access and developing measures to discourage output growth above European averages; those growing at a rate exceeding this level must repay sums of money or have their crisis-compensation aid cut; we reject the idea of using insurance to address market volatility;
Amendment 1153 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Is in favour of the creation of public insurance schemes to protect farmers against climate and environmental risks; rejects any form of income insurance, a model used in the US farm bill;
Amendment 1176 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Insists on the necessity of strengthening the position of producers within the food supply chain, in particular byby means of binding legislation guaranteeing them a fair share of the added value, covering production costs and ensuring payment for work, by fostering inter-sectoral cooperation, and strengthening transparency in the markets and crisis prevention;
Amendment 1191 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Is in favour of the introduction of mechanisms which guarantee that added value is divided fairly between production and distribution without penalising consumers;
Amendment 1192 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22b. Stresses the need for public mechanisms which regulate production and markets to be introduced, with the aim of guaranteeing fair prices for production, stabilising prices, ensuring that farmers have a stable and fair income, and guaranteeing the right to produce in each country;
Amendment 1199 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to allow and indeed encourage – particularly in the dairy sector – active crisis management instruments, such as voluntary sector agreements to manage supply in quantitative terms among producers, producers organisathe regulation of productions and processors, and to examine the possibility of extending such instruments to other sectors;
Amendment 1212 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Also calls for public policies to stabilise the market and limit production and growth, for inflows of investment in production and for an assessment of the socio-economic impact of these investments;
Amendment 1228 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Believes that whileConsiders that trade agreements are not beneficial to the EU agricultural sector oversmall and medium-sized farms or small, and necessary for strengthening the EU’s position on the global agricultural market, they also pose a number of challenges that require reinforced safeguard mechanisms to ensure a level playing field between farmers in the EU and in the rest of the worldmedium-sized enterprises. Trade agreements are having extremely harmful socio-economic effects on small and medium-sized agriculture in the EU and other parts of the world, where cheap European exports often destroy the agriculture that Europe supports, at least in principle, in addition to generating greenhouse gases and wasting a great deal of energy; safeguard mechanisms should take into account the costs of engaging in socially, environmentally and economically sustainable agriculture, both in the EU and in the countries to which it exports;
Amendment 1234 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Believes that while trade agreements are beneficial to the EU agricultural sector overall, and necessary for strengthening the EU’s position on the global agricultural market, they also pose a number of challenges thatthe CAP’s current intensive, export-oriented model and free trade agreements drag down social, labour and environmental rights and require reinforced safeguard mechanisms to ensure a level playing field between farmers in the EU and in the rest of the world;
Amendment 1259 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Amendment 1262 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Insists that international trade must not threaten the ability and the right of each country to produce its own food or its right to food sovereignty;
Amendment 1266 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25b. Takes the view that products traded internationally should meet the following criteria: – they must not be produced on the land necessary for producing the country’s food; – they must not be placed on the markets via any form of dumping (whether economic, social or environmental); – they must not ruin farmers from the country of destination or oust them from their markets;
Amendment 1286 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Insists that these standards must encompass: peasant farmers’ rights, labour rights, human rights and the production costs of sustainable agriculture;
Amendment 1291 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)
Paragraph 26 b (new)
26b. Stresses the importance of short local and regional supply chains, which are more environmentally sustainable – since they cause less pollution because they require less transport – and mean products are more easily traceable and fresher;
Amendment 1300 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 c (new)
Paragraph 26 c (new)
26c. Points out that producing locally supports the local food culture and local economies;
Amendment 33 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas it is imperative to break with the neoliberal principles that have been governing the policies imposed by the EU on the peoples and workers of the Member States, bearing in mind that it will only be possible to boost the economy and promote social progress by achieving sustainable economic growth based on decent earnings, work with rights, public control of the strategic sectors of the economy and universal and free access to health and education and through the promotion and socialisation of innovation;
Amendment 43 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the only purpose of the European Semester and its instruments is basically to ensure that Member States, irrespective of their constitutional provisions and the will of their people, formally establish austere neoliberal economic policies;
Amendment 57 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates the urgency of carrying on the fight against the inequalities that hamper economic growthinitiating a real fight against inequalities, precariousness and low wages, which have impaired economic growth and social progress, but that this is not possible within the framework of economic governance and the Lisbon Treaty; calls, therefore, for the European Semester to be revoked and an intergovernmental conference convened with the aim of establishing an institutional basis for the reversibility of the treaties, the immediate suspension of the Fiscal Compact and its repeal, and the repeal of the Lisbon Treaty;
Amendment 85 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. SupportsNotes the flexibility in the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact as proposed by the Commission in 2015; but considers that much more flexibility is required to boost, however great the level of flexibility, the Stability Pact will always remain a barrier to investment and growth in the EU; calls, and therefore, for a reform of the Stability and Growth Pact and the introduction of an aggregate euro area fiscal stance calls for it to be repealed;
Amendment 91 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that the crisis affecting the EU has resulted from the framework established by the Lisbon Treaty and the preceding treaties, and that the situation cannot be overcome within this framework; recalls the need to provide for the reversal of the treaties regulating integration, with a view to repealing the Lisbon Treaty and, in particular, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, the 'Six Pack' and the 'Two Pack'; calls for an intergovernmental conference to be convened by the European Council to address the reversibility and repeal of the treaties; stresses the urgent need for Member States to regain the ability to decide on the economic policies that best address their respective needs;
Amendment 97 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the EU institutions to initiate and uphold a process of renegotiation of public debt for the most heavily indebted countries (regarding amounts, terms and interest rates), considerably reducing and bringing back to sustainable levels their annual debt levels and charges, thereby ensuring a level of debt servicing that is compatible with economic and social development;
Amendment 101 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 110 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls for support programmes to be set up for Member States should they wish – having realised that their participation in EMU has become unsustainable and intolerable – to negotiate their exit from the euro, bearing in mind that programmes of this kind should provide for the compensation necessary to make good such social and economic damage as the countries in question might have suffered because they adopted the single currency;
Amendment 114 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Objects to the fact that, despite the conclusion of the economic adjustment programmes, Member States that were subject thereto are facing serious economic and social problems and are still affected by the consequences thereof and the policies imposed by the Troika; calls, therefore, for the adoption of an emergency economic support plan for those countries that were subjected to Troika intervention, providing funding and making the exceptions necessary to the functioning of the single market and common policies;
Amendment 120 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the Commission’s's hypocritical commitment to integrate the implementation of the SDGs withinto the European Semester;, regrets the fact that this dimension is missing from the 2018 country-specific recommendationarding these objectives as being at odds with the neoliberal policies and social regression being imposed by the principles of economic governance and by the Commission on the peoples and workers of the Member States;
Amendment 125 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses the need for the European institutions to respect the sovereignty of each Member State and the decision of citizens to pursue development, growth and social cohesion, ensuring that no country is penalised for stimulating its economy through either public investment plans or redistributive and progressive fiscal policies;
Amendment 135 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls the importance of free and universal access to quality public services endowed with sufficient resources;
Amendment 139 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls the importance ofPoints out that efficient regulation of the banking and financial sectors will not be sufficient to forestall any new crises and therefore calls for public and democratic control of these sectors;
Amendment 159 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that the fight against aggressive tax planning strategies is essentialand tax havens must be accompanied by measures to encourage progressive tax regimes, so as to ensure the fair treatment of taxpayers, safeguard public finances, preservomote social cohesion and fight inequalities;
Amendment 188 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 242 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Stresses that the European Pillar of Social Rights seeks to draw attention away from the neoliberal EU policies that were instrumental to the major economic crisis and have fuelled precarious employment conditions and inequality between women and men; declares that this pillar seeks to impose a low standard of social rights at EU level, eroding workers’ labour and social rights and seeking to further deepen the exploitation and impoverishment of citizens, while at the same time attempting to legitimise antisocial and undemocratic instruments such as the EU economic governance framework; asserts that progressive social policies can only be achieved by another Europe, one that breaks with the austerity framework and the policies of competitiveness, liberalisation and labour market deregulation that are undermining social and labour rights in the Member States and exerting downward pressure on earnings;
Amendment 277 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. RegretsObjects to the fact that the Commission makes part of the allocation of European funds conditional on the European Semester and economic governance; reiterates that cohesion policy should not be used as an instrument for the imposition of financial sanctions if a Member State decides to reject neoliberal policies;
Amendment 311 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 320 #
2018/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 13 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Highlights the need for a fairer distribution of CAP direct aid between countries and between large and small and medium-sized farmers;
Amendment 17 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses the need to reverse the long-term trend of falling farmers’ incomes seen in recent decades;
Amendment 24 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Highlights the need to differentiate between the political risk and climate and health risks, thus ensuring that the consequences of political measures, whether diplomatic or trade-related, are not borne by the CAP budget;
Amendment 33 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses the need to create a public supply regulation mechanism that will safeguard each Member State’s right to produce and guarantee its food sovereignty;
Amendment 36 #
2018/2008(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas this unacceptable practice involves well-known agri-food multinationals seeking to maximise their profit margins by exploiting the differences in purchasing power from one Member State to the next;
Amendment 77 #
2018/2008(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system should be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products, combined with the obligation to spell out the reasons for employing such strategies;
Amendment 2 #
2018/2005(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomeCondemns the Commission communication on a balanced and progressive trade policy to harness globalisation1; underlines the importan's trade policy based solely on free trade, which has led to a general race tof this communication for a European agriculture sector that is suffering from unbalanced competition on both the EU and foreign markets; _________________ 1 COM(2017)0492.e bottom in terms of social, labour and environmental standards;
Amendment 10 #
2018/2005(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission communication on a balanced and progressive trade policy to harness globalisation1; underlines the importance of this communication for a European agriculture sector that is suffering from unbalanced competition on both the EU and foreign markets; _________________ 1 COM(2017)0492. COM(2017)0492.
Amendment 25 #
2018/2005(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that harnessing globalisation should involve both strengthening global discipline to prevent unfair competition and distortions of trade in agriculture, and avoiding undue exposure of sensitive EU agricultural sectors to competition from imports of products that are not subject to similar standards, costs and constraints as regards, for example, environmental protection, labour law and public support to end social, economic and environmental dumping;
Amendment 51 #
2018/2005(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that while trade agreements could open up opportunities for the promotion of EU offensive interests with respect to processed and unprocessed food products for a small number of large farmers and undertakings, they also entail a significant risk for more sensitive EU agricultural sectors and small and medium-sized farms that are already crisis- hit or have been particularly exposed to price volatility;
Amendment 66 #
2018/2005(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that trade agreements lead to the closure of small and medium-sized farms and small businesses, resulting in the depopulation of rural areas;
Amendment 74 #
2018/2005(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses its serious concerns with respect to the possible conclusion of the ongoing free-trade negotiations with Mercosur involving major concessions in sectors such as beef, sugar and biofuels which could endanger the viability of local production in certain parts of the EU, particularly mountain areas whose economies are heavily dependent on beef farming;
Amendment 102 #
2018/2005(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance of strong coordination between Member States for the screening of foreign direct investment (FDI) on the EU market; draws attention to the need to avoid the excessive concentration and grabbing of farmland and forests in foreign (non-EU) hands; recalls, in this respect, its resolution of 27 April 2017 on the state of play of farmland concentration in the EU3; _________________ 3 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0197.
Amendment 120 #
2018/2005(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Urges the Commission and Member States to make the negotiations transparent, provide full information and promote public debate; takes the view that debates should also be promoted in state and autonomous community parliaments;
Amendment 124 #
2018/2005(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Stresses that transporting and marketing staple foods around the world generates greenhouse gases and wastes energy, and the export priority should therefore be abandoned and staple foods removed from trade negotiations;
Amendment 127 #
2018/2005(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Firmly rejects the use of agriculture as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations;
Amendment 25 #
2018/0256M(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Draws attention to the fact that some of the fruit and vegetables exported preferentially to the EU under the terms of the agreement in question (including tomatoes and melons) come from the territory of Western Sahara, and points out that very ambitious plans have been drawn up with a view to further developing such production and exports; recalls that the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a clear judgment excluding the territories of Western Sahara from the EU-Morocco trade agreement;
Amendment 33 #
2018/0256M(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Regrets the legal uncertainty that has arisen sinceStresses the importance and clarity of the Court of Justice judgment of 21 December 2016; is concerned that the Commission has been unable to provide reliable data on preferential imports of products from Western Sahara that may have been carried out since that date, in spite of the judgment in question; wonders what the cost has been to the EU budget of any preferences granted during the period concerned without a valid legal basis; in the absence of sufficient comparative information, is doubtful whether the Commission is able to assess the impact of the proposed new agreement properly and regrets that the European Commission has not so far engaged in a serious and constructive dialogue with the Polisario Front, which is recognised by the United Nations as the only legal representative of the Saharan people;
Amendment 44 #
2018/0256M(NLE)
7. Nevertheless welcomes the clarification that the new agreement provides, and hopes that it will be able henceforth to provide a clear, stable framework for the economic operators concerned, on both sides of the MediterraneanCalls for the rejection of this agreement in so far as it does not comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in any of its relevant points;
Amendment 104 #
2018/0254(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 0
Title 0
Amendment 38 #
2018/0231(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The internal market has to continuously adapt to a rapidly changing environment of digital revolution and globalisation. A new era of digital innovation continues to provide opportunities for businesses and individuals, creates new products and business models but equally constitutes a challenge to regulation and enforcement. On the other hand, all market players require greater transparency regarding cost structures, the manufacturing processes and the origin of raw materials.
Amendment 107 #
2018/0231(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) making the internal market more effective, facilitating the prevention and removal of obstacles, supporting the development, implementation and enforcement of the Union law in the areas of the internal market for goods and services, public procurement, market surveillance as well as in the areas of company law and contract and extra- contractual law, anti-money laundering, free movement of capital, financial servicesmeasure to prevent fraud and tax evasion and competition, including the development of governance tools;
Amendment 113 #
2018/0231(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) improving the competitiveness of enterprises with special emphasis on SMEs and achieving additionality through the provision of measures that provide various forms of support to SMEs, access to markets including the internationalisation of SMEs, favourable business environment for SMEs, the competitiveness of sectors, the modernisation of industry and the promotion of market transparency and entrepreneurship;
Amendment 114 #
2018/0231(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point c – point ii
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point c – point ii
(ii) support the development of high- quality international financial reporting and auditing standards, facilitate their integration into the Union law and promote the innovation and development of best practices and transparency in corporate reporting;
Amendment 133 #
2018/0231(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8.° – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 8.° – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) creation of the right conditions to empower all actors of the internal market, including businesses, citizens and consumers, civil society and public authorities through transparent information and awareness raising campaigns, best practice exchange, promotion of good practices, exchange and dissemination of expertise and knowledge and organization of trainings; information on cost structures, manufacturing processes and the origin of raw materials should be made public in order to improve the functioning of the market, while instilling greater confidence in market players and ensuring fairer distribution of the value chain;
Amendment 142 #
2018/0231(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11.º – paragraph 1
Article 11.º – paragraph 1
The evaluation committee(s) for actions implementing the specific objective(s) referred to in Article 3(2) may be composed fully or partially of external experts. Evaluation committees shall ensure a fair distribution of funds that benefits the weaker and more peripheral economies.
Amendment 147 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Member States’ economies urgently need a truly public investment plan geared towards social, economic and territorial cohesion and designed to increase aggregate demand and investment in public infrastructure that could subsequently and leverage and enhance private investment. Only a plan of this nature can be effective in reviving growth, fighting unemployment and combating social, economic and territorial inequalities.
Amendment 150 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
Amendment 155 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
Amendment 160 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The InvestEU Fund should contribute to improving the competitiveness of the Union, including in the field of 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 enterprisesnot only reducing disparities in economic development, but also achieving the objectives of social and territorial cohesion. To that end, it should supports 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 contributcontribute to industrial development, R & D, the primary sector and social progress, that promote the provision of quality public services in the education, health, culture, basic sanitation and waste management, transport, communications and energy sectors, that create non-precarious jobs with rights, finally, that are in line with the principle of additionality ing to meeting policy objectives of the Unionhe region(s) where they are implemented.
Amendment 174 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The InvestEU Fund should support investments in tangible and intangible assets to foster sustainable growth, investment and employment, and thereby contributing to improved well-being with rights helping to improve living conditions for peoples and workers and fairer income distribution in the Unionbetween the Member States. Intervention through the InvestEU Fund should complement European Union support delivered through grants.
Amendment 182 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The Union endorsed the objectives set out in the United Nations Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement in 2015 as well as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. To achieve the agreed objectives, including those embedded in the social and environmental policies of the Union, action pursuing sustainable development is to be stepped up significantly. Therefore, the principles of sustainable development should feature prominently in the design of the InvestEU Fund.
Amendment 203 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Low infrastructure investment rates in the Union during the financial crisis undermined the Union's ability to boost sustainable growth, competitiveness and convergence. Sizeable investments in the European infrastructure are fundamental to meet the Union's sustainability targets, including the 2030 energy and climate targets. Accordingly, support from the InvestEU Fund should target investments into transport, energy, including energy efficiency and renewable energy, environmental, climate action, maritime and digital infrastructure. To maximise the impact and the value added of Union financing support, it is appropriate to promote a streamlined investment process enabling visibility of the project pipeline and consistency across relevant Union programmes. Bearing in mind security threats, investment projects receiving Union support should take into account principles for the protection of citizens in public spaces. This should be complementary to the efforts made by other Union funds such as the European Regional Development Fund providing support for security components of investments in public spaces, transport, energy and other critical infrastructure.
Amendment 226 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) The InvestEU Fund should guarantee a fair and balanced distribution of investment between the various EU Member States and regions.
Amendment 355 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the competitiveness of the Union, including innoveconomic and territorial cohesion within and between Member States, including R & D, development of the primary and secondary sectors, and the robustness of local, regional, national, and digitisationinternational transport infrastructure;
Amendment 362 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the sustainability of the Union economy and its growthMember States’ economies and their growth, including respect for the environment and the promotion of biodiversity;
Amendment 364 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the social resilience and inclusiveness of the Unioncohesion, including the promotion of work with rights and universal access to high-quality public services;
Amendment 369 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 414 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) MSMEs policy window: access to and availability of finance for SMEs and, in duly justified cases, for small mid-capmicro, small, and medium-sized companies;
Amendment 454 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Each policy window referred to in Article 7(1) shall consist of two compartments addressing public investment needs, specific market failures, or sub-optimal investment situations as follows:
Amendment 462 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i a (new)
(ia) public investment needs in terms of health, education, culture, sanitation, transport and communication networks, energy, spatial planning, and protection of rural areas;
Amendment 466 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the Member State compartment shall addresscover public investment needs in terms of health, education, culture, sanitation, transport and communication networks, energy, spatial planning, and protection of rural areas, as well as addressing specific market failures or sub- optimal investment situations in one or several Member States to deliver objectives of the contributing Funds under shared management.
Amendment 523 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) genuinely contribute to economic, social, and territorial cohesion within and between Member States;
Amendment 530 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) local, regional, national or cross- border projects run solely by public bodies;
Amendment 648 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Each configuration of the Investment Committee shall be composed of six remunerated external experts and a representative from each Member State. The experts shall be selected in accordance with [Article 237] of the [Financial Regulation] and be appointed by the Commission for a fixed term of up to four years. Their term shall be renewable but shall not exceed seven years in total. The Commission may decide to renew the term of office of an incumbent member of the Investment Committee without availing itself of the procedure laid down in this paragraph.
Amendment 649 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 4
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, of each country’s specific needs with regard to socio-economic development and that it is gender-balanced as a whole.
Amendment 656 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
When participating in the activities of the Investment Committee, its membexperts 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, or any other public or private body.
Amendment 667 #
2018/0229(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The Investment Committee shall ensure that distribution of investment between countries and regions is fair and balanced, thus guaranteeing that economic, social and territorial cohesion is promoted.
Amendment 116 #
2018/0218(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) Nevertheless, growing price volatility and falling farmer incomes, which have been exacerbated by the CAP’s increasing focus on markets, are giving rise to the need to create new public instruments for regulating supply that ensure fair distribution of production between countries and farmers.
Amendment 122 #
2018/0218(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In view of the decrease in the actual area planted with vines in several Member States in the years 2014-2017, and in view of the potential loss in production ensuing, wthen establishing the area for new planting authorisations referred to in Article 63(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, Member States should be able to choose between the existing basis and a percentage of the total area actually planted with vines in their territory on 31 July 2015 increased by an area corresponding to the planting rights under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 available for conversion into authorisations in the Member State concerned on 1 January 2016 liberalisation of planting rights that is under way should be ended and replaced with a supply-regulation model that ensures production in all Member States, thereby ensuring diversity and quality in the European sector.
Amendment 133 #
2018/0218(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Rules for classifying wine grape varieties by Member States should be modified to include the wine grape varieties Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and, Herbemont and Saibel, previously excluded. To ensure that wine production in the Union develops a higher resistance to diseases and that it uses vine varieties better adapted to changing climatic conditions, provision should be made allowing Vitis Labrusca varieties and varieties stemming from crosses between Vitis vinifera, Vitis Labrusca and other species of the genus Vitis to be planted for wine production in the Union.
Amendment 144 #
2018/0218(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 305 #
2018/0218(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Amendment 646 #
2018/0218(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 32
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 32
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
Annex VII – part II – points 18 and 19
Annex VII – part II – points 18 and 19
Amendment 675 #
2018/0218(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 33
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 33
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
Annex VIII – Part I – Section E
Annex VIII – Part I – Section E
Amendment 766 #
2018/0218(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Regulation (EU) No 228/2013
Article 30 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
Article 30 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
— Azores and Madeira - EUR 102 086 210 000
Amendment 81 #
2018/0217(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'The Future of Food and Farming' of 29 November 2017 concludes that the Common Agricultural Policy (hereinafter ‘CAP’) should continue to step up its response to future challenges and opportunities, by boosting employment, growth and investment, fighting and adapting to climate change and bring, adapting them and transferring research and innovation out offrom the laboratories and onto fields and markets. The CAP should furthermore address citizens' concerns regarding sustainable agriculture production. There must be a fairer distribution of aid between production, producers, regions and countries, benefiting small and medium-sized farmers, with a coupling of aid to production.
Amendment 93 #
2018/0217(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The CAP's compliance-driven delivery model should be adjusted to ensure a greater focus on results and performance. Accordingly the Union should set the basic policy objectives, types of intervention and basic Union requirements while greater responsibility and accountability for meeting those objectives should be borne by the Member States. As a consequence, there is a need to ensure greater subsidiarity in order to take better account of the local conditions and needs. Accordingly, under the new delivery model, Member States should be responsible for tailoring their CAP interventions in line with basic Union requirements in order to maximize their contribution to Union CAP objectives and to establish and design the compliance and control framework for beneficiaries.
Amendment 144 #
2018/0217(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) A new form of payment suspension should be introduced for situations of abnormally low outputs. Where the outputs reported are at an abnormally low level in comparison with the declared expenditure, and where Member States cannot provide good and comprehensible reasons for this situation, the Commission should be empowered to, in addition to reducing the expenditure for the financial year N-+1 suspend future expenditure related to the intervention for which the output was abnormally low. Such suspensions should be subject to confirmation in the annual performance clearance decision. This shall also apply in the event of failure to comply with the 'favourable conditions' for the implementation of the funds set out in Annex III and Annex IV and the favourable horizontal principles laid down in Article 11(1) of the regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down financial rules for these funds, the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Border and Visa Management Facility, as laid down in Article 123.
Amendment 149 #
2018/0217(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
Amendment 171 #
2018/0217(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 55
Recital 55
(55) Conditionality is an important element of the CAP, in particular with regard to its environmental and climate elements but also concerning public health and animal related issues, as well as workers' rights. This implies that controls should be carried out and, where necessary, penalties should be applied to ensure the effectiveness of the conditionality system. To have a level playing field between beneficiaries in different Member States, certain general rules on conditionality controls and penalties should be introduced at Union level.
Amendment 172 #
2018/0217(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) To ensure that conditionality is enforced by Member States in a harmonised way, it is necessary to provide for a minimum control rate at Union level, while the organisation of competent control bodies and controls should be at the discretion of Member States. The minimum percentage threshold shall be at least 10% of the files controlled on site and of all files under administrative control, including by means of remote sensing technologies.
Amendment 174 #
2018/0217(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) While Member States should be allowed to set out the details on penalties, those penalties should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive and should be without prejudice to other penalties laid down under Union or national law. To ensure an effective and coherent approach by Member States, it is necessary to provide for a minimum penalty rate at Union level for non-compliance occurring for the first time due to negligence, while reoccurrence should lead to a higher percentage and intentionality may result in the total exclusion from the payment. This exclusion shall be immediate for beneficiaries who have been found guilty of crimes against the environment, animal welfare or workers' rights. To ensure proportionality of the penalties, where the non-compliance is of a minor nature and occurs for the first time, Member States should be allowed to introduce an early warning system.
Amendment 503 #
2018/0217(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39.º
Article 39.º
Amendment 546 #
2018/0217(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44.º – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 44.º – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The provisdissemination of information financed pursuant to point (e) of Article 7 shall aim, in particular, to help explain, implement and develop the CAP and to raise public awareness of its content and objectives, as well as to reinstate consumer confidence following crises through. It shall, by means of information campaigns, to inform farmers and other parties active in rural areas and tooperators in the rural economy, promote the European model of agriculture, as well as to help citizens understand itraise awareness among stakeholders and the general public about current challenges in agriculture and food in the area of the agro-ecological transition towards sustainable food systems and help citizens understand it. Consistent, objective and comprehensive information must be provided inside and outside the Union, by devising a communication plan that will encompass information provided by the public and entail public participation.
Amendment 631 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 699 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Union legislation should provide that Member States should set requirements in terms of minimum area for receiving decoupled payments in their CAP Strategic Plan, without excluding small- scale farms. Such requirements should relate to the need to avoid the excessive administrative burden caused by managing numerous payments of small amounts and to that of ensuring an effective contribution of the support to the objectives of the CAP to which the decoupled direct payments contribute. In order to guarantee a minimum level of agricultural income support for all genuine farmers, as well as to comply with the Treaty objective in ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, an annual area- based decoupled payment should be established as the type of intervention ‘basic income support for sustainability’. In order to enhance better targeting of this support, the payment amounts can be differentiated, by groups of territories, based on socio-economic and/or agronomic conditions. In view of avoiding disruptive effects for farmers' income, Member States may choose to implement the basic income support for sustainability based on payment entitlements. In this case, the value of payment entitlements before any further convergence should be proportional to their value as established under the basic payment schemes pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, taking also into account the payments for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment. Member States should also achieve further convergence in order to continue to move progressively away from historical values.
Amendment 727 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) In view of the acknowledged need to promote a more balanced distribution of support towards small and/or medium- sized farmers in a visible and measurable way, a specific decoupled payment per hectare, the complementary redistributive income support for sustainability, should be established at Union level. To allow for a better targeting of this complementary support and in view of acknowledging the differences in farm structures across the Union, Member States should have the possibility to provide different amounts of complementary support to different ranges of hectares, starting from the first hectare (without a minimum threshold) and not exceeding the national average area.
Amendment 836 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) The objectives of the CAP should also be pursued through support for investments, productive as well as non- productive, on farm as well as off-farm. Such investments may concern, inter alia, infrastructures related to the development, modernisation or adaptation to climate change of agriculture and forestry, including access to farm and forest land, land consolidation and improvement, agro- forestry practices and the supply and saving of energy and water. In order to better ensure the consistency of the CAP Strategic Plans with Union objectives, as well as a level playing field between Member States, a negative list of investment topics is included in this Regulationthese investments must be capped so as to maximise the number of beneficiaries.
Amendment 874 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) In the light of the need to ensure appropriate risk management tools, public insurance premia and mutual funds should be maintained, financed by the EAFRD. The category of mutual funds encompasses both those linked to production losses, andsystems should be set up that truly meet the needs of the sector and not for the gbeneral and sector-specific income stabilisation tools, linked to income lossesfit of the financial sector.
Amendment 1144 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4.º – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4.º – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) 'agricultural activity' shall be defined in a way that it includes both the production of agricultural products listed in Annex I to the TFEU, including cotton and short rotation coppice, and maintenance of the agricultural area in a state which makes it suitable for grazing or cultivation, without preparatory action going beyond usual agricultural methods and machineries;, provided that this forms part of the farm's crop rotation.
Amendment 1183 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4.º – paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
Article 4.º – paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
(iii) 'permanent grassland and permanent pasture' (together referred to as 'permanent grassland') shall be land not included in the crop rotation of the holding for five years or more and used for animal grazing, used to grow grasses or other herbaceous forage naturally (self-seeded) or through cultivation (sown). It may include other species such as shrubs and/or trees which can be grazed or produce animal feed; and/or tree and bush species.
Amendment 1225 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4.º – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 4.º – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) 'genuine farmers' shall be defined in a way to ensure that no support is granted to those whose agricultural activity forms only an insignificant part of their overall economic activities or whose principal business activity is not agricultural, while not precluding from support pluri-active farmers. The definition shall allow to determine which farmers are not considered genuine farmers, based on conditions such as income tests, labour inputs on the farm, company object and/or inclusion in registers. The definition must, in any event, preserve the family farming model of the European Union of an individual or group nature, irrespective of its size, and may take into account, if necessary, the special features of the regions defined in Article 349 TFEU.
Amendment 1362 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6.º – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6.º – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 1820 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14.º – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 14.º – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the coupled incomeproduction-related support;
Amendment 1846 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15.º – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 15.º – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall reduce by 100% the amount of direct payments to be granted to a farmer pursuant to this Chapter for a given calendar yearwhere that amount exceedings EUR 60 000 as follows:.
Amendment 1860 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15.º – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 15.º – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 1875 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15.º – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 15.º – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 1890 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15.º – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 15.º – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 1906 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15.º – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 15.º – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 1939 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15.º – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 15.º – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) 50% of the salaries linked to an agricultural activity declared by the farmer, including taxes and social contributions related to employment up to a limit decided by the Member State; and
Amendment 1968 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15.º – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 15.º – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
To calculate the amounts referred to in points a) and b), Member States shall use the actual salary costs or the average standard salaries linked to an agricultural activity at national or regional level multiplied by the number of annual work units declared by the farmer concerned.
Amendment 2168 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25.º – paragraph 1
Article 25.º – paragraph 1
Member States may grant payshall introduce simplified arrangements tofor small farmers as defined by Member States by way of a round sum, replacing direct payments under this Section and Section 3 of this Chapter, of which the amounts must not be less than EUR 2 500 per recipient. Member States shall design the corresponding intervention in the CAP Strategic Plan as optional for the farmers.
Amendment 2170 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25.º – paragraph 1 – point a (new)
Article 25.º – paragraph 1 – point a (new)
(a) Farmers wishing to participate in the simplified scheme shall submit an application no later than a date to be set by the Member State, without prejudice to the Member States being able to automatically include specific farmers and offering them the possibility of withdrawing from it by a specific deadline.
Amendment 2173 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25.º – paragraph 1 – point b (new)
Article 25.º – paragraph 1 – point b (new)
(b) Member States may exempt farmers participating under this Article from the cross-compliance checks laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy.
Amendment 2174 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25.º – paragraph 1 – point c (new)
Article 25.º – paragraph 1 – point c (new)
(c) Producers selected to receive support pursuant to Article 69(2)(e) (new) shall cease to be entitled to participate in the simplified scheme.
Amendment 2208 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26.º – paragraph 2
Article 26.º – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure redistribution of support from bigger to smaller or medium-sized farmfarms operating on a larger economic scale to smaller ones by providing for a redistributive income support in the form of an annual decoupled payment per eligible hectare to farmers who are entitled to a payment under the basic income support referred to in Article 17.
Amendment 2220 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26.º – paragraph 3
Article 26.º – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall establish a redistributive payment equivalent to an amount per hectare or different amounts for different ranges of hectares, as well as the maximum number of hectares per farmer for which the redistributive income support shall be paid.
Amendment 2223 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26.º – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 26.º – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall establish non- discriminatory criteria for the allocation of redistributive support based on the support provided for in Article 6(1)(a). Member States shall also set a financial ceiling above which farms shall not be entitled to the redistributive payment.
Amendment 2231 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26.º – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 26.º – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. For a legal person, or a group of natural or legal persons, Member States may apply the maximum number of hectares referred to in the third paragraph of this Article at the level of the members of these legal persons or groups where national law provides for the individual members to assume rights and obligations comparable to those of individual farmers who have the status of head of holding, in particular as regards their economic, social and tax status, provided that they have contributed to strengthening the agricultural structures of the legal persons or groups concerned.
Amendment 2236 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26.º – paragraph 5 b (new)
Article 26.º – paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Member States shall ensure that no advantage provided for under this Chapter is granted to farmers in respect of whom it is established that they divided their holding with the sole purpose of benefiting from the redistributive payment. This shall also apply to farmers whose holdings result from that division.
Amendment 2308 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28.º – paragraph 2
Article 28.º – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall support under this type of intervention genuine farmers who make commitments to observe, on eligible hectares, agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment. These measures shall aim to preserve and promote the necessary practical changes that make a positive contribution to the environment and climate.
Amendment 2336 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28.º – paragraph 3
Article 28.º – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall establish the list of agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment. The list may consist of measures of a type other than those covered under Article 65, or of measures of the same type but with a different level of requirement.
Amendment 2422 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28.º – paragraph 5 – point d
Article 28.º – paragraph 5 – point d
(d) are complementary to or different from commitments in respect of which payments are granted under Article 65.
Amendment 2439 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28.º – paragraph 6 – introductory part
Article 28.º – paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Support for eco-schemes shall take the form of an annual payment per eligible hectare or per holding and it shall be granted as either:
Amendment 2463 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28.º – paragraph 8
Article 28.º – paragraph 8
Amendment 2470 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28.º – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 28.º – paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Regardless of the added value of the adopted practices, the supported production model must be globally sustainable in environmental and climatic terms.
Amendment 2474 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 3 – chapter 2 – section 3 – subsection 1 – title
Title 3 – chapter 2 – section 3 – subsection 1 – title
Amendment 2494 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29.º – paragraph 3
Article 29.º – paragraph 3
3. Coupled incomeProduction-related support shall take the form of an annual payment per hectare or animal, subject to an upper limit to ensure fairer distribution thereof.
Amendment 2512 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1
Article 30 – paragraph 1
Coupled income support may only be granted to the following sectors and productions or specific types of farming therein where these are important for economic, social or environmental reasons: cereals, oilseeds, protein crops, grain legumes, flax, hemp, rice, nuts, starch potato, milk and milk products, seeds, sheepmeat and goatmeat, beef and veal, olive oilgroves, silkworms, dried fodder, hops, sugar beet, cane and chicory, and fruit and vegetables, short rotation coppice and other non-food crops, excluding trees, used for the production of products that have the potential to substitute fossil materials.
Amendment 2542 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2981 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) tangible and intangible investments in processing facilities and winery infrastructure, as well as marketing structures and tools; where Union legislation imposes new requirements on vineyards, support could be granted for the investments they make to fulfil those requirements for a maximum of 12 months from the date on which they become compulsory for that farm;
Amendment 3030 #
2018/0216(COD)
Amendment 3032 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3
Article 53 – paragraph 3
3. The Union financial assistance for green harvesting referred to in point (c) ofFor enterprises not covered by Article 52(1) shall not exceed 50% of the sum of the direct costs of the destruction or removal of grape bunches and the loss of revenue related to such destruction or removalof Title I of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC, with fewer than 750 employees, or with turnover of less than EUR 200 million, the maximum limits referred to in the first subparagraph shall be halved.
Amendment 3043 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 53 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
The Union financial assistancecontribution at its maximum rate, referred to in the first subparagraph shall apply only to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Recommendation 2003/361/EC; however, it may, apply to all enterprises in the outermost regions referred to in Article 349 TFEU and the smaller Aegean islands as defined in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 229/2013.
Amendment 3047 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 6
Article 53 – paragraph 6
6. The Union financial assistance for information actions and promotion referred to in points (g) and (h) of Article 52(1) shall not exceed 50% of eligible expenditure. Should the Member States set a minimum amount for expenditures eligible for access to the assistance, that amount shall not exceed EUR 5 000.
Amendment 3669 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70
Article 70
Amendment 3929 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 85 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 85 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) 7085% of the eligible public expenditure in the outermost regions and in the smaller Aegean islands within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 229/2013;
Amendment 3937 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 85 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 85 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) 7085% of the eligible public expenditure in the less developed regions;
Amendment 4089 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 86.º – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Article 86.º – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
The indicative financial allocations for the coupled incomeproduction support interventions referred to in Subsection 1 of Section 2 of Chapter II of Title III, shall be limited to a maximum of 120% of the amounts set out in Annex VII.
Amendment 4141 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 86.º – paragraph 7 a (new)
Article 86.º – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. At least 30% of the amounts referred to in Annex VII should be allocated to redistributive aid.
Amendment 4380 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 99.º – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 99.º – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 4707 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 116 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 116 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) assess the impact, effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and Union added value of the CAPMember State;
Amendment 4775 #
2018/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 121 – paragraph 9
Article 121 – paragraph 9
Amendment 53 #
2018/0213(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Title 1
Amendment 39 #
Amendment 21 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order to identify the type of activities which can be supported by the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, specific policy objectives adapted to different situations for providing support from those funds should be laid down to ensure that they contribute to one or more of common policy objectives set out in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/xxx [new CPR] increasing added value in each region and to creating jobs. These objectives should in no way detract from the crucial overall objective of reducing disparities between levels of development in the EU’s various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions.
Amendment 27 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) In order to support the efforts of Member States and regions in facing new challenges and ensuring a high level of security for their citizens as well as the prevention of radicalisationup to rising regional and social disparities, while relying on the synergies and complementarities with other Union policies, investments under the ERDF should contribute to security in areas where there is a need to ensure safe and secure public spaces and critical infrastructure, such as transport and energyprimarily to boosting productive capacity and growth in these regions in a wide variety of fields, particularly transport and energy, with a view to integrated regional development.
Amendment 28 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) Universal, high-quality public services are vital to address regional and social disparities, promote social cohesion and regional development and encourage people and businesses to stay in their local area, especially the least developed regions.
Amendment 29 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 b (new)
Recital 9 b (new)
(9b) ERDF and Cohesion Fund investments should be channelled into sustainable and accessible national, regional and local mobility, especially in regions lacking the resources for economic regeneration and growth and regions with low population density where serious lack of mobility constitutes a structural barrier to growth.
Amendment 37 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The ERDF should help to promote true convergence, to redress the main regional imbalances in the Union and to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions including those facing challenges due to the decarbonisation commitments, taking into account the legitimate choices, priorities and needs of each Member State, depending on their particular situation. ERDF support under the Investment for jobs and growth goal should therefore be concentrated on key Unionalso take into account collectively defined priorities, in line with policy objectives laid down in Regulation (EU) 2018/xxx [new CPR]. Therefore, support from the ERDF should be concentratedtake particular account onf the policy objectives of 'a smarter Europe by promoting innovative and smartmore cohesive and solidarity-based Europe helping reduce economic, social and territorial asymmetries and achieve a smart and innovative economic transformation' and 'a greener, low-carbon Europe by promoting clean and fair energy transition, the reduction of the impact of industry on the environment, green and blue investment, the circular economy, climate adaptationombating and adapting to climate change and risk prevention and management'. That thematic concentration should be attained at national level while allowing for flexibility at the level of individual programmes and between the three groups of Member States formed according to respective gross national income. In addition, the methodology to classify Member States should be set out in detail taking into account the specific situation of the outermost regions.
Amendment 40 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Trans-European transport networks projects in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 shall continue to be financed from the Cohesion Fund via both shared management and the direct implementation mode under the Connecting Europe Facility ('CEF'). In the latter case, this will only be possible if the overall Cohesion Fund allocation does not fall below the amount earmarked for 2014-2020.
Amendment 45 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part
(a) 'a smarter Europe bymore cohesive and solidarity- based Europe by helping reduce economic, social and territorial asymmetries and promoting innovative and smart economic transformation' ('PO 1') by:
Amendment 47 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii
(ii) reaping the benefits of digitisation for citizens, companies, public services and governments;
Amendment 48 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii a (new)
(iia) encouraging high-quality, modernised and universal public services
Amendment 51 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv
(iv) developing skills and infrastructures for smart specialisation, industrial transitionthe re-establishment of industries in regions affected by waning industrial capacity and entrepreneurship;
Amendment 52 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv a (new)
(iva) promoting the revitalisation and economic regeneration of regions suffering from depopulation and areas with natural handicaps;
Amendment 75 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
(d) 'a more social Europe implementing the European Pillar, which promotes social progress and guarantees a wide range of Ssocial Rrights for all citizens' ('PO 4') by:
Amendment 85 #
2018/0197(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii a (new)
(iia) shoring up public policies and initiatives to ensure the universal right to housing by expanding and modernising the stock of public, sustainable and energy-efficient dwellings,
Amendment 1 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Horizontal principles as set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union ('TEU') and in Article 10 of the TFEU, including the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the TEU, should be respected in the implementation of the Funds, taking into account the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Member States should also respect the obligations of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and ensure accessibility in line with its aArticle 9 and in accordance with the Union law harmonising accessibility requirements for products and services. Member States and the Commission should aim at eliminating inequalities and at promoting equality between men and women and integrating the gender perspective, as well as at combating discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The Funds should not support actions that contribute to any form of segregation. The objectives of the Funds should be pursued in the framework of sustainable development and the Union's promotion of the aim of preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment as set out in Article 11 and Article 191(1) of the TFEU, taking into account the polluter pays principle. In order to protect the integrity of the internal market, operations benefitting undertakings shall comply with Union State aid rules as set out in Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU.
Amendment 5 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 7 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
Amendment 10 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 11 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The Member State should carry out a mid-term review of each programme supported by the ERDF, the ESF+ and the Cohesion Fund. That review should provide a fully-fledged adjustment of programmes based on programme performance, while also providing an opportunity to take account of new challenges and relevant CSRs issued in 2024the changes in the socio-economic situation in individual countries. In parallel, in 2024 the Commission should, together with the technical adjustment for the year 2025, review all Member States' total allocations under the Investment for jobs and growth goal of cohesion policy for the years 2025, 2026 and 2027, applying the allocation method set out in the relevant basic act. That review together with the outcome of the mid-term review should result in programme amendments modifying the financial allocations for the years 2025, 2026 and 2027.
Amendment 13 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 17 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) Member States should also prevent, detect and deal effectively with any irregularities including fraud committed by beneficiaries. Moreover, in accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/201318, and Regulations (Euratom, EC) No 2988/9519 and No 2185/9620, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) may carry out administrative investigations, including on-the-spot checks and inspections, with a view to establishing whether there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/193921, the European Public Prosecutor's Office may investigate and prosecute fraud and other criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union as provided for in Directive (EU) 2017/137122 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law. Member States should take the necessary measures so that any person or entity receiving Union funds fully cooperates in the protection of the Union’s financial interests, grants the necessary rights and access to the Commission, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) and the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and ensures that any third parties involved in the implementation of Union funds grant equivalent rights. Member States should report to the Commission on detected irregularities including fraud, and on their follow-up as well as on the follow-up of OLAF investigations. _________________ 18 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1). 19 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1). 20 Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2). 21 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1). 22 Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29).
Amendment 18 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) Trans-European transport networks projects in accordance with Regulation (EU) No [new CEF Regulation]25 will continue to be financed from the Cohesion Fund via both shared management and the direct implementation mode under the Connecting Europe Facility ('CEF'). Building on the successful approach of the 2014-2020 programming period, EUR 10 000 000 000 of the Cohesion Fund should be transferred to the CEF for this purpose, except where this entails a decrease in the Cohesion Fund budget within the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework compared with the previous framework. _________________ 25 Regulation (EU) […] of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] on [CEF] (OJ L […], […], p. […])]
Amendment 20 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2.º – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 2.º – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 23 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4.º – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4.º – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a smarter Europe by promoting innovative and smart economic transformationUnion to promote real convergence and even out the inequalities in socio-economic development levels within and between Member States;
Amendment 30 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4.º – paragraph 4
Article 4.º – paragraph 4
Amendment 32 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6.º – paragraph 2
Article 6.º – paragraph 2
2. In accordance with the multi-level governance principle, the Member State shall involve those partners in the preparation of Partnership Agreements and throughout the preparation and implementation of programmes, including through participation in monitoring committees in accordance with Article 34. If the programmes in question are cross- border programmes, the Member States involved shall include their partners from all participating Member States.
Amendment 35 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9.º – paragraph 1
Article 9.º – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall assess the Partnership Agreement and its compliance with this Regulation and with the Fund- specific rules. In its assessment, the Commission shall, in particular, take into account relevant country-specific recommendations.
Amendment 36 #
Amendment 39 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14.º – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 14.º – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 42 #
Amendment 46 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 49 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
Amendment 77 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17.º – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a – point iii
Article 17.º – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a – point iii
Amendment 80 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18.º – paragraph 1
Article 18.º – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall assess the programme and its compliance with this Regulation and with the Fund-specific Regulations, as well as its consistency with the Partnership Agreement. In its assessment, the Commission shall, in particular, take into account relevant country-specific recommendations.
Amendment 81 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) Investment for jobs and growth in Member States and regions, to be supported by the ERDF, the ESF+ and the Cohesion Fund; andthe ERDF should help bring about true convergence and reduce disparities between the levels of development between the various regions.
Amendment 86 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35.º – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 35.º – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 89 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52.º – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 52.º – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Financial instruments shall not replace non-repayable aid and may be used only to complement it.
Amendment 91 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60.º – paragraph 1
Article 60.º – paragraph 1
1. Expenditure directly or indirectly supporting relocation as defined in Article 2(26) shall not be eligible for a contribution from the Funds. The managing authority shall ensure that: (a) no contribution is granted to a beneficiary which has carried out a relocation in the five years preceding the application for a contribution; and (b) the beneficiary undertakes to refrain from relocating within five years after it has received a contribution from the Funds. Where a beneficiary carries out a relocation within five years after receiving a contribution, the managing authority shall ensure that the contribution is paid back in full.
Amendment 92 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60.º – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 60.º – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The managing authority shall ensure that where this Article has been infringed, the contribution which the beneficiary has received is paid back in full.
Amendment 98 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79
Article 79
Adjustment during the programming period 1. Where the Commission or the audit authority conclude, based on the audits carried out and the annual control report, that the conditions set out in Article 78 are no longer fulfilled, the Commission shall request the audit authority to carry out additional audit work in accordance with Article 63(3) and take remedial actions. 2. Where the subsequent annual control report confirms that the conditions continue not to be fulfilled, thus limiting the assurance provided to the Commission on the effective functioning of the management and control systems and of the legality and regularity of expenditure, the Commission shall request the audit authority to carry out system audits. 3. The Commission may, after having given to the Member State the opportunity to present its observations, inform the Member State that the enhanced proportionate arrangements set out in Article 77 shall no longer be applied.rticle 79 deleted
Amendment 99 #
Amendment 100 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Amendment 101 #
2018/0196(COD)
Amendment 102 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Amendment 103 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Amendment 104 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5
Article 15 – paragraph 5
Amendment 105 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 6
Article 15 – paragraph 6
Amendment 106 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 7
Article 15 – paragraph 7
Amendment 107 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 8
Article 15 – paragraph 8
Amendment 108 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 9
Article 15 – paragraph 9
Amendment 109 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 10
Article 15 – paragraph 10
Amendment 110 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 11
Article 15 – paragraph 11
Amendment 111 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 12
Article 15 – paragraph 12
Amendment 112 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15.º – paragraph 13
Article 15.º – paragraph 13
Amendment 116 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 91.º – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 91.º – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 118 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 91.º – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 91.º – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 125 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 106.º – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 106.º – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) 7085 % for the less developed regions;
Amendment 128 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 106.º – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 106.º – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) 575 % for the transition regions;
Amendment 136 #
2018/0196(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 106.º – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 106.º – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
The co-financing rate for the Cohesion Fund at the level of each priority shall not be higher than 7085 %.
Amendment 143 #
2018/0178(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Offering financial products which pursue environmentally sustainable objectives is an effective way of channelling private investments into sustainable activities. National requirements for marketing as sustainable investments financial products and corporate bonds, in particular requirements set out to allow the relevant market actors to use a national label, aim to enhance investor confidence, to create visibility and to address concerns about “greenwashing”. Greenwashing refers to the practice of gaining an unfair competitive advantage by marketing a financial product as environment- friendly, when in fact it does not meet basic environmental standards. Currently a few Member States have in place labelling schemes. They build on different taxonomies classifying environmentally sustainable economic activities. Given the political commitments under the Paris Agreement and at Union level, it The results announced at the recent 24th UN climate conference in Poland (COP24) reflect the failure of all market instruments implemented to date to resolve this clikely that more and more Member States will set up labelling schemes or other requirements on market actors in respect of financial products or corporate bonds marketed as environmentally sustainable. In doing so, Member States would be using their own national taxonomies for the purposes of determining which investments qualify as sustainable. If such national requirements are based on different criteria as to which economic activities qualify as environmentally sustainable, investors will be discouraged from investing across borders, due to difficulties in comparing the different investment opportmate change emergency. It is accordingly necessary to break with all environmental policy guidelines imposed unities. In addition, economic operators wishing to attract investment from across the Union would have to meet different criteria in the various Member States in order for their activities to qualify as environmentally sustainable for the purposes of the different labels. The absence of uniform criteria will thus increase costs and create a significant disincentive for economic operators, amounting to an impediment to access cross-border capital markets for sustainable investments. The barriers to access to cross-border capital markets for the purposes of raising funds for sustainable projects are expected to grow further. The criteria for determining whether an economic activity is environmentally sustainable should therefore be harmonised at Union level, in order to remove obstacles to the functioning of the internal market and prevent their future emergence. With such harmonisation economic operators will find it easier to raise funding for their green activities across borders, as their economic activities can be compared against uniform criteria in order to be selected as underlying assets for environmentally sustainable investments. It will therefore facilitate attracting investment across borders within the Unionl now. A coherent regulatory approach based on the need to ensure public ownership of strategic sectors such as energy, banking and transport must be implemented as a matter of urgency. Unless these conditions are met, CO2 emissions will clearly never diminish sufficiently for achievement of the carbon neutrality indispensable to the survival of our planet.
Amendment 51 #
2018/0172(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) With regard to single-use plastic products for which there are no readily available suitable and more sustainable alternatives, Member States should, in line with the polluter pays principle, also introduce extended producer responsibility schemes to cover the costs of waste management and clean-up of litter as well as the costs of awareness- raising measures to prevent and reduce such littermplement adapted regulations in order to reduce their use and encourage the production of substitutes.
Amendment 56 #
2018/0172(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The large portion of plastic stemming from abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear containing plastic in marine litter indicates that the existing legal requirements46 do not provide sufficient incentives to return such fishing gear to shore for collection and treatment. The indirect fee system envisaged under Union law on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships takes away the incentive for ships to discharge their waste at sea, and ensures a right of delivery. That system should, however, be supplemented by further financial incentives for fishermen to bring their fishing gear waste on shore to avoid any potential increase in the indirect waste fee to be paid. As plastic components of fishing gear have a high recycling potential, Member States should, in line with the polluter pays principle, introduce extended producer responsibility for fishing gear containing plastic to facilitate separate collection of wast create reduction mechanisms in order to facilitate separate collection of fishing waste gear, to support small-scale fishing gear and to finance sound waste management of such fishing gear, in particular recycling. _________________ 46 Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Directive 2000/59/EC and Directive 2008/98/EC.
Amendment 57 #
2018/0172(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) While all marine litter containing plastic poses risks to the environment and human health and should be tackled, proportionality considerations should also be taken into account. Therefore, the fishers themselves and artisanal makers of fishing gear containing plastic should not be covered by the extended producer responsibility and should not be penalised indirectly by the impacts of this Directive.
Amendment 68 #
2018/0172(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to prevent and to reduce the impact of certain single-use plastic products and fishing gear containing plastic on the environment, to promote the transition to a circular economy, including the fostering of innovative business models, products and materials, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,
Amendment 71 #
2018/0172(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
The objective of this Directive is to prevent and reduce the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, in particular the aquatic environment, and on human health as well as to promote the transition to a circular economy with innovative business models, products and materials, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market.
Amendment 72 #
2018/0172(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 74 #
2018/0172(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The large portion of plastic stemming from abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear containing plastic in marine litter indicates that the existing legal requirements46 do not provide sufficient incentives to return such fishing gear to shore for collection and treatment. The indirect fee system envisaged under Union law on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships takes away the incentive for ships to discharge their waste at sea, and ensures a right of delivery. That system should, however, be supplemented by further financial incentives for fishermen to bring their fishing gear waste on shore to avoid any potential increase in the indirect waste fee to be paid. As plastic components of fishing gear have a high recycling potential, Member States should, in line with the polluter pays principle, introduce extended producer responsibility for fishing gear containing plastic to facilitate separate collection of waste fishing gear and to finance sound waste management of such fishing gear, in particular recycling. _________________ 46 Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Directive 2000/59/EC and Directive 2008/98/EC establish suitable reduction or elimination targets in line with the objectives of this directive.
Amendment 83 #
2018/0172(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Those measures may include national consumption reduction targets, measures ensuring that reusable alternatives to those products are made available at the point of sale to the final consumer, economic instruments such as ensuring that single- use plastic products are not provided free of charge at the point of sale to the final consumer. Those measures may vary depending on the environmental impact of the products referred to in the first subparagraph and also include support for the most vulnerable sectors of the production chain such as the artisanal fishing.
Amendment 102 #
2018/0172(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
With regard to the schemes established pursuant to paragraph 3, Member States shall ensure that the producers of fishing gear containing plastic shall cover the costs of the collection of waste fishing gear containing plastic that has been delivered to adequate port reception facilities in accordance with Union law on port reception facilities or to other equivalent collection systems that fall outside the scope of Union law on port reception facilities and its subsequent transport and treatment. The producers shall also cover the costs of the awareness-raising measures referred to in Article 10 regarding fishing gear containing plastic. If necessary, Member States may establish support for the artisanal fisheries in order to facilitate the ecological transition without endangering their activity.
Amendment 36 #
2018/0169(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Reuse of appropriately treated waste water, for example from urban waste water treatment plants or industrial installations, is considered to have a lower environmental impact than other alternative water supply methods, such as water transfers or desalination, but such reuse only occurs to a limited extent in the Union. This appears to be partly due to the lack of common Union environmental or health standards for water reuse, and, as regards in particular agricultural products, the potential obstacles to the free movement of such products irrigated with reclaimed water. It should be emphasised that many agricultural sectors depend on irrigation and that the use of treated water necessarily promotes predominantly supply-side water reclamation activities typified by a natural monopoly situation. A degree of public control over water treatment or reclamation plant operators is therefore essential in order to avoid abuse of a dominant position.
Amendment 39 #
2018/0169(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Health standards in relation to food hygiene for agricultural products irrigated with reclaimed water can be achieved only if quality requirements for reclaimed water destined for agricultural irrigation do not differ significantly in Member States. Harmonisation of requirements will also contribute to the efficient functioning of the internal market in relation to such products. It is therefore appropriate to introduce minimum harmonisation by setting minimum requirements for water quality and monitoring. Those minimum requirements should consist of minimum parameters for reclaimed water and other stricter or additional quality requirements imposed, if necessary, by competent authorities together with any relevant preventive measures. In order to identify stricter or additional requirements for water quality, the reclamation plant operators should perform key risk management tasks. The parameters are based on the technical report of the Commission Joint Research Center and reflect the international standards on water reuse.
Amendment 58 #
2018/0169(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) It is necessary to ensure the safe use of reclaimed water, thereby encouraging water reuse at Union level and enhancing public confidence in it. Supply of reclaimed water for particular uses should therefore only be permitted on the basis of a permit, granted by competent authorities of Member States. In order to ensure harmonised approach at Union level, traceability and transparency, the substantive rules for that permit should be laid down at the Union level. However, the details of the procedures for granting permits should be determined by Member States. Member States should be able to apply existing procedures for granting permits which should be adapted to take account of the requirements introduced by this Regulation. Member States should be given the possibility of imposing minimum public holdings of operators' share capital in order to avoid monopolistic practices that would jeopardise agricultural activity dependent on irrigation.
Amendment 81 #
2018/0169(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1.º – paragraph 2
Article 1.º – paragraph 2
2. The purpose of this Regulation is to guarantee that reclaimed water is safe for its intended use, thereby ensuring a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment, addressing water scarcity and the resulting pressure on water resources in a coordinated way throughout the Union, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market.
Amendment 95 #
2018/0169(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3.º a (new)
Article 3.º a (new)
Article 3a Public participation Given that many agricultural sectors depend on irrigation, Member States should be given the possibility of imposing minimum public holdings of operators' share capital to ensure fair management of resources and avoid abuse of a dominant position;
Amendment 59 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the importance of direct payments, while drawing attention to the unequal distribution thereof, as well as second-pillar funds for farmers; deplores in particular the severe cuts envisaged for the second pillar of the CAP, which makes a significant contribution to investment and employment in rural areas; stresses that it cannot be taken for granted thatrejects from the outset the use of national co-funding will fillto stop up the budget gap;
Amendment 78 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its call for a reform of the EU’s own-resources systemMaintains that any reform of the own resources system cannot call into question the redistributive nature of the budget based primarily on direct contributions from the Member States in line with their gross income; stresses the need to safeguard duties on agricultural products as a source of revenue for the EU budget;
Amendment 94 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to allow the carry-over of crisis reserve funds; regrets the fact that the initial amounts to be used to constitute the fund will not be sourced from outside the CAP budget but will instead be taken from direct payments in 2020 and will not be paid back to farmers.; stresses that public regulation of supply would safeguard the food sovereignty of the Member States while making the savings necessary to compensate for price volatility;
Amendment 24 #
2018/0135(CNS)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Own Resources System of the Union must ensure adequate resources for the orderly development of the policies of the Union, subject to the need for strict budgetary discipline. The development of the Own Resources System can and should also participate, to the greatest extent possible, in the development of the policies of the Unionand continuation of policies to promote economic, social, and territorial cohesion among and within the Member States of the European Union, as well as social development, sustainable growth, innovation, public investment, respect for the environment, biodiversity conservation, peace, and solidarity.
Amendment 39 #
2018/0135(CNS)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to better align the Union's financing instruments with its policy priorities, to better reflect the Union's budget role for the functioning of the Single Market, to better support the objectives of Union policies and to reduce Member States' Gross National Income- based contributions to the Union's annualprovide the Community budget with more resources and to support future policies to promote cohesion, as well as the redistributive function of the Community budget, it is necessarydesirable to introduce new categories of Own Resources based, for example, on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, the national revenue stemming from the European Union Emissions Trading System and a national contribution calculated on the basis of non-recycled plastic packaging waste. However, Own Resources of this type should never outweigh the principle of contribution-based solidarity. That being the case, there should be no reduction in Member States' Gross National Income-based contributions to the Union's annual budget, as those contributions have to constitute the main source of revenue for the Community budget.
Amendment 50 #
2018/0135(CNS)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 53 #
2018/0135(CNS)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 71 #
2018/0135(CNS)
Proposal for a decision
Article 2.º – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 2.º – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Amendment 73 #
2018/0135(CNS)
Proposal for a decision
Article 2.º – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 2.º – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Amendment 114 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to provide information to its employees, the company carrying out the cross-border conversion should prepare a report explaining the implications of the proposed cross-border conversion for employees. The report should explain in particular the implications of the proposed cross-border conversion on the safeguarding of the jobs of the employees, whether there would be any material change in the employment relationships, including changes to salaries and to the nature of the employment relationship, and the locations of the companies’ places of business and how each of these factors would relate to any subsidiaries of the company. This requirement should not however apply where the only employees of the company are in its administrative organ. The provision of the report should be without prejudice to the applicable information and consultation proceedings instituted at national level following the implementation of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council43 or Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council44 . _________________ 43 Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29). 44 Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast) (OJ L 122, 16.5.2009, p. 28).
Amendment 117 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to assess the accuracy of the information contained in the draft terms of conversion and in the reports addressed to the members and employees and to provide factual elements necessary to assess whether the proposed conversion constitutes an artificial arrangement, an independent expert report should be required to be prepared in order to assess the proposed cross-border conversion. In order to secure the independence of the expert, the expert should be appointed by the competent authority, following an application by the company. In this context, the expert report should present all relevant information to enable the competent authority in the departure Member State to take an informed decision as to whether or not to issue the pre- conversion certificate. To this end, the expert should be able to obtain all the relevant company information and documents and carry out all necessary investigations in order to gather all the evidence required. The expert should use information, in particular net turnover and profit or loss, number of employees and the composition of balance sheet collected by the company in view of the preparation of financial statements in accordance with Union law and the law of Member States. However, in order to protect any confidential information, including business secrets of the company, such information should not form part of the expert’s final report which itself would be publically available.
Amendment 123 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) On the basis of the draft terms of conversion and the reports, the general meeting of the members of the company should decide on whether or not toThe general meeting of the members and the plenary meeting of the workers' council shall be responsible for approveing those draft terms. It is important that the majority requirement for such a vote should be sufficiently high in order to ensure that the decision to convert is a collective one. In addition, members should also have the right to vote on any arrangements concerning employee participation, if they have reserved that right during the general meeting.
Amendment 128 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In order to ensure that employee participation is not unduly prejudiced as a result of the cross-border conversion, where the company carrying out the cross- border conversion is operating under an employee participation system in the departure Member State, the company should be obliged to take a legal form allowing for the exercise of such participation, including through the presence of representatives of the employees in the appropriate management or supervisory organ of the company in the destination Member State. Moreover, in such a case, a bona fide negotiation between the company and its employees should take place, along the lines of the procedure provided for in Directive 2001/86/EC, with a view to finding an amicable solution reconciling the right of the company to carry out a cross-border conversion with the employees' rights of participation. As a result of those negotiations, either a bespoke and agreed solution or, in the absence of an agreement, the application of standard rules as set out in the Annex to Directive 2001/86/EC should apply, mutatis mutandis. In order to protect either the agreed solution or the application of those standard rules, the company should not be able to remove the participation rights through carrying out subsequent domestic or cross-border conversion, merger or division within three10 years.
Amendment 129 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) In order to prevent the circumvention of employee participation rights by means of a cross-border conversion, the company carrying out a conversion which is registered in the Member State which provides for the employee participation rights, should not be able to perform a cross-border conversion without firstor entering into negotiations with its employees or their representatives when the average number of employees employed by that company is equivalent to four fifths of the national threshold for triggering such employee participationan agreement on behalf of workers.
Amendment 141 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) In order to further enhance the existing cross-border merger procedure, it is necessary to simplify those merger rules, where appropriate, whilst at the same time ensuring that stakeholders, and in particular employees, are adequately protected. Therefore, the existing cross- border merger rules should be modified in order to oblige the management or administrative organs of the merging companies to prepare separate reports detailing the legal and economic aspects of the cross- border merger for both members and for employees. The obligation on the management or administrative organ of the company to prepare the report for the members may however be waived, where those members are already informed about legal and economic aspects of the proposed merger. However, the report prepared for employees may only be waived where the merging companies and their subsidiaries do not have any employees other than those who form part of the management or administrative organ.
Amendment 162 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) To allow all stakeholders' legitimate interests to be taken into account, the company being divided should disclose the draft terms of the division containing the most important information about the proposed cross-border division, including the envisaged the exchange ratio of securities or shares, the instruments of constitution of the recipient companies and the proposed timetable for the cross-border division. Members, creditors and employees of the company carrying out the cross-border division should be notified in good time that they can submit comments with regard to the division or authorising the commencement of negotiations.
Amendment 166 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) In order to provide information its employees, the company being divided should prepare a report explaining the implications of the proposed cross-border division for employees. The report should explain in particular the implications of the proposed cross-border division on the safeguarding of the jobs of the employees, whether there would be any material change in the conditions of employment and, the nature of the employment relationship, the conditions of remuneration or the locations of the companies’ places of business, and how each of these factors would relate to any subsidiaries of the company. The provision of the report should be without prejudice to the applicable information and consultation proceedings instituted at national level following the implementation of Directives 2001/23/EC, 2002/14/EC or 2009/38/EC.
Amendment 173 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) On the basis of tThe draft terms of the cross-border division and the reports,may only be approved with the consent of the general meetingassembly of the members of the company being divided, should decide on whether or not to approve those draft termsand of the plenary meeting of workers' council; the draft terms and the reports should serve as supporting documents to assist both parties in arriving at a decision. It is important that, the majority requirement for such a vote should be sufficiently high in order to ensure that the decision to divide is a collective one.
Amendment 204 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 c – paragraph 2 – point a (new)
Article 86 c – paragraph 2 – point a (new)
(aa). Receipt of state aid in the past;
Amendment 239 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 f – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 86 f – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) any material changes in the conditions of employment, including in employment relationships, and in the location of the company’s places of business;
Amendment 241 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 f – paragraph 3
Article 86 f – paragraph 3
3. The report referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, shall be made available, at least electronically, to the representatives of the employees of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion or, where there are no such representatives, to the employees themselves not less than twosix months before the date of the general meeting referred to in Article 86i. That report shall also be made similarly available to the members of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion.
Amendment 276 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 i – title
Article 86 i – title
Article 86 i Approval by the general meeting and by the employees’ plenary
Amendment 277 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 i – paragraph 1
Article 86 i – paragraph 1
1. After taking note of the reports referred to in Articles 86e, 86f and 86g, where applicable, the general meeting and the employees’ plenary of the company carrying out the conversion shall decide, by means of a resolution, whether to approve the draft terms of the cross-border conversion. The company shall inform the competent authority designated in accordance with Article 86m(1) of the decision of the general meeting and the employees’ plenary.
Amendment 279 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 i – paragraph 2
Article 86 i – paragraph 2
2. The general meeting of the company carrying out the conversion and the employees’ plenary may reserve the right to make implementation of the cross- border conversion conditional on express ratification by it of the arrangements referred to in Article 86l.
Amendment 402 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 20
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 d – paragraph 2 – point a (new)
Article 160 d – paragraph 2 – point a (new)
(a A) Receipt of state aid in the past;
Amendment 451 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 20
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 k – title
Article 160 k – title
Article 160 k Approval by the general meeting and by the employees’ plenary
Amendment 452 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 20
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 k – paragraph 1
Article 160 k – paragraph 1
1. After taking note of the reports referred to in Articles 160g, 160h and 160i, where applicable, the general meeting and the employees’ plenary of the company being divided shall decide by means of a resolution, whether to approve the draft terms of cross-border division. The company shall inform the competent authority designated in accordance with Article 160o(1) of the decision of the general meeting and of the employees’ plenary.
Amendment 454 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 20
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 k – paragraph 2
Article 160 k – paragraph 2
2. The general meeting mand the employees’ plenary reserve the right to make implementation of the cross-border division conditional on express ratification by it of the arrangements referred to in Article 160n.
Amendment 456 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 20
Article 1.º – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 k – paragraph 4
Article 160 k – paragraph 4
4. The general meeting and the employees’ plenary shall also decide whether the cross-border division would necessitate amendments to the instruments of constitution of the company being divided.
Amendment 63 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on unfair trading practices in business-to- business relationships in the food supply chain
Amendment 206 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1.º – paragraph 2
Article 1.º – paragraph 2
2. This Directive applies to certain unfair trading practices which occur in relation to the sales of food products by a supplier that is a small and medium-sized enterprise to a buyer that is not a small and medium-sized enterprise, irrespective of the place of establishment of the supplier and the buyer.
Amendment 238 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2.º – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 2.º – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) “buyer” means any natural or legal person established in the Union who buys food products by way of trade. The term "buyer" may include a group of such natural and legal persons;
Amendment 245 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2.º – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 2.º – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) “supplier” means any agricultural producer or any natural or legal person, irrespective of their place of establishment, who sells food products. The term “supplier” may include a group of such agricultural producers or suchof natural and legal persons, including producer organisations and associations of producer organisations;
Amendment 326 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) business-to-business trading practices making it impossible to sell to any other enterprise at a lower price;
Amendment 327 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
(ab) business-to-business trading practices seeking to obtain prices, payment terms, selling arrangements, or cooperative marketing arrangements that are unreasonable compared with the general conditions of sale;
Amendment 328 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a c (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a c (new)
(ac) business-to-business trading practices whereby an enterprise is unilaterally compelled, directly or indirectly: (i) to promote a given product; (ii) to make payments of any kind in return for a promotion;
Amendment 329 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a d (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a d (new)
(ad) business-to-business trading practices whereby a consideration is obtained for ongoing promotions, or those which have already occurred, including discounts giving a right to compensation in the subsequent purchase of equivalent or other goods;
Amendment 330 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a e (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a e (new)
(ae) trading practices employed by the buyer when the supplier is a micro or small enterprise, a producer organisation, or a cooperative, whereby delivered products are rejected or returned, on the grounds that all or part of the order is of inferior quality or the delivery was late, but the buyer fails to prove that the situation was caused by the supplier.
Amendment 331 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a f (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a f (new)
(af) trading practices employed by the buyer when the supplier is a micro or small enterprise, a producer organisation, or a cooperative, whereby a payment is charged, directly or in the form of a discount: (i) because the buyer’s expectations have not been met as regards the volume or value of sales; (ii) for the introduction or reintroduction of products; (iii) to compensate for costs arising out of a consumer complaint, except when the buyer proves that the complaint was due to the supplier’s negligence, fault, or non- performance of the contract; (iv) to cover any wastage of the supplier’s products, except when the buyer proves that this was due to the supplier’s negligence, fault, or non-performance of the contract; (v) for transport and storage costs after the product has been delivered; (vi) as a contribution towards the opening of new premises or the alteration of existing premises; (vii) as a condition for entering into a business relationship with a supplier.
Amendment 332 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a h (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a h (new)
(ah) the imposition of, or an attempt to impose, a significant imbalance of rights and obligations in the business relationship before, during, and after the contract.
Amendment 333 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a i (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a i (new)
(ai) retaliatory practices by buyers, including, but not limited to, removal of products, discontinuance of data-sharing services, overuse of promotions, delaying payments, and unilateral deductions to secure better terms under existing contracts or when negotiating a new contract.
Amendment 334 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a j (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a j (new)
(aj) sharing or improper use, whether deliberately or through negligence, of confidential information communicated by the supplier to the buyer, for example the substance of the contract and/or trade secrets that the supplier has shared with the buyer.
Amendment 335 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a k (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point a k (new)
(ak) causing or attempting to cause buyers’ economic risks to shift to an unwarranted or excessively high degree towards suppliers;
Amendment 337 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a buyer cancels orders of perishable food products at such short notice that a supplier cannot reasonably be expected to find an alternative to commercialise or use these products;
Amendment 352 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) business-to-business trading practices whereby a supply contract is altered retroactively;
Amendment 391 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the buyer retaliates commercially against the supplier, or threatens to do so, in order to exercise its contractual and legal rights, including complaints to, and cooperation with, the competent national authorities.
Amendment 460 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall ensure that the following trading practices are prohibited, if they are not agreed in clear and unambiguous terms at the conclusion of the supply agreement:
Amendment 471 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) a buyer returns unsold food products to a supplier;
Amendment 480 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) a buyer charges a supplier payment as a condition for the stocking, displaying or listing food products of the supplier’s products;
Amendment 483 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) a supplier pays for the promotion of food products sold by the buyer. Prior to a promotion and if that promotion is initiated by the buyer, the buyer shall specify the period of the promotion and the expected quantity of the food products to be ordered;
Amendment 491 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 3.º – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) a supplier pays for the marketing of food products by the buyer.
Amendment 513 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 4
Article 3.º – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that the prohibitions laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 constitute overriding mandatory provisions which are applicable to any situation falling within their scope, irrespective of the law otherwise applicable to the supply agreement between the parties. Member States may adopt stricter rules than the prohibitions under paragraphs 1 and 2.
Amendment 514 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3.º – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 3.º – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. A buyer must ensure that contracts are drafted in clear and unambiguous language. Contracts shall specify at least (a) the parties, (b) the subject, (c) the volume, price (fixed or to be determined on the basis of transparent, objective criteria), and quality, (d) the time-frame for payment, (e) penalties related to performance of the contract, (f) the duration and, if applicable, renewal, (g) the grounds for termination, allowing for reasonable notice, and (h) the law and jurisdiction applicable.
Amendment 538 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5.º – paragraph 1
Article 5.º – paragraph 1
1. A supplier shall address a complaint to the enforcement authority of the Member State in which the buyer suspected to have engaged in a prohibited trading practice is establishedunfair trading practice produces the effects sought. The effects shall be presumed to occur in the Member State where the buyer of the product processes or distributes it. If the effects are felt in more than one Member State, the law enforcement authorities may coordinate their investigations.
Amendment 649 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8.º – paragraph 1
Article 8.º – paragraph 1
Member States may provide for stricter rules on the trading practices covered by this Directive and for other rules designed to combat unfair trading practices going beyond those set out in Articles 3, 5, 6 and 7, provided that such national rules are compatible with the rules on the functioning of the internal market.
Amendment 661 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9.º – paragraph 1
Article 9.º – paragraph 1
1. By 15 March of each year, Member States shall send to the Commission a report on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain. That report shall contain, in particular, all relevant data on the application and enforcement of the rules under this Directive in the Member State concerned in the previous year.
Amendment 665 #
2018/0082(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11.º – paragraph 1
Article 11.º – paragraph 1
1. No soonlater than three years after the date of application of this Directive, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Directive and present a report on the main findings to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
Amendment 16 #
2018/0076(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Since the adoption of, first, Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council10 and subsequently Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council11, charges for cross- border payments in euro between Member States of the euro area have strongly decrevaried from cased to levels that are insignificant in the vast majority of casescase, as there are countries where institutions have been charging higher commission in order to offset their low operating profitability. _________________ 10 Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro (OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13). 11 Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on cross-border payments in the Community and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (OJ L 266, 9.10.2009, p. 11).
Amendment 23 #
2018/0076(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to facilitate the functioning of the Single Market and end the barriers between payment service users in the euro area and non-euro area Member States in respect of cross-border payments in euro, it is necessary to ensure that charges for cross-border payments in euro within the Union are aligned with charges for domestic payments made in the official currency of a Member State. It is also necessary to ensure that charges for domestic payments do not exceed a set limit or that they converge towards zero rates when transactions are effected online.
Amendment 33 #
2018/0076(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Currency conversion charges represent a significant cost of cross-border payments when different currencies are in use in the payerʼs and the payeeʼs countries. Article 45 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council12 requires transparency of charges and of the exchange rate used prior to the initiation of a payment transaction. When alternative currency conversion options are offered at a point of sale or at an automated teller machine (ATM), that transparency may not allow for a quick and clear comparison between those different currency conversion options. That lack of transparency prevents competition from bringing down costs of currency conversion and increases the risk of payers choosing expensive currency conversion options. It is therefore necessary to develop measures addressed to payment service providers that will improve transparency and protect consumers against excessive charges for currency conversion services, in particular when consumers are not given the information they need to choose the best currency conversion option. It is also necessary to ensure that no fee is charged for cash withdrawals from ATM machines. _________________ 12 Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).
Amendment 30 #
2018/0073(CNS)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ApproveRejects the Commission proposal as amended;
Amendment 112 #
2018/0073(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The taxable revenues should be equal to the total gross revenues obtained by a taxable person, net of value added tax and other similar taxes. Taxable revenues should be recognised as obtained by a taxable person at the time when they become due, regardless of whether they have actually been paid by then. DST should be chargeable in a Member State on the proportion of taxable revenues obtained by a taxable person in a tax period that is treated as obtained in that Member State, and should be calculated by applying the DST rate to that proportion. There should be a single DST rate at Union level in order to avoid distortions in the Single Market. The DST rate should be set at 3 %, which achieves an appropriate balance between revenues generated by the tax and accounting for the differential DST impact for businesses with different profit margins.
Amendment 160 #
2018/0073(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
The DST rate shall be 3 %determined freely by each Member State in line with the spirit of this directive.
Amendment 43 #
2018/0072(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) A key objective of this Directive is to improve the resilience of the internal market as a whole in order to address the challenges of taxation of the digitalised economy. This objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually because digital businesses are able to operate cross-border without having any physical presence in a jurisdiction and rules are therefore needed to ensure that they pay taxes in the jurisdictions where they make profits. Given this cross-border dimension an initiative at Union level adds value in comparison with what a multitude of national measures could attain. A common initiative across the internal market is required to ensure a harmonised application of the rules on a significant digital presence within the Union. Unilateral and divergent approaches by each Member State could be ineffective and fragment the Single Market by creating national policy clashes, distortions and tax obstacles for businesses in the Union. Since the objectives of this Directive can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
Amendment 70 #
2018/0072(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4.º – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 4.º – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the proportion of total revenues obtained in that tax period and resulting from the supply of those digital services to users located in that Member State in that tax period exceeds EUR 71 000 000;
Amendment 74 #
2018/0072(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4.º – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 4.º – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the number of users of one or more of those digital services who are located in that Member State in that tax period exceeds 1020 000;
Amendment 78 #
2018/0072(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4.º – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 4.º – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) the number of business contracts for the supply of any such digital service that are concluded in that tax period by users located in that Member State exceeds 3 01 500.
Amendment 19 #
2018/0006(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises are of fundamental importance in the economic activity of the Member States and are responsible for the creation and maintenance of a significant part of the resulting employment and wealth. It is thus crucial to avoid any situation liable to cause cash-flow problems for such companies. For example, regimes levying VAT on a cash basis for companies (considered passive VAT payers) with turnover of less than or equal to EUR two million could be set up.
Amendment 17 #
2018/0005(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The removal of restrictions in parallell with the entry into force of the definitive arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States should allow Member States to continue to apply reduced VAT rates that are currently granted as derogations under Chapter 4 of Title VIII of Directive 2006/112/EC and Annex X to Directive 2006/112/EC and which would otherwise expire with the entry into force of those arrangements. The ‘negative list’ must therefore take account of the express derogations laid down in Directive 2006/112/EC.
Amendment 50 #
2018/0005(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2006/112/EC
Article 98 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 98 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The reduced rates and exemptions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be applied to goods or services in the categories set out in Annex IIIa, unless they are covered by a derogation.;
Amendment 53 #
2018/0005(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2006/112/EC
Article 99 a – paragraph 1
Article 99 a – paragraph 1
While setting the rates referred to in Articles 97 and 98, Member States shall ensure that the weighted average rate, calculated in accordance with Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 (*), exceeds 12% at any given time. However, within three years, this rule must be evaluated and, if necessary, altered accordingly. (This amendment applies throughout the text. adopting it will necessitate corresponding technical changes throughout.)
Amendment 66 #
2018/0005(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – subheading 1 a (new)
Annex I – subheading 1 a (new)
Directive 2006/112/EC
Annex III – row 16 a (new)
Annex III – row 16 a (new)
Musical instruments (This amendment applies throughout the text. adopting it will necessitate corresponding technical changes throughout.)
Amendment 61 #
2017/9999(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that any trade agreement can only be built on a basis of mutual advantages without discrimination against any economic sector. In this sense, any solution based on a logic of trade liberalisation must be rejected from the outset;
Amendment 63 #
2017/9999(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Stresses that any trade agreement can only be built on a basis of mutual advantages without discrimination against any economic sector and must take into account the interest of all European producers and consumers by imposing quotas, safeguard clauses and effective measures to regulate markets in the most vulnerable sectors, including the possibility of suspending the agreements in the event of manifest damage to European producers. In this sense, any solution based on a logic of trade liberalisation must be rejected from the outset;
Amendment 91 #
2017/9999(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. AcknowledgRelativises the importance for the EU of an agreement with Australia which would reduce tariff barriers for some processed agricultural products, relax overly strict health checks and protect geographical indications effectively; whereas clear provisions safeguarding GIs should be a prerequisite for any agreement; reminds the Commission, however, that it would be unacceptable to sacrifice the interests of European agriculture and its sensitive sectors in order to secure an agreement and that it must take into account the interest of all European producers and consumers by imposing quotas, safeguard clauses and effective measures to regulate markets in the most vulnerable sectors, including the possibility of suspending the agreements in the event of manifest damage to European producers.
Amendment 38 #
2017/2284(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that pesticides are important tools for the agricultural sector, not least for reducing losses caused by pests, and therefore help stabilise farmers’ incomes so that they can produce safely and at affordable prices; highlights the fact that EFSA’s latest report on pesticide residues in food showed that 97.2 % of samples throughout Europe were within the legal limits of EU legislation, which bears witness to a very rigorous and safe food production system; notes that the use of pesticides is attributable to CAP promotion of an intensive export-led production model that is totally unsustainable;
Amendment 47 #
2017/2284(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses the importance of small and medium-sized farms using less aggressive and invasive techniques and assuming responsibility for the preservation of races, species and native seeds and of traditional farming methods and practices that respect the environment; notes that small and medium-sized farms are also an important repository of this genetic heritage, thereby helping to conserve biodiversity;
Amendment 76 #
2017/2284(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses the need for a new CAP focused on the defence and promotion of small and medium-sized farms, which play an irreplaceable role maintaining equilibrium within the community by producing quality food, preserving biodiversity and ensuring food sovereignty by meeting local needs in this area;
Amendment 15 #
2017/2254(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take an ambitious approach to ensuring that the targets set out in their respective Action Plans are fully and effectively achieved, and to, with measurable (clearly defined quantitative or qualitative) targets, benchmarks and effective measures to achieve their Action Plan targets, are effectively implemented and that the strictly monitor thed results that have been achieved;
Amendment 75 #
2017/2254(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that disease prevention must be the first step for legislation tackling AMR in agriculture, both to enthe prevention and control of infections in humans and animals and therefore disease prevention must be the first step in tackling the legislation, in the veterinary field, providing for best practices to be used in welfare, hygiene and proper management, effective biosecurity measures a high standard of animal welfare and reduce the need to resort to antibioticnd the use of alternative therapies and diagnostic resources, with a view to reducing pressure from infections and, therefore, the need to use antibiotics; emphasises that prescription, a status only for antibiotics, accountability of professionals in a number of sectors and cooperation between veterinarians and animal owners are key factors for success; believes that antibiotics should never be used as compensation for poor hygiene or inadequate animal husbandry;
Amendment 101 #
2017/2254(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises the crucial role of education and training programmes in raising awareness about antimicrobial resistance and the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine for farmers and thoseveterinarians and professionals involved in livestock farming;
Amendment 134 #
2017/2254(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in food-producing animals has been banned in the EU since 2006; calls on the Commission to enforce this ban as a conditionality to all food imports from third countries through Free Trade Agreements;
Amendment 140 #
2017/2254(INI)
10. Stresses that awareness of this issue should be raised at the highest political level, involving every head of state and every relevant UN organisation with a view to achieving compromises and ambitious results; Emphasises that international cooperation involving sharing information, knowledge and best practices in tackling AMR is crucial in the context of the one- health approach for the benefit of human and animal health globally.
Amendment 12 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas equivalence is a tool to promote international regulatory convergence, which may lead to more competition in the EU on a level playing fieldconnectedness in the global financial system, which may lead to even bigger banks in the EU, while prevenomoting regulatory arbitragedumping;
Amendment 44 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the EU should promote global financial regulatory reforms aimed at reducing systemic risk and should work towards an open less, integrated and more resilient financial system based on smaller institutions and tighter regulation that supports sustainable economic growth, job creation and investment;
Amendment 59 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the Member States may not always entirely support international cooperation owing to concerns about the protection of national interests and the inherent incentive to shift risks to other jurisdictions;
Amendment 72 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that, in many cases, the granting of equivalence is a unilateral decision taken by the EU and is not applied in a reciprocal manner by third countries; considers that international cooperation could be better advanced by dint of international agreements negotiated between the EU and third countries; notes that, unlike equivalence, international agreements can provide mutual access between the EU and third countries for financial institutions and for the mutual recognition of rules;
Amendment 80 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recognises that the EU’'s equivalence regime is an integral part of its regulatory framework for financial services and can offer several benefits, such aposes several risks: the removal of unnecessary regulatory barriers, increased competincentration, increased capital flows into and out of the EU, and more instruments and investment choices for EU firms and investorsvolatility and exposure for the EU's financial system;
Amendment 103 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises that one of the key objectives for equivalence is to promote regulatory downward convergence on the basis of lowering international standards;
Amendment 116 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that equivalence decisions and international agreements should be objective, proportionate, risk-sensitive and be taken in the best interests of the Union, and itsll of its Member States and citizens;
Amendment 126 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Questions the rationale behind equivalence decisions typically taking the form of implementing acts; insists that the process for granting equivalence to a third country in the area of financial services should always be scrutinised by the European and National Parliaments and that, owing to their political nature, and for the purposes of greater transparency, these decisions should be taken by means of delegated acts;
Amendment 142 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the Commission has the right to withdraw equivalence decisions, and believes that the European and National Parliaments should be consulted in a timely manner before such a withdrawal decision is taken; calls for the introduction of clear procedures and timelines governing the adoption, withdrawal or suspension of equivalence decisions;
Amendment 204 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls the importance of National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in the authorisation process for financial institutions that wish to delegate part of their portfolio management or risk management to service providers in third countries where the regulatory regime is comparable to that of the EU; considers that NCAs have sufficient technical knowledge and expertise to properly assess delegation approval requests; encourages the ESAs to develop further cooperation between NCAs in order to share best practice concerning regulatory cooperation and activities with third countries; considers that Member States should be allowed to limit equivalence decisions in their own countries in order to ensure the stability of their financial systems and economies;
Amendment 227 #
2017/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls to that end, moreover, for the EU-US Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue to be upgraded to include more regular meetings; stresses that the EU should push to have a financial services chapter as part of any potential future EU-US trade agreementhave an extremely cautious approach towards a further financial integration with the US;
Amendment 10 #
2017/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, according to Commission forecasts, the expansion of the European economy is expected to continue, although the pace of job creation and household purchasing power growth implies a slight loss of momentum over the next two years, with growth reaching 2.3 % this year in the EU and then marginally slowing to 2.1 % in 2018 and to ease slightly to 1.9 % in 2019, and this is taking place in a context of continuing deep-rooted inequality resulting from the pattern of divergence that began with the establishment of the euro;
Amendment 29 #
2017/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) has provided important support for investmentultimately provided nothing in the EU, inway of addition to the European Structural and Investment Funds, while at the same time the orientation of savings towards equity has decreased returns and provided fewer incentives for investmentality and failed to drive private investment, which remains at very low levels and is even falling, as is demonstrated by the year-end statistics for 2017;
Amendment 72 #
2017/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the publication of the 2018 Annual Growth Survey (AGS) package and the proposed policy mix of investment, structural reform and fiscal consolidation, presented as a way to further promote higher growth levels and to strengthen European recovery and upward convergand deplores the continuing insistence on the recipes underlying the austerity programmes that are tying economies to downward cycles, with serious social and economic consequences;
Amendment 95 #
2017/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights, however, the persistent structural problem of insufficient growth of potential output and productivity, flanked by too low a level of investments and wages, leading to persistent social inequalities, and points to the need for a genuinely ambitious public investment plan to promote development and social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 134 #
2017/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the improvements in public finances, in particular the gradually declining debt/GDP ratios for the EU and euro area and falling headline budget deficits; recalls that, while many Member States have limited fiscal leeway for implementing sustainable, growth-friendly structural reforms, some Member States still have large surpluses which should be used to sustain investments and growth across the EU; takes the view, however, that, in many countries, government debt remains at unsustainable levels and points to the need for a comprehensive renegotiation agreement to relieve countries of this unfair and intolerable burden;
Amendment 157 #
2017/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls the importance of public investment for boosting and leveraging investment in the EU; considers that the policy mix proposed in the AGS 2018 should be further developed to remedy the current decrease in public investment in the EU; highlights that this decrease also affects local and regional authorities, threatening their ability to deliver quality public services; believes, therefore, that efforts under the Juncker Plan should be channelled towards public investment so as to avoid a proliferation of public- private partnerships of questionable sustainability;
Amendment 300 #
2017/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Underlines that a fiscal capacity – on top of existing capacities, and not through redeployments that would undermine the vital role currently played by structural funds and cohesion policy – represents a necessary tool for increasing incentives for convergence and to counter asymmetric or symmetric economic shocks; in other words, considers that structural funds and cohesion policy should not be conditioned by adjustment measures in connection with a future European Monetary Fund nor the Fiscal Compact objectives, nor in any other case.
Amendment 321 #
2017/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 338 #
2017/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 371 #
2017/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes that the continued use of the euro by some countries has become unsustainable and calls for means to be provided for the purpose of allowing an assisted orderly exit from EMU by those countries which so wish;
Amendment 13 #
2017/2193(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that an ambitious, balanced and comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) which respects vulnerable sectors of European agriculture, such as dairy and sheep and goat meat, can be of mutual benefit, offering opportunities for European producers and advancing the EU’s position as a key player on the global market free trade agreement (FTA) could pose a further threat to European producers and consumers, bearing in mind the impact of the free trade agreements signed in recent years;
Amendment 72 #
2017/2193(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that any trade agreement can only be built on a basis of mutual advantages without discrimination against any economic sector and must take into account the interest of all European producers and consumers by imposing quotas, safeguard clauses and effective measures to regulate markets in the most vulnerable sectors, including the possibility of the suspension of the agreements in the event of manifest damage to European producers. In this sense, any solution based on a logic of trade liberalisation must be rejected from the outset;
Amendment 19 #
2017/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas, due to its intrinsic nature and long production cycles, farming cannot be compared to any other activity as far as elasticity of supply is concerned; whereas, that being so, the logic of the market cannot be applied to this sector in the same way as it is applied in other sectors of economic activity;
Amendment 23 #
2017/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas farmers’ low and insufficient income is the result of the low prices paid for production, and these prices are in many cases the consequence of the dominant position of large distribution chains in the retail sector;
Amendment 45 #
2017/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that, in general, competition policy only defends consumers’ interests, but does not take account of agricultural producers’ specific interests and difficulties, and it has also not provided a response to the problems already identified with regard to abusive practices by large distribution chains in the retail sector;
Amendment 72 #
2017/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 7 #
2017/2173(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that, while making sure that all assignments are carried out in full and within deadline, the Authority should carefully adhere to the tasks and the mandate assigned to it by the European Parliament and the Council; points to the need for cooperation with other institutions responsible for international supervision;
Amendment 17 #
2017/2173(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that, as the Authority’s workload is increasingly shifting from legislative tasks to enforcing and applying the Union law, the Authority’s budget and manpower should be reallocated internally; considers, however, that efforts to that end must serve to strengthen the Authority’s independence in the face of private sector pressures and allow for the growing role of its supervisory tasks;
Amendment 5 #
2017/2172(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that, while making sure that all assignments are carried out in full and within deadline, the Authority should carefully adhere to the tasks and the mandate assigned to it by the European Parliament and the Council; points to the need for cooperation with other institutions responsible for international supervision;
Amendment 19 #
2017/2172(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes note of the Authority’s efforts to reallocate internally the Authority’s budget and manpower, as the Authority’s workload is increasingly shifting from legislative tasks to supervisory convergence and enforcement; considers, however, that those efforts must serve to strengthen the Authority’s independence in the face of private sector pressures and allow for the growing role of its supervisory tasks;
Amendment 7 #
2017/2171(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that, while making sure that all assignments are carried out in full and within deadline, the Authority should carefully adhere to the tasks and the mandate assigned to it by the European Parliament and the Council; points to the need for cooperation with other institutions responsible for international supervision;
Amendment 23 #
2017/2171(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that, as the Authority’s workload is increasingly shifting from legislative tasks to enforcing and applying the Union law, the Authority’s budget and manpower should be reallocated internally; considers, however, that efforts to that end must serve to strengthen the Authority’s independence in the face of private sector pressures and allow for the growing role of its supervisory tasks;
Amendment 9 #
2017/2143(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesVoices reservations about the decision to reduce communication and translation costs linked to the production of publications without, supposedly, undermining their quality; notes that the length of the documents was reduced, and is therefore interested to know if the information now excluded from the publications is nevertheless accessible on demand;
Amendment 13 #
2017/2140(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Observes with concern that the Court is complying with the interinstitutional agreement to reduce staff by 5% over a period of five years; asks to be informed how this reduction matches with the 19 recruitments made in 2016as to the impact of this reduction on the operational effectiveness of the Court;
Amendment 18 #
2017/2140(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes the increased amount of outsourced translation in 2016, particularly in August; takes note of the Court’s justification and calls for a better stresses the need forg anisation of its internal translation services in order to generate economic saving end to translation service budget cuts;
Amendment 13 #
2017/2136(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that a small number of beneficiaries receive the largest payments and that 4 % of direct payments are divided amongst more than half of the current beneficiaries who receive less than EUR 1250 per year, thus highlighting the need for a more extensive overhaul of subsidy payments;
Amendment 16 #
2017/2136(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes the ECA recommendations concerning the ineffectiveness of measures seeking to lower the age of the farming community and the need for more targeted programmes for this purpose;
Amendment 6 #
2017/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the fact that an implementation report for Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is being undertaken with the aim of ensuring a high level of protection of both human and animal health as well as the environment, while safeguarding the competitiveness of the EU’s agriculture sector by providing access to a broad range of active substances and Plant Protection Products (PPP) for all farmers and producers, irrespective of the Members States they are operating in;
Amendment 129 #
2017/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the contribution that the authorisation of low-risk PPPs makes to a sustainable EU farming sector, and draws attention to the importance of contributing to a better functioning agricultural ecosystem and a sustainable farming sector, while pointing out that the lack of availability of PPPs could jeopardise the diversification of agriculture and cause harmful organisms to become resistant to PPPs; points out that the growing need for PPPs stems from deregulation and liberalisation of the common agricultural policy, a process that is making farmers adopt increasingly more intensive practices requiring additional substances which in many cases are at odds with sustainable practices, thus endangering public health and biodiversity.
Amendment 50 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas, growth and unemployment rates remain geographically uneven in a significant way, causing dangerous fragility to the economy and the sound development;
Amendment 64 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the federal nature of the ECB, which rules out national vetoes, enabling it to act decisively in addressing the crisis; however, independence and transparency in the decision-making process should be significantly enforced.
Amendment 115 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is concerned that the ECB will likely not reach its inflation target for at least six consecutive years and will remain below the medium-term target level of 2 % until at least 2020 despite pursuing a very accommodative monetary policy, which indicates that the economy is not operating at full capacity partly due to the inefficient policies designed by the ECB;
Amendment 199 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. HighlightsNotes with regret that according to the IMF’s April 2017 World Economic Outlook, the Eurozone output gap was -1.2 % of the potential GDP in 2016, a gap which will remain negative until 2019;
Amendment 206 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines the positivelimited effect of the ECB monetary policy on growth, employment and the financing costs of Member States, non-financial companies and households; calls for additional and alternative measures to enhance inclusive growth, policies that focus on job-creating development, quality employment fight poverty and youth unemployment and enforce SMEs participation and development, preventing and managing better in that way future crises;
Amendment 255 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that while unemployment has decreased, aggregate demand in the euro area remains subdued, largely as a result of the rise in poor quality, temporary, low-paid jobs; calls on the ECB to evaluate how this phenomenon is slowing the recovery and explore ways to stimulate demand, in spite of wage stagnationcrease wages and promote quality employment, equal access to education and training to new technologies;
Amendment 307 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Encourages further improvement of SMEs' access to credit, enforcing inclusiveness in economic development;
Amendment 338 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Acknowledges that the current policy of low interest rates has a positive effect on the level of nonperforming loans (NPLs); calls for a European strategy involving a secondary market for NPLs in order to alleviate the burden of NPLs in some Member States, taking into account social implications and protecting the first residence and medium and low income families;
Amendment 376 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Welcomes the improvements made by the ECB in disclosing the list of securities held by the Eurosystem under the ECB’s CSPP; but remains concerned that this programe mainly benefits large multinationals; thereby reinforcing capital misallocation towards shareholders and the over-concentration of some oligopolistic sectors;
Amendment 402 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 525 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 b (new)
Paragraph 36 b (new)
36 b. Calls the ECON Committee to further enhance the monetary dialogue by revising the relevant rules, in the direction of the monetary experts’, commissioned by ECON in March 2014, recommendations and feedback;
Amendment 526 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 c (new)
Paragraph 36 c (new)
36 c. Calls the ECB Governing Council to follow EU staff regulation and code of conduct regarding to a two-year professional abstention period after the conclusion of its members’ mandate and to file public declarations of interests and assets;
Amendment 528 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 d (new)
Paragraph 36 d (new)
36 d. Calls the ECB to enhance whistle- blowers protection, as clearly indicated in relevant reports by the Commission, the Parliament, the European Ombudsman and the UN Convention against corruption;
Amendment 529 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 e (new)
Paragraph 36 e (new)
36 e. Notes that the current ECB employment system regarding temporary agents, which is placed within a system or repetitive temporary contracts, is reportedly creating instability in the working environment and undermining professional cohesion within the ECB;
Amendment 544 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Asks the ECB to make it a rule to publish its decisions, recommendations and opinions, thereby drastically reducing the number of exemptions from disclosure as well as to follow closer international best practises in improving the disclosure of bank supervisory data;
Amendment 550 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38 a. Stresses that in accordance with Article 7 of its Statute, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body;
Amendment 556 #
2017/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 b (new)
Paragraph 38 b (new)
38 b. Stresses that the Members of the Executive Board of the ECB, should abstain from being simultaneous members of forums or other organisations which include executives from banks supervised by the ECB;
Amendment 42 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas tshese sectors contribute to the conservation of areas of high ecological value, such as dehesa pastureland, as well as less fertile landep and goats play an important role in ensuring environmental sustainability, being as they are present in 70% of geographically disadvantaged areas where they contribute to preserving biodiversity and combating soil erosion (including local sheep and goat breeds), the build-up of unwanted biomass, avalanches and forest fires;
Amendment 100 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the electronic identification system for sheep and goats is an efficient way of ensuring the traceability of animals, but is technically unsuitable for a lot of farms, particularly smaller farms with limited equipment which can maintain a paper-based identification system equally able to guarantee an efficient method of ensuring traceability and whereas losing eartags or inadvertently failing to scan them properly can give rise to penalties that are sometimes disproportionate;
Amendment 101 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the electronic identification system for sheep and goats is an efficient way of ensuring the traceability of animals, but it is technically unsuitable for many herds, particularly for small producers with more limited technical capacities and losing eartags or inadvertently failing to scan them can gives rise to penalties that are sometimes disproportionate;
Amendment 113 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
Oa. whereas there is a growing market in many Member States of the European Union for local agricultural products, meeting consumer demand for transparency and quality;
Amendment 115 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
Oa. whereas there is a growing market in many EU countries for local agricultural products, in response to the demand for transparency and quality voiced by consumers;
Amendment 119 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O b (new)
Recital O b (new)
Amendment 120 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O b (new)
Recital O b (new)
Ob. whereas the restructuring of the slaughter industry has in many Member States of the European Union led to the disappearance of many instruments necessary for ensuring the sustainability of local supply chains;
Amendment 198 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Warns that exclusive thresholds adopted by certain Member States constitute a disincentive and that, in the absence of ceilings or as a result of excessively soft ceilings, aid is concentrated on the largest farms;
Amendment 199 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Warns about the problem of the concentration of aid on larger herds, in cases where there is no limit to the receipt of aid or where these limits are very flexible;
Amendment 221 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the agreement reached in negotiations for the Omnibus regulation recognising the specific nature of Mediterranean grasslands, such as dehesa pasturelands, with a view to finding fairer arrangements governing the land eligible for direct payments; advocates authorising grazing in areas of ecological interestStresses that while the Omnibus regulation is a step forward for the recognition of areas, it remains an exception for pastoral areas to be eligible for assistance. Indeed, the Commission still considers that an agricultural area should consist of 50% grass, but this does not reflect the reality of the land. The Commission should recognise the food value of non-herbaceous resources and take into account the presence of resources on which the animals graze, whether woody or not (and not make reference to 50% grass, which does not correspond to the reality of the grazing area);
Amendment 243 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and Member States to consider measures to improve transparency in the market, as well as the possibility of harmonising arrangements on carcasses, without prejudicing the biodiversity ensured by local breeds, and the establishment of a European observatory monitoring the prices and production costs of sheep- and goatmeat;
Amendment 244 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and Member States to consider measures to improve transparency in the market, as well as the possibility of harmonising arrangements on carcassethe channels, without prejudice to the biodiversity brought by local breeds, and the establishment of a European observatory monitoring the prices and production costs of sheep- and goatmeat;
Amendment 315 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Commission and the Member States to consider reintroducing traceability through a system of paper- based identification for small and medium-sized extensive farms which so wish and harmonising tolerance levels when punishing livestock farmers for inadvertent errors in the application of the electronic identification system;
Amendment 317 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Commission and the Member States to consider establishing a simplified identification system for small and medium-sized herds in extensive farming and harmonising tolerance levels when punishing livestock farmers for inadvertent errors in the application of the electronic identification system;
Amendment 335 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Invites the Commission and Member States to consider rural development measures to protect herds from attack from predators and look into reviewing the Habitats Directive, with the aim of controlling the spread of predators in certain grazing arealivestock and compensate for losses caused by predator attacks;
Amendment 336 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Invites the Commission and Member States to consider rural development measures to protect herds from attack from predators and look into reviewing the Habitats Directive, with the aim of controlling the spread of predators in certain grazing areato provide compensation for losses caused by such attacks;
Amendment 386 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Supports the development of local supply chains in the sheep-farming sector as a way of increasing sheep farm income and improving the match between supply and demand, and calls on the Member States and the Commission to pay particular attention to their public policies on local slaughterhouses, which are essential to the development of these local supply chains;
Amendment 28 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the euro area and EU28 unemployment rates were 9.3 % and 7.8 % respectively in April 2017, their lowest rates since March 2009 and December 2008; whereas significant differences in unemployment rates remain across the EU ranging between 3.2 % and 23.2 %, due to the increasingly divergent path between economies within the Euro and Eurozone;
Amendment 36 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the EU’'s excessively low productivity and global competitiveness calls for structural reforms,calls for continued fiscal efforts and investment in Member States in order to bring about sustained growth and employment and achieve upward convergence with other global economies and within the EU;
Amendment 40 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the EU’s excessively low productivity and global competitiveness calls for structural reforms, continued fiscal efforts and investment in Member States in order to bring about sustained growth and employment and achieve upward convergence with other global economies and within the EU;
Amendment 65 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomDeplores the gpoodr performance of the European economy, supported by moderinadequate GDP growth and slightly decreasing, yet still high, unemployment rates; notes that the modest recovery remains fragile and that the development of GDP per capita is close to stagnation;
Amendment 80 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that Europe harbours untapped economic potential as growth and employment are advancing unevenly; underlines that this is the result of the heterogeneous performance of the Member States’' economies; emphasises that the implementation of structural reforms in the Member States could facilitate at least 1 % higher growth due to macroeconomic imbalances brought about by a deeply flawed economic integration and the asymmetric shock of the financial crisis;
Amendment 109 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that this would complement ongoing efforts on improving the quality and management of national budgets by addressing the triggers for growth in line with Union fiscal rulesdebt sustainability;
Amendment 123 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 160 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that reforms to improve the business climate are needed to boost productivity and employment in the euro area; underlines in this context the importance of supply-side reformsdemand-side policies and investment in public services and infrastructure;
Amendment 175 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 182 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Shares the Commission’'s view on the need for changes in labour market legislation that provide flexibility and security for both employees and employers, thereby increasing employment andwith rights, ensuring sustainable growth and preventing wage dumping;
Amendment 188 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the importance of wage developments in line withDeplores that, in many peripheral economies, wages have been evolving below productivity;
Amendment 191 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the importance of wage developments in line with productivity;above productivity levels in order to recoup purchasing power lost during the crisis.
Amendment 197 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 201 #
2017/2114(INI)
Amendment 259 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes the view that a timely agreement in the ongoing negotiations on the revised European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) could help to improve the effectiveness of this instrument and to address shortcomings experienced in its implementation so far; Calls on the Commission to ensure that effective funding is redistributive between member- states, thereby contributing to the necessary upward convergence;
Amendment 274 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that prudgrowth-oriented fiscal policies play a fundamental role for the stability of the euro area and the Union as a whole; underlines that strong coordination of fiscal policies and compliance with the Union rules in this area are a legal requirement and key to the proper functioning of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU);
Amendment 275 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that prudent fiscal policies play a fundamental role for the stability of the euro area and the Union as a whole; underlines that strong coordination of fiscal policies and compliance with the Union rules in this area are a legal requirement and key to the proper functioning of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU);
Amendment 290 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Welcomes the fact that deficits in the euro area are projected to decline; is concerned, however, that this process is slowing down and agrees that government debt remains too high in some Member States, making a comprehensive renegotiation of interest rates and amounts a matter of urgency;
Amendment 307 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Warns that low interest rate payments, accommodative monetary policies, one-off measures and other factors alleviating the current debt burden are only temporary and that sound fiscal policies mustonly sustainable growth can be self-sustaining and take into account future liabilities;
Amendment 317 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Underlines that the fiscal stances at national and euro-area level must balance the long-term sustainability of public finances in full compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact with short-term macroeconomic stabilisation, necessitating solutions to social problems and renewed economic growth in each Member State;
Amendment 321 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Underlines that the fiscal stances at national and euro-area level must balance the long-term sustainability of public finances in full compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact with short-term macroeconomic stabilisation;
Amendment 348 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Recommends setting up a specific programme to assist Member States seeking to leave the euro area, either because they themselves have decided to do so or because their membership has become untenable ;
Amendment 370 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Takes note of the Commission’'s recommendation to close the Excessive Deficit Procedures for several Member States; welcomes past and ongoing fiscal and reform efforts, yet insists that these efforts will need to continue to ensure the durability of the corand notes the need to focus on growth and job crecation of the excessive deficit;
Amendment 391 #
2017/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Considers it of great importance therefore that all Member States take the necessary policy action to address imbalances, in particular high levels of indebtedness, and commit to structural reformsgrowth and job-creation policies, ensuring the economic sustainability of each individual Member State, thereby ensuring the overall competitiveness and resilience of the European economy;
Amendment 3 #
2017/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas in the EU only about 6 % of all people in charge of farms are younger than 35 years old and more than half are aged over 55, and whereas the disparities between Member States are wide;
Amendment 65 #
2017/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the ageing of the rural population cannot be separated from the CAP and its successive revisions, which have led to a steady reduction in farmers' income, increasing market volatility and unfair distribution of aid;
Amendment 93 #
2017/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recommends that the limit placed on access to supports (currently five years from the establishment of the business) should be reviewed in order to encourage generational turnover and that a minimum quota for aid for young farmers should be introduced;
Amendment 111 #
2017/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is deeply concerned about the current logic of replacing non-repayable aid with financial instruments which, although potentially useful, cannot replace non-repayable aid;
Amendment 116 #
2017/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Draws attention to the false opportunities for young farmers offered in the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds to design and implement financial instruments in the form of loan, guarantee or equity funds in order to provide access to finance to those in need;
Amendment 124 #
2017/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Reiterates that this fund does not serve small- or medium-scale farming, let alone young farmers setting up;
Amendment 150 #
2017/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Understands that the creation of an environment favourable to young farmers setting up in the industry requires an overhaul of the CAP with new supply- regulation instruments that safeguard each country's output and protect the European production model in trade agreements with third countries;
Amendment 238 #
2017/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Stresses that the current policy of supporting biofuels is a serious obstacle to fairer land distribution;
Amendment 292 #
2017/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Deplores the fact that many Member States under pressure from austerity policies have closed part of their national network of public laboratories, thus reducing crucial responses for the rural community in a number of key areas.
Amendment 23 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital –A (new)
Recital –A (new)
-A. whereas the Banking Union has protected the interests of banks and not those of populations and countries;
Amendment 24 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital –A a (new)
Recital –A a (new)
-Aa. whereas the Banking Union has further weakened the capacity for public control of banking systems by the Member States and has, moreover, served to promote and ultimately bring about several mergers and acquisitions in the banking sector of different countries;
Amendment 25 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital –A b (new)
Recital –A b (new)
-Ab. whereas the Banking Union has been operating as a political tool to force a process of capital centralisation and concentration;
Amendment 26 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital –A c (new)
Recital –A c (new)
-Ac. whereas the establishment of a pan-European banking oligopoly is both a major goal and a direct consequence of the Banking Union;whereas, as a result, this project does not tackle the ‘too-big-to- fail’ problem but rather magnifies it, does not serve the populations’ interests and is very far from addressing depositors’ security effectively;
Amendment 29 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas at the end of 2016 the total number of credit institutions in the euro area stood at 5 073 on an unconsolidated basis, down from 5 475 in 2015, 5 614 in 2014 and 6 767 in 20083, which sparked a greater concentration of market power in the sector, exacerbating the ‘too-big-to- fail’ problem; _________________ 3 For the data on 2015, 2014 and 2008, see: ECB, Report on Financial Structures, October 2016, p. 22. The data for 2016 have been sent to us by the ECB and are based on the SDW (http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/). They can be updated once the Report on Financial Structures for 2017 is available.
Amendment 66 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the Single Supervisory Mechanism has yet again revealed its limitations;
Amendment 72 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the Banking Union is not serving any of its major fundamental purposes - to tackle the problems posed by institutions that are 'too-big-to-fail’ and avoid the use of public funds in the resolution process - that were so loudly proclaimed by its supporters;
Amendment 79 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas the separation between commercial and investment banking should constitute a basic priority measure;regrets, therefore, that this has been abandoned by the Commission in its work programme;
Amendment 93 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph –1 (new)
Paragraph –1 (new)
-1. Rejects the Banking Union and calls for it to be dissolved, since it believes that the only way of addressing the ‘too- big-to-fail’ problem, depositors’ security and the urgent need to have a banking system that serves the populations’ interests and countries' needs in terms of development entails the end of the Banking Union and the promotion of public control and decentralisation of the banking and financial sectors;
Amendment 99 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the ECB’s ‘failing or likely to fail’ assessments in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A., Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca and notes the failure of the single supervisory mechanism in the case of Banco Popular;
Amendment 178 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the work done by the ECB to assess the adequacy ofPoints out that using internal models, including its new guide to the TRIM, with a view to addressing the variability in risk-weights applied to risk- weighted assets of the same class across credit institutions is jeopardising the credibility of the entire system; calls for a rapid conclusion of negotiations on output floors within the BCBS;
Amendment 261 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is concerned about the high number of legal applications lodged before the General Court of the EU in relation to the Banco Popular Español S.A. case; asks the Commission to assess whether this could endanger the effectiveness of the new resolution regime; calls on the SRB and the Commission to provide more transparency in future resolution decisions; deplores the double standards applied by the resolution board to a number of cases in 2017, namely those concerning Banco Popular Español S.A., Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca;
Amendment 322 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes the ongoing technical work by the Council on a common fiscal backstop for the Single Resolution Fund (SRF), highlighting the fragility of the banking union and its inability to meet one of its fundamental objectives: avoiding recourse to publicly-funded bank bailouts;
Amendment 331 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Notes that 'preventive recapitalisation' is continuing to hamper the use of public funds to boost the capital of private banks;
Amendment 361 #
2017/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Recalls that deposit protection is a common concern for all EU citizens; is currently debating the proposal on an EDIS at committee level; notes, in this respect, the Commission’s more proportionate ‘new approach’ to an EDIS as put forward in its communication of 11 October 2017however, that the harmonised national deposit guarantee schemes already introduced under Directive 2014/49/EU in line with the subsidiarity criterion are more effective in protecting the interests of the citizens of each country;
Amendment 11 #
2017/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the EU market in retail financial services remains underdeveloped and highly fragmented; whereas efficient action is therefore needed to facilitregulate innovation beneficial to end users, while unlocking the full potential of the single market;, ensuring that it is beneficial to end users.
Amendment 16 #
2017/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas a European retail financial services market would only be videsirable if it represented real added value for consumers by ensuring effective competition and consumer protecand financial stability by ensuring consumer protection and stopping financial concentration, notably in relation to products necessary for participation in economic life and for vulnerable consumers;
Amendment 27 #
2017/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission Action Plan on consumer financial services as a means of addressing some of the challenges raised by Parliament in its report on the Green Paper on retail financial services, with the aim of striving towards a genuine technology-enabled singleensuring consumer protection in the context of a technology based market for retail financial services, while protecting consumers, lowering prices and fighting against tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance;
Amendment 46 #
2017/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that out of the three main strands of work identified by the Commission for the remaining years of the current mandate are worth pursuing; believes, nevertheles, increasing consumer trust the main public responsibility; Considers, that empowering consumers can be highly misled policy in a market with such a dramatic asymmetry of information; Deplores the Commission's proposal to remove regulatory obstacles in the retail financial services; believes, that several concerns raised by Parliament in its report on the Green Paper on retail financial services have not been credibly addressed by the Commission in its Action Plan;
Amendment 90 #
2017/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 113 #
2017/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Asks the Commission to assess carefully whether national rules and practices are motivated by consumer protection concerns; uUnderlines that the dismantling of national barriers should not be to the detriment of consumer protection;, as is usually is the case.
Amendment 131 #
2017/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to amend the Mortgage Credit Directive and the Consumer Credit Directive to introduce compulsory, harmonised, cross-borderMember States to introduce compulsory, creditworthiness assessment standards and principles to better mitigate the risk of increasing over- indebtedness when facilitating pan-European online credit;.
Amendment 139 #
2017/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to present an all-inclusive FinTech Action Plan in the framework of its capital markets union (CMU) and digital single market (DSM) strategies, contributing to an effective and well-funregulation and consumer protection ing integrated the technology- driven single market of financial services benefiting all European end-users;.
Amendment 152 #
2017/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 155 #
2017/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses the need to adapt the existing EU legal framework for the digital world to counteract consumer protection risks connected with distance online selling, thereby creating new business opportunities for European start-ups and FinTechs;including by limiting or banning the online retail sale of complex financial products.
Amendment 2 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for an in-depth reform of the own-resources system, including new own resources (ORs) that could reduce the shareonsiders that the EU’s financing system should continue to be based ofn GNI-based (the contributions (from which accounted for 65.4 % of the Union’s revenue in 2016) and, with a stronger focus on solidarity and redistribution, and calls for a phase-out of all forms of rebate; stresses that the current system includes complex and opaque correction mechanisms and contributes to the lack of sufficient payment appropriations each year;
Amendment 4 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the work of the High Level Group on Own Resources, and while expressing particular theconcern at proposals for measures aimed at reducing the share of the GNI-based contribution, which is residual in nature; argues that this reduction should be compensated for by the use of genuine own resourcesas it considers that the Community budget should be made up of Member States’ contributions based on their GNI, so as to preserve and strengthen the principle of contributory solidarity; argues that no EU system of own resources should undermine or replace this principle;
Amendment 21 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Invites all parties to draw the appropriate conclusions from the HLGOR’s report and to analyse the feasibility of the recommendations to help make the Union budget more stable, simple, autonomous, fair and predictable, but with an ever stronger focus on solidarity and redistribution between richer and poorer countries;
Amendment 28 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 43 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. AdvocatOpposes the establishment of a budgetary capacity for the Eurozone, given that this would perform functions of macroeconomic stabilisation and bring about economic and social convergence; considers, moreover, that this capacity should be financed through own resources specific to the euro area, such as a tax on financial transactions, a bank levy and a sharebe yet another way of pressurising and blackmailing EU workers and peoples and imposing neoliberal economic and social policies ofn the ECB’s profitMember States;
Amendment 51 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Is opposed to any attempt to use Member States’ contributions to co- finance the CAP;
Amendment 58 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 59 #
2017/2053(INI)
6a. Also points out that state measures to regulate supply could save on the vast volume of resources currently used to compensate farmers for market instability.
Amendment 71 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. SupportsConsiders that the creation of a dedicated budget line to support the adoption of the euro by Member States not yet part of the euro area, butwould be a poisoned challsice for it to be made separate from the Eurozone’s budgetary capacity; considers that the budgetary capacity of the Eurozone should be excluded from ceiling calculations for commitments and payments under the multiannual financial frameworkthe countries concerned; objects, therefore, to the use of additional resources by the EU to force both eurozone members and applicants for single currency membership to adopt neoliberal policies in exchange for greater budgetary flexibility;
Amendment 76 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls for the creation of a budget line to fund support programmes for the Member States seeking to negotiate a Euro exit on the grounds that participation in it has become unsustainable and unbearable; considers that these programmes should provide for adequate compensation for the social and economic damage caused by joining the single currency;
Amendment 82 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Supportrongly rejects the proposal to create the post, within the Commission, of European Finance Minister, who would be tasked with managing the budgetary capacityregarding such a move as nothing more than a step towards further loss of sovereignty for the Member States and hensuring full democratic accountability of the EU’s economic governancece the realisation of a more integrated federalist Europe; considers also that this proposal will help to further concentrate power in the hands of the Grand European Directory;
Amendment 24 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls that the adoption of the last multiannual financial framework (MFF), covering the period 2014-2020, involved less than 1% of Member States' gross national income and represented a sharp reduction from the previous MFF, which belies any priority given by the EU to economic and social cohesion and any idea of solidarity within the EU;
Amendment 28 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points out that the economic and social crisis that hit the Member States in 2007/2008 is far from being at an end and that social, economic and territorial divergences persist; considers that cohesion policy’s share of the total EU budget should be increased significantly post-2020, as the Cohesion Fund plays a fundamental role in combating asymmetries between and within Member States;
Amendment 32 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Reiterates Parliament’s call to integrate the European Development Fund into the EU budget in Strongly rejects any attempt to reduce the budget earmarked for cohesion; rejects the intention to increase funding earmarked for der to be able to control and tackle the root causes of excessive migration in a better way, and one that is in line with Union policies and strategifence and external action by, inter alia, the transfer of cohesion funds; reiterates the need to tackle the root causes of excessive migration in the best possible way, with resources earmarked to provide social and humanitarian support for refugees, using tools and methods deriving from the Union’s budgetary competence; considers that common European challenges in development policy could be better mastered through common administration from the EU budget;
Amendment 36 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Rejects any proposal that the future MFF should maintain the link with macroeconomic conditionality and economic governance and national reform plans as part of the European Semester, which is continuing to give priority to financial instruments and public-private partnerships; considers that the future MFF should instead promote increased public investment, supporting productive and strategic sectors and their modernisation and sustainability, focusing on job creation, the fight against poverty, social exclusion and inequalities, environmental protection, and action to exploit the full potential of each country and region;
Amendment 40 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Rejects any proposal, as put forward in the Reflection Paper on the Future of EU Finances, that the next MFF should strengthen the link between the disbursement of cohesion funds and the implementation of structural reforms, economic governance and the European Semester or the rule of law in the Member States;
Amendment 43 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Encourages the Commission to examine the possibility of changing the structure of the EU expenditure in the Cohesion Policy since a majority of the original Union objectives can be considered achieved, and since more efficient results could be gained with emphasis on natural competition on development and modernisation, instead of sustaining the current framework for, and practices of, mere redistributive financial support; is, however,Is of the opinion that the economic, social and territorial Cohesion Policies of the Union cshould still provide support for the less developed regions, and for better cross- border cooperation, but should focus even morefocusing on growth, innovation, mobility, climate change, energy and environmental transition, while applying the same criteria to the whole of the EU;
Amendment 46 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to continue defending farmers and to fund information campaigns on the CAP budget since the amount of aid publicised can be misleading, given that the public is unaware of the fact that the bulk of the CAP is financed at EU level and replaces national spending; stresses that the CAP delivers good quality products at affordable prices to Europeans; rejects any attempt to force Member States to co-finance the CAP;
Amendment 49 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Takes the view that preference should be given to the gross national income basis, with the unanimity rule being maintained, as a guarantee of an EU budget that will be positive for all the Member States and not just for some of them, which may be the minority but which have the majority of the votes;
Amendment 51 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 55 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 62 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that Brexit will have a projected impact of between EUR 3.8 and EUR 4.1 billion a year on the CAP, and calls therefore on the Commission to find alternative forms of financing, for example by increasing Member States’ contributions as a percentage of gross national income, in keeping with the principles of solidarity and redistribution and without punishing the poorest Member States; stresses the need to increase funding in line with responses to the various cyclical crises in sensitive sectors such as milk, pork, fruits and vegetables, and to create instruments that can mitigate price volatility; notes that state measures to regulate supply could save on the vast volume of resources allocated to compensating farmers for losses suffered as a result of market instability;
Amendment 72 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Asks the Commission and the Member States to significantly modernise and redesign the EU budget along the principles of pernecessary form ance-based budgeting in order to fit the new priorities that have been agreed on at the EU-27 level, and to back up a fiscal stabilisation function for the euro area using own resourc effective redistributive policy that will enable disadvantaged countries and regions to move closer to the richest and most developed ones;
Amendment 74 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 81 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls that in its resolution accompanying the discharge 20156, Parliament called on the Commission to fundamentally reconsider the design and delivery mechanism for the ESIFs and to foresee, for the next programming period, more manageable and measurable performance indicators; insists that all future expenditure should focus on programmes, with proven EU added value, designed to deliver results at minimum cost, and that performance should be at the centre of the next generation of all programmes and schemes; __________________ 6 See paragraph 190 of the resolution of 27 April 2017 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission and executive agencies (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309).
Amendment 86 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Points out that the EU-27 should consider halting commitments, or doing less, in domains where the Union is perceived as having limited added value, or as being unable to deliver on promises, in line with the stated objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion referred to in the treaties, should intervene; believes, however, that there should be a clearly stated link between the aims and the allocated funds, that where ambitious aims are set, sufficient funds should be allocated, and that where new goals are set, new resources should be presented; stresses that taken altogether, EU finances should be able to meet the financing needs of new priorities, such as countering terrorism, managing migrthat further the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion, such as increased public investment, supporting productive and strategic sectors and their modernisation and sustainability, focusing on job creation, through border controls,e fight against poverty, social exclusion and minimising the effects of the possible financial gap resulting from Brexitequalities, environmental protection, and action to exploit the full potential of each country and region;
Amendment 90 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Considers that while the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the Union is an unfortunate event that will have a negativen influence on the future of the lives of citizens in the UK and in the remaining Member States, but it also creates an opportunity to redefine and reform the EU- 27’s political ambitions and the needed budget tools and methods; considers that the EU-27 should be ambitious in its budget reform and aim to maintain an annual EU budget similar in size to that of the EU-28;
Amendment 93 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Believes that those policy fields likely to suffer most significantly from the budget gap resulting from Brexit should be protected from major setbacks in order not to destabilise in an excessive way any current economic, social or administrative framework; points in particular to the need to secure the Union’s resources in the field of research, development and innovation in order to enhance the Union’s global leadership; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to examine carefully the consequences of different Brexit scenarios when preparing the MFF proposal and its impact assessment;
Amendment 95 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 102 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Emphasises, in particular, the need to omit the unnecessaryat the fixation on the 1 % ceiling of EU GNI, put in practice for the current MFF 2014-2020, is not sufficient to achieve the stated objectives of social and territorial cohesion referred to in the treaties, since expenditure is often constrained by this ceiling and makes the budget significantly harder to balance in times of varying circumstances; encourages the Member States to consider flexibilthe objectives of Member State cohesion and solidarity in their budget discussions;
Amendment 104 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Encourages the Commission to introduce concrete proposals for new resources, which would reduce the share of merely GNI-based national contributions to the EU budget; notes that the new system could end the anti- European accounting view of ‘fair return’, which places disproportionate emphasis on the net balances between Member States and which, regrettably, has dominated the budgetary debates in the Council for many years nowNotes that any EU own resources system should not harm and replace the contributory solidarity principle;
Amendment 108 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Considers that, for example, the possibility to collect a CO2 levy through carbon pricing (using either taxation or market-based instruments) – as presented by the High Level Group on Own Resources in its report on the future financing of the EU – should be examined by the Commission in the first instance as a way to strengthen the EU-27 budget7; believes that such an instrument could also provide extra added value in Europe, as the levy could function as an incentive to change consumer and producer behaviourthe behaviour of polluting industries in favour of a less carbon- intensive future; considers, however, that any tax-based EU solution should be as neutral as possible for the total tax ratio of a given Member State, and should instead rely on higher contributions from risk actors; __________________ 7 European Commission, ‘Future financing of the EU – Final report and recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources’, 4 January 2017, pp. 41-43.
Amendment 1 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesConsiders inadequate the proposed EUR 59,5 billion in commitments which represent a 1,7 % increase compared to 2017, and a 2,6 % increase in payments amounting to EUR 56,3 billion under the Draft Budget (DB) 2018 for Heading 2; notes, however, that the increase is mainly attributable to the lower amount of assigned revenue estimated to be available to the EAGF in the DB 2018 compared to the 2017 budget, and that commitment appropriations for the EAFRD basically remain at the same level as in the 2017 budget;
Amendment 2 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for the 2018 budget to reflect the priorities outlinedtake account of the constraint to which a group of countries in the Eeuropean Semester, specifically re-launching investment, pursuing structural reforms and conducting rzone are subject in the framework of the European Semester, promoting social and territorial cohespionsible fiscal policies and investment;
Amendment 16 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the importance of the rural development commitments and spending and their potential for the creation of jobs in areas of higher unemployment, especially for the younger generations; emphasises, however, the need to review completely current CAP arrangements, seeking a return to public intervention to regulate supply; points out that the proper and fair regulation of supply means substantial savings when it comes to crisis management resources.
Amendment 32 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates that the financing of the ESAs should be reviewed; calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of introducing calibrated fees for market participants partly replacing the contributions of national competent authorities, without calling into question the ESAs' independence in relation to financial power;
Amendment 36 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to take into consideration the modifications put forwrecommendations regard ing the Omnibus proposal and to secure finance for them in the 2018 budget;importance of small and medium-sized family foldings and, in particular, the need to support policies designed to attract younger farmers.
Amendment 38 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 46 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 48 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. WelcomesConsiders inadequate the increase in appropriations intended to combat animal diseases and plant pests to EUR 40 million, as the Union is facing significant risks and increases in outbreaks of diseases such as Xylella fastidiosa, nodular dermatosis and Bird Influenza.
Amendment 214 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 c (new)
Paragraph 43 c (new)
43 c. Highlights the importance of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) which was set up to respond to major natural disasters and express European solidarity to disaster-stricken regions within Europe and takes note of the proposed increase in commitment and payment appropriations for the EUSF; calls upon the Commission to assess without delay if a further increase will be necessary bearing in mind, in particular, the earthquakes' in Italy and the fires in Portugal, which have had a dramatic and substantial impact on human life in particularly deprived regions; calls for the adaptation of the rules for mobilizing this fund, to allow a more flexible and timely mobilization, covering a wider range of disasters with significant impacts and reducing the time between the disaster and the availability of funds.
Amendment 74 #
2017/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V a (new)
Recital V a (new)
Va. whereas, according to Cuban Government estimates, the economic losses suffered by the Cuban people as a result of the economic, trade and financial blockade which the United States has imposed on the country for more than 50 years amount to USD 125 873 million at current prices;
Amendment 107 #
2017/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Affirms the European Parliament’s aspiration to see relations between the EU and Cuba develop to the greatest possible extent, with full respect for the independence, equality and autonomy of the parties;
Amendment 126 #
2017/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Reiterates the need to respect the inalienable principle of territorial integrity, and calls on the United States to return the illegally occupied territory of Guantánamo; stresses at the same time the inalienable right of peoples to choose their economic, political and social system without interference of any kind; condemns, therefore, the terrorist acts of destabilisation organised by third countries with the intention of bringing down a government;
Amendment 129 #
2017/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that, with a view to the development of political and economic relations between the EU and Cuba, it would be desirable for any unilateral extraterritorial measures taken by third countries that restrict our counterpart’s full economic activity to be lifted; condemns, similarly, the imposition of extraterritorial sanctions on European undertakings for trading with Cuba;
Amendment 130 #
2017/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Stresses that the normalisation process cannot proceed until the economic, trade and financial blockade is lifted, as has been called for since 1992 by the UN General Assembly, which for the 25th consecutive time adopted a resolution to that effect, almost unanimously, with 191 votes out of 193 in favour;
Amendment 4 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the 2030 Agenda and its sustainability goals; stresses that, although the EU farming industry is already making a valuable contribution to sustainability, through the Common Agricultural Policy and stringent environmental requirements, it still needs to adapt better to the many challenges facing itand that public policies to promote and enhance rural agro-ecological farming methods are the right way to meet sustainability goals;
Amendment 5 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the 2030 Agenda and its sustainability goals; stresses that, although the EU farming industry is already making a valuabl the successive market-driven reforms of the CAP have contributioned to sustainability, through the Common Agricultural Policy and stringent environmental requirements, it still needs to adapt better to the many challenges facing itmore intensive production, thereby compromising these goals, and agri-environmental measures are very far from offsetting this trend;
Amendment 13 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Takes the view that, in line with UN SDG 2 (end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture), the main function of agriculture is food production, and the dismantling of production systems that is directly affecting those Member States with weaker production systems has significantly increased their food dependency and jeopardised their food sovereignty;
Amendment 17 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Rejects the idea that more production and growth whatever the cost could be compatible with sustainable development or could serve the purpose of combating the problem of hunger and malnutrition in the world;
Amendment 21 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Urges the Commission to avoid defining the nutritional dimension of food production in simplistic terms, disregarding the fact that food and nutrition security means (continuing) access to a varied and wholesome diet, in terms of quality, quantity, and variety and must not be reduced purely to calorie intake;
Amendment 22 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Recalls the role and importance of agriculture in guaranteeing access to varied and healthy diets, in keeping with cultural values; urges that emphasis be placed on growing food with a high nutritional content instead of on crops produced in abundance which have a high calorie content, as opposed to nutritional content (maize, sugar), since this strategy could cause dietary nutrient deficiencies;
Amendment 27 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Notes that food security should be defined as a guarantee that families have regular and permanent physical and economic access to a basic set of foodstuffs in sufficient quantity and quality to meet their nutritional needs;
Amendment 28 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Notes that healthy food is defined as a food pattern that meets the biological and social needs of individuals in keeping with the various stages in their lives; notes that this concept considers food practices to have a cultural reference point and attaches value to the consumption of healthy regional food, while always taking into account behavioural and emotional aspects linked to food practices, which are incompatible with the practices of agro- industry, intensive farming and monoculture;
Amendment 33 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 g (new)
Paragraph 1 g (new)
1g. Recognises that the proper biological use of food, a process involving the digestion-absorption-metabolism- excretion chain that is necessary for full health and well-being, can be guaranteed only through access to basic public services (health, water and sanitation, housing and social security, among others);
Amendment 34 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 h (new)
Paragraph 1 h (new)
1h. Draws attention to the fact that guaranteeing and complying with the right to food and nutrition and combating hunger are incompatible with the goal of maximising profits, the abuse of market power and pricing dominance, the occupation of land, poor working conditions and pesticide use;
Amendment 36 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 i (new)
Paragraph 1 i (new)
1i. Condemns the imposition by rich countries of agricultural models designed to further the interests of large agro- industry multinationals, as has been occurring with free-trade agreements;
Amendment 47 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that the EU rural agro- ecological farming industry provides jobs for millions of people in rural areas, guarantees food supplies and attracts people to rural areas as a place in which to live, work and relax;
Amendment 48 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that the EU farming industry should provides jobs for millions of people in rural areas, guarantees food supplies and attracts people to rural areas as a place in which to live, work and relax;
Amendment 51 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that adequate levels of public investment must be ensured so as to guarantee lasting, sustainable and inclusive solutions;
Amendment 52 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Takes the view that every farmer should receive a decent income resulting primarily from the sale of his product;
Amendment 53 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Stresses the need to enter into commitments enabling workers to enjoy social protection and a decent income from their output, guaranteeing a minimum income sufficient to cope with hunger and pay for proper food;
Amendment 54 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Stresses, in particular, women’s fundamental role as members of family farms, which constitute the main socioeconomic cell of rural areas, in caring for food production, preservation of traditional knowledge and skills, cultural identity and protection of the environment, bearing in mind that women in rural areas are also affected by wage and pension gaps;
Amendment 55 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Recalls that it is important to guarantee proper public services, notably care for children and the elderly, given that such services are particularly important for women, since they have traditionally played a major role in looking after young and elderly members of the family;
Amendment 56 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for farmpublic policies promoting to bhe developedment of farming by focusing on family holdings and exploiting the advantages of regional value chains; holdings of human dimension, agro- ecological methods, production regulation instruments and market prices that guarantee returns; points out that water, seeds and soil are essential in these processes, for which reason access to these public resources will always be guaranteed, while the privatisation of water, seed patenting and land grabbing will not be authorised;
Amendment 60 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for farming to be developed by focusing on family holdings, guaranteeing a fair income for farmers through public supply regulation mechanisms and exploiting the advantages of regional value chains;
Amendment 66 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that a sustainable future entails ending the subordination of agriculture and food production to the market and competitiveness;
Amendment 69 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Considers it necessary to put an end to the extreme bias that currently exists (introduced with a model geared to intensive agriculture based on the trade in farm inputs and seeds), which increases the discrimination suffered by local seed exchange schemes that are a key source and ensure access to these goods for rural communities, particularly for poor farmers;
Amendment 70 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Rejects attempts of any kind to patent life, plants and animals, genetic material, or essential biological processes, especially where native strains and species are concerned;
Amendment 71 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Stresses that a sustainable future for farming and the environment means safeguarding and promoting access to seeds and agricultural inputs for smallholder farmers and marginalised groups, and promoting and safeguarding the exchange of seeds and their public ownership, and sustainable traditional techniques that guarantee the human right to proper food and nutrition;
Amendment 72 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3e. Underlines the need to counter intensive export models, giving priority to regional and local production and consumption, promoting a different energy-related and environmental rationality, and giving preference to the ownership of land by local communities as an effective way of guaranteeing food quality and security;
Amendment 73 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3f. Urges that action be taken to promote the effective use of traditional agricultural varieties specific to certain regions, combating the export-led standardisation of agricultural production and intensive models of agriculture that result from current agricultural and trade policies, of which the CAP is an example, and to encourage sustainable small and medium-scale production linked to local and regional markets and consumption;
Amendment 76 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the significance of sustainable forest management in Europe, which complements family holdings without replacing them and without occupying farmland, secures jobs, generates added value and makes a crucial contribution to the achievement of biodiversity, climate and environmental protection targets;
Amendment 77 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the significance of sustainable forest management in Europe based on collective solutions, particularly in countries which have predominantly small-scale ownership, which secures jobs, generates added value and makes a crucial contribution to the achievement of biodiversity, climate and environmental protection targets;
Amendment 91 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance for farms of bioenergy, based on second-generation biofuels, which helps to secure farmers’ incomes, by offering them an additional product to sell, and creates jobs in rural areas;
Amendment 97 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that, by using agricultural waste, the bioeconomy sustainable agro- ecological farming methods can help to reduce the environmental impact of farming, in the form of emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants into the air, soil and bodies of water, and can also contribute to the more efficient use of resources;
Amendment 113 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the contribution that the livestock sector will be able to makes to the EU economy, provided that it is regulated and subject to fair systems for distributing production, and notes its potential to contribute to a better functioning agricultural ecosystem and a climate- friendly farming industry;
Amendment 119 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses the need to prevent measures that would have the effect of obstructing access to adequate nutrition and food, in particular measures that prevent people's access to and use of local resources and inputs that guarantee their survival;
Amendment 124 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Regards further progress in precision farming, digitalisation, plant and animal breeding and integrated pest management as essential, because increased efficiency will help to reduce the impact of farming on the environment; takes the view, likewise, that successfully implementing Agenda 2030 and achieving its sustainability goals entail a reorientation of the CAP, readjusting supply regulation instruments and safeguarding production rights, together with a substantial shift in the EU’s trade policy in relation to third countries.
Amendment 136 #
2017/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points out that public facilities for the withdrawal of products – such as silos, collective milking barns, slaughterhouses, refrigerated storage, and dryers – have played an important part in guaranteeing small farmers’ incomes and calls for their reactivation;
Amendment 13 #
2017/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the impacts of the financial crisis, which have undermined trust among many stakeholders, have made it necessary to introduce a greater degree of transparency and robustness in the financial system;
Amendment 19 #
2017/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas CBs retained high levels of security and liquidity during the financial crisis, which has to be attributed to the quality of national regulation;
Amendment 21 #
2017/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas subsidiarity is a key criterion which is firstly not incompatible, and which should secondly not be subordinate to harmonisation and economic integration policies;
Amendment 22 #
2017/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
Recital B d (new)
Bd. whereas the introduction of the European Secured Notes referred to in the Green Paper on the Capital Markets Union and proposed by various institutions, which in practical terms represent a hybrid product between covered bonds and securitisation, has not helped to stabilise the financial system since they have undermined the confidence of stakeholders and may ultimately damage the covered bond market;
Amendment 36 #
2017/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for a clear definition of CBs in a European Directive; insists that the definition for securities henceforth called ‘covered bonds’ must not fall below the standards currently set by Article 129 of the CRR; requests that securities incompatible with this definition but compatible with Article 52(4) of the UCITS Directive are properly defined in the same directive under a name clearly distinct from ‘covered bonds’; suggests that this name may be ‘European Secured Notes’; (ESNs)believes that European covered bonds do not add anything positive to business financing and may even introduce factors of confusion and make the markets more opaque;
Amendment 49 #
2017/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Calls on the Commission to propose a Directive defining CBs and ESNs, including all the following common principles:
Amendment 23 #
2017/0810(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 7
Recital 7
Bank (7) In order to address these issues, on 13 June 2017 the Commission presented its legislative proposal to ensure financial stability and the safety and soundness of CCPs that are of systemic relevance for financial markets across the Union. In order to ensure that the Eurosystem as central bank of issue for the euro can carry out the role envisaged by the legislative proposal, it is of utmost importance that it has the relevant powers under the Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB. In particular, the Eurosystem should have regulatory powers to adopt binding assessments and require remedial action, in close cooperation with other Union authorities. Moreover, where necessary to protect the stability of the euro, the ECB should also have the regulatory powers to adopt additional requirements for CCPs involved in the clearing of significant amounts of euro-denominated transactions, as public funds should not be used to solve the problem of too-big-to-fail institutions.
Amendment 54 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) In order to provide transparency to their investors and the wider markets, investment firms which are not considered to be small and non-interconnected should publicly disclose their levels of capital, their capital requirements, their governance arrangements and remuneration policies and practices. The transparency regarding the remuneration of high earners serves the general interest of contributing to sound and stable financial markets, given the important role high earners play in directing the business and long term performance of the investment firms. For reasons of confidentiality, disclosure of the remuneration of high earners should be required on an aggregated basis. Small and non-interconnected firms should not be subject to public disclosure requirements, except where they issue Additional Tier 1 instruments in order to provide transparency to the investors in these instruments.
Amendment 110 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Article 12 – paragraph 4
4. Where an investment firm which has not met all of the conditions set out in paragraph 1 subsequently meets those conditions, it shall be considered, subject to approval by the competent authority, a small and non-interconnected investment firm after a period of 6 months from the date when those conditions are met. The decision must be substantiated in such a way as to exclude any instance of regulatory arbitrage.
Amendment 211 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
An investment firm dealing on own account, whether for itself or on behalf of a client, shall not incur an exposure to an individual client or group of connected clients the value of which exceeds 25% of its regulatory capital, unless it meets the obligation to notify set out in Article 37 and the K-CON capital requirement set out in Article 38.
Amendment 213 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 2
Article 36 – paragraph 2
Amendment 214 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. WherIn case the limits referred to in Article 36(1) are exceeded, an investment firm shall notify the amount of the excess, the name of the individual client concerned and, where applicable, the name of the group of connected clients concerned, without delay to the competent authorities.
Amendment 215 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 37 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Competent authorities may grant the investment firm a limited period of maximum of 5 business days to comply with the limit referred to in Article 36(1).
Amendment 216 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 37 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 223 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 43 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. EBA, in consultation with ESMA, shall issue guidelines to specify what constitutes as exceptional circumstances under paragraph 1.
Amendment 226 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Amendment 229 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the policy on diversity with regard to the selection of members of the management body, particularly in terms of gender equality, its objectives and any relevant targets set out in that policy, and the extent to which those objectives and targets have been achieved;
Amendment 231 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1
Article 50 – paragraph 1
An investment firm shall disclose its return on assets calculated as its net profit divided by its total balance sheet in its annual report as referred to in Article 45. In response to the growing public demand for tax transparency and to promote the corporate responsibility of investment firms, the latter must also disclose information, on a country-by-country basis, regarding profits made, taxes paid and any public subsidies received.
Amendment 236 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the ratios between fixed and variable remuneration set in accordance with Article 28(2) of Directive (EU) ----/-- [IFD], which in no case may be less than 1;
Amendment 245 #
2017/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the number of individuals that have been remunerated EUR 1 million500 000 or more per financial year, with the remuneration between EUR 1 million500 000 and EUR 5 million broken down into pay bands of EUR 500 000 and with the remuneration of EUR 5 million and above broken down into pay bands of EUR 1 million;
Amendment 21 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) To align remuneration with the risk profile of investment firms and to guarantee a level-playing field, investment firms should be subject to clear principles on corporate governance arrangements and rules on remuneration that take into account the differences between credit institutions and investment firms. Small and non-interconnected investment firms should however be exempted from those rules because the provisions on remuneration and corporate governance under Directive 2014/65/EU are sufficiently comprehensive for those types of firms.
Amendment 23 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) It is also appropriate to offer some flexibility to investment firms in the way they use non-cash instruments when paying variable remuneration, as long as such instruments are effective in achieving the objective of aligning the interest of staff with the interest of various stakeholders, such as shareholders and creditors, and contribute to the alignment of variable remuneration with the risk profile of the investment firm. However, the ratio between the fixed and variable component should never be less than 1.
Amendment 24 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
Amendment 41 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point h
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point h
(h) an investment firm is found liable for a serious breach of national provisions adopted pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/84942 ; _________________ 42 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73).
Amendment 47 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18.º – paragraph 1
Article 18.º – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities publish on their official website any administrative penalties and measures imposed in accordance with Article 16 and which has not been appealed or can no longer be appealed, without undue delay. That publication shall include information on the type and nature of the breach and the identity of the natural or legal person on whom the penalty is imposed or against whom the measure is taken. The information shall only be published after that person has been informed of those penalties or measures and to the extent the publication is necessary and proportionate.
Amendment 50 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18.º – paragraph 3
Article 18.º – paragraph 3
Amendment 53 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Competent Authorities shall be empowered to review regularly the strategies and processes under paragraph 1 applied by the investment firms and to make changes when deemed necessary.
Amendment 55 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23.º – paragraph 2
Article 23.º – paragraph 2
Amendment 58 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23.º – paragraph 3
Article 23.º – paragraph 3
Amendment 67 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 25.º – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 25.º – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall require investment firms to publicly disclose by Member State and by third country in which the investment firm has a branch or a subsidiary that is a financial institution as defined in Article 4(1)(26) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the following information on an annual basis:
Amendment 92 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 28.º – paragraph 1 – point h – point ii
Article 28.º – paragraph 1 – point h – point ii
(ii) variable remuneration, which reflects a sustainable and risk adjusted performance of the employee, as well as performance in excess of the employee's job description., and shall never exceed fixed remuneration;
Amendment 96 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 2
Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. For the purposes of point (i) of paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that investment firms set the appropriate ratios between the variable and the fixed component of the total remuneration in their remuneration policies, taking into account the business activities of the investment firm and associated risks, as well as the impact that different categories of individuals referred to in paragraph 1 have on the risk profile of the investment firm. The variable component of the remuneration shall not exceed 100% of the fixed component.
Amendment 103 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall ensure that where an investment firm benefits from extraordinary public financial support as defined to in Article 2(1)(28) of Directive 2014/59/EU, the following requirements apply:payment of any kind of variable remuneration is forbidden.
Amendment 105 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 107 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 109 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 117 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 30.º – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 30.º – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) Variable remuneration may not exceed fixed remuneration on an annual basis;
Amendment 158 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point g
Article 36 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point g
(g) to require investment firms to limitsuspend variable remuneration as a percentage of net revenues where that remuneration is inconsistent with the maintenance of a sound capital base;
Amendment 165 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the investment firm repeatedly fails to establish or maintain an adequate level of additional capital as set out in Article 38(1).
Amendment 178 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 38 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. If the competent authority determines that the investment firm remains inactive over a period of six months after the additional capital requirements have been determined by the competent authority these requirements shall become binding level 1 requirements.
Amendment 181 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 40.º – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 40.º – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) require investment firms to use specific media and locations and in particular their internet sites for publications other than the financial statements;
Amendment 11 #
2017/0335(CNS)
The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.
Amendment 14 #
2017/0334(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
–
–
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs calls on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
Amendment 1 #
2017/0333R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
–
–
The European Parliament rejects the European Commission’s proposal of 6 December 2017 for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Monetary Fund.
Amendment 9 #
2017/0333R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The Committee on Budgetary Control intends to reject the proposal of the European Commission to create a European Monetary Fund and, to this end, calls on both the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committees responsible, to propose rejection of the proposal.
Amendment 8 #
2017/0326(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Deplores that the European Parliament was not involved in the definition and the weighting of the criteria to select the location of the seat of the European Banking Authority (EBA) despite the European Parliament's prerogatives, whereby the European Parliament and the Council are equal co- legislators on Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing the EBA and defining its location; believes that, given the relatively low number of establishment plan staff (170), it might have been possible to choose a more outlying location;
Amendment 15 #
2017/0326(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights the different tasks and areas of competence of the European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA); points to the need to grant them the financial and human resources necessary to guarantee their absolute impartiality and independence; recalls the deliberate decision of the co-legislators to set up three authorities with separate tasks and fields of competence, one for banking, one for securities and one for insurance and pensions; demands that this separation remains to be reflected in the regulatory and supervisory competences and the governance, the main organisation and main financing of their activities independent of their location, while allowing for sharing, where applicable, of administrative support services and facility management services which are not related to core activities,; requests the Commission and Council to safeguard the current set-up of the three authorities during and after the relocation of the EBA; demands a regular update from the Commission in this regard, in particular during the ongoing legislative procedure on the review of the European Supervisory aAuthorities (COM(2017)0536); recalls that Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 is part of the legislative procedure underon the review of the European Supervisory Authorities (COM(2017)0536);
Amendment 31 #
2017/0248(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) For the purpose of ensuring the effective and efficient monitoring of VAT on cross-border transactions, Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 provides for the presence of officials in administrative offices and during administrative enquiries in other Member States. In order to strengthen the capacity of tax authorities by providing them with greater technical and human resources to check cross-border supplies, there should be joint audits enabling officials from two or more Member States to form a single audit team and actively take part in a joint administrative enquiry.
Amendment 33 #
2017/0248(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to combat the most serious cross-border fraud schemes, it is necessary to clarify and strengthen the governance, tasks and functioning of Eurofisc. Eurofisc liaison officials should be able to access, exchange, process and analyse all necessary information swiftly and coordinate any follow-up actions. It is also necessary to strengthen the cooperation with other authorities involved in the fight against VAT fraud at Union level, in particular through the exchange of targeted information with Europol and the European Anti-Fraud Office. Therefore, Eurofisc liaison officials should be able to share, spontaneously or on foot of a request, information and intelligence with Europol and the European Anti-Fraud Office. This would enable Eurofisc liaison officials to receive data and intelligence held by Europol and the European Anti- Fraud Office in order to identify the real perpetrators of the VAT fraud activities.
Amendment 35 #
2017/0248(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 85 #
2017/0248(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 18
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 18
Regulation (EU) No 904/2010
Article 49 – paragraph 2a – subparagraph 1
Article 49 – paragraph 2a – subparagraph 1
The Member States participating in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall communicate to that office, in accordance withmay communicate to the European Arnticle 24 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939(*),-fraud Office any available information about serious offences against the common VAT system as referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council(**).to enable it to consider appropriate action in accordance with its mandate.’;
Amendment 12 #
2017/0232(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The 2017 Commission report on the mission and organisation of the ESRB5 concludes that, while the ESRB is generally well-functioning, improvements on certain specific points are necessary. In this sense, macro-prudential supervision and the European Systemic Risk Board will continue to be fallible and ineffective in preventing financial crises until substantive measures are adopted, such as the taxation of capital movements, the end of the derivatives market, the separation of commercial from investment banking and the imposition of public control over the banking and financial system. __________________ 5 Commission Staff Working Document, Effect Analysis, Amendments to ESRB Regulation, COM(2017) 538 final.
Amendment 278 #
2017/0230(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Following the financial crisis and the recommendations of a group of high level experts led by Jacques de Larosière, the the Union has made important progress in creating not only stronger, but also more harmonised rules for the financial markets in the form of the Single Rule Book. The Union has also set up the European System of Financial Supervision ("ESFS"), built on a two-pillar system which combines micro- prudential supervision, coordinated by European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"), and macro-prudential supervision through the establishment of the European Systemic Risk Board ("ESRB"). The three ESAs namely the European Banking Authority ("EBA"), created by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council33, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority ("EIOPA"), created by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council , and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), created by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council34 (collectively "the founding regulations") – became operational in January 2011. The overall objective of the ESAs is to sustainably reinforce the stability and effectiveness of the financial system throughout the Union and to enhance consumer and investor protection. However, the current evolution of the financial system, with mergers and concentrations, points to the limits of supervision and the need to establish public control over the financial system in order to align it with the interests of the real economy. __________________ 33 Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12). 34 Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 84).
Amendment 318 #
2017/0230(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) To ensure a high level of convergence in the area of supervision and approval of internal models, EIOPA should be able to issue opinions to remedy potential inconsistencies and assist competent authorities in reaching agreement related to the approval of internal models with the aim of progressively eliminating internal models in favour of standardised models. Competent authorities should take their decisions in conformity with these opinions, or alternatively explain why there are not conforming to the opinion.
Amendment 29 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Foreign direct investment contributes to the Union's growth, by enhancing its competitiveness, creating jobs and economies of scale, bringing in capital, technologies, innovation, expertise, and by opening new markets for the Union's exports. It supports the objectives of the Commission's Investment Plan for Europe and contributes to other Union projects and programmes. Foreign investment has, however, also been leading to serious cases of poverty and unemployment, especially when a foreign investor, having established itself in given Union regions, relocates its production years later, despite having repeatedly received national and Union support.
Amendment 34 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The Union and the Member States have an open investment environment, which is enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ('TFEU') and embedded in the international commitments undertaken by the Union and its Member States with respect to foreign direct investment. In other words, the Union and its Member States are now victims of their policies of globalisation and all-out liberalisation of capital movements.
Amendment 36 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) There is currently no comprehensive framework at EU-level for the screening of foreign direct investments on the grounds of security or public order. There are, however, several outlying countries which, because austerity policies had been imposed on them, were virtually forced to privatise key companies that have consequently ended up in foreign ownership, a fact which is undermining the quality of public service and the role of those companies as a lever for development.
Amendment 42 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The framework for the screening of foreign direct investment should provide the Member States and the Commission with the means to address risks to security or public order in a comprehensive manner, and to adapt to changing circumstances, whilst maintaining the necessary flexibility for Member States to screen foreign direct investments on grounds of security and public order taking into account their individual situations and national circumstances. The nationalisation of one or more companies should be considered where there are risks to security or public order, when the sectors concerned are of strategic importance to the national economy.
Amendment 63 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) A mechanism which enables Member States to cooperate and assist each other where a foreign direct investment in one Member State may affect the security or public order of other Member States should be set up. Member States should be able to provide comments to a Member State in which the investment is planned or has been completed, irrespective of whether the Member States providing comments or the Member States in which the investment is planned or has been completed maintain a screening mechanism or are screening the investment. The comments of Member States should also be forwarded to the Commission. The Commission should also have the possibility, where appropriate, to issue an opinion to the Member State in which the investment is planned or has been completed, irrespective of whether this Member State maintains a screening mechanism or is screening the investment and irrespective of whether other Member States have provided comments.
Amendment 65 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 68 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 72 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to facilitate the cooperation with other Member States and the screening of foreign direct investment by the Commission, Member States should notify their screening mechanisms and any amendment thereto to the Commission, and should report on the application of their screening mechanisms on a regular basis. For the same reason, Member States that do not have a screening mechanism should also report on the foreign direct investments that took place in their territory, on the basis of the information available to them.
Amendment 87 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States may maintain, amend or adopt mechanisms to screen foreign direct investments on the grounds of security or public order, under the conditions and in accordance with the terms set out in this Regulation. Nationalisation shall be considered a means to employ when security or public order is at stake.
Amendment 116 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – indent 4 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – indent 4 a (new)
- social services such as health, education, or social security.
Amendment 137 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) any decisions to nationalise companies targeted by foreign direct investment screened or undergoing screening.
Amendment 161 #
2017/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 5
Article 9 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission's opinion shall not be binding on the Member States where the foreign direct investment is planned or has been completed shall take utmost account of the Commission's opinion and provide an explanation to the Commission in case its opinion is not followed.
Amendment 177 #
2017/0143(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls onDemands that the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;withdraw this proposal for a Pan- European Personal Pension Product and instead draw up proposals for strengthening public pensions systems and public pensions to guarantee public pensions for all persons in the European Union.
Amendment 178 #
2017/0143(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Instructs its President to forward its positCalls for the percentage of GDP to be spent on pensions to the Council, the Commission and the national parliamentsbe determined jointly with Member States based on the percentage of the population aged 65 and over.
Amendment 179 #
2017/0143(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Encourages the Commission to look into the possible implementation of a public pension scheme in Europe
Amendment 186 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) whereas financial innovation was at the root of the financial crisis that erupted in 2007, causing the economies of developed capitalist countries to experience the biggest crisis since the Second World War;
Amendment 191 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 b (new)
Recital 1 b (new)
(1b) whereas the three pillar banking model, including the mandatory rebate for private insurance schemes, has proved disastrous in the countries where it was implemented, clearly showing that people prefer a collective inter-institutional system of redistribution to the system of individual capitalisation;
Amendment 196 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 c (new)
Recital 1 c (new)
(1c) whereas financial innovation will not guarantee safe pensions, but will instead contribute to an accumulation of capital in search of valorisation and to the financial instability triggered by the processes of financialisation of the global capitalist economy,
Amendment 197 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 d (new)
Recital 1 d (new)
(1d) whereas the suggestion by the European Commission to invest in extremely high risk ‘derivatives’ that contribute to increasing exponentially the probability and severity of financial crises is irresponsible and inappropriate; whereas between the end of the Second World War and the 80s, financial crises were of limited magnitude; whereas since the deregulation of financial markets, owing to financial innovation and the exponential rise in derivatives, financial crises have continued with an increasingly destructive power; whereas the European Commission proposes to fuel them further through the promotion of private pension funds;
Amendment 200 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 e (new)
Recital 1 e (new)
(1e) whereas the PEPP is not an appropriate instrument for addressing the demographic challenges, and whereas the very low birth rates in Galicia, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Cyprus (all Member States subject to intervention by the Troika) are a consequence of job insecurity among young people and women, discrimination of women of child- bearing age in the labour market, the shortage of rental accommodation resulting from the lack of a public housing policy and the absence of child benefits, and whereas these problems will not be solved by financial innovation and the expansion of capital markets;
Amendment 201 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 f (new)
Recital 1 f (new)
(1f) whereas the profitability or unprofitability of financial products is essentially uncertain; whereas it should be noted that the root cause of the 2007 crisis was the creation and sale of complex financial products based on subprime mortgages; whereas these products were awarded AAA ratings, i.e. the highest creditworthiness, by the three main rating agencies –Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch – only weeks before their value was reduced to zero.
Amendment 202 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 g (new)
Recital 1 g (new)
(1g) whereas Alan Greenspan, the then President of the US Federal Reserve, acknowledged that while he was aware a lot of these practices were going on, he had no notion of how significant they had become until very late;
Amendment 203 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 h (new)
Recital 1 h (new)
(1h) whereas, against this background, it cannot be argued that workers are fully aware of the key elements of the product and of the risks;
Amendment 204 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 i (new)
Recital 1 i (new)
(1i) whereas in a report published in 2010 promoting the expansion of private pensions, the Spanish association of savings and investment product providers acknowledged that the capital belongs to the employees involved in the various pension schemes and that the risk is entirely borne by the participants;
Amendment 205 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 j (new)
Recital 1 j (new)
(1j) whereas the PEPP promoters are banks, insurance companies, asset managers, occupational pension funds and investment companies, and whereas potential social security contributions which could increase the revenue of public pension schemes are diverted to private companies which will make significant profits;
Amendment 206 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 k (new)
Recital 1 k (new)
(1k) whereas in order to promote PEPP subscriptions, the European Commission has called for tax deductions in Member States, and whereas in order to encourage Member States to grant tax deductions for PEPPs, the Commission adopted a recommendation, together with this proposal, on the tax treatment of personal pension products, including pan- European Personal Pension Products;
Amendment 207 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 l (new)
Recital 1 l (new)
(1l) whereas tax deductions for contributions to personal pension schemes are very regressive and whereas low-income workers cannot set aside any amount for pension schemes and are thus not able to benefit from any deductions; whereas it is those with high salaries and capital incomes who are able to make large contributions and benefit from deductions;
Amendment 208 #
2017/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 m (new)
Recital 1 m (new)
(1m) whereas with this Proposal for a Regulation the European Commission is giving up on the aim to ensure adequate public pensions.
Amendment 28 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Member States find it increasingly difficult to protect their national tax bases from erosion as tax planning structures have evolved to be particularly sophisticated and often take advantage of the increased mobility of both capital and persons within the internal market following a long process of deregulation of the European and international financial system. These structures commonly consist of arrangements which are developed across various jurisdictions and move taxable profits towards more beneficial tax regimes or have the effect of reducing the taxpayer´s overall tax bill. As a result, Member States often experience considerable reductions in their tax revenues which hinder them from applying growth-friendly tax policies. It is therefore critical that Member States' tax authorities obtain comprehensive and relevant information about potentially aggressive tax arrangements. This information would enable those authorities to be able to promptly react against harmful tax practices and to close loopholes through enacting legislation or by undertaking adequate risk assessments and carrying out tax audits.
Amendment 50 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) It is acknowledged that the disclosure of potentially aggressive cross- border tax planning arrangements would stand a better chance of achieving its envisaged deterrent effect where the relevant information reached the tax authorities at an early stage, in other words before the disclosed arrangements are actually implemented. Where the disclosure obligation is shifted to taxpayers, it would. It would accordingly be practical to place the obligation to disclose those potentially aggressive cross-border tax planning arrangements at a slightly later stage, as taxpayers may not be aware of the nature of the arrangements at the time of the inceptionn initial stage. To facilitate Member States' administrations, the subsequent automatic exchange of information on these arrangements could take place every quarter.
Amendment 53 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) To ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and to prevent loopholes in the proposed framework of rules, the obligation for disclosure should be placed upon all actors that are usually involved in designing, marketing, organising or managing the implementation of a reportable cross- border transaction or a series thereof as well as those who provide assistance or advice. It should not be ignored either that in certain cases, the obligation to disclose would not be enforceable upon an intermediary due to a legal professional privilege or where there is no intermediary because, for instance, the taxpayer designs and implements a scheme in-house. It would thus be crucial that, in such circumstances, tax authorities do not lose the opportunity to receive information about tax-related arrangements that are potentially linked to aggressive tax planning. It would therefore be necessary to, shifting the disclosure obligation to the taxpayer who benefits from the arrangement in these cases.
Amendment 86 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 3 – point 23 – point b
Article 3 – point 23 – point b
(b) a taxpayer participates in the control of another taxpayer through a holding that exceeds 210% of the voting rights;
Amendment 87 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 3 – point 23 – point c
Article 3 – point 23 – point c
(c) a taxpayer participates in the capital of another taxpayer through a right of ownership that, directly or indirectly, exceeds 210% of the capital.
Amendment 89 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/16/EU
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 1
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require intermediarietaxpayers to file information with the competent tax authorities on a reportable cross-border arrangement or series of such arrangements within five working days, beginning on the day after the reportable cross-border arrangement or series of arrangements is made available for implementation by the intermediary to one or more taxpayers following contact with that taxpayer or those taxpayers, or where the first step in a series of arrangements has already been implementedthe use of advantageous cross-border arrangements.
Amendment 91 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/16/EU
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 96 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/16/EU
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 98 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/16/EU
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, where there is no intermediary within the meaning of point 21 of Article 3, the obligation to file information on a reportable cross-border arrangement or series of such arrangements shall be the responsibility of the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall the taxpayer files information within five working days, beginning on the day after the reportable cross-border arrangement or series of arrangements or the first step in a series of such arrangements has been implemented.
Amendment 99 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/16/EU
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 102 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/16/EU
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 4
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 4
4. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require intermediaries and taxpayers to file information on reportable cross-border arrangements that were implemented between [date of political agreement] and 31 December 2018 .Intermediaries and taxpayers, as appropriate, shall file information on those reportable cross- border arrangements by 31 March 2019.
Amendment 109 #
2017/0138(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/16/EU
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 6 – point c
Chapter II – section II – Article 8 a a a – paragraph 6 – point c
(c) a summary of the content of the reportable cross-border arrangement or series of such arrangements, including a reference to the name by which they are commonly known, if any, and a description in abstract terms of the relevant business activities or arrangements, without leading to the disclosure of a commercial, industrial or professional secret or of a commercial process, or of information whose disclosure would be contrary to public policy;
Amendment 29 #
2017/0134(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) It is essential that GNI data isare exhaustive and therefore should take account also of the activities that are not reported in statistical surveys or to fiscal, social and other administrative authorities. Improved GNI coverage presupposes developing suitable statistical bases and assessment procedures and, making suitable adjustments, and adopting a system of reliable measures with which to estimate both the scale of the informal economy (unpaid work, self-consumption, etc.), which is not recorded by official statistics, and, secondly, unregistered economic activity.
Amendment 32 #
2017/0125(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Title 1
rejects the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the European Defence Industrial Development Programme aiming at supporting the competitiveness and innovative capacity of the EU defence industry
Amendment 38 #
2017/0125(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Title 1
Amendment 24 #
2017/0116(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The fair competition principle is well established within the Union where market distortive practices are subject to existing Union law, which guarantees equal opportunities and fair competition conditions for all air carriers, European and non-European, operating in the Union. That principle can under no circumstances override a State’s desire to maintain public ownership of its company for strategic reasons and with a view to guaranteeing the cohesion of its territory and the link between its country and its emigrant community.
Amendment 25 #
2017/0116(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Efforts should therefore be strengthened in the context of ICAO and of WTO to actively support the development of international rules guaranteeing fair competition conditions between all air carriers, without ever placing the market above the free will of States when managing their public companies in line with their development objectives.
Amendment 41 #
2017/0116(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. The fair competition principle must not override a sovereign country’s desire to maintain public ownership of its airline, with management geared to the cohesion of its territory and the link between the country and its emigrant community.
Amendment 33 #
2017/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) A simplification of certain areas covered by Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, and a more proportionate approach to those areas, is in line with the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) programme which emphasises the need for cost reduction and simplification so that Union policies achieve their objectives in the most efficient way, and aims in particular at reducing regulatory and administrative burdens. It is still necessary to remember the importance of financial derivative products in the creation of speculative bubbles, taking into account that derivative products have again exceeded in value the levels before the 2008 crisis: in 2014 they were worth 10 times more than global GDP.
Amendment 32 #
2016/2270(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes have deprived countries of revenue that is essential for a robust social state and public welfare policies, leading to worsening poverty; these schemes are operating right around the globe, including within the EU itself, and those negative impacts are likewise felt right around the globe, and likewise also within the EU itself;
Amendment 70 #
2016/2270(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that urgent practical steps need to be taken to eradicate poverty and social exclusion and promote the fair distribution of income and wealth;to greatly reduce the current hugely unequal distribution of income and wealth, with just eight men owning the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people (half the world's population), according to a Jan 2017 report by Oxfam1. 1 https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/econ omy-99
Amendment 59 #
2016/2269(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that modern societies are facing crucial social challenges that involve inequality issues; stresses that dealing with these challenges is both a responsibility for public policy-making and an opportunity for private investorsservices and policy - making.
Amendment 66 #
2016/2269(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Notes the crucial role of tax policies and their redistributive function in correcting inequalities of income and wealth;Highlights in this regard that tax evasion and elision and tax dumping are not just detrimental to public finances and policies but also have a highly assymetrical impact between higher and lower levels of income;Tax evasion and dumping favour a race to bottom on corporate taxes which harms public services and shifts the tax burden toward labour income.
Amendment 18 #
2016/2250(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out that recent measures to liberalise the common agricultural policy as part of successive market-oriented revisions, along with the free-trade agreements that have been signed and are being negotiated, threaten broad economic sectors in the ORs and are therefore at odds with the provisions of Article 349 TFEU;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2250(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Maintains that POSEI is enabling agriculture to develop and survive in the ORs; draws attention to the Commission’s POSEI implementation review, published on 15 December 2016, which makes the point that POSEI is consistent with the aims of the CAP, and calls for the basic features of the scheme to be preserved intactconsolidated with a particular focus on specific support for passenger and goods transport, so as to avert the danger that agricultural production might be abandoned, with all the harmful consequences which that would entail for employment, the environment, and the territorial dimension of the ORs;
Amendment 27 #
2016/2250(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Maintains that the abolition of market management tools in the milk sector, the loss of business opportunities resulting from the Russian embargo, growing price volatility, and the prevailing crisis are undermining the sustainability of milk production in the Azores, one of the main driving forces within the region’s socio-economic fabric; points, therefore, to the need to take measures, backed by the necessary resources, in order to help milk production continue in the Azores and to offset the effects of deregulation and the difficulty of selling production; calls urgently for a public supply regulation mechanism that will safeguard the right to produce in each Member State and in the corresponding ORs;
Amendment 44 #
2016/2250(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Warns of the potential impact of free trade agreements on traditional OR products (including milk, meat, sugar, and bananas) and urges the Commission to honour the commitment arising from the POSEI Regulation to gauging the impact of trade negotiations on matters affecting ORs and to involving the ORs in, and informing them about, negotiating processes; reiterates the importance of the support schemes for the banana and sugar sectors and maintains that special sugars must be excluded from trade negotiations; calls for CETA not to be applied until it has been ratified by the national and regional parliaments and for the TTIP negotiations to be halted;
Amendment 60 #
2016/2250(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Urges that consideration be given to creating a specific POSEI designed to support transport between islands and from the islands to the mainland, bearing in mind that double insularity represents the main obstacle to development;
Amendment 30 #
2016/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas the Banking Union has further weakened Member States’ control over their banking systems, and this situation is particularly serious in the Member States which are more peripheral and worst hit by the economic and financial crisis;
Amendment 31 #
2016/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)
Recital -A a (new)
-Aa. whereas the Banking Union, with its unique bank supervision and resolution methods, is a political way of enforcing the centralisation and capital concentration process in the European Union, and whereas it has been used to promote and carry out merger and acquisition operations in the banking sectors of a number of Member States and to concentrate deposits and investments in the hands of Europe’s financial behemoths, exacerbating the ‘too big to fail’ problem;
Amendment 32 #
2016/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A b (new)
Recital -A b (new)
-Ab. whereas the Banking Union has given rise to a pan-European banking oligopoly, a development which runs counter to one of its supposed main objectives – combating the ‘too big to fail’ problem;
Amendment 33 #
2016/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A c (new)
Recital -A c (new)
-Ac. whereas the Banking Union guarantees stability for big capital, ensuring that public funds continue to be channelled for purposes which serve big capital’s own interests;
Amendment 39 #
2016/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the establishment of the Banking Union hwas been a fundamentalone of the most important steps taken towardsfollowing the complereation of a genuinthe Economic and Monetary Union;
Amendment 69 #
2016/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the new resolution regime that entered into force in January 2016 represented a change of paradigm;, and whereas market participants need to fully understand and adapt to the new systemin practice it prevents Member States from nationalising banks regarded as systemically important (i.e. those covered by the single dispute settlement mechanism), whilst doing nothing to obviate the need for a Member State to inject money into a systemically important bank which runs into difficulties;
Amendment 87 #
2016/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Rejects the theory that the Banking Union will necessarily resolve the ‘too big to fail’ problem and strengthen the banking and financial sector; considers that the class-motivated nature of this project and the political- ideological approach it involves will not prevent the continued use of public money to bail out the banks’ major shareholders, nor will it stop banks engaging in financial manipulation or speculation;
Amendment 89 #
2016/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Stresses that, given the importance of the financial system, and in view of current and recent experiences, capital concentration policies in the banking sector must be ended, and control of the banks and the financial system must be placed in public hands; takes the view that these two measures are prerequisites for guaranteeing that financial resources used to stimulate the economy foster the development of countries and improve the living standards of their people and workers;
Amendment 208 #
2016/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the ‘too-big-to-fail’ issue still needs to be addressedBanking Union will not help to resolve the ‘too-big-to-fail’ issue, as it furthers concentration in the banking sector and, consequently, increases the number of institutions that are ‘too big to fail’;
Amendment 435 #
2016/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Calls for the Banking Union and its mechanisms to be dissolved;
Amendment 3 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that farmers’ livelihoods depend on getting produce to the market and that loss of produce at farm level equates to loss of investment and incomeby ignoring the demand of the market the Common Agricultural Policy leads to destroyed produce and prices far below the cost;
Amendment 14 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that around 88 million tonnes of food are wasted in the EU every year, with associated costs estimated at 143 billion euros; stresses that reducing food waste is one of the key strategies to combat hunger in the world;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Stresses that food wastage has huge environmental consequences, contributes to climate change and represents a waste of limited resources such as land, energy and water;
Amendment 26 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Notes that the global food production is more than enough to feed the growing world population, but highlights that the production is not sustainable and that large volumes of food go to waste;
Amendment 38 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the potential for optimisation of use of former foodstuffs and by- products from the food chain in feed production and its importance for primary production, but stresses the need for increased traceability and compliance with zootechnical and biosecurity standards;
Amendment 62 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes the benefits of access to data and forecasts and developing advance production programmes for farmers, and highlights the need to restore public instruments to regulate production, enabling them to better match supply to demand and minimise wastage;
Amendment 68 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Stresses the fact that, in general, the EU produces more food than domestic consumption demands and thereby it contributes to the food-wastage phenomenon with agricultural overproduction as one of its causes;
Amendment 69 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Calls for a tailor-made approach in the EU agricultural production, so that production is adjusted to the demand in order to avoid over-supply and food wastage, with positive effects also on the environment;
Amendment 85 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Encourages Member States and the Commission to promote local and organic food and short food supply chains which can contribute to the reduction of the food waste;
Amendment 88 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Stresses that fight against food wastage should not compromise food safety and environmental standards, nor animal protection standards, notably animal health and welfare;
Amendment 93 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes the difficulty in quantifying food wastage at the primary production stage and the need for an agreed technical definition of 'food wastage', and calls on the Commission to identify and disseminate to Member States best practice in relation to gathering data on food loss and food waste on farms without placing an additional administrative burden on farmers;
Amendment 97 #
2016/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Calls on all stakeholders in the food production, supply and consumption chains, from consumers and retailers to the food processors and producers, including farmers, to use various best practices from the EU Member States to combat food losses and prevent food waste generation on different levels along the food production, supply and consumption chains;
Amendment 7 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the increased use of palm oil in processed food, with some 50 % of packaged goods now containing palm oil, and as a biofuel; calls for introduction of clear and transparent mandatory labelling schemes of palm oil in processed goods in order to help consumers to make informed purchasing choices;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes with concern that processed palm oil that is contained in wide variety of products may have serious health risks and implications to the consumers;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Stresses that consumption of imported vegetable oil, such as palm oil, and their derived processed goods, as well as meat consumption play a major role in the impact of the EU consumption on global deforestation;
Amendment 29 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the alarming scale of deforestation driven by palm oil, especially in the South-East Asia, where the majority of palm oil production takes place in Malaysia and Indonesia; notes that palm oil is an important driver of deforestation for commercial agriculture, where extremely biodiverse tropical forest is being converted to monocultural palm oil plantations at the expense of natural habitats and ecosystems and biodiversity;
Amendment 44 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that deforestation of rainforest for palm oil production contributes significantly to climate change; in addition palm oil development is causing severe damage to the landscape and have been linked to issues such as land erosion and the pollution of rivers;
Amendment 47 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses with great concern that palm oil expansion and deforestation of rainforests is pushing a considerable number of animal species in South-East Asia to extinction, notably orang-utans, Sumatran tigers or Malayan sun bears which are critically endangered and could become extinct in the wild within the next years;
Amendment 50 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Stresses that deforestation leads to increased accessibility of wild animals to poachers and wildlife smugglers who capture and sell wildlife as pets, use them for medicinal purposes or kill them for their body parts;
Amendment 52 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Underlines that deforestation of rainforests driven by land-use change to palm oil plantations greatly reduces the carbon sequestration potential and thereby significantly contributes to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions;
Amendment 54 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Underlines that wildlife trafficking is an organised international crime estimated to be worth between EUR 8 and EUR 20 billion annually;
Amendment 61 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that plantations are systematically destroying the rainforest land that the local people depend on for subsistence, thus giving them no choice but to become plantation workers under the poor and degrading working conditions;
Amendment 112 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Underlines the need to place criteria of social and environmental valorisation and the right of access to land above the mere logic of financial profit in the evaluation of the various strategies for forestry development;
Amendment 114 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b(new)
Paragraph 6 b(new)
6b. Stresses that the palm oil industry has been linked to major human rights violations, including child labour in some remote areas of South-East Asia;
Amendment 115 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Urges the Commission to establish a definition of forest that includes the biological, social and cultural diversity that genuine forests represent, where ecosystems, habitats and local communities are protected;
Amendment 118 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Rejects simplistic concepts and definitions of forest that define forests only as a collection of trees per percentage of area covered, leading to the adoption of equally simplistic concepts of deforestation and reforestation, the consequence of which can be that vast palm oil monocultures, which destroy huge areas of tropical forest, are classified as reforestation in the regions concerned;
Amendment 119 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6d. Draws attention to the incompatibility between maximizing profits, which is the aim of vast palm oil monocultures involving the abuse of market power and pricing dominance, the occupation of land, poor working conditions and pesticide use, and protecting the environment, combating hunger and guaranteeing and complying with the four basic elements of the human right to food and nutrition (adequacy, availability, accessibility and sustainability);
Amendment 123 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish a regulatory framework of strong and enforceable measures to guarantee that all actors throughout the supply chain, including EU financial institutions and the investments and loans they provide, are not involved in deforestation, especially with regards to sectors connected with the production of food, biofuels, cosmetics and cleaning products;
Amendment 128 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Considers traceability in the supply chain to be essential;
Amendment 130 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls for any measures that hinder access to adequate food and nutrition to be rejected, including measures that hinder people’s access to and use of resources and inputs to guarantee their survival, particularly in countries where palm oil is produced;
Amendment 133 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Calls for the EU to strengthen existing control instruments;
Amendment 149 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the rapid phasing-out of all land-based biofuels, such as palm oil biodiesel, that drive deforestation and, compete against food production for land or do notand significantly reducecontribute to greenhouse gas emissions;
Amendment 154 #
2016/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses that the right to food, preservation of biodiversity and the protection of the environment must take priority over the one-sided business interests of the agro-fuel industry;
Amendment 39 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the economic crisis has affected the entire European Union, but it has had a particularly severe impact on rural areas, which are experiencing devastating levels of unemployment, poverty and depopulation, affecting women in particular, and the feminisation of poverty can also be seen in rural areas;
Amendment 51 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas the European agri- industrial production model entails the use of large quantities of chemical products such as pesticides and fertilisers which, in addition to having extremely negative effects on our environment and consumer health, also has negative effects on the health of farmers, and these effects are more intense and prolonged in the case of women;
Amendment 78 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas in 2014 women were responsible for about 35 % of total working time in agriculture, carrying out 53.8 % of part-time work and 30.8 % of full-time work, thereby making a significant contribution to agricultural production; whereas work carried out by spouses and other female family members onwomen on family farms may constitutes ‘invisible work’;
Amendment 86 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas not being the owner of the farm means not having rights of any kind (rights to single payments, suckler cow premiums, vine planting rights, income, etc.), and this places women farmers in a highly vulnerable situation, where in some cases they are even excluded from aid for female workers within the framework of positive action schemes, and this situation occurs regardless of whether or not the women concerned are registered with the social security system;
Amendment 92 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L b (new)
Recital L b (new)
Lb. whereas in 2007 only 29% of farm owners in the EU were women, which means that the majority of CAP aid goes to men, and furthermore women own the smallest farms which are often excluded from the CAP;
Amendment 114 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas women in rural areas also suffer from gender pay and pension gaps, and whereas more specifically the gender pay gap in rural areas is 10 % wider than in other areas, which means that more attention needs to be paid to establishing up-to-date statistics on female land ownership, and on their working conditions in rural areas;
Amendment 121 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Recital P a (new)
Pa. whereas many women working on family farms are not registered with the social security services (usually because revenue from the farm is insufficient to cover social security contributions for both husband and wife); whereas this results in loss of entitlements such as sick leave and maternity leave, exclusion from voting in professional elections to agricultural representation bodies, and a significant shortfall in pension entitlements;
Amendment 131 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises women’s contribution to the economy in rural areas as entrepreneurs, heads of the family business and promoters of sustainable development and their importance as stakeholders in the entire economic and social development of these areas; stresses, in particular, women’s fundamental role as members of family farms, which constitute the main socioeconomic cell of rural areas that cares for food production, preservation of traditional knowledge and skills, cultural identity and protection of the environment;
Amendment 155 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Encourages the Member States to monitor the situation of women in rural areas and to make use of existing measures and specific instruments under the CAP in order to increase the participation of women as beneficiaries; recommends that the Commission keep the provision on thematic sub-programmes on ‘Women in rural areas’ when reforming the CAP in the future, as these sub-programmes can play a role in creating job opportunities for women in rural areas; considers also that a gender should be a consideration regarding not only the CAP but also rural cohesion policies;
Amendment 161 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Objects to the CAP market orientation favouring inadmissible practices by large distributors that are causing job losses in rural areas; expresses concern at the impact on European agriculture of agreements that are currently being negotiated or ratified, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada or the EU- MERCOSUR free-trade agreement;
Amendment 188 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Encourages the Member States to encourage the participation of female spouses or other family members in the joint management of family farms;
Amendment 191 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the European institutions, through the CAP, to recognize and promote joint ownership of family farms, so that both women and men working on them have the same rights and the same obligations, thus ensuring that any entitlements are shared equally by each of the couple, regardless of the nature of their relationship;
Amendment 199 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the Member States to ensure that income generated by family farms is legally allocated equally to family members working on it;
Amendment 200 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Calls on the European Institutions to facilitate CAP provisions for a balanced distribution of aid, ensuring support for small farms;
Amendment 212 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Urges the Member States to strengthen the role of the social partners and social welfare organisations, working alongside the authorities, in monitoring compliance with employment legislation, measures to prevent undeclared work and adherence to welfare and safety standards, thereby facilitating the social and economic integration of female workers as a whole, including migrant, seasonal and refugee workers;
Amendment 278 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Member States and regional and local governments to provide good quality facilities and public services for everyday life in rural areas, including aid to victims of domestic violenceviolence against women and prevention measures tailored to the conditions existing in rural areas, as well as transport and broadband infrastructure;
Amendment 304 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises that rural areas within the Member States have a crucial economic and security role to play in our modern society, in which more than 12 million farmers provide a sufficient amount of food - which must be healthy and safe food- for half a billion consumers throughout the European Union; stresses that keeping these areas vibrant is of the utmost importance;
Amendment 308 #
2016/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the European institutions and the Member States to advocate for a production model based on agro-ecology, which produces high-quality, healthy food for both the producer and consumer, contributes to mitigating the effects of climate change and creates more jobs;
Amendment 13 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that there is a significant difference in types of error, i.e. the distinction between negligence and large errors; notes that most of the quantifiable errors involve overstating of eligible areas and that, overall, they account for 0.7% of the estimated aggregate error rate while there are only isolated instances of shortcomings on the part of national administrations or of infringements by them; points out furthermore that, in many instances, there has not been an investment failure, but, rather, there has been expenditure on projects ineligible for assistance the inclusion of ineligible expenditure and the failure to comply with public procurement rules are other major contributory factors in the error rate established by the Court of Auditors;
Amendment 43 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 46 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomesPoints with concern to the use of additional financial instruments, though theywhich must be designed with a sufficient degree of compatibility to ensure that they do not result in an increased error rate; maintains that the growing use of financial instruments entails greater risks both to accountability and to the coordination of EU policies and operations;
Amendment 62 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the updating ofPoints to the need to improve the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS), which makes it possible to record areas more precisely, bearing in mind that recording is a major source of error when granting support; realises that as a result of using this central control system there will inevitably be an increase in error rates over the first few years, because of greater data reliability, as the European Court of Auditors confirms, but that, in the long term, there will be lower error rates in this area; points out that there are already efforts and initiatives at Member State level for further simplification of the CAP while ensuring complete compatibility with GPS measurements;
Amendment 71 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Maintains that the CAP should seek to increase agricultural productivity, provide a fair standard of living for the farming population, stabilise markets, guarantee security of supply, and ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices;
Amendment 73 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Notes with concern that amounts to be paid, commitments from the current year extending into future years, remain at a very high level, and calls on the Commission to draw up a cash flow forecast for the next seven to ten years;
Amendment 1 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
Amendment 2 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
Citation 13
Amendment 5 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Commission’s spring 2016 forecast indicates growth rates of 1.6 % for the eurozone and 1.8 % for the EU in 2016. whereas this growth rate is unequally distributed, with rising inequality both across and within Member States;
Amendment 7 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A. whereas the EU, along with its Member States, is continuing to struggle with the most serious economic and social crisis in its history; whereas neo-liberal EU policies and the austerity-oriented policies imposed by the EU for the purposes of economic governance have added to government debt and, as was to be expected, exacerbated socio-economic inequalities within and among Member States, reflected in the increase in the numbers at risk of poverty and social exclusion (who in 2015 accounted for 24.4% of the population in EU-28);
Amendment 9 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Europe still flaceks a huge investment deficit, even though the current account surplus in the eurozone continues to rise, theoretically creating more favourable conditions for public and private investment due to the exceptionally low interest rates on government borrowingfrom public investment, capable of steering away the economy from market-driven dynamics to a more robust model for economic growth, capable of ensuring social and regional cohesion in the EU;
Amendment 18 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas unemployment in the EU remains one of the main challenges that Member States are facing as ithere are currently stands at a very over 21,1 million unemployed (of whigch rate (10.5 million long-term unemployed in the EU), even if the numbers have improved slightly compared with previous year); whereas official figures underestimate real unemployment, registering workers as underemployed or inactive or otherwise failing to register them accurately due to national statistical practices;
Amendment 19 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas unemployment in the EU remains one of the main challenges that Member States are facing as it currently stands at a very high rate (10.5 million long-term unemployed in the EU), even if the numbers have improved slightly compared with previous years; whereas, however, this improvement is due in part to the fall in the working population caused by rising emigration, especially in the countries hardest hit by the crisis, and to the way in which unemployed workers in many countries are counted and defined for statistical purposes;
Amendment 24 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas it is imperative to break with the neo-liberal principles that have been governing the policies imposed by the EU on the peoples and workers of Member States, and whereas sustainable economic growth, that is to say, based on decent wages, work with rights, state control of strategic economic sectors, universal free access to all levels of education, and the promotion and socialisation of innovation, is the only way to boost the Member States’ economies and their competitiveness;
Amendment 26 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Ca (new)
Recital Ca (new)
Ca. whereas unemployment rates remain significantly higher in the Eurozone and the European periphery, which have suffered most from neoliberal policies; whereas these divergences are in fact much higher, but are disguised due to forced migration flows of the workforce in the periphery;
Amendment 27 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the European Semester and the related instruments, which are basically intended to make Member States, regardless of the letter of their constitutions and the will of the people, institutionalise austerity-based fiscal and economic policies in line with the debt and deficit targets laid down in the Stability and Growth Pact, the economic reform plans set out in their country- specific recommendations, and the Europe 2020 growth and employment targets, are by nature profoundly neo- liberal and anti-democratic;
Amendment 32 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas depressed wage dynamics, slow economic growth and falling oil prices at the start of 2016 appear to be the key reasonre dragging down the inflation rate to below zero levels;
Amendment 37 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 48 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 52 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Fa (new)
Recital Fa (new)
Fa. whereas putting an end to tax evasion and tax fraud of corporations and wealthy individuals would suffice to close the remaining public deficit; whereas public spending is not constrained but available resources, but by the political constraints imposed by the EU and particularly, its governance structure and the euro;
Amendment 55 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Fb (new)
Recital Fb (new)
Fb. whereas Ireland has shown a 26% growth rate for 2015. Whereas this data demonstrates the way how a model of growth could be based in protect transnational capital interest and foster capital mobility with no impact on the real economy. Whereas Ireland has been a model country for the European Commission;
Amendment 56 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Fc (new)
Recital Fc (new)
Fc. whereas the Juncker Plan has failed to increase investment and has only served as another avenue for financial speculation, as many critics had noted before its implementation; whereas the funds diverted have had serious consequences for public spending through the EU budget, in programs such as Horizon 2020 and Connecting Europe Facility;
Amendment 63 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the challenges in the EU are linked to the deteriorating international environment and the divergences in the economic and social performance achieved in different parts of the Unioninadequacy of the neoliberal economic model, which depresses economic growth and increases divergences in the economic and social performance in different Member States of the Union by reducing public spending and wages, while fostering market-driven economic policies regardless of its economic and social effects;
Amendment 72 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that the worsening global outlook means that domestic sources of growth need to be strengthened, involving a different policy mix to boost public and private investment, above all with a view to expanding and upgrading infrastructure, production equipment, and production and organisation methods and techniques, and to stimulate domestic demand, in particular by restoring the income lost as a result of so-called austerity policies and by implementing a genuinely redistributive and progressive tax policy;
Amendment 76 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the Commission’s focus in its 2016 country-specific recommendations (CSRs) on the three main priorities to further strengthen economic growth: supporting investment, pursuing structural reforms and presConsiders the country-specific recommendations to be a blatant affront to sovereign, democratic decision-taking by the Member States’ peoples and workers concervning responsible public financthe future of their countries;
Amendment 92 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the Commission’'s continuing approach to limit the number of recommendations and its effort to mainstream the semester by covering mainly key priority areas of macroeconomic and social relevance, when setting the policy objectives for the next 18 months; reiteratdeplores that this facilitatenhances the implemnterventation of recommendations according to a comprehensive and meaningful range of social benchmarksthe Commission over the democratic will of its elected, national authorities; underlines that, notwithstanding the introduction of alleged "social" indicators and benchmarks, the overall aims of the recommendations have single-mindedly pushed for the same neoliberal agenda, with dramatic effects on the social cohesion and the economic development of the Member States under supervision;
Amendment 103 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Fully supports the efforts made to ensure greater Highlights that ‘national ownership’ in the process of formulation and implementation of CSRs as an ongoing reform process; only refers to the ad hoc involvement of national authorities and civil society organisation in the deepening of the EU's neoliberal agenda, rather than a genuine expression of national sovereignty and democracy;
Amendment 136 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the still-too-high unemployment rates show that the capacity to create jobs in most Member States is still limited; emphasises that further action is needed, in consultation with social partners and in accordance with national practices, to make labour markets more inclusive overallcalls for a radical shift in economic policies; stresses, as a first set of priorities, the need to increase public employment, reduce working-hours without a reduction in wages and strengthen social protection for the unemployed, including through minimum income schemes; emphasises that further action is needed, in consultation with social partners, to increase wages and protect workers’ rights;
Amendment 163 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points to the need for fiscal policies to stimulate economic growth; notes that debt renegotiation is necessary in some countries in order to bring down government and household debt to sustainable levels; draws attention to the disastrous effects of the austerity policies (not least in the countries being bailed out by the Troika), whereby fiscal consolidation strategies have put public investment, the social functions of the State, and economic growth in jeopardy;
Amendment 167 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the Commission’'s recommendation for three Member States to exit the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), but stresses the need to abolish the economic governance structure of the EU, as implemented by the SGP, the Two-Pack and the Six-pack; agrees with the Commission that large and consistent current account surpluses reflect a clear need to stimulate demand and investment in order to cope with the; challenges ofn the future regarding transport and communications, the digital economy, education and research, climate change, energy, environmental protection and the ageing population; calls on the Commission to continue to support budgetary policies that underpin growth and recovery in all Member States and support sustainable structural reformCommission to end its support for austerity budgetary policies and structural reforms in all Member States;
Amendment 205 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Underlines the fact that private investment has so far lagged and failed to lead to sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU and that under the current circumstances, monetary policy alone is unlikely to bring about recovery, even though the rules made necessary by banking union have imposed more stringent financial criteria on banks; considers that a coordinated fiscal expansion is also needed in the EU, therefore, in line with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact and its flexibility clauseswill bring no recovery; considers that a coordinated fiscal expansion is also needed in the EU, in order to place emphasis on public and private investment;
Amendment 221 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls for an immediate end to the so-called memoranda of understanding and the counter-productive and socially devastating austerity and neo-liberal policies that they have imposed; takes the view that these memoranda have imposed unfair tax policies which violate the principle of proportional equality and progressive taxation; calls for emergency plans to be drawn up to support the economies of countries under the Troika regime in order to provide for financial resources and for the necessary exceptions to the operation of the single market and common policies;
Amendment 222 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Urges the EU institutions to embark on and support a process to renegotiate government debt in the most heavily indebted countries (covering amounts, payment deadlines, and interest rates) with a view to substantially reducing debt levels and annual charges so as to restore sustainability, thereby making debt service compatible with economic and social development in the countries concerned;
Amendment 223 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11c. Recommends that measures be taken as a matter of urgency to aid the productive sectors which are vital to every economy and hence play an essential role in the potential development of individual countries; calls for the promotion of public projects and support for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, cooperatives, and local government, and for Union funds to be boosted and channelled in that direction;
Amendment 224 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 d (new)
Paragraph 11 d (new)
11d. Calls for support programmes to be set up for Member States should they wish – having realised that their participation in EMU has become unsustainable and intolerable – to negotiate their exit from the euro, and considers that programmes of this kind should provide for the compensation necessary to make good such social and economic damage as the countries in question might have suffered because they adopted the single currency;
Amendment 227 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises the need to improve the EU’s overall capacity to create and sustain quality jobs and thus to tackle high levels of unemployment, while considering that migration could play an important role in compensating for the negative effects of the ageing population; emphasises, however, that this alone cannot be the main response to address structural demographic, labour market or fiscal challenges but and in-work poverty, through a strengthening of collective bargaining and the protection of social and labour rights; emphasises that ithis should be complemented with efficient public expenditure, especially in high-quality social and environmentally sustainable investments and an expansion of the welfare state;
Amendment 244 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Highlights the importance of resilient labour markets where an appropriate trade-off is maintained between economic, social and human costs in accordance with the EU values of solidarity and subsidiarity, with a focus on the upgrading of educational systems and vocational educationith a focus on maintaining and improving social and workers’ rights, also in the design and implementation active employment policies;
Amendment 260 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Invites the Commission to give priority to measures that reduce the obstacles to greater investment flows, which arise at both an EU level from a lack of clarity regarding strategies that are to be followed, especially in the fields of energy, transport, communications and the digital economy, as well as from the effect on bank lending in the wake of the adoption of the banking union, and a national level from cumbersome legal systems, corruption, lack of transparency, outdated bureaucracy, inadequate digitalisation of public services, lack of mutual recognition of academic and technical qualifications in the professions and certain services sectors, and educational systems that remain out of synch with modern requiremensupport the improvement of public services, particularly in those countries most deeply affected by past budgetary cuts;
Amendment 279 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Deeply deplores the fact that with regard toneoliberal approach of the Europe 2020 strategy, the biggest failure to be recorded concerns the goal of reducing the scale of poverty in the Union, aswhich explains the lack of progress in achieving its most significant goal, lifting 20 million Europeans out of poverty and social exclusion, since not only will the goal not be reached, but poverty will in fact have increasedincrease under the current policy framework;
Amendment 284 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Greatly deplores the fact that Portugal and Spain are currently being blackmailed and consequently threatened with a series of penalties, resulting in intolerable instability incompatible with the need to revitalise economic growth and overcome the social crisis which the two countries are undergoing; calls, therefore, for the above process and the mechanisms underlying it to be halted immediately; maintains that the European institutions have to respect the sovereignty of each Member State and the decision taken by citizens to move towards development, growth, and social cohesion, and that no country should be penalised for stimulating its economy, whether through public investment plans or through redistributive fiscal and progressive tax policies;
Amendment 286 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Rejects macroeconomic conditionality whereby cohesion policy is made subject to EU economic governance; stresses that regional policy is an important tool for promoting economic and social cohesion, as its main aims are to reduce disparities among regions – especially where poorer regions and the outermost regions are concerned – promote real convergence, and encourage growth and employment; maintains that cohesion policy should not be used as a means of financial punishment if a region or Member State rejects deregulation and privatisation policies;
Amendment 291 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Underlines the importance of better addressing the high tax wedge on labour given that high taxation diminishes incentives for the inactive, the unemployed, second earners and low- wage earners to returntax reform to eliminate its current regressive bias; deeply rejects the shift towards indirect taxation due to its strong regressive nature; calls for a shift towards redistributive direct taxation with an special focus on corporate and wealth taxation in order to eimployment, by promoting a growth-friendly tax shift towards consumption and environmental taxrove public budget revenues and addressing the rising problem of inequality in EU Member States;
Amendment 303 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16a (new)
Paragraph 16a (new)
16a. Calls for a coordinated EU approach in order to increase the progressivity of national tax system by ensuring progressive taxation of the wealthiest and of corporations where their income flows are generated and where their real assets are located; notes that the implementation of CCCTB in this regard can be successful only if it ensures a clear link between real production and corporate profits and minimum rates are set at a level that does not encourage further tax competition; stresses the need for further progressivity in capital, wealth and corporate taxes, as well as labour taxes, to fight inequality and reduce the financing needs of the public sector;
Amendment 310 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out that efforts should be made to remove remaining barriers to investment in the Member States and allow for a more suitable policy mix, including a genuine focus on research and development spending; believes that public and private spending and support for research and higher education institutions are crucial factors and that the weakness or absence of this infrastructure places certain countries at a massive disadvantage; In this regard, urges the creation of co-financing exception clauses that allow room for budgetary manoeuvre, in order to provide liquidity for public investment purposes, the development in the fields of education, culture and health and social development as a whole, which will facilitate the creation of quality jobs, as well as the strengthening of the welfare state;
Amendment 311 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out that efforts should be made to remove remaining barriers to investment in the Member States and allow for a more suitable policy mix, including a genuine focus on research and development spending; believes that public and private spending and support for research and higher education institutions are crucial factors and that the weakness or absence of this infrastructure places certain countries at a massive disadvantage; calls for exception clauses to be established – pending the final repeal of the Fiscal Stability Treaty – in order to afford a degree of fiscal latitude to provide liquidity for investment, for development in the spheres of education, culture, and health, and for holistic social development to help create secure employment of high quality and strengthen the Welfare State;
Amendment 319 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17a (new)
Paragraph 17a (new)
17a. Calls for the exclusion of public investment from the calculation of the deficit of the Member States in order to boost investment in the EU;
Amendment 320 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Firmly rejects the idea that the EU economic governance framework would be improved by strengthening its social dimension;
Amendment 321 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Calls for the treaties governing integration to be made reversible, in particular the Lisbon Treaty with a view to its repeal, together with the repeal of the EMU Fiscal Compact and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, the European Semester, the six-pack, and the two-pack; calls, therefore, for an intergovernmental conference to be convened by the European Council to discuss the reversibility and repeal of the treaties; maintains that Member States must, as a matter of urgency, regain the ability to determine the economic policies best suited to their needs;
Amendment 322 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17b (new)
Paragraph 17b (new)
17b. Rejects the use of sanctions against Spain and Portugal by the European Commission as they will increase inequalities and prevent the recovery of their economy; underlines that any sanctions represents an undemocratic attempt to impose neoliberal measures; highlights the serious impact that the freeze of European funds will have on both economies, with negative cumulative effects over time; stresses that the proposed path of fiscal consolidation will further depress economic activity by reducing public spending and slowing down the de-leveraging of the private sector;
Amendment 326 #
2016/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17c (new)
Paragraph 17c (new)
17c. Calls to the Commission and Member States to open a process of renegotiation of public debt in the most indebted countries, substantially reducing its level and the annual charges, and bringing it down to sustainable levels, thereby making the debt service compatible with economic and social development;
Amendment 41 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the EIB should help address regional inequalities on the basis of financing sound investment projectby supporting direct public investment and the development plans of public authorities in peripheral countries, as well as advising on the development of new private projects, particularly by SMEs, in those regions; whereas, in particular, the EIB should devise additional ways of sustaining the economic development of countries that have had to apply a stabilisation programme;
Amendment 49 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the EIB should tackle youth unemployment by equippingsupporting direct public investment and equipping the unemployed, particularly young people, with the required set of skills and provide access to finance linked to the employment of young people;
Amendment 86 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. NotesIs concerned at the stability of the EIB lending signed in 2015 (EUR 77.5 billion, after EUR 77 billion in 2014); points out that, while the figure complies with the target announced in the EIB Operational Plan 2015-2017, the current context should encourage the bank to adopt more ambitious objectives, particularly as regards financing of direct public investment;
Amendment 96 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that an increase in EIB lending activity could be achieved through better diversification of its product range, including greater use of public-private partnerships (PPP) and other innovative direct credit to public authorities and in developing and advising on new projects from the bottom-up, since small private operators, such as MSMEs and cooperatives, often lack the administruments in order to better address market needsative or financial resources to access finance by the EIB;
Amendment 119 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that investment financing should be increased in the industrial sector, especially where exports are concerned, because without a considerable increase in exports the probability of a successful conclusion to an adjustment programme will be diminishedin the interest of creating quality jobs and strengthening the industrial base in those countries suffering from higher rates of unemployment;
Amendment 155 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Supports the emphasis placed by the EIB on the financing of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with 37 % of the new lending granted in 2015 (EUR 28.4 billion); welcomes in particular the fact that the EIB operations helped to create and sustain 4.1 million jobs in Europe’s SMEs and midcaps (+13 % as compared to 2014); recalls that SMEs are the backbone of Europe’s economy, providing 85 % of all new jobs, and that supporting them must remain a fundamental objective of the bank; stresses, however, that this is far from filling the financing gap suffered by SMEs on account of the deteriorated economic environment and the concentration of the private financial industry away from its traditional retail credit model;
Amendment 157 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Given the strategic role of SMEs in defining the level of employment, takes the view that the EIB should also devise a strategy to increase the financing of SMEs in countries with adverse economic and banking environments; believes that particular attention should also be paid to competitive very small enterprises in need of financing; believes that this strategy should include the reinforcement of administrative and advising capacities to provide information and technical support to SMEs in developing and applying for finance;
Amendment 163 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the opinion that the EIB should take special care to ensure that the network of financial intermediaries that it has developed remains trustworthy and is in a position to finance dynamic and competitive SMEs in an effective way; stresses the need to tailor investment programs towards small-scale projects in order to ensure the participation of SMEs;
Amendment 167 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. WelcomNotes the start of the EFSI, the legislation governing which entered into force in July 2015; underlines that the success of the programme is dependent upon its swift implementation;
Amendment 173 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. PIs particularly welcomesconcerned by the fact that total investment in EFSI approvals amounts only to EUR 115.7 billion, which is equivalent to 37 % of the original target value (EUR 315 billion), despite its strong impact on the resources available for the EU budget and the evident doubling of its credit activity with traditional EIB lending, without ensuring any further additionality;
Amendment 181 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for a wider use of the EIB’s financial instruments, in combination with the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF) and EFSI funds, to enhance regional development in the Member States, and underlines that a simplification of the ESIF-EFSI combination is needed; calls for an evaluation of project selection with regard to risk and added European value and for a greater focus on risk in the selection of projects, as stipulated in the EFSI mandate;
Amendment 204 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Regrets the lack of transparency of the EIB towards the public,, but also towards the European Parliament in relation to the functioning of the EFSI Scoreboard and its Advisory Hub;
Amendment 210 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. WelcomNotes the strong increase in EIB lending to innovative projects, which stood at EUR 18.7 billion in 2015, as compared to less than EUR 10 billion in 2008; urges the EIB to continue this effort and to focus on the developmentstresses, however, that innovative projects of technologies for the future such as energy-efficiency transport, the digital economy and new medical treatments for a better life; believes that concentrating on InnovFin and FinTech will attract projects with added value n fail to ensure additionally and are overtly concentrated on large projects, rather than diffusing the Member Statesechnological improvements through the economy;
Amendment 237 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 243 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Expresses its concern at the fall of financing in renewable energy projects due to the impact of EFSI; stresses the importance of EIB financing in the development of renewable energy capacity and the improvement of energy efficiency in sectors such as industry and transport;
Amendment 271 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Urges the EIB to improve the assessment of the impact of its projects outside the EU in order to ensure they are successfully implemented and that they fully comply with the objective of sustainable and inclusive growth; draws attention, in this regard, for the need to ensure the participation of the affected populations in the decision-making process, the need to ensure wide consultation of relevant stakeholders and the need to act in full compliance of international law and relevant EU and national legislation;
Amendment 282 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. AsksCalls on the EIB to continue its action to tackle the refugee crisis byease the financing emergencyof all projects in countries of destination and making long-term investments in the refugees’ countries of origindeveloped as a response to the refugee crisis that are in breach of human rights;
Amendment 292 #
Amendment 293 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
Paragraph 28 b (new)
28b. Regrets the on-going activities of the EIB with off-shore and non- collaborative jurisdictions; calls for an in- depth investigation of the activities of the EIB in financing projects or institutions operating in these jurisdictions;
Amendment 294 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 c (new)
Paragraph 28 c (new)
28c. Calls for a strengthening of the independence and transparency of the complaint mechanisms of the EIB; stresses the need to ensure resources are available to launch and answer calls for investigation on the planned and current activities of the EIB;
Amendment 295 #
2016/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 d (new)
Paragraph 28 d (new)
28d. Calls for an in-depth investigation of the role of EIB in the financing of Volkswagen activities linked to the emissions scandals; calls for the participation of EIB director in the EMIS inquiry committee of the European Parliament.
Amendment 6 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the large investment gap, in Europeglobal terms, within the EU, which the Commission estimates at a minimum of EUR 200-300 billion a year; , highlights in particular, against this backdrop, the market needs in Europe for high-risk financat the main barrier to business investment is not difficulty in accessing, for instance in the fields of R&D, energy and ICT; is concerned by the fact that the most recent data on national accounts do not indicate any surge in investment since the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) was launched, leading to risks of continued subdued growth and continuing high unemployment ratesinancing but rather the lack of demand resulting from austerity measures, that have meant a sharp drop in workers’ disposable income and in public consumption and investment; argues, therefore, that it is not surprising that the most recent data on national accounts do not indicate any surge in investment since the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) was launched; believes that only an increase in workers’ income and public investment will be able to avoid risks of continued weak growth, or even recession, and continuing high unemployment rates, but warns that if this is to be brought about, it is urgent to reverse austerity measures, repeal the budget deficit and public debt limits, and create a broad public investment plan; stresses that closing this investment gap is key to reviving growth, fighting unemployment and attaining long-term EU policy objectives; poverty and promoting social, economic and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that EFSI was, which aspired to be an ‘Investment Plan for Europe’, was in theory launched to help resolve difficulties and remove obstacles to financing as well as to implement strategic, transformative and productive investments that provide a high level of added value to the economy, the environment and society; considers, however, that in practice this investment plan is nothing more than a financing model resting on public guarantees, and thus helping to promote public-private partnerships;
Amendment 34 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Draws attention to the fact that, in the particular case of infrastructure, this model of investment financing will help to increase the cost of investment on the one hand, albeit with some delay, while on the other hand contributing to the privatisation of fundamental sectors of the economy;
Amendment 42 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls the role of Parliament as foreseen in the regulation, in particular in relation to the monitoring of EFSI implementation; acknowledges, however, that it is too early to finalise a comprehensive assessment of the functioning of EFSI and its impact on the EU economy, but is of the opiniontakes the view that a preliminary evaluation is crucial; ins order to identify possible areas of improvement for EFSI 2.0 and thereafterf the opinion, therefore, that the proposal to extend the duration of EFSI to 2020, increasing the amount targeted to EUR 500 billion, is premature and lacks foundation;
Amendment 73 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that, while all projects approved under EFSI are presented as ‘special activities’, an independent evaluation has found that some projects could have been financed otherwise; notes that these evaluations, together with the risk profile of the operations financed by the EIB under EFSI, indicate a failure to comply with the additionality criterion;
Amendment 115 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that, as provided for in the regulation, prior to a project being selected for EFSI support, it has to undergo due- diligence and decision-making processes both in the EIB and the EFSI governance structures; observes that project promoters have expressed a wish for swift feedback and enhanced transparency in relation to both the selection criteria and the amount and type/tranche of possible EFSI support; criticises the current lack of clarity, which deters project promoters from applying for EFSI support; calls for the decision-making process to be made more transparent in respect of the selection criteria and financial support and to be speeded up;
Amendment 165 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers it important to discuss whether the envisaged leverage of 15 is appropriate to enable EFSI to support high quality projects bearing a higher risk; invites the EIB to weigh up complementing the volume requirement with secondary goals to be achieved; points out that this ratio represents a highly subjective estimate that can only be evaluated a posteriori, and that can on no account be used as a basis for extrapolation for the purpose of publishing values of the investment made or to be made under the financial instruments that have been created;
Amendment 178 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Argues that the selection of a project cannot be based solely on the inherent financial risk or the financial profitability associated with it; calls, therefore, for a comprehensive assessment to be made which should include, among other factors, its economic importance for the country and/or region where the project is to be carried out, the specific development needs of the country and/or region, social externalities (including the creation of new jobs), and its contribution to social, economic and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 180 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Condemns the possibility that any undertaking or group of undertakings using tax havens or practising social dumping might have access to Community funds, including EFSI; calls, therefore, for this concern to be addressed when revising Regulation (EU) 2015/1017;
Amendment 205 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes that all sectors defined in the EFSI Regulation have been covered by EFSI financing; points out, however,Points out that certain sectors are under- represented; notes that this might be due to the fact that certain sectors already offered better investment opportunities in terms of shovel-ready, bankable projects when EFSI started up; invites the EIB against this backdrop to discuss how to improve sectorial diversification, linking it to the goals set out in the Regulation as well as the issue of whether EFSI support should be extended to other sectors;
Amendment 238 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Proposes discussing means of enhancing the transparency of EFSI governance structures for Parliament, involving representatives of the Member States, and the addition of a further full member to the SB representing the European Parliament; urges the EFSI governance bodies to share information with the EP on a proactive basis;
Amendment 280 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Welcomes that by the end of 2016, all 28 countries received EFSI funding; underlines, however,Underlines that as of 30 June 2016, EU-15 had received 91% whereas EU-13 had only received 9% of EFSI support; regretscondemns the fact that EFSI support has mainly benefitted a limited number of countriesthose EU countries with higher levels of gross domestic product and gross fixed capital formation;
Amendment 287 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Acknowledgesgain condemns the fact that GDP and the number of projects approved are linked; recognises that larger Member States are able to take advantage of more developed capital markets and are therefore more likely to benefit from a market-driven instrument such as EFSI; underlines that lower EFSI support in EU-13 may be attributable to other factors, such as the small size of projects, and competition from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF); observes with concern, however, direct proportion; deplores the disproportionate benefit to certain countries and underlines the need to diversify geographical distribution further, especially in crucial sectors such as modernising and improving the productivity and sustainability of economies; calls, therefore, for a change to the regulation whereby the geographical distribution of part of the investment would be based on cohesion criteria favouring the weakest, least developed and diverging economies;
Amendment 319 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Stresses that, due to a very strong uptake reflecting the high market demand, the SME Window was further reinforced by EUR 500 million from the IIW Debt Portfolio under the existing legislative framework; welcomes that, due to the flexibility of the EFSI Regulation, the additional financing was granted to benefit SMEs and small mid-caps; intends to monitor closely the allocation of the guarantee under the two windows; believes that micro enterprises and SMEs should benefit from positive discrimination to the detriment of mid-caps;
Amendment 327 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Notes that the Commission has proposed an extension of EFSI, both in terms of duration and financial capacity, and that this would have an impact on the EU budget; expresses its intention to put forward alternative financing proposalsserious reservations regarding this proposal, since there has not yet been any solid, thorough and impartial assessment indicating the need for the programme to be extended;
Amendment 334 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Recalls that Member States were invited to contribute to EFSI in order to broaden its capacity, thereby enabling it to support more higher-risk investments; regretnotes that despite such investment being considered as a one-off measure within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary provisions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, Member States did not take this initiative; requests information from the EIB and the Commission as to whether they have undertaken effornotes that this reflects the severe budgetary constraints ion the meantime to convince Member States to contribute to EFSI, and whether they might be able to attract other investors; invites the Commission and the EIB to step up their efforts in this directionMember States imposed by the European institutions, forcing cuts in public investment and making it impossible for them to participate in EFSI;
Amendment 343 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. NotesCondemns the fact that awareness of overlaps and competition between EFSI and financial instruments of the EU budget on the part of the Commission and the EIB has led to the adoption of guidelines recommending the combination of EFSI and ESI financing; points, however, to persistent differences in the eligibility criteria, regulations, timeframe for reporting and the application of state aid rules, which hinder combined usage; welcomes the fact that the Commission has begun to address these in its proposal for a revision of the Financial Regulation; believes that further efforts are required and that the second and third pillars of the investment plan are key to this end;
Amendment 356 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Is deeply concernedDeplores the fact that that the EIB has been pushing via EFSI to support projects that have been structured using firms in tax havens; urges the EIB and the EIF to refrain from making use of or engaging in tax avoidance structures, in particular aggressive tax planning schemes, or practices which do not comply with EU good governance principles on taxation, as and to cancel all ongoing projects that make uset out in the relevant Union legislation, including Commission recommendations and communicationf these structures;
Amendment 360 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Calls for a ban on EFSI financing for any entity which practices tax evasion and avoidance and/or makes use of tax havens, and for any entity where those holding the capital concerned, or their spouses or lineal ascendants or descendants who directly or indirectly hold at least a 10% stake in the capital or voting rights, practice tax evasion and avoidance and/or make use of tax havens;
Amendment 376 #
2016/2064(INI)
49. Acknowledges that EFSI alone - and on a limited scale- will probably not be able to close the investment gap in Europe, but that it nevertheless constitutes a central pillar of the EU’s investment plan and signals the EU’s determination to tackle this issue; calls for further proposals to be maPoints out that EFSI’s results fall far below the Commission’s expectations; notes that, leaving aside the financial instruments provided on the ground and the agreements with banks, little information is available on the investment made and its externalities; stresses that the need for investment is far from being met, and therefore advocates a broad public investment plan geared to social, economic and territorial cohesion; in this context, insists that the extension of EFSI should be decided on how to permanently boost investment in Europely if a solid, thorough and impartial assessment indicates the need for such an extension;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 34 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the rapid transformation brought about by digitisation and fintech innovation not only creates new and often bettercan create an easier and faster access to financial products for consumers, but also involvesposing key challenges in terms of security, data protection, consumer protection and taxation;
Amendment 45 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes thePoints out that the European Commission Green Paper on retail financial services (defined as including insurance) and the vivid and productive debate that it has generated so far; links up with, and is complemented by, initiatives such as the Digital Single Market, the Capital Markets Union, and the Single Market Strategy, whose aims and effects entail more extreme economic deregulation for the benefit of big business and the EU’s major powers, thus damaging workers, micro, small, and medium-sized entrepreneurs, and national production systems and hence running counter to the interests of peoples, workers, and Member States;
Amendment 50 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 51 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. FindViews the Green Paper initiative to be timely, particularly given the need to work proactively at all stages of the policymaking process in order to be able to trackwith great disquiet, and once again deplores the fact that opportunities for digitalisation and consumer empowerment are being used as a pretext to set up a single market for retail financial services whose chief consequences will be on the one hand to intensify the free movement of capital and, steer developments in such an innovative and fast-changing market; econdly, to wipe out smaller businesses operating in the sector and thereafter to concentrate capital and wealth in the hands of the largest EU- wide financial groups, thus enhancing their hegemony and diminishing the autonomy and sovereignty of Member States;
Amendment 67 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises, in particular because of that the low levels of consumer trust and satisfaction, that the Green Paper initiative can succeed only if it has a strong focus on creating an EU market in which well-protected consumers have access to transparent, straightforward and good-value-for-money products; where financial services are concerned have been caused by the behaviour of financial institutions themselves, since the 2007/2008 financial crisis, subsequent events in the retail banking sector in several Member States, and the sector’s own direct and indirect involvement in tax avoidance and evasion schemes have been the driving forces behind this dissatisfaction and the sector’s bad reputation; considers it important, therefore, to improve consumer financial literacy and to make financial products more transparent; takes the view, however, that access to transparent, straightforward and good-value-for-money products will not be sufficient to reverse the current situation and that, in order to make this happen, not only will financial institutions have to change their attitude to their customers, but a proper legal framework will also need to be established, alongside strong regulators and public scrutiny of the financial system;
Amendment 79 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that all initiatives based on the Green Paper should be compatible with stepping upTakes the view that the possibility for customers to open bank accounts with institutions not physically based in their Member State of residence, without having to go to the offices of such institutions in person, and for remote signature of contracts and distance verification of identity to be used for that purpose, will serve not only to encourage capital flight in future financial crises, but also to undermine measures to combat money laundering; is accordingly concerned about the impact which initiatives based on the Green Paper might have on the stability of the financial system and economies, and on the effectiveness of measures to combat money laundering and of the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion;
Amendment 102 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes the increasing complexity of retail financial products; insists on the need to develop initiatives and instruments that allow consumers to identify safe and simple products within the range of products available to them; supportstakes note of initiatives such as the Key Investment Information Document for undertakings for collective investments in transferrable securities (UCITS) and the Key Information Document for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs);
Amendment 105 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. RecallsDeplores the fact that none of the recent developments in the legislative framework for the banking sector, in particular the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive and the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive; insists on the need to inform consumers fully about the impact of the new rule has served to separate investment banking from retail banking, to prohibit retail banks – having granted loans – from selling them to investment banks, or to prohibit securitisation of assets;
Amendment 129 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Warns that the Green Paper on retail financial services, while ostensibly seeking to reap the benefits of technological development, is proving to be a means of boosting the profits of large retail financial institutions, in particular by reducing operating and labour costs, as demonstrated by its key proposal that those companies should be allowed to offer their products in any Member State without having to be physically based there;
Amendment 142 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that frontline employees at financial institutions have a crucial role to play in opening up retail services to all strands of society and to consumers all over Europe; points out that such employees should, in principle, be given the training and time necessary to be able to serve their customers accurately, and should cannot be made subject to sales targets, incentives or inducements that could bias or distort their adviceservice; notes that cross- selling and mis-selling of financial products and services are mainly caused by sales-driven remuneration of sales staff and intermediaries; stresses, however, that frontline employees are not and cannot be made responsible for product design and dishonest business strategies, much less for regulatory failures;
Amendment 149 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that frontline employeeworkers at financial institutions have a crucial role to play in opening up retail services to all strands of society and to consumers all over Europe; points out that such employeeworkers should, in principle, be given the training and time necessary to be able to serve their customers accurately, and should not be made subject to sales targets or inducements that could bias or distort their advice;
Amendment 153 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Takes the view, furthermore, that in widening the possibility of obtaining retail financial services at a distance, the aim is to bring about the closure of physical branches dealing with the public in person, which will detract from the quality of the service provided and lead to redundancies in the retail financial services sector; points out that remote service provision relies on customer support services staffed by subcontracting to temporary employment agencies, which are associated with insecure employment relationships, precarious working conditions, and low wages, and in which workers cannot obtain a contract with a service-providing firm, even when they have been working for that firm for several years;
Amendment 157 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 165 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 193 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 201 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 232 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 251 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 259 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Takes the view that the proposals set out in the Green Paper will help to create a pan-European oligopoly in the retail financial services sector; calls on the European Commission, therefore, to refrain from submitting an action plan on retail financial services;
Amendment 263 #
2016/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 2 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for the 2017 draft budget to reflect and support the priorities outlined in the European Semester, specifically relaunching investment, pursuing structural reforms to modernise European economies, conducting responsible fiscal policiesbe directed towards the aim of bringing about sustainable economic growth and social development and cohesion, promoting public investment, and strengthening the Welfare State;
Amendment 2 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets that, given the ceiling imposed by the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for Heading 2, major categories of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) spending are likely, to be cut in 2017, including rural development, direct payments and market measures, notwithstanding the ongoing crisis as a result of successive revisions of the CAP that geared for the liberalisation of markets;
Amendment 12 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Also calls for this draft budget to be focused on real convergence policies, based on social progress and safeguarding and fostering each country’s potential, net job creation (translating into secure employment of high quality), sustainable use of natural resources, and protection of the environment;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets the proposed cuts for intervention in the agricultural markets, especially for milk and milk products compared to 2016; sees a continued financial effort being necessary to combat the crisis in the milk market; asks the Commission to extend emergency measures related to sales difficulties; is concerned that further markets intervention will be necessary; calls for a review of the CAP and the creation of a new instrument that will ensure production in order to normalise prices;
Amendment 17 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Calls for support programmes to be set up for Member States should they wish – having realised that their participation in EMU has become unsustainable and intolerable – to negotiate their exit from the euro, and considers that programmes of this kind should provide for the compensation necessary to make good such social and economic damage as the countries in question might have suffered because they adopted the single currency;
Amendment 19 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Calls for emergency plans to be drawn up to support the economies of countries under the Troika regime in order to provide for financial resources and for the necessary exceptions to the operation of the single market and common policies;
Amendment 20 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Maintains that no institutional status should be conferred on the principles of macroeconomic conditionality and the performance reserve or on the link between cohesion policy and the Structural Funds or, moreover, on the Stability and Growth Pact, the economic governance package, or any economic agreement entered into by Member States; considers that in each case the underlying assumptions are undeniably different and the objectives are diametrically opposed;
Amendment 21 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Maintains that the aim of cohesion policy should not be impeded by macroeconomic conditionality or the stipulations of the Fiscal Compact; stresses that cohesion policy is designed to ensure balanced growth and eliminate inequalities with a view to achieving genuine convergence; points out that funding for European regions should not be suspended because Member States have failed to comply with macroeconomic conditions and that suspending funding for Member States in difficulties will make the situation worse;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Takes the view that – no matter how many programmes might be set up to stimulate economic growth, investment, and job creation and no matter how much additional funding might be channelled into the existing programmes – the Member States’ economies will not revive, and there will be no resurgence in social development and progress, until the constraints imposed by the economic governance structure are abandoned for good, that is to say, until the treaties underlying it are revoked;
Amendment 29 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls for the need to strengthen the school scheme taking into account the oversupply, the need to promote healthy habits in children, and the need to promote the consumption;
Amendment 36 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the increase in operational funds for producer organisations, nonetheless notes that it is not enough to support the needs and demands of this organisations ; regrets the massive cuts in aid to producer groups for preliminary recognition; welcomes the prolongation of exceptional measures for the fruit & vegetable sector especially in light of the crisis and the Russian embargo that severely hit producers; regrets that the funds intended to withstand the effects of the Russian embargo have been withdrawn from the CAP budget insofar that the situation was created by a political measure of Union external policy;
Amendment 52 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Stresses the need to strengthen the budget in lines aimed at combating animal diseases and plant pests whose prevalence has been increasing every year;
Amendment 12 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas capitalistic globalisation and the free movement of capital, the latter triggered in EU by the establishment of the single market, created the perfect conditions for the design of base erosion and profit shifting schemes and, at the same time, enshrined a structural bias in policy making to the benefit of capital owners and MNEs; whereas this has been promoting divergences and asymmetries between countries and social classes;
Amendment 13 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)
Recital -A a (new)
-Aa. whereas the introduction of the single market in the EU has proved, on one hand, highly beneficial to MNEs, and, on the other, highly prejudicial to the desirable economic and social convergence between Member States;
Amendment 14 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A b (new)
Recital -A b (new)
-Ab. whereas while governments issued tax rulings favouring MNEs they were at the same time increasing labour taxes, asking for wage reductions and cutting public services (namely social security, health and education);
Amendment 20 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the ‘Panama Papers’ and ‘LuxLeaks’ scandals, as revealed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), have shown the urgent need for the EU and its Member States to fighting tax evasion and avoidance and act for increased cooperation and transparency in order to re-establish tax justice, not only among Member States, but also globally;
Amendment 24 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the scale of tax evasion and avoidance is estimated by the Commission to be EUR 1 trillion19 a year, while the OECD estimates20 the revenue loss at global level to be between 4 % and 10 % of all corporate income tax revenue, representing between EUR 75 and EUR 180 billion annually, at 2014 levels; whereas these are only estimates and the actual figures might be even higher; whereas the costs to society of such practices are evident; whereas tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning erode the tax base of Member States and thereby lead to loss of tax revenues and, therefore, negatively impact governments' capacity to provide adequate levels of public services, investments and social security; __________________ 19 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxati on/tax_fraud_evasion/a_huge_problem/ind ex_en.htm, European Commission, 10 May 2016. 20 Measuring and Monitoring BEPS, Action 11 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project.
Amendment 60 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas these scandals highlight the failure of the current economic system, but also its usury and greed, and show the urgency of putting in practice fair tax regimes and ending tax havens, but above all the need to revolutionize the economic system;
Amendment 72 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas some specific tax jurisdictions actively contribute to designing aggressive tax policies on behalf of MNEs who thereby avoid taxation; whereas the statutory and/or effective corporate tax rate in some jurisdictions is close or equal to zero per cent; whereas the complexity of different tax systems create a lack of transparency which is globally harmful;
Amendment 100 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas some financial institutions have played a role as intermediaries in setting up complex legal structures leading to aggressive tax planning schemes used by MNEs, as evidenced in ‘LuxLeaks’ and the ‘Panama Papers’; whereas legal loopholes and lack of coordination, cooperation and transparency between countries create an environment that facilitates tax evasion; whereas banks could have played a positive role in combating the erosion of national tax bases by, for instance, using the means of exchange of information at their disposal in a more cooperative spirit; whereas this shows the need for a firmly regulated and public financial sector in order to guarantee that it works effectively for tackling BEPS;
Amendment 128 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital T a (new)
Recital T a (new)
Ta. whereas patent boxes and similar preferential tools are just one element fuelling downward pressure on corporate tax rates; whereas the Treaties and EU legislation, such as the Parent-Subsidiary and Interest and Royalties Directives, create a problematic asymmetry by prioritising the free movement of capital and business establishment without the necessary policy instruments to ensure coordination, cooperation and transparency in corporate taxation; whereas this is exemplified by ECJ judgements which have prevented Member States from applying robust defence measures (e.g. CFC rules or exit taxation) against aggressive tax planning on the grounds of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market1a; whereas this type of integration enshrines a structural bias to the benefit of investors and corporations operating across borders; __________________ 1aFor instance, judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006. Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue. and case C-9/02 Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v. Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, OJ C 94, 17.04.2004
Amendment 131 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital T b (new)
Recital T b (new)
Tb. whereas a particularly pressing problem arises through the outright lack of any harmonised approach among Member States on the issue of outbound payments; whereas in this current, uncoordinated framework, the combination of a removal of source taxation under the Interest and Royalties and Parent-Subsidiary Directives with a lack of withholding taxes on dividend, licence and royalty fee and interest outbound payments in some Member States creates loopholes whereby profits can effectively flow from any Member State out of the Union without being subject to tax at least once;
Amendment 134 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas it was only five months after the beginning of the term of its Special Committee that some Room documents and minutes of the Code of Conduct Group were made available to MEPs in camera on EP premises; whereas, while additional documents have been made available, some documents and minutes still remain undisclosed or missing; whereas the Commission stated at an informal meeting that it has made all the documents originating from the Commission and at its disposal available to the Special Committee and any further relevant meeting documents originating from the Commission , should they ever have been in the Commission’s possession, must therefore have been lost;
Amendment 137 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V a (new)
Recital V a (new)
Va. whereas, in addition to untraceable Commission documents, a large number of CoCG room documents, originating from the CoCG Chair, Member States or other stakeholders and in the Commission's possession, have not been made available to MEPs yet;
Amendment 142 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital X
Recital X
X. whereas the OECD, the UN and other international organisations are interested parties in the fight against corporate tax base erosion; whereas there is a need to ensure global harmonisation of practices and implementation of common standards such as those proposed by the OECD vis-à-vis the BEPS package; whereas such global standards should be negotiated and monitored by an intergovernmental forum at UN level with less selective membership than the OECD or G20 so as to allow all countries, including developing countries, to take part on an equal footing; whereas the meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors held in Washington on 14 and 15 April 2016 concluded in favour of initiating implementation of the BEPS measures, and has called for full financial transparency, especially as regards beneficial ownership;
Amendment 158 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AE
Recital AE
AE. whereas the work of the Special Committee was hindered to some extent by the fact that out of 7 MNCs invited, only 4 agreed on first invitation to appear before its members (see Annex 2); whereas insufficient exchanges were held with political representatives of Member States with a view to discussing and assessing Member States' tax policies as well as political positions in Council fora dealing with tax matters, both of which having the potential to impede necessary coordination, corporation and transparency in corporate tax matters in the EU;
Amendment 161 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AE a (new)
Recital AE a (new)
AEa. whereas, due to the continued refusal of the Commission and the Council to consent to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry, the European Parliament's special and inquiry committees still enjoy insufficient competencies, such as the right to summon witnesses and enforce document access, when compared to Member State parliaments and the US Congress;
Amendment 172 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the Anti-tax Avoidance Package (ATAP) published by the Commission on 28 January 2016, as well as all legislative proposals and communications already undertaken afterwards; calls on the Council to reach a unanimous position on the ATAP and keep the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive as one single directive; welcomes the initiative to create a common Union list of uncooperative jurisdictions in the External Strategy for Effective Taxation; reiterates its position that more and binding action is needed to effectively and systematically combat BEPS; invites the Commission to consider extending the interest limitation rule to licence fee and royalty costs and making these costs' tax deductibility contingent on the level of effective taxation of the corresponding revenue in the country of destination; calls on Member States to particularly agree on strong, comprehensive and enforceable CFC rules and to discard rules which are limited to somehow defined non-genuine arrangements the burden of proof for which is put on tax authorities;
Amendment 181 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes with concern the lack of measures that are on the table to fight against tax havens, in this sense draws attention to the fact that increasing transparency will not be enough to deal with this problem;
Amendment 209 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the agreement in Council on 8 December 2015 on automatic exchange of information on tax rulings; stresses that the Commission should have full access to the new Union database of tax rulingnew Union database of tax rulings should retroactively contain all valid rulings in line with Parliament's earlier position, and that those rulings should be made public after affected corporations had the chance to request redactions of parts that constitute well- defined and actual commercial secrets; insists on the need for a comprehensive and efficient database of all rulings having potential cross-border effect;
Amendment 218 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Is concerned by media reports that Member States have concluded rulings orally in order to escape their obligations under the automatic information exchange framework; emphasises that any such binding or de facto binding commitment on tax matters by a public authority shall be subject to automatic information exchange and documented in writing;
Amendment 241 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Strongly emphasises that the work of whistleblowers is crucial for revealing scandals of tax evasion and avoidance, and that, therefore, protection for whistleblowers needs to be legally guaranteed and strengthened EU-wide; notes that the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe have undertaken work on this issue; considers that courts and Member States should ensure the protection of legitimate business secrets while in no way hindering, hampering or stifling the capacity of whistleblowers and journalists to document and reveal illegal, wrongful and harmful practices where this is clearly and overwhelmingly in the public interest; regrets that the Commission has no plans for prompt action on the matter and this despite explicit support for the Parliament's calls on this matter by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in the 17 September TAXE hearing;
Amendment 259 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Asks Member States to implement measures against MNEs that have either holdings or subsidiaries in tax havens, in this sense calls on governments to set a good example by forbidding public companies to have affiliates in tax havens;
Amendment 261 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to come up as soon as possible with a common Union list of uncooperative jurisdictions (i.e. a ‘'blacklist of tax havens’'), based on sound and objective criteria, including full implementation of OECD recommendations, tax transparency measures, BEPS actions and multilateral Automatic Exchange of Information standards as well as the elements used to define 'low tax or secrecy jurisdictions' in Parliament's report on Commission proposal 2016/0011 (CNS), and welcomes the Commission’'s intention to reach an agreement on such a list within the next six months; calls on the Member States to endorse that agreement by the end of 2016 and on the government of the United States of America to fully implement the results of multilateral processes instead of currently used non-reciprocal standards; urges the Commission and Member States to support a global process for listing problematic jurisdiction at UN level; underlines, however, that developing countries which have not actively taken part in the BEPS process and which constitute no significant global BEPS risks by means of their tax systems should not be blacklisted on the basis of not implementing certain BEPS actions, but should equally commit to tax transparency and multilateral cooperation in tax matters;
Amendment 283 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for a concrete Union regulatory framework for sanctions against the blacklisted non-cooperative jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, the possibility of reviewing and, in the last resort, suspending free trade agreements, imposing trade or other tariffs, in conformity with WTO-rules, at a level equal to the damage done by foregone tax revenue and prohibiting access to Union funds; calls for the sanctions also to apply to companies, banks, and accountancy and law firms, and to tax advisers proven to be involved with those jurisdictions;
Amendment 300 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recommends introducing an EU- wide withholding tax by Member States, in order to ensure that profits generated within the Union are taxed at least once before leaving it; notes that such a proposal should include a refund system to prevent double taxation; underlines that such a general withholding tax system based on the credit method has the advantage of preventing double non-taxation and BEPS without creating instances of double taxation and without relying on a selective blacklisting approach which entails significant diplomatic challenges when thoroughly applied as confirmed by several official interlocutors during committee delegations and hearings;
Amendment 325 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to put forward proposals for binding Union legislation on patent boxes that goes beyond the OECD Modified Nexus Approach, so as to prohibit the misuse of patent boxes and to ensure that if and when used they are linked to genuine economic activity; calls on Member States, given the overwhelming economic and collective action rationale against patent boxes and similar preferential regimes, to phase such regimes progressively out and replace them with less distortive measures of R&D promotion;
Amendment 404 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Notes the continuing lack of transparency and effectiveness of the working methods of the Code of Conduct Group, which is preventing any concrete potential improvement in terms of tackling harmful tax practices;
Amendment 446 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 k (new)
Paragraph 35 k (new)
35k. Stresses that political office holders which bear responsibility for breaches of community law as detailed in the TAXE 1 report or for the obstruction of progress against harmful tax practices as evidenced by the Code of Conduct Group documents should take full responsibility for their conduct including considering resignation from their office where appropriate in order to restore trust of citizens in representatives of the European Union and its Member States;
Amendment 447 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
Amendment 469 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Calls on the Union, the G20, the OECD and the UN to cooperate further to promote global guidelines that will also be beneficial to developing countries; reiterates its conclusions from report 2015/2058(INI) that the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters shall be transformed into a genuine intergovernmental body equipped with additional resources, and centralising efforts aimed at reforming the global tax system, ensuring that developing countries can participate equally in the global reform of existing international tax rules;
Amendment 495 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Calls for the establishment of a public Union register of beneficial ownership, accessible in an open data format, which would form the basis of a global initiative in this regard; stresses the vital role of institutions such as the OECD and the UN in this connection;
Amendment 512 #
2016/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Stresses the need for a comprehensive EU/USinternational approach on the implementation of OECD standards and on beneficial ownership; stresses furthermore that good governance clauses and the full BEPS action plan should be included in the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP)all relevant economic international agreements in order to ensure a level playing field, create more value for society as a whole and combat tax fraud and avoidance;
Amendment 5 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, under Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Council shall, acting unanimously, adopt directives for the completion of the common VAT system and, in particular, the progressive curtailment or revocation of exemptions thereto;
Amendment 7 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas VAT, which raised almost EUR 1 trillion in 2014, is a major and growing source of revenue in the Member States and contributes to EU own resources; whereas the shift towards increased VAT taxation, also supported in the Commission's CSRs, has contributed to rising inequality in the EU;
Amendment 11 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the current VAT system is vulnerable to fraud, particularly by large corporations and those active at cross- border level, and the estimated 'VAT gap' amounts to around EUR 170 billion annually;
Amendment 26 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas VATit is a tax on consumption that should only be levied on the final consumer so as to achieve a significant reduction in administrative and financial costs along the supply chain and reduce the possibility ofup to Member States to define the practical levy of VAT in order to ensure that it falls on the final consumer, while keeping track of all intermediate transactions in the supply chain and fighting fraud;
Amendment 28 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 34 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s intention to propose a definitive VAT system by 2017 that is simple, fair, robust, efficient and less susceptible to fraud;
Amendment 40 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomNotes the recent Commission communication of 7 April 2016 and the projected additional measures designed to prevent fraud and help improve the existing VAT system;
Amendment 42 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Objects to the narrowing down of the proposed improvements to parts of the existing system, and calls for fundamental reform with a view to removing or at least substantially reducing the problems affecting it and particularly its regressive effects on distribution, ensuring that the system of VAT rates safeguards the right of access to goods and services that are either essential to the consumption of low- income households or of public interest (e.g. cultural goods), and penalizes the consumption of those goods aimed only at high-income households;
Amendment 47 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 52 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 60 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that it is essential for the Member States to adopt a coordinated tax policy in order to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance more effectively and finally close the existing ‘VAT gap’, reinforcing tax authorities and inspections and sanctions against the largest avoiders;
Amendment 85 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Supports thetresses that the main aims of the action plan to establish a single European VAT area to buttress a deeper and more equitable single market and in ordersystem should be a reduction of fraud and minimizing the regressive impact of VAT, by strengthening the role of direct taxation in the overall tax system and increasing the progressivity of VAT rates, safeguarding the right to access to goods and services that are either essential to thelp promote employment, growth, investment and co consumption of low- income households or of public interest (e.g. cultural goods) , and penalizing the consumpetitiveneson of those goods aimed only at high-income households;
Amendment 109 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the current plethora of VAT rates causes great uncertainty forare used by companies involved in cross-border trading to profit from tax fraud; calls on the Commission and Member States to focus on these loopholes, strengthening inspections and sanctions against this type of fraudulent activity;
Amendment 116 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes that the current system of reduced VAT rates is, as is currently applied, has been inefficient in terms of social policy and redistribution, as is confirmed by the Court of Auditors in its most recent report; ; highlights that the use of reduced and luxury rates can contribute to a fairer distribution, if properly applied, but that a shift towards progressive and effective direct taxation of income and wealth, rather than indirect taxation, is still required;
Amendment 128 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Takes the view that the complete abolition of minimum tax rates as an alternative, as advocated by the Commission, might cause considerable distortions of competitshould not result in strengthening the powers of the Commission, and problems in the single market and can only be sanctioned if the reverse charge procedure is introduced for all levels and types of VAT and not only for individual sectors which are particularly susceptible to fraudarticularly its competition and governance competences, over democratic control of taxation;
Amendment 136 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls instead for a single listystem of reduced goods and services to be compiled which would allow far fewer exemptions than is currently the case; and luxury rates for goods and services that minimizes the regressive impact of VAT on household budgets and safeguards access to goods and services that are either essential to the consumption of low-income households or of public interest (e.g. cultural goods);
Amendment 147 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Takes the view that the present complicated system could be considerably simplified if minimal criteria for the goods and services eligible for reduced tax rates were determined jointly at EU level, while ensuring full respect to national competences in developing a more progressive taxation system;
Amendment 162 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 174 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Notes that the application of a general reverse charge procedure might enablreduce the administrative cross-border carousel fraud to be largely eradicated and would significantly reduce the administrative cots for SMEs, but due attention should be paid to the other objectives of current VAT taxation systems, including the fight againsts for SMEsraud;
Amendment 185 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to conduct pilot projects to test outevaluate the effects of a general reverse charge procedure in terms of cost, implementation problems and long-term advantages, as some Member States have offered to carry out or have called forfraud, effectiveness and implementation problems;
Amendment 209 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls for all proposals to be studied in order to keep turnover tax for companies, in particular SMEs, cost- neutral as far as possible and to minimise the administrative burden of turnover taxes for MSMEs;
Amendment 212 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. WelcomNotes the Commission's announcement that it will submit an SME package for VAT in 2017;
Amendment 231 #
2016/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Takes the view that the VAT reform plans announced by the Commission in the action programme must be subject to a comprehensive and qualitatively-sound impact assessments with input from science, tax administrations and companies in the EUpublic scrutiny, including social partners, tax authorities and relevant civil society organizations in the field of taxation and social policy;
Amendment 11 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas SMEs and mid-caps play an important role for the European economy in terms of employment and growth;
Amendment 19 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas access to finance is not the main problem of EU SMEs, which consistently report the lack of final demand as the main obstacle to their growth; whereas austerity policies have had a depressing effect on final demand, through the lowering of wages and cuts in public expenditure;
Amendment 25 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas improving access to finance for SMEs should not lead to a lowering of financial standards and regulation;
Amendment 36 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges the diversity of SMEs and mid-caps in the Member States, which is reflected in their business models, size, stages of development, financial structure and legal form;
Amendment 46 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes differences in financing conditions for SMEs between Member States, notably the quantity and cost of available funding, which are influenced by SME-specific and country-specific factors, including economic volatility, slow growth and higher financial fragility; stresses that the asymmetric economic development of the EU, along with austerity policies, are a key factor in explaining these divergences, with cumulative effects;
Amendment 51 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the need for diverseimproving funding options for SMEs throughout their lifecycle; stresses that access to finance is also of importance for the transfer of businesses; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support SMEs in this process;
Amendment 61 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Encourages SMEs to consider the whole EU as their home market and to use the potential of the single market for their financing needs; welcomes the Commission’s initiatives supporting SMEs and start-ups in an upgraded Single Market; underlines, in this context, the importance of the implementation of the Small Business Act; calls on the Commission for a follow-up to the Small Business Acparticipate in those EU-funded initiatives tailored to their needs; highlights that most EU programs and actions are designed without regard for SMEs characteristics; expresses, in this regard, its concern at the de-regulatory bias of EU proposals for SMEs; calls, instead, for improving public information and assistance available for SMEs, along with a pro-active approach on SME participation in EU programs, as means to foster their development;
Amendment 71 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that SMEs and start-ups in particular may find it difficult to obtain appropriate funding and to identify and meet regulatory financial requirements; encourages therefore Member States in their efforts to create one-stop shops as hubs for all regulatory requirements for entrepreneurs; welcomes the Commission’s plan to launch a European Pact for starts-ups to address these issue; encourages therefore Member States in their efforts to provide financial support for SMEs;
Amendment 79 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomNotes the Commission’s initiative to identify undue barriers and obstacles to the financial sector providing funding to the real economy, in particular SMEs; underlines the importance of simplifying or modifying rules which gave rise to unintended consequences; stresses that this should not lead to a lowering of financial regulatory standards; underlines the importance of reviewing financial policies that may have induced a concentration of financial activity or diverted it towards more speculative activities, draining resources from SME funding;
Amendment 107 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Reiterates that it is primordial to enhance the SME lending capacity of banks; points out that financing by capital markets alone will not succeed in providing sufficient funding and appropriate financing solutions for SMEs;
Amendment 120 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is concerned about multiplthe rnegulatory requirements for banks and possible negative effects on lending to SMEsative effects on lending to SMEs of the EU's financial policies, particularly as they foster banking privatization, banking concentration and enhanced financial speculation through the Banking Union and Capital Markets Union, respectively; calls on the Commission to assess these effects on SME lending, with the support of the EBA and SSM;
Amendment 126 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises the importanceNotes the contribution of the SME Supporting Factor for maintaining and increasing bank lending to SMEs; calls on the Commission to examine the appropriate calibration of the factor, including size, threshold and possible interactions with other regulatory requirements; is concerned about the possible negative impact of its removal; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of making this factor permanent;
Amendment 137 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes the various ongoing initiatives to improve the availability of standardised and transparent SME credit information; stresses the need to apply the principle of proportionality when requesting such credit information so as not to overburden SMEs;
Amendment 154 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Stresses the importance of public institutions as an alternative to private banking as a source of funding for SMEs;
Amendment 160 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Member States to foster a risk-taking and capital market culture; reiteratesenhance thate financial education for SMEs is key to increasing the use and acceptance of capital market solutions, allowing for a better assessment of costs, benefits and the associated risks; calls on the Member States to enhance the financial literacy of SMEliteracy of SMEs; stresses the importance of clear financial information requirements to protect SMEs from predatory financial practices;
Amendment 199 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 209 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Highlights the need to foster innovation through lending platforms; encourages banks to regard the use of such innovative technologies as an opportunity; stresses that alternative funding sources like crowdfunding or peer-to-peer lending offer solutions for start-ups and innovative SMEs in particular; welcomes the Commission’s assessment of the existing framework for crowdfunding; calls on the Commission to explore the need for, and potential of, a harmonised EU framework; stresses the need to ensure that these new forms of financing are fully compliant with relevant tax and financial legislation, so that they do not become a tool for tax avoidance or financial opacity; stresses the need to review current legislation in this regard;
Amendment 225 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 228 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Notes that the complexity of new financial instruments may be used to transfer the risk from financial companies to SMEs, placing an additional burden on the latter;
Amendment 229 #
2016/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 13 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas this is a state of affairs which is still in flux and is far from being stabilised and its social and economic impact is still very limited;
Amendment 15 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas there are still many unanswered questions in relation to such important aspects as access to the virtual currency and the restrictions on the process of creating it;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas the high volatility of such currencies, in particular Bitcoin, and its lack of correlation with any currency or other reference value, and the fact that over 80% of transactions have a purely speculative function still prevent virtual currencies from performing the basic functions of a currency, such as serving as a medium of exchange, a unit of measure and store of value;
Amendment 19 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas transaction costs go far beyond the operating costs associated with trade, as they involve generating widespread confidence among the general public, something that virtual currencies are still far from being able to provide;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
(a) dramatically lowering transacoperational costs for payments and transfer of funds, quite possibly well below 1 %, compared to 2% - 4% for traditional online payment systems, and to more than 7 % on average for the cross-border transfer of remittances, hence potentially reducing global total costs for remittances by up to EUR 20 billion; __________________ 21 https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/101 80/657547/EBA-Op-2014- 08+Opinion+on+Virtual+Currencies.pdf 22 https://remittanceprices.worldbank.org/site s/default/files/rpw_report_december_2015. pdf
Amendment 31 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
(d) enabling systems that combine ease of use, low transacoperational costs and a high degree of privacy, but without full anonymity so that transactions can be traced back in case of malfeasance;
Amendment 37 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Notes that VCs and DLT schemes entail risks which need to be addressed appropriately, including in present circumstances, so as to generate confidence and lower transaction costs:
Amendment 50 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) the possibility that, as the costs associated with verification increase, so the incentives to create a virtual currency may decrease, leading to a concentration of supply of the currency and possible controls on and manipulation of the entire process;
Amendment 60 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Declares, however, that if a regulation is adopted at a very early stage, it may not be adapted to a state of affairs which is still in flux and may convey a wrong message to the public about the virtuality or security of virtual currencies;
Amendment 82 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for a proportionate and prudent regulatory approach so as not to stifle innovation at an early stage, while taking seriously the regulatory challenges that the widespread use of VCs and DLT might pose;
Amendment 98 #
2016/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recommends a reviewthat an assessment be carried out of the EU legislation on payments, including PSD and EMD, in light of the new possibilities afforded by new technological developments including VCs and DLT, with a view to further enhancing competition and lowering transaction costs, including by means of enhanced interoperability and possibly also via the promotion of a universal and non- proprietary electronic wallet;
Amendment 4 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
Amendment 5 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Union action should continue to take particular account ofgo beyond the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and instruments of other international bodies active in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The Commission should carry its own assessment regarding the efficiency of measures proposed by FATF and the implementation and effectiveness of anti money laundering measures in general. The FATF itself should undertake a revision of existing standards, an assessment of its own output , and ensure better use of financial intelligence, regional representation, credibility and efficiency. The relevant Union legal acts should, where appropriate, be further aligned with the International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation adopted by the FATF in February 2012 (the ‘revised FATF Recommendations’). As a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198), the Union should transpose the requirements of that Convention into its legal order.
Amendment 6 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA35 lays down requirements on the criminalisation of money laundering. That Framework Decision is not comprehensive enough, however, and the current incrimination of money laundering is not sufficiently coherent to effectively combat money laundering across the Union, thus leading to enforcement gaps and obstacles in the cooperation between the competent authorities in different Member States. . The Union’s multi-tier system of law making creates additional loopholes, where several Member States still have not fully implemented Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (3rd anti money laundering directive) agreed in 2005. _________________ 35 Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime (OJ L 182, 5.7.2001).
Amendment 9 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Tax crimes and tax avoidance relating to direct and indirect taxes should be included in the definition of criminal activity, in line with and beyond the revised FATF Recommendations. Given that different tax offences may in each Member State constitute a criminal activity punishable by means of the sanctions referred to in this Directive, definitions of tax crimes may diverge in national law. However no harmonisation of tThe definitions of tax crimes in Member States' national law is soughtshould be extended and the punishment be stronger and properly implemented, being in this way both preventive and effective.
Amendment 12 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Where money laundering activity does not simply amount to the mere possession or use, but also involves the transfer or the concealing and disguise of property through the financial system and results in further damage than that already caused by the predicate offence, such as damaging both public good and the integrity of the financial system, that activity should be punished separately. Member States should thus ensure that such conduct is also punishable when committed by the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated that property (so-called self-laundering).
Amendment 19 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) The Union and the Member States should provide the necessary legal measures for the protection of whistle- blowers, when reporting information in relation to money laundering, including in third countries.
Amendment 20 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
Amendment 22 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point h a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point h a (new)
(ha) tax crimes, including tax evasion and fraud and tax avoidance and any fraudulent action;
Amendment 32 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Each Member State shall ensure that covering, inciting, aiding and abetting and attempting an offence referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable.
Amendment 39 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Each Member State shall ensure that all natural persons, who ultimately own or control a legal entity through direct or indirect ownership, punishable under Articles 3 and 4, are banned from any financial and commercial activity with the public authorities.
Amendment 53 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) the exclusion of that legal person from entitlement to public positions, contracts benefits or aid, including Union related benefits or aid;
Amendment 69 #
2016/0414(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [24 months after adoption] at the latest, ensuring all the necessary resources for it. They shall immediately communicate the text of those provisions to the Commission.
Amendment 52 #
2016/0412(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 7 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 7 a (new)
– financial crimes, including tax fraud, money laundering and measures restricting competition, such as abuse of a dominant position or concerted practices,
Amendment 53 #
2016/0412(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 10 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 10 a (new)
– mis-selling of financial products,
Amendment 1 #
2016/0383(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament give its consent toshould reject the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Chile on trade in organic products.
Amendment 219 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Financial markets are pivotal for the functioning of modern economies. The more integrated they are, the more efficient the allocation of economic resources will be, benefitting economic performance. However, in order to improve the functioning of the single market in financial servihave significantly grown in the past decades due to liberalistation and deregulation. Many actors have become so big that they can be considered as systemically relevant as their failure would massively disrupt economic activities and would destroy wealth on a large scale. Hences, it is important to have procedures in place to ensure that if a financial institution or a financial market infrastructure that is active in this market faces financial distress or is at the point of failure, such an event does not de-stabilise the entire financial market and damage growth across the wider economy.
Amendment 283 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The staff involved in carrying out the functions entrusted to the resolution authority pursuant to this Regulation shall be structurally separated from, and subject to separate reporting lines from, the staff involved in carrying out the other functions of that authority. The staff shall perform their duties and exercise their powers independently from political and other external influence.
Amendment 309 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part
(a) that the proportionalityeffectiveness of any decision or action in relation to an individual CCP is ensured, taking into account at least the following factors:
Amendment 313 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) that the imperatives of efficacy of decision-making and of keeping costs as low as possiblewhile safeguarding financial stability when taking early intervention or resolution action are observed;
Amendment 315 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) that due consideration is given to the public interests of the Member States where the CCP provides services and where its clearing members, their clients, and any linked CCPs are established, and in particular the impact of any decision or action or inaction on the financial stability or fiscal resources of those Member States and the Union as a whole;
Amendment 332 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Any decision taken pursuant to paragraph 3 and its justification shall be notified toand approved by the competent authority without delay. Where a CCP intends to activate its recovery plan, it shall inform the competent authority of the nature and magnitude of the problems it has identified, setting out all relevant circumstances and indicating the recovery measures or other measures it intends to take to address the situation.
Amendment 337 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Where the competent authority considers that a recovery measure that the CCP intends to take may cause significant adverse effects to the financial system, it may require the CCP to refrain from taking that measure.
Amendment 341 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 7
Article 9 – paragraph 7
7. Recovery plans shall be drafted in accordance with Section A of the Annex. Competent authorities may require CCPs to include additional information or measures which it deems necessary in their recovery plans.
Amendment 362 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 2 – point e a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 2 – point e a (new)
(ea) to request changes to the ownership structure of the CCP.
Amendment 376 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. The resolution plan shallmay provide for the resolution actions that the resolution authority may take where the CCP meets the conditions for resolution referred to in Article 22.
Amendment 404 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The resolution authority, in cooperation with the resolution college in accordance with Article 17, shall assess the extent to which a CCP is resolvable without assumingbeing able to envisage any of the following:
Amendment 405 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
A CCP shall be deemed resolvable where the resolution authority considers it feasible and credible to either liquidate it under normal insolvency proceedings or to resolve it using the resolution tools and exercising the resolution powers while ensuring the continuity of the CCP's critical functions and avoiding to the maximum extent possible any significantany adverse effect on the financial system.
Amendment 406 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The adverse effects referred to in the first subparagraph shall include broader financial instability or system wide events in anythe Union as a whole, in any Member State or in a region of a Member State.
Amendment 408 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where, following the assessment in Article 16, the resolution authority and resolution college conclude that there are substantive impediments to the resolvability of a CCP, the resolution authority, in cooperation with the competent authority, shall prepare and submit a report to the CCP and to the resolution college.
Amendment 410 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The report referred to in the first subparagraph shall analyse the substantive impediments to the effective use of the resolution tools and the exercise of the resolution powers in relation to the CCP, consider their impact on the business model of the CCP and recommend targeted measures to remove those impediments.
Amendment 412 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
For the purposes of point (b) of the second subparagraph, the resolution authority shall consult the competent authority and the resolution college and, where appropriate, the designated national macroprudential authority and the ESRB.
Amendment 413 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 7 – point d a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 7 – point d a (new)
(da) require higher capital requirements pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012;
Amendment 416 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 7 – point j
Article 17 – paragraph 7 – point j
(j) require changes to legal or, operational, ownership or management structures of the CCP or any group entity directly or indirectly under its control to ensure that critical functions may be legally and operationally separated from other functions through the application of resolutions tools;
Amendment 433 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) require changes to the legal or, operational, ownership or management structures of the CCP;
Amendment 436 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
Article 19 – paragraph 3
Amendment 438 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) maintain the financial stability of the Union;Member States.
Amendment 439 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 440 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 447 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) to avoid a significantn adverse effect on the financial system, in particular by preventing contagion of financial distress between financial institutions and by maintaining market discipline;
Amendment 453 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) to minimise the cost of resolution on all affected stakeholders and avoid destruction of the CCP's value.
Amendment 458 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
For the purposes of point (a)(ii), the competent authority shall provide without delay and on its own initiative, any information that may suggest that the CCP is failing or likely to fail and, upon request, any relevant information that the resolution authority requests in order to perform its assessment.
Amendment 460 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
(e) the CCP requires extraordinary public financial support.
Amendment 462 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 468 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. The resolution authority may also take a resolution action where it considers that the CCP applies or intends to apply recovery measures which could prevent the CCP's failure but cause significant adverse effects to the financial system. or the wider economy or when it considers that a CCP has reached a size and level of complexity that its failure would lead to a significant disruption of the economy of the Union as a whole or of a Member State.
Amendment 481 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2
Article 27 – paragraph 2
Amendment 499 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 9 – point c a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 9 – point c a (new)
(ca) from the CCP’s clearing members, where any measure resulting in a loss allocation tool affecting the CCP’s clearing members under the CCP’s rules and arrangements, including under its recovery plan, has not been exercised, or has not been exercised in full prior to the entry into resolution.
Amendment 534 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3
Article 42 – paragraph 3
3. When applying the bridge CCP tool, the resolution authority shall ensure that the total value of liabilities and obligations transferred to the bridge CCP does not exceed the total value of the rights and assets transferred from the CCP under resolution. It should also ensure the maintenance of jobs and the respective employment and wage rights.
Amendment 538 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 43 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Before selling the bridge CCP or its assets, rights, obligations or liabilities, the resolution authority shall advertise the availability of the elements intended to be sold, and shall ensure that they are marketed openly and transparently, and that they are not materially misrepresented, as well as guarantee the maintenance of jobs and the respective wage and employment rights.
Amendment 541 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45
Article 45
Amendment 551 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46
Article 46
Amendment 554 #
Amendment 564 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Where the resolution authority uses one or more resolution tools, it shall ensure that shareholders, creditors and clearing participants do not incur:
Amendment 576 #
2016/0365(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 61 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the treatment that shareholders, creditors and clearing participants would have received had the resolution authority not taken resolution action in relation to the CCP the resolution authority considered that the conditions for resolution pursuant to Article 22(1) were met, and they had instead been subject to possible outstanding obligations pursuant to the CCP's recovery plan or other arrangements in its operating rules or the CCP had been wound up under normal insolvency proceedings;
Amendment 52 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Own funds add-ons imposed by competent authorities should be set in relation to the specific situation of an institution and should be duly justified. These requirements should not be used to address macroprudential risks and should be positioned, in the stacking order of own funds requirements, above the minimum own funds requirements and below the combined buffer requirement.
Amendment 53 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) Well-capitalised institutions support economic growth rather than hamper it. Significant risk reduction can only be achieved when institutions are not able to pose systemic threats to the economies of the Union or the Member States and when orderly failure is possible without the socialisation of losses. It is therefore appropriate to increase capital buffers for institutions that are classified as O-SIIs and G-SIIs so that possible losses which may occur can be absorbed by the owners of such institutions.
Amendment 57 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 117 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 21b – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 21b – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Competent authorities may allow the institutions referred to in paragraph 1 to have two intermediate EU parent undertakings where the competent authorities ascertain that a single intermediate EU parent undertaking would be operationally incompatible with a mandatory requirement for separation of activities in accordance with the rules of the third country where the ultimate parent undertaking of the third country group has its head office.
Amendment 150 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 21b – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Article 21b – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Competent authorities shall ensure that there is a single intermediate EU parent undertaking for all institutions that are part of the same third country group., unless the competent authorities have permitted the institution to have two intermediate EU parent undertakings in order for the institution to be compatible with a mandatory requirement for separation of activities in accordance with the rules of the third country where the ultimate parent undertaking of the third country group has its head office.
Amendment 267 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 103
Article 103
Amendment 284 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 104a – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 104a – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Competent authorities shall impose the additional own funds requirement referred to in Article 104(1)(a) only where, on the basis of the reviews carried out in accordance with Articles 97 and 101, they ascertain any of the following situations for an individual institution:
Amendment 285 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 104a – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 104a – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) the institution has reached a size and level of complexity such that its failure would lead to significant disruptions of the economy of the Member State or parts of it;
Amendment 289 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 104a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 104a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 307 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 104a – paragraph 6
Article 104a – paragraph 6
Amendment 324 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 104b – paragraph 5
Article 104b – paragraph 5
5. An institution that fails to meet the expectations set out in paragraph 3 shall notmay be subject to the restrictions referred to in Article 141.
Amendment 354 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 30 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 30 a (new)
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 131 – paragraph 5
Article 131 – paragraph 5
(30 a) In Article 131, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following: "5. The competent authority or designated authority may require each O- SII, on a consolidated or sub-consolidated or individual basis, as applicable, to maintain an O-SII buffer of up to 2 5% of the total risk exposure amount calculated in accordance with Article 92(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, taking into account the criteria for the identification of the O-SII. That buffer shall consist of and shall be supplementary to Common Equity Tier 1 capital. "
Amendment 358 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 30 b (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 30 b (new)
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 131 – paragraph 9
Article 131 – paragraph 9
(30 b) In Article 131, paragraph 9 is replaced by the following: "9. There shall be at least five subcategories of G-SIIs. The lowest boundary and the boundaries between each subcategory shall be determined by the scores under the identification methodology. The cut-off scores between adjacent sub-categories shall be defined clearly and shall adhere to the principle that there is a constant linear increase of systemic significance, between each sub- category resulting in a linear increase in the requirement of additional Common Equity Tier 1 capital, with the exception of the highest sub-category. For the purposes of this paragraph, systemic significance is the expected impact exerted by the G-SII's distress on the global financial market. The lowest sub-category shall be assigned a G- SII buffer of 12 % of the total risk exposure amount calculated in accordance with Article 92(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and the buffer assigned to each sub-category shall increase in gradients of 0,51 % of the total risk exposure amount calculated in accordance with Article 92(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 up to and including the fourth sub-category. The highest sub-category of the G-SII buffer shall be subject to a buffer of 3,58 % of the total risk exposure amount calculated in accordance with Article 92(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. "
Amendment 406 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 32
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 32
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 141a – paragraph 2
Article 141a – paragraph 2
Amendment 421 #
2016/0364(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 32 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 32 a (new)
Directive 2013/36/EU
Chapter 4 a (new)
Chapter 4 a (new)
Amendment 35 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Member States should ensure that institutions have sufficient loss absorbing and recapitalisation capacity to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in resolution with a minimum impact on financial stability and taxpayerwithout taxpayer bail-outs. That should be achieved through compliance by institutions with an institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities ('MREL') as provided in Directive 2014/59/EU.
Amendment 37 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Eligibility criteria for bail-inable liabilities for the MREL should be closely aligned with those laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 for the TLAC minimum requirement, in line with the complementary adjustments and requirements introduced in this Directive. In particular, certain debt instruments with an embedded derivative component, such as certain structured notes, should be eligible to meet the MREL to the extent that they have a fixed principal amount repayable at maturity while only an additional return is linked to a derivative and depends on the performance of a reference asset. In view of their fixed principal amount, those instruments should be highly loss-absorbing and easily bail-inable in resolution. Eligible liabilities should be clearly subordinated to other liabilities in order to avoid any ‘no creditor worse off’ issues.
Amendment 38 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7 a) Recent cases of bank bail-outs with public money have highlighted fundamental shortcomings of the current recovery and resolution framework, which was drafted with the intention that no socialisation of losses should take place. It is therefore appropriate to close existing loopholes, namely precautionary recapitalisation, which enable authorities to inject public money into failing banks.
Amendment 39 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The scope of liabilities to meet the MREL includes, in principle, all liabilities resulting from claims arising from unsecured non-preferred creditors (non- subordinated liabilities) unless they do not meet specific eligibility criteria provided in this Directive. To enhance the resolvability of institutions through an effective use of the bail-in tool, resolution authorities should be able to require that the MREL is met with subordinated liabilities, in particular when there are clear indications that bailed-in creditors are likely to bear losses in resolution that would exceed their potential losses in insolvency. The requirement to meet MREL with subordinated liabilities should be requested only for a level necessary to prevent that losses of creditors in resolution are above losses that they would otherwise incur under insolvency. Any subordination of debt instruments requested by resolution authorities for the MREL should be without prejudice to the possibility to partly meet the TLAC minimum requirement with non-subordinated debt instruments in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as permitted by the TLAC standard.
Amendment 43 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The MREL should allow institutions to absorb losses expected in resolution and recapitalise the institution post-resolution. The resolution authorities should, on the basis of the resolution strategy chosen by them, duly justify the imposed level of the MREL in particular as regards the need and the level of the requirement referred to in Article 104a of Directive 2013/36/EU in the recapitalisation amount. As such, that level should be composed of the sum of the amount of losses expected in resolution that correspond to the institution's own funds requirements and the recapitalisation amount that allows the institution post- resolution to meet its own funds requirements necessary for being authorised to pursue its activities under the chosen resolution strategy. The MREL should be expressed as a percentage of the total risk exposure and leverage ratio measures, and institutions should meet simultaneously the levels resulting from the two measurements. The resolution authority should be able to adjust the recapitalisation amounts in cases duly justified to adequately reflect also increased risks that affect resolvability arising from the resolution group’s business model, funding profile and overall risk profile and therefore in such limitednecessary circumstances require that the recapitalisation amounts referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 45c(3) and (4) are exceeded.
Amendment 46 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) To enhance their resolvability, resolution authorities should be able to impose an institution-specific MREL on G- SIIs in addition to the TLAC minimum requirement laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. That institution-specific MREL may only be imposed where the TLAC minimum requirement is not sufficient to absorb losses and recapitalise a G-SII under the chosen when deemed necessary by the resolution strategauthority.
Amendment 51 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) When setting the level of MREL, resolution authorities should consider the degree of systemic relevance of an institution and the potential adverse impact of its failure on the financial stability. They should take into account the need for a level playing field between G-SIIs and other comparable institutions with systemic relevance within the Union. Thus MREL of institutions that are not identified as G-SIIs but the systemic relevance within the Union of which is comparable to the systemic relevance of G-SIIs should not diverge disproportionately from the level and composition of MREL generally set for G-SIIs and may also exceed that level.
Amendment 53 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Similarly to powers conferred to competent authorities by Directive 2013/36/EU, this Directive should allow resolution authorities to require institutions to meet higher levels of MREL while addressing in a more flexible manner any breaches of those levels, in particular by alleviating the automatic effects of those breaches in the form of limitations to the Maximum Distributable Amounts (MDAs). Resolution authorities should be able to give guidance to institutions to meet additional amounts to cover losses in resolution that are above the level of the own funds requirements as laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU, and/or to ensure sufficient market confidence in the institution post-resolution. To ensure consistency with Directive 2013/36/EU, guidance to cover additional losses may only be given where the 'capital guidance' has been requested by the competent supervisory authorities in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU and should not exceed the level requested in that guidance. For the recapitalisation amount, the level requested in the guidance to ensure market confidence should enable the institution to continue to meet the conditions for authorisation for an appropriate period of time, including by allowing the institution to cover the costs related to the restructuring of its activities following resolution. The market confidence buffer should not exceed the combined capital buffer requirement under Directive 2013/36/EU unless a higher level is necessary to ensure that, following the event of resolution, the entity continues to meet the conditions for its authorisation for an appropriate period of time. Where an entity consistently fails to have additional own funds and eligible liabilities as expected under the guidance, the resolution authority should be able to require that the amount of the MREL be increased to cover the amount of the guidance. For the purposes of considering whether there is a consistent failure, the resolution authority should take into account the entity's reporting on the MREL as required by this Directiveen deemed necessary for resolution.
Amendment 55 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Institutions that are not resolution entities should comply with the MREL at individual level. Loss absorption and recapitalisation needs of those institutions should be generally provided by their respective resolution entities through the acquisition by resolution entities of eligible liabilities issued by those institutions and their write-down or conversion into instruments of ownership at the point where those institutions are no longer viable. As such, the MREL applicable to institutions that are not resolution entities should be applied together and consistently with the requirements applicable to resolution entities. That should allow resolution authorities to resolve a resolution group without placing certain of its subsidiary entities in resolution, thus avoiding potentially disruptive effects on the market. Subject to the agreement of the resolution authorities of the resolution entity and of its subsidiary, it should be possible to replace the issuance of eligible liabilities to resolution entities with collateralised guarantees between the resolution entity and its subsidiaries, that can be triggered when the timing conditions equivalent to those allowing the write down or conversion of eligible liabilities are met. The resolution authorities of subsidiaries of a resolution entity should also be able to fully waive the application of the MREL applicable to institutions that are not resolution entities if both the resolution entity and its subsidiaries are established in the same Member State. The application of the MREL to institutions that are not resolution entities should comply with the chosen resolution strategy, in particular it should not change the ownership relationship between institutions and their resolution group after those institutions have been recapitalised.
Amendment 169 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 20 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 20 a (new)
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 32 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 32 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Amendment 202 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
1. Eligible liabilities shall be included in the amount of own funds and eligible liabilities of resolution entities only where they satisfy the conditions referred to in Article 72a, except for point (d) of Article 72b(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
Amendment 206 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45b – paragraph 2
Article 45b – paragraph 2
Amendment 216 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 45b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 223 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 45b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Resolution authorities may decidshall ensure that the requirement referred to in Article 45f is met by resolution entities with instruments that meet all conditions referred to in Article 72a of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 with a view to ensure that the resolution entity can be resolved in a manner suitable to meet the resolution objectives.
Amendment 225 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 45b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 262 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 271 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 272 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Amendment 276 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Amendment 283 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 292 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 294 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 297 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 –subparagraph 4
Article 45c – paragraph 3 –subparagraph 4
Amendment 308 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 4
Article 45c – paragraph 4
Amendment 358 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Amendment 368 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45d – paragraph 2
Article 45d – paragraph 2
Amendment 384 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45e
Article 45e
Amendment 439 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 4
Article 45g – paragraph 4
Amendment 470 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 5 – point f
Article 45g – paragraph 5 – point f
(f) the resolution entity holds more than 50 % of the voting rights attached to shares in the capital of the subsidiary orand has the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the management body of the subsidiary;
Amendment 487 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45i – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 45i – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Entities referred to in Article 1(1) shall report to their competent and resolution authorities on the following upon request and at least on a yearly basis:
Amendment 499 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45k – paragraph -1 (new)
Article 45k – paragraph -1 (new)
-1. An institution that meets the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities shall not make a distribution in connection with Common Equity Tier 1 capital or make payments on Additional Tier 1 instruments to an extent that would decrease its Common Equity Tier 1capital to a level where the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities is no longer met.
Amendment 519 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 55 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 55 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 537 #
2016/0362(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 55 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Article 55 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
The liabilities for which a waiver from the contractual recognition of bail-in has been granted by the resolution authority in accordance with this paragraph shall not exceed 10 per cent of all liabilities of an institution or entity referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1(1).
Amendment 14 #
2016/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published the Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Term Sheet ('the TLAC standard') on 9 November 2015, which was endorsed by the G-20 in November 2015. The TLAC standard requires global systemically important banks ('G-SIBs'), referred to as global systemically important institutions ('G-SIIs') in the Union framework, to hold a sufficient minimum amount of highly loss absorbing (bailin- able) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in resolution. On the other hand, the widespread use of public funds to recapitalise banks since then shows that the Banking Union’s regulatory and institutional framework is far from being able to address the problem fully. In its Communication of 24 November 201511, the Commission committed to bring forward a legislative proposal by the end of 2016 that would enable the TLAC standard to be implemented by the internationally agreed deadline of 2019. _________________ 11 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, "Towards the completion of the Banking Union", 24.11.2015, COM(2015) 587 final
Amendment 16 #
2016/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The absence of harmonised rules in the Member States participating in the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) in respect of the implementation of the TLAC standard would create additional costs and legal uncertainty for institutions and make the application of the bail-in tool for cross- border institutions more difficult. The absence of harmonised Union rules also results in competitive distortions on the internal market given that the costs for institutions to comply with the existing requirements and the TLAC standard may differ considerably across the participating Member States. It is therefore necessary to remove those obstacles to the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortions of competition resulting from the absence of harmonised rules in respect of the implementation of the TLAC standard. Consequently, the appropriate legal basis for this Regulation is Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as interpreted in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. On the other hand, the concentration of the financial sector, driven recently by the Banking Union, has brought to the fore that Union’s instability, increasing the importance of the ‘too-big-to-fail’ entities and calling into question all the system’s credibility.
Amendment 18 #
2016/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The Board should ensure that institutions have sufficient loss absorbing and recapitalisation capacity to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in resolution with a minimum impact on financial stability and taxpayers. That should be achieved through compliance by institutions with an institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities as provided in Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. To carry out its work properly, the Board should be given the means to avoid outsourcing services essential to its decision-making as much as possible.
Amendment 30 #
2016/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to lay down uniform rules for the purposes of Union recovery and resolution framework, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt this Regulation, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. However, it should not take away Member States’ capacity to act in their own financial sector, helping to ensure the soundness of the institutions, protecting depositors and aligning banking interests with the country’s development needs.
Amendment 180 #
2016/0360A(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) While the reform has rendered the financial system more stable and resilient against many types of possible future shocks and crises, it did not address all identified problems. An important reason for that was that international standard setters, such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB), had not finished their work on internationally agreed solutions to tackle those problems at the timelies in the private nature of the financial system and, in not infrequent cases, in the subordination of political and regulatory power to the economic power represented by large financial groups. Now that work on important additional reforms has been completed, the outstanding problems should be addressed.
Amendment 181 #
2016/0360A(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Risk reduction measures should not only further strengthen the resilience of the European banking system and the markets' confidence in it, but also provide the basis for further progress in completing the Banking Union. Those measures should also be considered against the background of broader challenges affecting the Union economy, especially the need to promote growth and jobs at times of uncertain economic outlook. In that context, various major policy initiatives, such as the Investment Plan for Europe and the Capital Markets Union, havit is now important to reflect on the bneen launched in order to strengthen the economy of the Union. It is therefore important that all risk reduction measures interact smoothly with those policy initiatives as well as with broader recent reforms in the financid for public control of the financial system, thereby ensuring that the financial system serves development and avoiding cyclical spectorulative crises.
Amendment 184 #
2016/0360A(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In order not to unnecessarily constrain lending by institutions to corporates and private households and to prevent unwarranted adverse impacts on market liquidityto prevent excessive speculation and the cyclical creation of financial bubbles, the leverage ratio requirement should be set at a level where it acts as a credible backstop to the risk of excessive leverage without hampering economic growth, thus avoiding the banking crises of the past.
Amendment 188 #
2016/0360A(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The European Banking Authority (EBA) concluded in its report to the Commission19 that a Tier 1 capital leverage ratio calibrated at 3% for any type of credit institution would constitute a credible backstop function. A 3% leverage ratio requirement was also agreed upon at international level by the Basel Committee. This limit is now considered by many experts to be insufficient. Consequently, the leverage ratio requirement should therefore be calibrated at 35%. __________________ 19 Report on the leverage ratio requirement of 3 August 2016 https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/101 80/1360107/EBA-Op-2016- 13+(Leverage+ratio+report).pdf
Amendment 189 #
2016/0360A(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 479 #
2016/0360A(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 39 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 39 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 92 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 92 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) a leverage ratio of 35%.
Amendment 68 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) All workers should have the right to protection of their claims in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as set out in the European Social Charter;
Amendment 90 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) To promote efficiency and reduce delays and costs, national preventive restructuring frameworks should include flexible procedures limiting the involvement of judicial or administrative authorities to where it is necessary and proportionate in order to safeguard the interests of creditors and other interested parties likely to be affected. To avoid unnecessary costs and reflect the early nature of the procedure, debtors should in principle be left in control of their assets and the day-to-day operation of their business. The appointment of a restructuring practitioner, whether a mediator supporting the negotiations of a restructuring plan or an insolvency practitioner supervising the actions of the debtor, should not be mandatory in every case, but made on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances of the case or on the debtor's specific needs. Furthermore, there should not necessarily be a court order for the opening of the restructuring process which may be informal as long as the rights of third parties are not affected. Nevertheless, aA degree of supervision should be ensured when this is necessary to safeguard the legitimate interests of one or more creditors or another interested party. This may be the case, in particular, when a general stay of individual enforcement actions is granted by the judicial or administrative authority or where it appears necessary to impose a restructuring plan on dissenting classes of creditors.
Amendment 116 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46 a (new)
Recital 46 a (new)
(46a) Under no circumstances should workers bear the burden of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures, and the debts owing to them (such as unpaid wages) should always be recovered first. In order to guarantee the continuity of production and employment and to better fight tactical or fraudulent practices by management, workers should also be informed and consulted at the initial stage of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures.
Amendment 154 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Preventive restructuring frameworks may consist of one or more procedures or measures, duly negotiated and consulted with workers’ representatives, who shall retain all rights of collective bargaining and industrial action. Preventive restructuring frameworks shall provide for procedures or measures destined to the recovery of the indebted firm by workers, in accordance with the relevant national law.
Amendment 157 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shallmay put in place provisions limiting the involvement of a judicial or administrative authority to where it is necessary and proportionate sowhile ensuring that rights of any affected parties are safeguarded.
Amendment 159 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Preventive restructuring frameworks shall be available on the application by debtors, or byby workers or by other creditors with the agreement of debtors.
Amendment 162 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The appointment by a judicial or administrative authority of a practitioner in the field of restructuring shall not be mandatory in every case.
Amendment 163 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Amendment 168 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 176 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to workers' outstanding claims except if and to the extent that Member States ensure by other means that the payment of such claims is guaranteed at a level of protection at least equivalent to that provided for under the relevant national law transposing Directive 2008/94/EC.
Amendment 181 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall limit the duration of the stay of individual enforcement actions to a maximum period of no more than four month70 days.
Amendment 187 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 7
Article 6 – paragraph 7
7. The total duration of the stay of individual enforcement actions, including extensions and renewals, shall not exceed twelve month100 days.
Amendment 190 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. A general stay covering all creditors shall prevent the opening of insolvency procedures at the request of one or more creditors, with the exception of workers, in accordance with Article 6(3).
Amendment 202 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a valuation of the present value of the debtor or the debtor's business as well as a reasoned statement on the causes and the extent of the financial difficulties of the debtor, including a description of any assets, debts and their location; this shall include a relation of the financial obligations and flows with the business' parent companies and subsidiaries in order to estimate the financial capacity of the debtor's economic group when joint responsibility may arise;
Amendment 207 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) an opinion or reasoned statement by the person responsible for proposing the restructuring plan which explains why the business is viable, how implementing the proposed plan is likely to result in the debtor avoiding insolvency and restore its long-term viability, and states any anticipated necessary pre-conditions for its success. Such an opinion or reasoned statement shall be the subject of validation by an external expert.
Amendment 209 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(ga) Workers’ claims or other rights shall be treated taking into account that any financial claims by workers shall have full priority.
Amendment 221 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that any affected creditors, including workers, have a right to vote on the adoption of a restructuring plan. Member States may also grant such voting rights to affected equity holders, in accordance with Article 12(2).
Amendment 227 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that affected parties are treated in separate classes which reflect the class formation criteria. Classes shall be formed in such a way that each class comprises claims or interests with rights that are sufficiently similar to justify considering the members of the class a homogenous group with commonality of interest. As a minimum, secured and unsecured claims shall be treated in separate classes for the purposes of adopting a restructuring plan. Member States may alsoshall provide that workers are treated in a separate class of their own.
Amendment 232 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Member States shall guarantee that in the case of lack of collaboration of other creditors, the workers’ restructuring plan may be presented to the competent administration or court and adopted without the consent of non-cooperative creditors.
Amendment 239 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) workers’ representatives have been informed and consulted.
Amendment 249 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 a (new)
Article 12 a (new)
Article 12a Workers Member States shall ensure the rights of workers are not undermined by the restructuring process and that there is independent supervision of compliance with relevant national and Union legislation, including those set out in the present directive. Those rights shall include, in particular: (i) the right to collective bargaining and industrial action; (ii) the right to information and consultation of workers and workers' representatives, including notably access to information on any procedure which could have an impact on employment and/or the ability of workers to recover their wages and any future payments, including occupational pensions. Members States shall also ensure that workers are everywhere treated as a preferential and secure class of creditors.
Amendment 264 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) not to reduce intentionally the value of the company's net assets below the level necessary to discharge accrued liabilities to workers;
Amendment 278 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 2
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall encourage, by any means which they consider appropriate, the development of, and adherence to, voluntary codes of conduct bysure that practitioners in the field of restructuring, insolvency and second chance, as well as other effective oversight mechanisms concerning the provisions of such services, comply with statutory codes of conduct, which shall include at least relevant provisions on: training, qualification, licensing, registration, personal liability, insurance and good repute.
Amendment 283 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) notifications to creditors and workers' representatives;
Amendment 286 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point g a (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point g a (new)
(ga) the number of job losses and the impact on workers' conditions of restructuring agreements and insolvency procedures;
Amendment 288 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point g b (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point g b (new)
(gb) the number of fraudulent restructuring and insolvency procedures and the functioning of enforcement mechanisms in place;
Amendment 292 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 30 a (new)
Article 30 a (new)
Amendment 295 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) Directive 2008/94/EC concerning the protection of employees in the event of insolvency of an employer
Amendment 297 #
2016/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive shall be without prejudice to workers' rights guaranteed by Directives 98/59/EC, 2001/23/EC, 2002/14EC, 2008/94/EC and 2009/38/EC and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Amendment 42 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1 a) Attempts to eliminate double taxation have often led to "double non- taxation", where, through the practice of base erosion and profit shifting, companies have managed to have their profits taxed in those Member States which have close to zero corporate taxes. This ongoing practice distorts competition, damages domestic enterprises and undermines taxation, to the detriment of growth and jobs.
Amendment 44 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) For this reason, it is necessary that mechanisms available in the Union ensure the resolution of double taxation dispuo give to authorities the necessary tools and time in order to investigates and the effective elimination of the double taxation at stakecontrol irregular practices of base erosion and profit shifting.
Amendment 68 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The elimination of double taxation should be achieved through a procedure under which, as a first step, the case is submitted to the tax authorities of the Member States concerned with a view to settling the dispute by Mutual Agreement Procedure. In the absence of such agreement within a certain time frame, the case should be submitted to an Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission, consisting both of representatives of the tax authorities concerned and of independent persons of standing. The tax authorities should take a final binding decision by reference to the opinion of an Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission. The decisions reached by any of the above-mentioned bodies should be made publicly available. Secrecy is inappropriate in relation to international tax disputes, and publication is in the interest of the public. Publication also provides an incentive for decision-makers to ensure the decision reached is defensible and can contribute to improved understanding of how the rules should be interpreted and applied.
Amendment 86 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Any taxpayer subject to double taxation shall be entitled to submit a complaint requesting the resolution of the double taxation to each of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned within threone years from the receipt of the first notification of the action resulting in double taxation, whether or not it uses the remedies available in the national law of any of the Member States concerned. The taxpayer shall indicate in its complaint to each respective competent authority which other Member States are concerned.
Amendment 94 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. The competent authorities shall acknowledge receipt of the complaint within onetwo months from the receipt of the complaint. They shall also inform the competent authorities of the other Member States concerned on the receipt of the complaint.
Amendment 104 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. The competent authorities of the Member States concerned may request the information referred to in point (f) of paragraph 3 within a period of twosix months from the receipt of the complaint.
Amendment 121 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authorities of the Member States concerned may decide to reject the complaint where the complaint is inadmissible or there is no double taxation or the three-one year period set forth in Article 3(1) is not respected.
Amendment 138 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The Advisory Commission shall be set up no later than fifninety calendar days after the end of the six-month period provided for in Article 3(5), if the Advisory Commission is set up in accordance with paragraph 1.
Amendment 139 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The Advisory Commission shall be set up no later than fifninety calendar days after the end of the period provided for in Article 4(1) if the Advisory Commission is set up in accordance with paragraph 2.
Amendment 167 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall provide that within the period of fifninety calendar days as provided for in Article 6(4), each competent authority of the Member States concerned notifies the taxpayers on the following:
Amendment 169 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The date referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph shall be set no later than 6 monthsone year after the setting up of the Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission.
Amendment 171 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. In absence or incompleteness of notification of the Rules of Functioning to the taxpayers, the Member States shall provide that the independent persons and the chair shall complete the Rules of Functioning according to Annex II and send it to the taxpayer within two weeks from the expiry date of the fifninety calendar days provided in Article 6(4). When the independent persons and the chair do not agree on the Rules of Functioning or do not notify them to the taxpayers, the taxpayers can refer to the competent court of their state of residence or establishment in order to draw all legal consequences and implement the Rules of Functioning.
Amendment 181 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. The Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission shall deliver its opinion no later than six monthsone year after the date it was set up to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.
Amendment 183 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission shall adopt its opinion by a simple majority of its membersconsensus. If consensus was not reached, the agreement would be taken by simple majority. Where majority cannot be reached, the vote of the chair shall determine the final opinion. The chair shall communicate the opinion of the Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission to the competent authorities. The members will be allowed to present a minority opinion also to the competent authorities.
Amendment 186 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authorities shall agree within six monthsone year of the notification of the opinion of the Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission on the elimination of the double taxation.
Amendment 195 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. The competent authorities shall publish the final decision referred to in Article 14, subject to consent of each of the taxpayers concerned.
Amendment 197 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 200 #
2016/0338(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 53 #
Amendment 58 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital -1 (new)
Recital -1 (new)
(–1) There is an investment gap in the EU that is compromising the resumption of economic growth.
Amendment 59 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital -1 a (new)
Recital -1 a (new)
(–1a) There is a liquidity surplus in the banking system, which does not suggest market failure at investment level.
Amendment 60 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital -1 b (new)
Recital -1 b (new)
(–1b) There are some reservations with regard to the implementation of the EFSI, particularly in relation to additionality, excessive geographical and thematic concentration and the governance model, concerns which have also been expressed in the Court of Auditors report.
Amendment 61 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital -1 c (new)
Recital -1 c (new)
(–1c) The plan to turn the EFSI into a permanent instrument could transform it into a further anti-democratic element in the distribution among the Member States of private investment with public support.
Amendment 62 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital -1 d (new)
Recital -1 d (new)
(–1d) Only a genuinely public investment plan geared to social, economic and territorial cohesion will be capable of helping to increase aggregate demand and carry out investment in public infrastructure, which may subsequently leverage and boost private investment. Only a plan of this nature can be effective in reviving growth, fighting unemployment and combating social, economic and territorial inequalities.
Amendment 38 #
2016/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Better statistics are therefore crucial to achieving better results and contributing to a better Europe, and greater efforts should be made to boost investments in official statistics at both European and national levels. This should provide guidance in priority policy areas and for capacity-building, in addition to current guidance and ongoing re-prioritisation. More specifically, action should be taken to tackle the most urgent statistical gaps, increase timeliness and support politicalthe priorities and economic policy coordination through the European Semesterin terms of achieving the 17 United Nations sustainable development goals, with particular regard to income and gender inequalities. The Commission (Eurostat) should also provide new population projections in close cooperation with the national statistical institutes to update the analysis of the social, economic and budgetary implications of both population ageing and migration flows.
Amendment 44 #
2016/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Experimental ecosystem accounts and climate-change statistics, including those relevant to climate-change adaptation and ‘footprints’, should be further developed, particularly in support of the implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The European Energy Union and the 2030 framework for climate and energy, which aims to make the Union’s economy and energy system more competitive, secure and sustainable,is will require new statistics on energy consumption, energy efficiency, renewable energies, energy dependence and security of supply.
Amendment 48 #
2016/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) Agricultural statistics constitute a major gap in the European statistical system. Hence, it is crucial to identify the loopholes in current statistics and identify more robust indicators across and within Member States (by gender, age, region inter alia) on economic and social indicators relevant to the agricultural sector (including on atypical labour relationships, income inequality and in- work poverty, and patterns of land ownership) that complement existing data on farm incomes etc. Also, it is important to develop more disaggregated data on price indices, including absolute values, for agricultural products in order to monitor agricultural markets and address potential problems, including lack of competition in the distribution and commercialisation of agricultural products.
Amendment 73 #
2016/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point e – point i – indent 1 (new)
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point e – point i – indent 1 (new)
Regulation (EU) No 99/2013
Annex I – point I – point 2.1.1 – indent 4 a(new)
Annex I – point I – point 2.1.1 – indent 4 a(new)
- In objective 2.1.1 an indent is inserted after the fourth indent '- the development of a conceptual framework for the measurement and analysis of tax evasion and avoidance, which should include the compilation of timely and high quality statistics on financial secrecy, tax justice, tax cooperation and the tax gap on Member State and Union level;'
Amendment 75 #
2016/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point e – point ii – introductory part
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point e – point ii – introductory part
ii) Twohree new indents are inserted after the fifth indent as follows:
Amendment 78 #
2016/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point e – point ii a (new)
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point e – point ii a (new)
Regulation (EU) no 99/2013
Annex – point I – point 2.1.1 – indent 5c (new)
Annex – point I – point 2.1.1 – indent 5c (new)
- the development of a conceptual framework for the measurement and analysis of gender inequality, with particular regard to the wage gap; (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)
Amendment 79 #
2016/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point e a (new)
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) In objective 2.1.1 the second indent is replaced by the following: "- the production of indicators on income, wealth and consumption distribution across households (by reconciling national accounts aggregates with household survey data or administrative data);" lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:039:0012:0029:EN:PDF)Or. en (http://eur-
Amendment 10 #
2016/0209(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 (new)
Recital -1 (new)
(-1) The various recent tax scandals (‘EuroLeaks’, ‘Panama Papers’ and ‘Bahamas Leaks’) have revealed a list of companies and individuals who used and continue to use tax havens, non- cooperative jurisdictions and jurisdictions with tax regimes that are highly favourable to multinational companies and very wealthy individuals in order to gain financial advantages, have access to dubious and in many cases criminal sources of or destinations for funds, and avoid paying the taxes due. This situation demands resolute action that is not merely superficial but seeks to combat all schemes that enable those with the most wealth and resources to evade both the law and their tax obligations to their countries and communities.
Amendment 11 #
2016/0209(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 a (new)
Recital -1 a (new)
(-1a) The role of vehicles, accounts and companies based in tax havens and non- cooperative jurisdictions has emerged as the common denominator in a vast range of operations, generally detected a posteriori, which conceal tax fraud, tax evasion and money laundering practices. This fact in itself should call for political and diplomatic action aimed at eliminating offshore centres at global level.
Amendment 12 #
2016/0209(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 b (new)
Recital -1 b (new)
(-1b) Until this goal has been achieved, it is necessary to take legislative action to strengthen the control and prevention measures available to the tax, judicial, economic and financial authorities and designed to prevent, detect and combat all criminal practices such as money laundering.
Amendment 18 #
2016/0209(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) To ensure effective monitoring of the application by Financial Institutions of the due diligence procedures set forth in Directive 2011/16/EU, the tax authorities need access to AML information. This access should be the result of a mandatory automatic exchange of information. In the absence of such access, those authorities would not be able to monitor, confirm and audit that the Financial Institutions apply properly Directive 2011/16/EU by identifying correctly and reporting the beneficial owners of intermediary structures.
Amendment 20 #
2016/0209(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) At international level, the mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation has been identified as a key instrument in the fight against tax evasion, tax avoidance and profit shifting. The recent report ‘Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order’ - drawn up at the request of the UN Secretary-General by the independent expert Alfred-Maurice de Zayas and published on 4 August 2016 - proposed an action plan to combat these phenomena and recommended, among other measures, that legislation be approved providing for the multilateral automatic exchange of financial information.
Amendment 27 #
2016/0209(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) It is therefore necessary to ensure the access by the tax authorities’ access to the AML information, procedures, documents and mechanisms for the performance of their duties in monitoring the proper application of Directive 2011/16/EU, and to include them in the range of information subject to the mandatory automatic exchange of information among Member States’ tax authorities.
Amendment 48 #
2016/0209(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 22 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 1 a (new)
(1a) For the purpose of the implementation and enforcement of the laws of the Member States giving effect to this directive, and to ensure the functioning of the administrative cooperation it establishes, Member States shall provide by law for access by tax authorities’ access to the mechanisms, procedures, documents and information referred to in articles 13, 30, 31, 32a and 40 of Directive 2015/849/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council*. This access should be the result of a mandatory automatic exchange of information.
Amendment 64 #
2016/0208(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) When dealing with natural persons or legal entities established in high-risk third countries, Member States must require obliged entities to apply enhanced customer due diligence measures to manage and mitigate risks. Each Member State therefore determines at national level the type of enhanced due diligence measures to be taken towards high-risk third countries, including the possibility of suspending the activity of institutions that continue to maintain relations with high- risk third countries. Those different approaches between Member States create weak spots on the management of business relationships involving high risk third countries identified by the Commission. Those gaps can be exploited by terrorists to channel funds in and out the Union financial system. It is important to improve the effectiveness ofput into place the list of high-risk third countries established by the Commission by providing for a harmonised treatment of those countries at Union level. This harmonised approach should primarily focus on enhanced customer due diligence measures. Nevertheless, Member States and obliged entities should be allowed to apply additional mitigating measures in addition to enhanced customer due diligence measures, in accordance with international obligations. International organisations and standard setters with competence in the field of preventing money laundering and combating terrorist financing may call to apply appropriate counters measures to protect the international financial system from the on- going and substantial money laundering and terrorist financing risks emanating from countries. Member States should enact and apply additional mitigating measures regarding high risk third countries identified by the Commission by taking into account calls for countermeasures such as those expressed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Amendment 84 #
2016/0208(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to respect privacy and protect personal data, such registries should store the minimum data necessary to the performance of AML investigations. The concerned data subjects should be informed that their data are recorded and accessible by FIUs and should be given a contact point for exercising their rights of access and rectification. When transposing these provisions, Member States should set out maximum retention periods (supported by adequate reasoning as to their duration) for the registration of personal data in registries and provide for their destruction once the information is no longer needed for the stated purpose. Access to the registries and databases should be limited on a need to know basis.
Amendment 109 #
2016/0208(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) It is essential to take into account the particularities of trusts and similar legal arrangements, as far as publicly available information on their beneficial owner is concerned. Irrespective of their qualification under national law, a distinction should be drawn between, on the one hand, trusts which consist of any property held by or on behalf of a person carrying on a business which consists of or includes the management of trusts, and acting as trustee of a trust in the course of that business with a view to gain profit, and, on the other hand, any other trusts. Given the nature of the first category of trusts, information on their beneficial owners should be made publicly available through compulsory disclosure. Access should be given to the same limited set of data on the beneficial owner as in the case of companies.
Amendment 112 #
2016/0208(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 242 #
2016/0208(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2015/849/EU
Article 18 a – paragraph 3
Article 18 a – paragraph 3
3. In addition to the measures provided in paragraph 1, Member States mayshould apply one of the following measures to third countries identified as high-risk third countries pursuant to Article 9(2) in compliance with international obligations of the Union: (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)
Amendment 245 #
2016/0208(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2015/849/EU
Article 18 a – paragraph 3 – point f a (new)
Article 18 a – paragraph 3 – point f a (new)
(fa) providing, in the event of non- compliance, for effective sanctions, which may extend to suspending the licences needed to carry out activity (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)
Amendment 318 #
2016/0208(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point d
Directive 2015/849/EU
Article 31 – paragraph 4 a – subparagraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 4 a – subparagraph 1
“4a. The information held in the register referred to in paragraph 3a of this Article with respect to any other trusts than those referred to in Article 7b (b) of Directive (EC) 2009/101 shall be accessible to any person or organisation that can demonstrate a legitimate interest.
Amendment 320 #
2016/0208(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point d
Directive 2015/849/EU
Article 31 – paragraph 4 a – subparagraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 4 a – subparagraph 2
Amendment 341 #
2016/0208(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point f
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point f
Directive 2015/849/EU
Article 31 – paragraph 8
Article 31 – paragraph 8
Amendment 432 #
2016/0208(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 2009/101/EC
Article 1 a – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) corporate and other legal entities referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council*, including the types of companies referred to in Article 1 of this Directive, save for those which are non profit-making;
Amendment 7 #
2016/0110(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) Account should be taken of the under-representation of public as opposed to private interests in the various EFRAG executive bodies, something that should be remedied under its new administration.
Amendment 9 #
2016/0110(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 b (new)
Recital 4 b (new)
(4b) The European Commission should submit a proposal to convert the EFRAG into a public agency, as called for by the European Parliament.
Amendment 11 #
2016/0110(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 c (new)
Recital 4 c (new)
(4c) The European Commission should provide the European Parliament and the Council with more regular information on the joint work of the IFRS Foundation, the EFRAG and the PIOB, given that these three agencies are funded by the EU and are working for the same purpose.
Amendment 39 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 (new)
Recital -1 (new)
(-1) Tax avoidance and tax evasion, along with profit-shifting schemes, have deprived governments and populations of the necessary resources to, among other things, guarantee universal free access to public education and health services and state social services, as well as depriving states of the possibility of ensuring a supply of affordable housing and public transport, and of building infrastructure that is essential in order to achieve social development and economic growth. In short, these schemes have been a factor of injustice, inequality and economic, social and territorial divergences.
Amendment 40 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 a (new)
Recital -1 a (new)
(-1a) A fair and effective corporate tax system should respond to the urgent need for a progressive and fair global tax policy, promote the redistribution of wealth and combat inequalities.
Amendment 44 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In recent years, the challenge posed by corporate income tax avoidance has increased considerably and has become a major focus of concern within the Union and globallyparticularly after the revelations concerning various tax scandals, corporate income tax avoidance has been on the agenda and has sparked strong and justified demands for governments, both nationally and within the framework of international cooperation, to take practical and effective action to put an end to this phenomenon. The European Council in its conclusions of 18 December 2014 acknowledged the urgent need to advance efforts in the fight against tax avoidance both at global and Union level. The Commission in its communications entitled ‘Commission Work Programme 2016 - No time for business as usual’16 and ‘Commission Work Programme 2015 - A New Start’17 identified as a priority the need to move to a system whereby the country in which profits are generated is also the country of taxation. The Commission also identified as a priority the need to respond to our societies’ call for fairness and tax transparency. Despite all the intentions expressed, however, there is an urgent need for action. __________________ 16 COM(2015) 610 final of 27 October 2015. 17 COM(2014) 910 final of 16 December 2014.
Amendment 67 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Tax policy plays a central role in the redistribution of wealth. Enhanced public scrutiny of corporate income taxes borne by multinational undertakings carrying out activities in the Union is an essential element to further foster corporate responsibility, to contribute to the welfare through taxes, to promote fairEuropean Union Member States is an essential element to put pressure on those under tax competition within the Union through a better informed public debate and to restore public trustkings not to evade their obligations to society in the fairnessield of the naxational tax systems. Such public scrutiny can be achieved by means of a report on income tax information, irrespective of where the ultimate parent undertaking of the multinational group is established.
Amendment 78 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The public should be able to scrutinise all the activities of a group when the group has certain establishments within the UnionEuropean Union Member States. For groups which carry out activities within the UnionEuropean Union Member States only through subsidiary undertakings or branches, subsidiaries and branches should also publish and make accessible the report of the ultimate parent undertaking. However for reasons of proportionality and effectiveness, ta report. The obligation to publish and make accessible the report should be limited to medium-sized or largeapplies to all subsidiaries established in the Union, or branchEuropean Union Member States, ofr a comparable sizell branches opened in a Member State. The scope of Directive 2013/34/EU should therefore be extended accordingly to branches opened in a Member State by an undertaking which is established outside the UnEuropean Union and which has a consolidated net turnover exceeding EUR 40 million.
Amendment 124 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The report on income tax information shall be made accessible to the public on the website of the undertaking on the date of its publication. published, by six months after the closure of accounts for the tax year in question, in a common template available in an open data format and made accessible to the public on the website of the undertaking on the date of its publication in at least one of the official languages of the EU. On the same date, the undertaking shall also file it in a public online registry; that registry shall be managed by the tax authority of the Member State applying the rules laid down in the first subparagraph of this paragraph.
Amendment 145 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
The report on income tax information shall be published, by six months after the closure of accounts for the tax year in question, in a common template available in an open data format and made accessible to the public on the date of its publication on the website of the subsidiary undertaking or on the website of an affiliated undertaking in at least one of the official languages of the EU. On the same date, the undertaking shall also file that report in a public online registry; that registry shall be managed by the tax authority of the Member State applying the rules laid down in the first subparagraph of this paragraph.
Amendment 152 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The report on income tax information shall be made accessible to the public on the date of its publication on the website of the branch or on the website of an affiliated undertakingpublished, by six months after the closure of accounts for the tax year in question, in a common template available in an open data format and made accessible to the public on the date of its publication on the website of the branch or on the website of an affiliated undertaking. On the same date, the undertaking shall also file the report in a public registry managed by the tax authority of the Member State applying the rules laid down in the first subparagraph of this paragraph.
Amendment 169 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point a
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) a brief description of the nature of the activities carried out by each entity, together with a breakdown of the respective areas of business, functions and geographical location;
Amendment 176 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point b
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the number of employeesworkers on the undertaking’s staff on a full-time equivalent basis and workers who, although not on the undertaking’s staff, are leased on a full-time equivalent basis, and a breakdown of the allocation of workers by area of business and function;
Amendment 180 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) staffing costs, by entity, broken down between wages and salaries, social security costs, pension costs and staff leasing costs;
Amendment 181 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
Amendment 182 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point b c (new)
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point b c (new)
Amendment 187 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)
(bd) sales and purchases carried out by each entity with related parties and with unrelated parties;
Amendment 200 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(ga) interest and expenses and/or similar income, with a breakdown of the amounts to be paid and/or received from related parties;
Amendment 204 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point g b (new)
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 c – paragraph 2 – point g b (new)
(gb) the amount paid and/or received in royalties, including a distinction between that made with related parties and that made with unrelated parties;
Amendment 20 #
2016/0010(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) UnionMember States' tax authorities need comprehensive and relevant information on MNE Groups regarding their structure, transfer pricing policy and internal transactions in and outside the EU. That information will enable the tax authorities to react to harmful tax practices through changes in the legislation or adequate risk assessments and tax audits, and to identify whether companies have engaged in practices that have the effect of artificially shifting substantial amounts of income into tax-advantaged environments.
Amendment 27 #
2016/0010(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Increased transparency towards tax authorities and public opinion could have the effect of giving MNE Groups an incentive to abandon certain practices and pay their fair share of tax in the country where profits are made. Enhancing transparency for MNE Groups is therefore an essential part of tackling base erosion and profit shifting.
Amendment 30 #
2016/0010(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) Account will have to be taken of the European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2015 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect.
Amendment 56 #
2016/0010(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The mandatory automatic exchange of country-by-country reports between Member States and their publication should in each case include the communication of a defined set of basic information that would be accessible to those Member States in which, on the basis of the information in the country-by- country report, one or more entities of the MNE Group are either resident for tax purposes, or are subject to tax with respect to the business carried out through a permanent establishment of an MNE Group.
Amendment 66 #
2016/0010(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Union action in the area of country- by-country reporting should continue to take particular account of future developments at OECD level. In implementing this Directive, Member States should use the 2015 Final Report on Action 13 of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project (except for the threshold above which the group of multinational companies have to draw up the country report), developed by the OECD, as a source of illustration or interpretation of this Directive and in order to ensure consistency in application across Member States.
Amendment 72 #
2016/0010(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) In order to ensure the greatest possible transparency, all the information subject to exchanges between the various tax authorities shall be publicly available;
Amendment 90 #
2016/0010(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/16/UE
Article 8aa – paragraph 1
Article 8aa – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require the Ultimate Parent Entity of an MNE Group that is resident for tax purposes in its territory, or any other Reporting Entity in accordance with Section II of Annex III, to file a country-by-country report with respect to its Reporting Fiscal Year within 12a maximum of six months afterof the last day of the Reporting Fiscal Year of the MNE Group in accordance with Section II of Annex III. (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)
Amendment 101 #
2016/0010(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/16/UE
Article 8aa – paragraph 4
Article 8aa – paragraph 4
4. The communication shall take place within 159 months afterof the last day of the fiscal year of the MNE Group to which the country-by-country report relates. The first country-by-country report shall be communicated for the fiscal year of the MNE Group commencing on or after 1 January 2016. (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)
Amendment 116 #
2016/0010(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2011/16/UE
Article 21 – paragraph 6
Article 21 – paragraph 6
6. Information communicated pursuant to Article 8aa (2) shall be provided by electronic means using the CCN network and shall be available on a platform accessible to the public. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt the necessary practical arrangements for the upgrading of the CCN network. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 26(2). (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)
Amendment 134 #
2016/0010(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Annex – Annex III – Section I – paragraph 4
Annex – Annex III – Section I – paragraph 4
4. "Excluded MNE Group" means, with respect to any Fiscal Year of the Group, a Group having total, on a consolidated group revenue of less than EUR 750 000 000basis, not exceeded the limits orf an amount in local currency approximately equivalent to EUR 750 000 000t least two of the three following thresholds on the balance sheet date of the parent undertaking as of January 2015 during the Fiscal Year immediately preceding the Reporting Fiscal Year as reflected in its Consolidated Financial Statements for such preceding Fiscal Year. : (a) balance sheet total: EUR 20 000 000; (b) net turnover: EUR 40 000 000; (c) average number of employees during the financial year: 250.
Amendment 2 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the EU’s most genuinely common policy, which means that agricultural spending accounts for a considerable percentage of the total EU budget; stresses that spending on agriculture has declined considerably in relative terms over the last three decades from 75% to the current 38%, in line with successive market-oriented reforms of the CAP; stresses, therefore, that each EU citizen contributes only 32 cents per day to the CAP and that this policy has a low error rate in terms of spending irregularities;
Amendment 8 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the CAP provides income support to farmers through Pillar 1 and provides support for environmental programmes and economic activity in rural areas and prevents rural depopulation; notes, in this connection, that it is essential to maintain the two-pillar CAP structure in order to compensate and support farmers and rural areas; stresses the need to reverse the long-term trend observed in recent decades of falling farmer incomes;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. States clearly that, through numerous policy reforms, CAP spending has been reduced and has become more targeted, market-orientated and geared towards improving the competitiveness of EU agriculture, while at the same time addressing an ever-increasing range of challenges, including environmental issues and climate change, the introduction of ‘greening measures’ and ensuring the economic viability of rural areas; asserts that the effect of those reforms has been disastrous for European agriculture and has caused tens of thousands of farms to go out of business;
Amendment 36 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists that the current amount in Heading 2, as provided for in the current MFF, must remain at least at the same levelbe increased, commensurate with the current crisis; refers, in this connection, to Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, which clearly states that allocated national envelopes may not be reduced by the midterm revision; considers, furthermore, that other Union policies must have the necessary financial means to allow the Union to honour its legal obligations in accordance with the corresponding sectoral legislation;
Amendment 51 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the price volatility experienced because of the liberalisation of the CAP and linked to worsening market conditions in many agricultural sectors has significantly increased in recent years, leading to severe income volatility; stresses, therefore, the need to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are available to deal with market crises, such as those currently affecting the milk, pig meat and fruit and vegetable sectors; adds in this regard that, owing to the CAP budget cuts made during the last MFF negotiations, direct payments from the first pillar of the CAP are currently insufficient to mitigate the income volatility experienced by farmers;
Amendment 73 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses that price volatility is increasing and that it is therefore erroneous to believe that farm subsidies are no longer needed; strongly disagrees, in this context, with the notion that a rise in food prices and sales of produce in recent years have provided farmers with a stable income allowing business planning or security; stresses the need for supply regulation instruments to be put in place, as they are the only effective means of stabilising prices and farmers’ incomes;
Amendment 84 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Points out that the objectives of the CAP remain unchanged under the Lisbon Treaty, namely increasing agricultural productivity, ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, stabilising markets, ensuring the availability of supplies and ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices; notes, however, that the successive reforms of the CAP have assigned new tasks to agriculture in terms of product quality, environmental protection, climate change, consumer health, land use issues and modes of production and productivity; stresses that the objectives laid down as part of the EU’s sustainability strategy must also be taken into account in the EU’s agricultural policy, with regard, in particular, to social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 89 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Is convinced that a strong CAP for the EU, both in terms of content and financing, is paramount in achieving these objectives, while guaranteeing a level playing field and transparent food chains within the internal market, which would guarantee producers fair prices, as well as viable rural areas; considers, furthermore, that increasing resilience and improving employment and quality of life in rural areas should be prioritised in order to combat rural depopulation;
Amendment 120 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Strongly opposes any renationalisation of agricultural policies; stresses that the common nature of the EU’s agricultural policy avoids distortion of competition within the internal market and generates savings for European taxpayers; highlights, however, the need to safeguard each Member State’s right to guarantee a minimum level of food sovereignty; affirms that a well-functioning and well- financed second pillar is essential for the success of the CAP and for the economic well-being of the Union’s rural areas;
Amendment 15 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8
Citation 8
Amendment 33 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Treaty on European Union establishes the creation of the single market, whose currency is the euro; whereas the European Monetary Union currently consists of 19 members, two of whom have opt-out clauses, the remaining seven EU Member States having yet to join; whereas no financial liability will be incurred by the two countries with opt-outs from EMU in the framework of any fiscal capacity for the euro area;
Amendment 57 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas contrary to the budgetary arrangements in all other federations, the EU budget is dependent on contributions from Member State level to EU level;
Amendment 121 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
Amendment 184 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that EMU exposed its vulnerability in the context of the global financial and economic crisis when unsustainable imbalances, triggered by capital flows fromcaused by beggar-thy-neighbour policies in core euro area nations to the periphery and a rising public spending ratio in some Member States, aggravated and led to a sovereign debt crisis, in which government borrowing costs dramatically increased in some Member Stateand by capital flows to the periphery leading to elevated debt levels (private or public), which caused a dramatic increase in government borrowing costs in some Member States, following the rise in public spending due to bank bailouts and initial counter- cyclical policy responses to the crisis, jeopardising, in the absence of a proper fiscal backstop, the mere existence of the euro area;
Amendment 191 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that the narrow focus on public deficit and debt level does not address the main causes of the euro crisis; stresses that unsustainable current account imbalances had developed before the crisis, due to beggar-thy-neighbour policies in some Member States, which led to increasing debt levels (public and private) in deficit countries;
Amendment 221 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Observes that the stabilisation of the economic cycle since the beginning of the crisis has relied almost exclusively on the ECB, and that the reduced options available for monetary policy in a context of zero lower bound rates have led the ECB to implement unconventional monetary policy measures; recalls that the President of the ECB has called for integrated institutions, for a stronger and proactive fiscal policy on the euro area scale and for euro area Member States to deliver on structural reform;
Amendment 241 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 387 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 446 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 454 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 493 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 554 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 3 – paragraph 1
Paragraph 26 – indent 3 – paragraph 1
– investment, notably inpublic investment especially in infrastructure, research and development;
Amendment 562 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 3 – paragraph 2
Paragraph 26 – indent 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 574 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 609 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 625 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 707 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
Amendment 772 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
Amendment 784 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
Amendment 804 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
Amendment 28 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that non-compliance with the Maastricht criteria, and the lenient enforcement of the Stability and Growth Pact rules by the Commission and the Council before 2010,the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), the 6-pack and the 2-pack, as well as the Fiscal Compact, unnecessarily constrains the vital fiscal policy space of the Eurozone Member States, depriving them of the only effective macroeconomic tool in a context of weak demand and ineffective monetary policy; recalls that it was these austerity policies which contributed to the emergence of the European debt crisis that followed the global financial crisis;
Amendment 30 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that the 2008 financial crisis resulted in a colossal intervention by EU governments in support of the financial sector; points out that the total state aid granted to the financial sector amounted to more than EUR 5 trillion, representing 40.3 % of EU GDP;
Amendment 32 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Recalls, that according to the OECD 2012 report, the sustainability of sovereign debt was significantly affected by the extent of explicit or implicit guarantees for bank debt;
Amendment 35 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that in 2014 only 10 of the 157 main recommendations made to Member States in the framework of the European Semester were fully implemented or showedthe European Semester has failed to address the challenges of ensuring macroeconomic stability or promoting substantial progress4 ; __________________ 4Success rate of around 6.5%: Zsolt Darvas and Alvaro Leandro, ‘The Limitations of Policy Coordination in the Euro Area under the European Semester’, Bruegel, November 2015.inable growth; underlines that the current framework does not allow for a proper debate on the alternatives to an unbalanced governance framework based on arbitrary budgetary rules;
Amendment 42 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is very concerned by the fact that the Deposit Guarantee Scheme Directive (DGSD) has still not been implemented by 10 Member States6 , which undermines the efforts to build a European Deposit Guarantee Scheme that would complete the Banking Union; __________________ 6Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, RomBelieves that it should be the role of national central banks to guarantee all foreign-currency deposits held by financia, Slovenia and Sweden; Commission press release, 10 December 2015.l institutions based in their countries;
Amendment 47 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes that the creation of a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) requires the implementation of the single rulebook as well as of the first and second pillars of the Banking Union, as well as the transposition of the BRRD and the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive (DGSD) by all the participating Member States. Stresses with grave concern, that these are moves towards the creation of a Financial Union, notably through a European Deposit Insurance Scheme;
Amendment 50 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. stresses that all Legislation should respect the principle of subsidiarity; stresses that issues of subsidiarity and proportionality must be thoroughly agreed upon and should always ensure the competency and autonomy of each Member States' is upheld;
Amendment 52 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 58 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that the Commission should propose more regulations and fewer directives in orNotes with concern that Regulations are "binding in their entirety" and "directly applicable" on all member states. Directives provide Member States with the autonomy to consider the most appropriate means of implementing directives into domestic law provided that the objectives of the directives are attained and providerd to ensure a level playing field amonghat the directive is implemented into domestic law within the required timescale. Stresses theat Member States should retain as much competence and sovereign decision making vis-à-vis legislation;
Amendment 68 #
2015/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is of the opinion that financial penalties for non-compliance with EU lLaw should include a multiplier for those Member States for which several procedures are openis not effective as powerful states who infringe European law are less sensitive to the costs imposed by sanctions;
Amendment 14 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas economic recovery in the European Union is under way butslight and weak economic growth means that economic recovery in the European Union is far from being consolidated and this recovery remains uneven between and within Member States and is partly driven by temporary factors;
Amendment 26 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas these so-called temporary factors include a considerable loss of income for workers, in particular through wage cuts, unemployment, the abolition or reduction of social support and the deteriorating state of the health and education sectors as a result of public spending cuts;
Amendment 33 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas it is imperative to break with the neoliberal principles that have been governing the policies imposed by the EU on the peoples and workers of the Member States, and whereas only sustainable economic growth based on decent wages, on work with rights, on state control of strategic sectors of the economy, on universal and free access to all levels of education, on promotion and socialisation of innovation will make it possible to boost the economy and competitiveness of EU Member States;
Amendment 44 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the employment rate is improving but not enough to significantly curb unemployment, particularly youth and long-term unemployment, and poverty;
Amendment 51 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the improvements that have been seen in the employment rate in countries such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece stem from the manipulation of statistical information and a decline in the working age population, owing to a very significant increase in emigration;
Amendment 56 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas the European Semester and related instruments such as the Annual Growth Survey, whose basic objective is to ensure that the Member States institutionalise austerity-based budgetary and economic policies regardless of their constitutional texts and the will of the people, in line with the debt and deficit targets laid down in the Stability and Growth Pact, the economic reform plans set out in their country-specific recommendations and the Europe 2020 Strategy targets for growth and employment, are profoundly neoliberal and antidemocratic in nature;
Amendment 61 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 73 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Does not support the proposals contained in the 2016 Annual Growth Survey package, since overall they continue to emphasise policies which have so far failed to provide answers to the problems facing EU Member States, and have instead exacerbated those problems;
Amendment 75 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 88 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that Europe’s global competitiveness remains an important objective, while the worsening global outlook calls for strengthening domestic sources of growththe worsening global outlook means that domestic sources of growth need to be strengthened, involving a different combination of policies that will make it possible on the one hand to boost public and private investment, above all with a view to expanding and upgrading infrastructure, production equipment, and production and organisation techniques and methods, and on the other hand to stimulate domestic demand, in particular by restoring the income lost as a result of so-called austerity policies and by implementing a redistributive and progressive tax policy;
Amendment 114 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is encouraged by mildworried by insufficient improvements in labour market indicators; calls for more effort to reduce poverty, social exclusion and growing inequalities;
Amendment 120 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is encouraged byNotes the mild improvements in labour market indicators; calls, although these are being aided to some extent by manipulation of statistics and the fact that the working population is declining in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, and elsewhere; calls, therefore, for genuine commitment and for more effort to reduce poverty, social exclusion and growing inequalities;
Amendment 124 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 139 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the European Fund for Strategic Investments to be used to maximum effect to support higher-risk projects not financed otherwise, and to promote growth, job creation andpublic investment projects, especially in countries most affected by austerity and liquidity constraints at household and business level, and to promote growth, job creation and cohesion; accordingly considers it essential to establish investment patterns meeting the urgent need for greater social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 156 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Is aware of the ongoing deleveraging process in the private sector; points to the importance of completing the banking union and boosting equity investments in SMEs;
Amendment 170 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Maintains that banking supervision has to be brought into the public sphere in order to respond to the financing needs of the real economy and ensure that self- interested speculation strategies do not become the option of choice;
Amendment 177 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights firstly the importance of investments in human capital andto improve the standard of labour force training and skills, both before the start of working life and for its entire duration, and, secondly, the necessity of other social investments;
Amendment 207 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Condemns the fact that in the structural reforms implemented and proposed to date, the emphasis has been on liberalisation and privatisation of companies still under public control in strategic economic sectors (energy, transport, telecommunications, and banking), on greater labour market flexibility and the destruction of labour rights, and on cuts in public spending on welfare, health, and education, with the corresponding reduction in social rights;
Amendment 209 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 235 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Urges that further steps be taken towards resilient labour markets, serving to enhance the status of work by guaranteeing jobs with rights, a high standard of working conditions, and stable employment relationships, and with reduced segmentation and sustainable welfare systems with increased focus on social investment;
Amendment 254 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for a greater shift of taxation away from labourthe tax base to be widened so as to enable taxation to be shared more fairly between labour and capital, the object being also to remedy the present tax inequality between SMEs and big business, and substantially to increase the ratio of direct taxes to indirect taxes within tax systems, thereby making for greater fairness; calls, therefore, for a greater shift of taxation away from labour income towards capital gains and calls for Member States’ tax systems to be made genuinely progressive;
Amendment 258 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for a greater shift of taxation away from labour towards wealth and economic rents, ensuring an adequate level of corporate taxes;
Amendment 267 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 283 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Reiterates the need for responsible fiscal policies that will boost economic growth, taking into account debt sustainability, the economic cycle and investment gaps; notes that debt restructuring is necessary in some countries in order to reduce public and private debt to sustainable levels; draws attention to the disastrous effects of austerity policies, through which budget consolidation strategies have compromised public investment, the social functions of the state and economic growth;
Amendment 287 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 289 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Insists on implementation ofthe urgent need to repeal the Stability and Growth Pact, while making use of available fiscal space, inter alia, to deal with security threats and refugee inflows;
Amendment 318 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Emphasises the need for improved tax collection, fighting tax evasion and avoidance and improved tax policy coordination of the measures taken to combat this serious problem, seeking to ensure a geographical overlap between the profits made and the tax collected; takes the view, therefore, that the tax and customs authorities should be provided with sufficient human, material and financial resources to act efficiently and effectively;
Amendment 329 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Supports all efforts towards improving the quality and growth-friendly character of public expenditure, in particular as regards action to promote universal, free and high-quality education and health systems;
Amendment 332 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 333 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. WelcomNotes the recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area as a way to deepen policy coordination in the follow-up to the Five Presidents’' Report; is deeply worried that democratic influence on euro area economic governance is even further reduced and downward pressure on wages is further increased by the steps outlined in the Five Presidents' Report;
Amendment 344 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 364 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Welcomes increased attention toRejects the euro area’s aggregate fiscal stance; calls for greater discussion on whether it can be considered broadly neutral given the large investment gap and the attempt made to ensure that this stance is seen through the prism of neutrality, since it believes that this is obstructing the implementation of counter-cyclical policies by the Member States, thus compromising their economic sovereignty even further;
Amendment 371 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Strongly rejects any stance on Member States' fiscal policies at euro- area level or at wider EU level; takes the view that such guidelines, which are profoundly neoliberal, can never be considered impartial or independent, since as economic policy guidelines they necessarily contain within them ideological presuppositions;
Amendment 372 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24b. Points out that EMU and the EU’s economic governance framework, including the European Semester, both conform to the same neo-liberal approach and the same school of mainstream economic thought, and that their apologists are, in other words, attempting to persuade workers and the public that economic decisions are free of ideology and by nature purely technical rather than political; maintains that for all the window dressing, the European economic governance framework will continue to be based on neo-liberal assumptions and principles and imposed on the economic policies of Member States regardless of their constitutions or of the will of the people;
Amendment 373 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 414 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Recognises the benefits of asymmetrical adjustment, where regaining cith surplus countries taking measures to boost cdompetitiveness doesestic demand, such that deficit countries are not required to undergoing deflation to regain cost competitiveness, which is detrimental to debt sustainability;
Amendment 430 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Amendment 435 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Believes that better implementation ofthe country-specific recommendations arequires clearly articulated priorities at European level and genuine public debate at national level, leading to greater relevance and ownership a blatant affront to sovereign, democratic decision-taking by the Member States’ peoples and workers concerning the future of their countries;
Amendment 445 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls for striking the right balance between making country-specific recommendations focused on key priorities and ensuring that thTherefore considers it imperative to abolish the European Semester, including the country-specific recommendations, the Alert Mechanism Report, and the Annual Growth Survey, address all key challenges from the perspective ofnd to do away with the six-pack, the two-pack, the Stability and Growth Pact, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, and the Europe 2020 targets; strategy;
Amendment 452 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 459 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 462 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
Amendment 470 #
2015/2285(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
Amendment 15 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the role and contribution of women are of fundamental importance in maintaining mountainous regions;
Amendment 20 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas it is essential to secure agricultural and food production and maintain added value in these regions; whereas there is a need for access to land so as to maintain production;
Amendment 35 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas public services are of fundamental importance in maintaining the population of and activity in mountainous regions;
Amendment 50 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Believes it necessary to protect farmland, according priority to farming above all other activities;
Amendment 58 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to include specific measures for mountainous regions in all policies;
Amendment 67 #
Amendment 81 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that measures under the second pillar of the CAP must ensure the sustainability and diversification of agricultural production in mountain areas by supporting the emergence of projects that create added value, innovation projects, agricultural investment projects and farm development projects and projects to maintain processing enterprises and to support the sale of farming produce in short supply chains and local markets; stresses that these funds should be used as tools to boost the competitiveness of the regional agricultural sector and / or as a means of allowing the economic diversification of farms;
Amendment 108 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Calls on the Commission to introduce specific aid for small-scale farms;
Amendment 111 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Calls on the Commission to introduce specific measures to help people over the maximum age to be considered young farmers to return to mountainous regions as farmers;
Amendment 112 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Calls on the Commission to draw up affirmative action policies to encourage women to settle in farmland in mountainous regions and to participate in the projects listed in paragraph 6;
Amendment 113 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 e (new)
Paragraph 7 e (new)
7e. Calls on the Commission to draw up affirmative action policies to facilitate and promote women's involvement in all areas of decision-making under equal conditions;
Amendment 114 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 f (new)
Paragraph 7 f (new)
7f. Calls on the Commission to draw up measures to ensure that family farms are owned by both members of couples;
Amendment 115 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 g (new)
Paragraph 7 g (new)
7g. Calls on the Commission to safeguard free, high-quality public education and healthcare as well as public social services;
Amendment 116 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 h (new)
Paragraph 7 h (new)
7h. Calls on the Commission to act as guarantor for the maintenance, restoration and improvement of public services to support the development of farms;
Amendment 117 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 i (new)
Paragraph 7 i (new)
7i. Calls on the Commission to guarantee public transport and public postal services in mountainous regions;
Amendment 122 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the importance of establishing producer groups orfarmers' organisations to strengthen the bargaining power of farmers in the food chain and in drawing up policy proposals on mountainous regions;
Amendment 140 #
2015/2279(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to introduce health and hygiene rules suitable for small-scale farms;
Amendment 3 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. RecogniseDemands that over-reliance on imported food should be replaced by establishing resilient domestic food production, given that climates and markets are increasingly volatile, and that emphasis hasbe shifted from increasing the production of agricultural commodities to enabling countries to feed themselves;
Amendment 5 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that over-reliance on imported food should be replaced by establishing resilient domestic food production, given that climates and markets are increasingly volatile, and that the emphasis has shifted fromplaced on increasing both the production of agricultural commodities to enabling countries to feed themselveand world-wide trade in them under free- trade agreements has undermined the capacity of countries to feed themselves and excluded farmers from markets;
Amendment 13 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that agricultural development must be based on the local domestic food production to ensure the local population an equal access to food;
Amendment 15 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Globally condemns the NAFSN cooperation frameworks, since many of them represent models imposed by rich countries that are designed to favour the interests of large agroindustrial multinationals;
Amendment 16 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recognises food sovereignty as the sovereign right of peoples to decide their own agricultural and food policies and the right of farmers of all peoples to produce their own food;
Amendment 17 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Points out that maximising profits is incompatible with combating hunger, and abuse of market power and pricing dominance, the occupation of land, poor working conditions and pesticide use are incompatible with guaranteeing and complying with the right to food and nutrition;
Amendment 18 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Underlines the importance of food sovereignty principle as the right of people to decide upon their own food and agricultural production;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recognises that export-oriented agricultural policies must be replaced by policies prioritising production for the domestic market and ensuring the survival of peasant farming;
Amendment 26 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Stresses that small-scale farmers, which produce around 70% of the food consumed in Africa, play a crucial role in local livelihoods and are indispensable for inclusive agricultural development and stand to benefit most from direct development aid;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Stresses that access to agricultural land and use of traditional farming methods by small-scale farmers are seriously endangered by agribusiness investors and their model of agricultural production based on public-private partnerships;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Emphasizes its deep concern regarding the land grabbing carried out by foreign investors which strikes the local small-scale farmers and contributes to local, regional and national food insecurity and poverty;
Amendment 47 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Stresses that millions of people in Africa, especially children, are suffering from hunger and malnutrition, which are the main causes of human mortality in the continent;
Amendment 51 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesIt is concerned that the NAFSN’'s commitment to food security, but is concerned that the means used are based on outdated models of agricultural development; might be beneficial to big businesses rather than to the small-scale family farmers and it is likely to increase poverty and inequality in Africa; stresses that the NAFSN's commitment to food security must first and foremost benefit small-scale farmers;
Amendment 52 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesExpresses unease at the NAFSN’s commitment to food security, butgiven that the new Alliance is built on the premise that more production and growth through investment in cooperation frameworks will resolve the problem of hunger and malnutrition in Africa, and is concerned that the means used are based on outdated models of agricultural development;
Amendment 56 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that the decision-making process in the cooperation frameworks did not involve all the stakeholders, in particular rural communities, farm workers, small farmers, fishers, indigenous peoples and women, inter alia, and disregarded their right to participate;
Amendment 60 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Maintains that African states should be treated as partners in this Alliance, rather than being seen merely as service providers that reduce the 'risks and uncertainties" for private investors;
Amendment 63 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Condemns the imposition of slanted agricultural policies at the service of multinational companies; likewise condemns the fact that, if the cooperation frameworks are implemented, they will be concerned almost exclusively with the interests and needs of these corporations (which are seen as the key partners in this Alliance), to the detriment of the groups of people most affected by hunger and malnutrition, small farmers;
Amendment 69 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 1 a (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 1 a (new)
- ensure adequate levels of public investment so as to guarantee lasting, sustainable and inclusive solutions;
Amendment 76 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 1 b (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 1 b (new)
- prevent measures that would have the effect of obstructing access to adequate nutrition and food, in particular measures that would prevent people's access to and use of resources and inputs that guarantee their survival;
Amendment 84 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 2 a (new)
- consult domestic stakeholders and establish a cooperation with domestic farmers and local communities, local authorities and civil society organisations to tackle food insecurity and improve their livelihoods,
Amendment 96 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 4 a (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 4 a (new)
- put an end to the extremely slanted nature of the current cooperation frameworks under the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, geared to intensive agriculture based on the trade in farm inputs and seeds, which increases the discrimination suffered by local seed exchange schemes that are a key source and ensure access to these goods for rural communities, particularly for poor farmers;
Amendment 97 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 4 b (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 4 b (new)
- avoid defining the nutritional dimension of food production in simplistic terms disregarding the fact that food security and nutrition means (continuing) access to a varied and wholesome diet, in terms of quality, quantity, and variety and not reduced purely to calorie intake,
Amendment 101 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 a (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 a (new)
- safeguard and promote access to seeds and agricultural inputs for smallholder farmers and marginalised groups, and promote and safeguard the exchange of seeds and their public ownership, and sustainable traditional techniques that guarantee the human right to proper food and nutrition,
Amendment 103 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 b (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 b (new)
- encourage a focus on growing food with a high nutritional content instead of on crops produced in abundance which have a high calorie content, as opposed to nutritional content (maize, sugar), and which could cause dietary nutrient deficiencies,
Amendment 104 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 c (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 c (new)
- reject a focus on growing food with a high nutritional content instead of on crops produced in abundance which have a high calorie content, as opposed to nutritional content (maize, sugar), and which could cause dietary nutrient deficiencies,
Amendment 105 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 d (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 d (new)
- ensure that the four key elements of the human right to food and nutrition, namely fitness for purpose, availability, accessibility, and sustainability, are realised, without basing strategies solely on the production of more food,
Amendment 106 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 e (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 e (new)
- ensure access to varied diets, which should be consistent with cultural values and wholesome, and should enable food intake to be biologically utilised in the way required to attain well-being, taking into account human dignity, which is created by virtue of having access to basic public services (including health, water and sanitation, housing, and social security),
Amendment 107 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 f (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 f (new)
- ensure that food is affordable for people and consumers,
Amendment 108 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 g (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 5 g (new)
- reject attempts of any kind to patent life, plants and animals, genetic material, or essential biological processes, especially where native strains and species are concerned,
Amendment 115 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 6
Paragraph 6 – indent 6
- design policies which empower women in agriculture, and ensure they have the same rights as men;
Amendment 120 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 7 a (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 7 a (new)
- ensure, by means of the commitment frameworks, that farmers, fishermen, inhabitants of woodlands, and pastoral communities can enjoy their right to land and protection and that they are shielded from the risk of losing land to private investors,
Amendment 125 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 7 b (new)
Paragraph 6 – indent 7 b (new)
- enter into commitments enabling workers to enjoy social protection and a decent income from their output, guaranteeing a minimum income sufficient to cope with hunger and pay for proper food;
Amendment 135 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – indent 2
Paragraph 7 – indent 2
- ensure that EU-based investors respect the rights of local communities and provide highest standards of transparency regarding their investment plans;, along with environmental, social and human rights safeguards,
Amendment 141 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 7 – indent 2 a (new)
- recognise and defend the necessity for participating countries to achieve food security and their right to be as self- sufficient as possible,
Amendment 142 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 7 – indent 2 a (new)
- fulfil the extraterritorial obligations (ETOs) incumbent upon states by ensuring both that their policies do not serve to violate human rights in other countries, and in particular the human right to food and nutrition, and that non- state actors do not impede the enjoyment of those rights;
Amendment 145 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – indent 2 b (new)
Paragraph 7 – indent 2 b (new)
- promote a standard-setting approach to cooperation frameworks, in keeping with human rights;
Amendment 149 #
2015/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on participating governments and investors to enter into a dialogue with civil society on the NAFSN, local communities, and other institutions on the NAFSN, as well as to ensure that agreements concluded are available to the public domain in a transparent manner.
Amendment 49 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas consumers are demanding food production with higher environmental standards and nutritional value, while the agricultural sector needs to diversify and innovate to provide good and affordable food for all, while at the same time provide a viable return for the primary producer;
Amendment 81 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the EIB signed on 14 July 2014 explicitly encourages further investments in innovative agriculture, providing tools to foster the uptake of investments in agriculture and including a proposal from the Commission aimed at supporting and expanding financial tools in the farming sector in order to combat price fluctuations;
Amendment 87 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the agricultural sector has been subject to frequent cycles of change aimed at enhancing agricultural productivity, which have contributed significantly to the economic development of agriculture to its current level; whereas the incorporation of the latest technologies into farming practices will bring significant benefits for all farm sizes; is leading to increased debt among farmers and increased dependence on fossil fuels and banks, as well as having a hugely negative social and environmental impact; whereas this has led to the closure of many farms, concentrating production in increasingly large farms based on an industrial model;
Amendment 102 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that agriculture has always developed new practices, techniques and production methods that have increased outputs and improved the adaptability of farming practices to new and changing circumstances; notes further that agriculture is a key part of our natural world which thus provides services that go beyond producing food and can be enhanced by fostering new developments; is convinced that innovation is a prerequisite for maintaining this progressresearch and innovation based on agroecology;
Amendment 104 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that agriculture has always developed new practices, techniques and production methods that have increased outputs and improved the adaptability of farming practices to new and changing circumstances; notes further that agriculture is a key part of our natural world which thus provides services that go beyond producing food and can be enhanced by fostering new developments; is convinced that innovation is a prerequisite for maintaining this progressbelieves that the missing element of years of progression is the ability of farming to provide a standard of living that would make it an attractive option to young farmers, is convinced therefore that innovation must be used to benefit all actors in the food chain;
Amendment 128 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Encourages the Commission to come forward with solutions to stimulate the uptake of ICT-based management systems, real-time data monitoring, sensor technology and the use of detection systems for the optimisation of production systems or precision agriculture, which inter alia could mean adapting to changing production and market conditions leading todesigned to promote progress towards agroecology, which inter alia could mean more efficient use of natural resources, increased crop performancebetter crops, reduction of the environmental footprint, better understanding of animal behaviour, and improved animal health and welfare;
Amendment 137 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is convinced that information gathered by robotics, sensor technology, automatic control and other technological innovations in the context of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies and Big Data will enable real- time monitoring, better decision-making, and improved operations management along the whole food chain; welcomes the creation of the Alliance for Internet of Things Innovation (AIOTI) Working Group 06 on ‘smart farming and food safety’, and stresses in this respect the importance and relevance of the European Digital Single Market for agriculture in terms of tackling problems of interoperability, standards for better convergence and questions of data ownership;
Amendment 140 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 157 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Encourages innovative solutions in animal housing systems that can contribute to a higher level of animal welfare and consequently lead to higher levels of animal health, by reducing the need for veterinary medicinal products, including antimicrobials; stresses that the application of antimicrobials should be prudent and responsible and would be improved by improving the entire production chain with more efficient and faster diagnostic tools that rely on data, better real-time monitoring, targeted precautionary measures and new ways of dispensing in order to combat antimicrobial resistance; points to the need to increase funding for research with a view to discovering new active ingredients to counteract emerging diseases;
Amendment 167 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 190 #
2015/2227(INI)
12. Highlights that a sizeable proportion of biotic waste streams are already used as, for example, animal feed or base material for biofuels; considers, however, that these materials should generate even higher outputs by aiming for the most added value and by using new technologies such as biorefining, insect breeding, solid state fermentation, biogas extraction and the extraction of minerals from manure; notes the lack of economies of scale for agricultural by-products and waste streams, and encourages the Commission to support their reuse by facilitating EU-wide recognition systems and special rural development programmes, to facilitate cross-border circulation and to improve synergy and coherence with other EU policies;
Amendment 195 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Highlights that a sizeable proportion of biotic waste streams are already used as, for example, animal feed or base material for biofuels; considers, however, that these materials should generate even higher outputs by aiming for the most added value and by using new technologies such as biorefining, insect breeding, solid state fermentation, biogas extraction and the extraction of minerals from manure; notes the lack of economies of scale for agricultural by-products and waste streams, and encourages the Commission to support their reuse by facilitating EU-wide recognition systems and special rural development programmes, to facilitate cross-border circulation and to improve synergy and coherence with other EU policiese need to reduce biotic waste streams by developing a form of farming grounded in the principles of agroecology;
Amendment 199 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is concerned that the EU is highly dependent on the import of minerals for the production of artificial fertilisers such as phosphate and that the production of artificial fertilisers has a high ecological footprint; emphasises the possibility of processing animal manure into mineral concentrate that could be used to manufacture ‘green fertiliser’ that can reduce and eventually replace the need for artificial fertilisers, in the light of an efficiency level comparable to that of the latter; welcomes the fact that the production and use of mineral concentrates makes a significant contribution to the circular economy by closing the mineral loop, and asks the Commission to revise the EU fertiliser regulation and remove barriers in the nitrates directive so as to stimulate the development of mineral concentrate from animal manure;
Amendment 217 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that climate-smart farmingagroecological practices could have a triple-win effect by increasing sustainable production, ensuring climate-resilient farming that is better able to cope with changing and adversemuch more beneficial effect, since they improve soil quality, require less weather patterns, and reducing emissions from the agricultural sector by encouraging productive, resource- efficient and circular systems; stressesand increase sustainable production, ensuring a form of farming that the agricultural sector has the unique opportunity to actively capture CO2 by means of forestation, use of cover crops and leguminous crops, and absorbing greenhouse gases in the soil (carbon sinking)lps mitigate the effects of climate change by cutting the amount of emissions generated by the farming sector;
Amendment 218 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that climate-smart farming practices could have a triple-win effect by increasing sustainable production, ensuring climate-resilient farming that is better able to cope with changing and adverse weather patterns, and reducing emissions from the agricultural sector by encouraging productive, resource-efficient and circular systems; stresses that the agricultural sector has the unique opportunity to actively capture CO2 by means of forestation, use of cover crops and leguminous crops, and absorbing greenhouse gases in the soil (carbon sinking), this highlights the need to broaden the definition of "productive agriculture" and to fully support and respect those farming lands which provide public goods in climate mitigation and carbon sequestration;
Amendment 230 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Considers soil quality to be of economic and ecological importance since a depletion of the ecological state would result in less productive soil, lower nutrient availability, increases in susceptibility of plants to pests and diseases, lower water holding capacity and diminished biodiversity; calls on the Commission to support innovative practices and the sharing of best practices such as crop rotation systems or fertilising with green legumes to avoid further soil degradation; believes that the interplay between organic matter and production needs to be better understood; welcomes research into innovative practices such as the use of microbial interventions, in line with agroecological principles, and plant-soil interactions which could lower the environmental impact and reduce the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides; recognises the importance of a sustainable soil use that takes account of site-specific needs;
Amendment 267 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Highlights the possibility of using financial instruments to help improve stable returns and margins, believes however that this should not be a substitute to ensuring a viable return from the marketplace and urges the commission to address the imbalance in this food chain; notes that only five Member States have taken up the extended possibilities under the new Rural Development Programme to make use of market-compatible financial instruments in order to address market gaps; calls on the Commission to facilitate access to capital, since lack of such access is often a barrier to innovation;
Amendment 273 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission to work with the EIB in order to create new financing opportunities for Member States that establish forms of financial support such as guarantee funds, revolving funds or investment capital to facilitate access to credit for farmers and groupings of farmers such as cooperatives, helping on-farm investment for modernisation while also offering financing opportunities for young farmers to expand their businesses, as well as to ensure investment in public- sector research combined with public- private partnerships in order to test and launch innovative products;
Amendment 278 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Acknowledges that there is a great potential for better risk management and sees the current risk management tools as underdeveloped, a situation which could result in short-term loss of productivity and long-term loss of innovation; calls on the Commission to investigate and report on the possibility of stimulating private insurance schemes coveringpublic European insurance schemes to cope more effectively with risks and the volatility of farm incomes related to natural or man-made disasters so as to cover adverse climatic events, animal or plant diseases, pest infestations or environmental incidents, as mentioned in Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013;
Amendment 283 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Welcomes the opportunities opened up by the European Innovation Partnership AGRI (EIP-AGRI) for applied research within the agricultural sector, but is worried by the fragmented way the EIP- AGRI is implemented as part of national or regional Pillar II programmes; asks the Commission to look into the possibility of changing the EIP-AGRI cofinancing mechanisms in order to ensure effective research that is better linked to the market and is driven by real entrepreneurial needs, creating cross-border research focus groups and better participation possibilities for businesses, with a more active involvement by the Commission in terms of providing an explicit innovation and research agenda linked to Horizon 2020 programmes;
Amendment 293 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that economic development and ecological sustainability are complementary provided enough room is left for innovation and entrepreneurship and provided action is taken to prevent the appearance of differences in national implementation, so as to ensure a genuine level playing field, also by exploring new and relevant techniques such as satellite imaging; calls on the Commission to ensure a genuine level playing field for the agricultural sector by actively monitoring relevant legislation such as the Birds and Habitats Directives and, believes that in the implementation thereof and reporting back to Parliament every two yearsof these directives innovative techniques can be used to assess and quantify the benefits and outputs that these areas are capable of delivering, in terms of climate mitigation and other public goods that are not currently recognized or paid for by the market place;
Amendment 295 #
2015/2227(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses that the CAP should be more focused on farmers’ needs while not compromising policy goaland the needs of the regions; stresses the need for a more flexible legislative framework that is easier to gear to national and local conditions and better aligned to deliver synergies with other sectors such as chemicals, health and technology, by enhancing knowledge crossovers, integration of resource use and better understanding of reciprocal effects in order to optimise their interplay and better integrate with the circular economy,; stresses further that an overly market- oriented CAP will enhancundermine the innovative power and competitiveness of the European agricultural sector by reducing government intervention and stimulating entrepreneurship;
Amendment 20 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas unemployment in the EU remains at unacceptably high levels, but is on a declining path set to fall to 9.2 % in the EU and 10.5 % in the euro area in 2016;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the fiscal outlook in relation to the EU and the euro area continues to improve with a broadly neutral fiscal stance on aggregatehas been favourable in recent times, but these improvements have been achieved by compromising public investment and degrading the living standards of citizens, particularly in the countries in which the Troika has intervened; whereas this degradation has resulted from the loss of workers’ rights, the deepening flexibilisation of the labour market, the reduction of the wages and income available to workers, and the privatisation and neglect of public services, particularly health care and education;
Amendment 39 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomeDoubts the fact that economic recovery is slowly gaining ground, withdespite forecasts predicting GDP in the euro area expected to rise by 2.1% in 2016; notes with concern, however, that even in Member States experiencing export let growth, its foundations are fragile, mainly owing to the EU's underlying structural weaknesses and resulting low international competitivenespolicies suppressing domestic demand and increasing economic problems in China and other countries;
Amendment 50 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 56 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 67 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 99 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Deplores the persistently high unemployment rates across most Member States, in particular the youth and long- term unemployment rates; therefore, not only stresses the need to reform national labour marketsdraw up and implement labour policies that foster a labour market with rights, that combat flexible forms of working (in particular, sham self-employment) and that censure employers’ organisations with high staff turnover rates, but also emphasises the need for macroeconomic policies that stimulate national wealth generation and domestic demand, in order to increase net job creation rates;
Amendment 115 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomStresses the entry into force of the regulation onneed for public investment programs in the Union or individual Member States; regrets that the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI), is aimed at boosting private investment in the EU, and calls on all relevant stakeholders to ensure its swift and effective implementationthe interests of private investors in the EU;
Amendment 125 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that further fiscal consolidation is still needed in many Member States in order to comply with the conditions of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP); notes the Commission’s interpretative communication on flexibility in the SGP, aimed at clarifying the scope of the investment clause and allowing for a certain degree of temporary flexibility in the preventive arm of the SGPthe adoption of economic policies designed to comply with the conditions of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) has made the Member States incapable of intervening positively and appropriately in economic cycles, jeopardising social development and economic growth in euro-area countries;
Amendment 156 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the importance of access to finance for enterprises, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which constitute the backbone of the EU economy, but rejects any diversification of and innovation in financing mechanisms envisaging instruments similar to those that were at the root of the 2007/2008 financial crisis (specifically, securitisation); points out the failure of currently low interest rates to boost investment;
Amendment 162 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 177 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 188 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the need for Member States to adapt their public finances by conducting a counter-cyclical policy when necessary and making full use of the existing flexibility clauses foreseen in the legislation; considers that Member States with high debt levels in particular must continue with growth-friendly fiscal consolidation and urgently implement the recommended structural reforms, while those with more fiscal space should use it to accelerate investment;
Amendment 204 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 218 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 234 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Stresses the role of strong unions and labour protection laws in safeguarding employment and enhancing wage growth; calls for a shift away from consumption taxes to wealth taxes;
Amendment 241 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 243 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Deplores the fact that the CSRs suffer from lack of ownership at national level and from a democratic accountability mechanism; calls, in this context, for an increased role for national parliaments in the preparation of the National Reform Programmes (NRPs); stresses that increased ownership is a crucial factor for the successful implementation of the CSRs and, in the longer term, for the success of the Europe 2020 str and, further, condemns their interference with the sovereignty of the Member Stategys;
Amendment 257 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 264 #
2015/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Underlines the destructive impact of high debt levels on economic growth in the EU;that the SGP has been having on economic growth, social development and, consequently, the reduction of asymmetries in the EU; therefore, calls onfor the Commission to explore innovative ways of speeding up and lessening the negative impact of deleveraging in the banking, private and public sectorscreation of a programme to support countries for which staying in the euro area has been shown to be unsustainable, providing for proper compensation for the resulting damages and incorporating the negotiated exit of these Member States from the euro area;
Amendment 2 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
– having regard to the competition inquiry into the pharmaceutical sector of 8th of July 2009 and follow-up reports, in particular the 5th Report on the Monitoring of Patent Settlements,
Amendment 3 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)
Citation 4 b (new)
– having regard to the study of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, ‘Unfair trading practices in the business-to-business food supply chain (UTPs)’,
Amendment 4 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 c (new)
Citation 4 c (new)
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee ‘Internal market of international road freight: social dumping and cabotage’,
Amendment 5 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 d (new)
Citation 4 d (new)
– having regard to the universal framework for Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) developed by FAO,
Amendment 6 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 e (new)
Citation 4 e (new)
Amendment 7 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 f (new)
Citation 4 f (new)
– having regard to Council Directives 77/799/EEC and 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation,
Amendment 41 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas ‘unfairness’ in the food supply chain is difficult to translate into infringement of current competition law, as its existing tools are only effective on some forms of anti-competitive behaviour;
Amendment 51 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that a successful competition policy must not be directed exclusively towards bringing down prices for consumers, but must also be mindful of the innovativeness of the European economy and special competitive conditions for small and medium-sized businesses, as well as the promotion of high labour and environmental standards;
Amendment 96 #
Amendment 97 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 7 – point 1 (new)
(1) Regrets that competition authorities and regulators often fail to exhibit the necessary independence from energy producers in countries dominated by large private operators; stresses that this is a factor behind the slow development of renewable energies or its retrospective shut-down in countries like Spain;
Amendment 98 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point 2 (new)
Paragraph 7 – point 2 (new)
(2) Stresses that an increase in industrial scale and concentration, even within a larger market, may provide a significant opportunity for anti-competitive practices, as evidenced by the recent Volkswagen scandal;
Amendment 99 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point 3 (new)
Paragraph 7 – point 3 (new)
(3) Calls on the Commission to study if the privatization of energy assets in many countries may have constituted a form of State aid, either because of the low prices of sales or the considerable scope for anti- competitive behaviour through the opaque valuation of assets and costs of production in a regulated sector;
Amendment 167 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 15 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Social and environmental dumping
Amendment 169 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point 2 (new)
Paragraph 15 – point 2 (new)
(2) Calls on the Commission to take measures against social dumping as a way to guarantee workers’ and consumers’ security; stresses the heavy deterioration of working conditions due to social dumping in sectors such as transport;
Amendment 170 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point 3 (new)
Paragraph 15 – point 3 (new)
(3) Draws attention to the fact that environmental dumping is a factor affecting workers’ health and safety and consumers’ security; is particularly concerned by the effects if this trend on traditional industries such as the chemical or base metal sectors;
Amendment 171 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point 4 (new)
Paragraph 15 – point 4 (new)
(4) Stresses that deregulation within the internal market and as a consequence of international agreements such as TTIP or TiSA are key factors behind the development of new anti-competitive practices, in the form of social and environmental dumping;
Amendment 192 #
Amendment 194 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 – point 2 (new)
Paragraph 18 – point 2 (new)
(2) Calls, in this respect, for the development of generic medicines and their preferential use, when available, by public procurement systems;
Amendment 247 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Considers that healthy tax competition is one of the constitutive elements of the internal market of the Union but unfair tax competition must be prevented through minimum rates of taxation and harmonised tax bases;
Amendment 281 #
Amendment 282 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 25 – point 1 (new)
(1) Is concerned that the most recent study of DG Competition in the field of retail, ‘The economic impact of modern retail on choice and innovation in the EU food sector’ remains solely focused on consumer choice rather than on the abuse of dominant position against food producers; stresses that unfair practices of big retailers hurt consumers and agricultural producers alike;
Amendment 284 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – point 3 (new)
Paragraph 25 – point 3 (new)
(3) Calls for the establishment of an European observatory for food and agricultural prices at origin and at destination; draws attention to the Spanish IPOD as a possible model to monitor potential abuses of retailers against farmers and consumers;
Amendment 285 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – point 4 (new)
Paragraph 25 – point 4 (new)
(4) Calls for binding action in the food supply chain against retailers harming farmers and consumers;
Amendment 286 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – point 5 (new)
Paragraph 25 – point 5 (new)
(5) Is particularly concerned by the situation in the dairy sector, where retailers have been imposing prices well- below costs following the end of the quota system;
Amendment 299 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Condemns the non-cooperative attitude of many multinational companies with the European Parliament on matters relating to competition policy, as in the current workings of the Committee on Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in Nature or Effect; calls for binding action against non-cooperative MNCs;
Amendment 2 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that this reduction in the budget reflects a new CAP that is geared to the market and based on full market liberalisation, with serious consequences for European agriculture;
Amendment 8 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Is surprised at the significant cut to aid for producer organisations from EUR 541.5 million to EUR 387 million, which is at odds with the whole approach underlying the new CAP, based on strengthening those same producer organisations;
Amendment 10 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Insists on the need to provide funds to compensate for the economic losses suffered by farmers due to market crises and sanitary or phytosanitary crises such as Xylella fastidiosa, and reiterates the need to use the available margins under Heading 2 to this effect; calls for an increase in the resources necessary to intervene in the dairy market, preventing a foreseeable collapse in prices resulting from the abolition of the milk quota regime;
Amendment 17 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Regrets the proposed cuts of EUR 2 million for the school milk programme from EUR 77 million in the 2015 appropriation to EUR 75 million in the DB for 2016; recalls Parliament’s request for an increase of EUR 20 million a year for this scheme; welcomeconsiders the small EUR 6 million increase in the school fruit scheme to EUR 150 million to be clearly insufficient; stresses that both programmes have proven to be useful and efficient within the Member States and underlines their importance given the current crisis and levels of child malnutrition in the Union;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that funds allocated to the reserve for crises in the agricultural sector in the 2016 budget, which are subsequently left unspent, remain in full under Heading 2 for the following budget year for direct payments to farmers, as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013; reiterates that the funds used to offset the impact of the Russian embargo must not be taken from the reserve funds for crises in the agricultural sector;
Amendment 30 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to monitor, in a timely way, the significant price volatility of agricultural products, with a particular focus on the dairy sector, which has adverse effects on farmers’ incomes, and to react promptly and effectively when needed;
Amendment 32 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to monitor, in a timely way, the significant price volatility of agricultural products, which has adverse effects on farmers’ incomes, and to react promptly and effectively when needed; notes that this monitoring should be carried out in all production sectors, paying particular attention to small and medium-sized farms;
Amendment 38 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Highlights the objectives of increasing the competitiveness andthe sustainability of European agriculture, and asks for resources to be provided in order to fulfil these objectives. , paying particular attention to budgets geared to supporting production for local and nearby markets, short channels and the coordination, consolidation and dissemination of local markets;
Amendment 47 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Takes the view that specific budget lines should be provided to support small- scale processing projects for agricultural products, geared to short marketing channels;
Amendment 48 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 c (new)
Paragraph 14 c (new)
14c. Takes the view that a budget line should be provided to promote distribution networks based on short marketing channels.
Amendment 12 #
2015/2112(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers it essential, if the proposed goals are to be attained, to bring nature and society into a harmonious, sustainable relationship;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2112(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that should other major competitors of the EU’s major energy- intensive industries fail to make similar commitments onhave to be committed to GHG reductions, and that carbon leakage provisions will be maintained in the long term and strengthened where necessary; considers it vital that sustainable European agribusiness is protected against carbon leakagemust be tightened up and complied with;
Amendment 44 #
2015/2112(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Warns against the effects of deregulation and liberalisation in international trade, which is causing energy consumption and global goods flows to increase, thus adding to atmospheric GHG concentrations; believes that safeguarding and promoting local consumption, by means of shorter supply chains, is a way to encourage complementary relationships in international trade, as opposed to competition among products, producers, and countries, and hence to increase employment and the numbers of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises;
Amendment 49 #
2015/2112(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Takes the view that global trade liberalisation has been leading to higher energy consumption and GHG emissions, and that the EU must therefore call for the resulting impacts to be systematically studied and assessed;
Amendment 50 #
2015/2112(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Points to the importance of an objective, integrated, cross-cutting, and systematic approach to climate change, widening the range of means employed to reach reduction targets and avoiding reliance on market-based instruments alone;
Amendment 59 #
2015/2112(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points to the importance of assessing the potential for making economies less carbon intensive by reducing dependence on fossil fuels; considers that such assessment must be based on technical and scientific studies and cover the same time-frame as the reduction targets laid down; maintains that the EU has to set an example both by taking its own initiatives and by promoting cooperation with its international partners;
Amendment 62 #
2015/2112(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Maintains that assessment is needed in order to determine how effectively market-based instruments can serve to achieve the goal of global GHG reduction and what implications they might entail in social and environmental terms;
Amendment 72 #
2015/2112(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the serious negative consequences of non-action; stresses that a concerted global political and financial push for clean energy innovation is crucial to meeting our climate goals and to facilitate growth in EU green-economy sectors; highlights the need to preserve existing copyright and intellectual property rights in technology and knowledge transfer to third countries;
Amendment 113 #
2015/2112(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. CommendUrges the US and China onto fulfil their commitment tos and thereby playing a more significant global climate role; points to the environmental, social, and economic benefits that strong global commitments bring for the competitiveness of EU industry;and regrets that some developed countries continue to increase their emissions per capita.
Amendment 8 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas in recent years an ambitious reform agenda for the EU financial sector has been launched to strengthen financial regulation and supervision, restore financial stability and make the financial system more resilient to shocks; whereas these fell short of addressing the fundamental problems of the financial sector, i.e. too-big-to fail and too-interconnected-to fail;
Amendment 11 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the financial crisis of 2007/2008 has largely been the result of past policy failures, namely the deregulation of the financial sector, which has fuelled speculative bubbles and has been the main cause for the too-big-to fail and too-interconnected-to fail problems;
Amendment 13 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas these policy failures have led to the deepest political and socio- economic crisis in the recent history of the European Union;
Amendment 15 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas profoundsome changes have occurred in all financial sectors, including banking, insurance, securities markets, investment funds and financial market infrastructure, which unfortunately leave the problems of too-big-to fail and too-interconnected-to fail untouched;
Amendment 18 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the transposition and implementation of the financial regulatory reform is still ongoing and not yet completed, with many delegated and implementing acts in particular still to be finalised; whereas especially the strict separation of investment from retail banking is still outstanding;
Amendment 22 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the current investment gap is largely the result of deflationary austerity policies and subdued demand rather than an over-regulated financial sector; whereas the crisis has shown that relationship with retail banks is more robust and more focused on lending to the real economy than large universal and investment banks; whereas in the US after the financial crisis, bank lending to corporates has developed stronger than capital markets based financing;
Amendment 25 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas according to the European Banking Federation, credit supplied by banks appears to have broadly matched credit demand1 a ; whereas according to the ESBG, there is no fundamental supply-side shortage of lending in general2 a ; whereas specific shortages of credit to MSMEs derive largely from economic instability and growing disinvolvement of financial activity from the productive economy; whereas these problems will not be alleviated by the plans for a CMU; __________________ 1a cf. http://www.ebf- fbe.eu/uploads/FF2012.pdf 2a cf. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consu ltations/2013/long-term- financing/docs/contributions/registered- organisations/european-savings-banks- group_en.pdf
Amendment 60 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned about the increased complexity, reflected in the of financial products and markets, requiring a greater amount, detail and number of layers of regulation and supervision with requirements at international, European and national level;
Amendment 105 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that a single market for financial services serves businesses, but ultimately has to benefit businesses, customers and investors; insists that barriers to cross- border access, marketing and investment have to be analysed and addressed;
Amendment 116 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that consumer protection does not necessarily entail large volumes of information; is concerned that the multiplicity of customer information might not ultimately serve real customer needs; points to the necessity of a Europenformation must always be relevant, comparable, user-friendly, reliable and timely; information alone is not sufficient to protect consumers and enhance their decision-making process; it must go hand in hand with developing unbiased comparison tools, independent and affordable financial advice and initiative for more and better financial educationtermediation, and strong supervisory authorities in charge of consumer protection, equipped with the powers to test new products before they are sold to consumers;
Amendment 167 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is concerned about the lack of available and attractive risk-appropriate (long-term) investmentpush to shift retail savings to capital markets for alleged higher returns aund savings products for consumers; reiterates the need for diversity in investor and consumer choiceser the disputable assumptions that consumers can have higher returns without increasing the risk they are taking;
Amendment 177 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the diversity of business models; cCalls for a differentiation in regulation and supervision regarding the nature, size, riskiness and complexity of entities; believes however that the key priority of policy makers and supervisors must be to end the too-big-to fail and too- interconnected-to fail problems;
Amendment 281 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 291 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Demands that the EU and Member States push for efficient and effective regulation of financial sectors at a global level; stresses the need for strong global regulation to prevent foreign financial institutions from gaining an unfair competitive advantage vis-à-vis EU financial institutions;
Amendment 312 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Believes that better financial regulation starts with Member States applying the current acquis; considers that gold-plating does not facilitate the functioning of the internal market;
Amendment 335 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. WelcomNotes the objectives of the better regulation agenda; underlinequestions the role of REFIT in achieving an efficient and effective financial services regulation; reminds that the focus of EU decision- making must be on improving regulation, not deregulating;
Amendment 361 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Calls on the Commission to make any amendment made to the draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and implementing technical standards (ITS) submitted by the ESAs transparent to the co-legislators and stakeholders;
Amendment 390 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Stresses that the impact of individual legislative measures differs from their cumulative impact; cCalls on the Commission services, in corporation with the ESAs, SSM and ESRB, to conduct a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative assessment every five years of the cumulative impact of the EU financial services regulation at EU and Member State level;
Amendment 401 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – introductory part
Paragraph 43 – introductory part
43. Calls on the Commission services to complete the first assessment by the end of 2016in five years’ time from now and to report on the overall impact and, in separate chapters, on the following:
Amendment 422 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 9
Paragraph 43 – indent 9
– the interdependencies with international standards and the effects on the global competitiveness of European businessesfinancial stability;
Amendment 429 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 9 a (new)
Paragraph 43 – indent 9 a (new)
– the systemic consequences of past financial services legislation especially with regard to ending the too-big-to fail and too-interconnected-to fail problems;
Amendment 13 #
2015/2105(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers the opening of new markets to be of the utmost importancet in the context of the current farming crisis, and accordingly favourencourages the balanced negotiation of bilateral or multilateral agreements with third countries, provided that the most sensitive sectors are adequy ensure adequate protection for the most sensitive sectors and state mechanisms to regulately protectduction are re-established;
Amendment 38 #
2015/2105(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Opposes any form of negotiation involving the treatment of European agriculture as an expendable bargaining chip and, warns of the cumulative effect of tariff concessions granted under different trade agreements; points out that a zero rate of duty is imposed on 71 % of all EU agri- food imports; recalls that the policies for the liberalisation of international trade in agricultural products implemented in successive reviews of the CAP have caused enormous damage to European farming;
Amendment 64 #
2015/2105(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges the Commission to conduct an evaluation of the EU's opening up to the global market in farming products in recent decade and to assess the impact on Europe of fresh trade concessions to third countries and forward its findings to the European Parliament before accepting or making any commercial offer;
Amendment 79 #
2015/2105(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that trade agreements should ensure a level playing field between the different trading partners in the agricultural sector, taking into account the high environmental, food safety and social costs to be met by European farmers, so as to ensure that the latter are able to benefit fully from the opening of new markets, preserving a model of production based on small and medium-sized farms able to ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 129 #
2015/2105(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to suspend the TTIP negotiations with a view to bringing the entire process to a definitive end;
Amendment 1 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that agriculture and rural development deliver many EU objectives and are an important part of the overall EU budget for 2016; calls therefore for the agriculture budget to remain at least at its current level in order to bring about a CAP that will end the current unequal share-out of payments among countries, products, and producers, while allowing for the specific features of each country and region and promoting small- and medium-scale farming;
Amendment 6 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes with concern the cuts in funding for rural development under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in commitments and payments for the 2015 budget, since they are jeopardising investment already approved and adding to EU indebtedness; points out that EAFRD projects – including the LEADER programmes – are a major driver of rural development, as they deliver wider benefits to the EU at large, in particular in generating growth, added value and jobs in rural areas; asks that careful consideration be given to the final level of commitment and payment appropriations in the 2016 budget, which should be such as to allow sustained growth in agri-food production in Member States with the largest deficits, thus enabling Member States to attain food sovereignty and security; insists that particular attention should be paid to encouraging generational renewal in agriculture and supporting young famers;
Amendment 12 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls for funds to be specifically earmarked for small farms, which provide much direct employment in rural areas and are necessary to ensure that the land is tended and put to good use;
Amendment 14 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Calls for priority to be given to promoting and raising awareness of local markets and their contribution to the local economies;
Amendment 21 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Demands that additional finance should be allocated to the milk sector, alleviating any potentialthe impact from the abolition of the quota system; further insists that there has to be a regulatory framework for the milk market to replace the previous quota system and that some specific agricultural sub-sectors are in need of greater funding, such as bee keeping; highlights the importance of schemes for milk and fruit in schools, proposes a smalln increase in appropriations for these programmes in line with the agriculture committee’s vote, and continues to advocate the separation of the two schemes;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Points out that the protection of vineyards covers vital considerations such as the defence of farmers’ rights; urges the Commission to increase the budget so as to strengthen the support system for wine-growing, especially where investment, restructuring, and promotion are concerned, bearing in mind that vines are planted to remain for decades and the first harvest is not obtained until three years after planting;
Amendment 34 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for sufficient funds to be made available in order to implement all elements of the CAP reform, enforcing capping and modulation more strictly, including as regards greening, biodiversity and rural development programmes;
Amendment 56 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights the objectives of increasing the competitiveness and sustainability of European agriculture and asks to make resources available to meet these objectives, including greater resources for pest control and disaster prevention;
Amendment 64 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the importance of Pilot Projects, such as the European Price Monitoring Observatory, to the committee and the agricultural sector and asks for continued support; takes the view, however, that observatories of this kind do not remove the need to implement production regulation instruments;
Amendment 71 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights the continuing imbalances in the food supply chain, in which the position of primary producers is considerably weaker than that of other actors; urges the Commission to take action to improve the transparency of prices and margins in the food supply chain, with particular reference to the role of the large-scale retail sector, the object being to secure fair producer prices so as to guarantee better incomes for small and medium-sized farmers; highlights the value of a pilot project in this area.
Amendment 8 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. RecognisNotes that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain, measures which have so far proved ineffective;
Amendment 16 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measuresthe measures introduced with the CAP reform, aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain have been a total failure; doubts, however, that the true objective of the measures was to strengthen the bargaining power of the production sector;
Amendment 31 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Believes that short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems should be encouraged as such types of food chains has specific social impacts, economic impacts at both regional and farm level as well as environmental impacts translating themselves into clear benefits for producers and consumers;
Amendment 41 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points to the limitations ofout that the weakness of farmers in the Ssupply Cchain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of farmers’ organisations owis a result both of the abandonment of measures regulating output ing to lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechanhe various sectors of production, which has given rise to serious imbalances between supply and demand (the latest example being the acute crismis to adequately combat well-documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctionsfollowing the removal of milk quotas), and of the politically-motivated decision to end collective bargaining by outlawing minimum price agreements via competition rules, which has made it wholly impossible for farmers' organisations to engage in collective bargaining;
Amendment 48 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out reducing prices for the primary producer are not reflected in consumer prices which highlight the imbalance in the food supply chain and the need for regulation;
Amendment 52 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Adds that experience shows that when the Directorate-General for Competition has imposed sanctions on the milk industry, for instance, they were reflected in falls in prices, a clear sign that the sanctions were ultimately borne by the production sector;
Amendment 70 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Doubts whetherBelieves voluntary initiatives are to be inadequate for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;
Amendment 80 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), which is purely voluntary in nature, does not address the real problem arising from the highly concentrated structure of large-scale distribution and the supply-side rigidity that applies to most agricultural producers;
Amendment 81 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Highlights that as supermarkets have acquired increasing reputation and market power, they have developed their own brands, this has given the retailer a new role – in addition to their traditional role as purchaser, they have become a direct competitor This widens the scope for buyer power abuse in that it can adversely affect choice for consumers and could also affect innovation;
Amendment 88 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given its limited success and also given the reluctance of farmers to participate; regrets the pre- emptive conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;
Amendment 94 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given the reluctance of farmers to participate; regrets the pre- emptive conclusion thatat it foresees no regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;
Amendment 116 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs; asks the Commission to assess these national efforts with a view to selecting best practices for application at EU level; notes in particular the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as a potential model for adaptation at EU level;
Amendment 125 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs; asks the Commission to assess these national effortefforts undertaken by states with a view to selecting best practices for application at EU level; notes in particular the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as a potential model for adaptation at EU level;
Amendment 149 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essentialmay help to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers, given that it has an impact on specific issues such as pricing policies and payment deadlines and reflects the social and economic situation in each Member State; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;
Amendment 171 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Argues that such legislation would complement the SCI and protect stakeholders who are fully engaged with the Initiativethe production side, which is considered the most vulnerable bearing in mind the supply-side rigidity arising from long production cycles and the perishable nature of products, while ensuring that UTPs are eradicated from the food supply chain and providing primary producers with the necessary legal certainty to address their concerns.
Amendment 180 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Urges the commission to encourage a demand led food production system which will contribute to price stability and sustainability for producers in the medium to long term;
Amendment 183 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Takes the view that any supply chain initiative intending to promote a fair relationship between all links in the chain must begin by considering the mechanisms necessary for farmers to be paid prices covering labour and production costs;
Amendment 190 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Believes, furthermore, that restoring the bargaining power of the production sector is a necessary element in the regulation of production and markets;
Amendment 192 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Stresses how extreme the various price agreements between large retailers are, given that their aim is to set the price of milk below the cost of production;
Amendment 193 #
2015/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Calls on the Commission to consider existing initiatives, such as the origin- destination price index, to develop instruments for the monitoring and control of prices paid to farmers in the food supply chain so to ensure the proper functioning of the chain.
Amendment 5 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the stability of the financial system, which is essential for the effective allocation of resources for growth and jobs, is now a global public good; whereas in reality the financial system never has been stable, and that is what has caused the current crisis;
Amendment 11 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the financial system, having been shaped by a lengthy process of privatisation and deregulation, is impinging to an intolerable degree on politics and political institutions and hence on countries’ sovereign development;
Amendment 21 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 33 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 35 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas, because it is a project comprising many countries, the EU encompasses economies which are economically variously advanced and culturally dissimilar and consequently do not hold out the same prospects for the development of society; whereas, therefore, neither the Commission President nor any other senior EU leader should ever speak for the Member States in international discussion forums;
Amendment 38 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Recital G b (new)
Gb. whereas the EU has been showing itself to be not so much a project for cooperation among Member States as one in which the aims being pursued by the most powerful political and economic vested interests are one and the same;
Amendment 43 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the need for international regulatory cooperation based on solidarity among peoples and not on defence of major economic and financial interests;
Amendment 58 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that the EU could streamline its representation, with a view to increasing its influence and promoting the legislation it has adopted through a democratic procesis a project whose goal is cooperation among Member States and not a federal state, and therefore maintains that Member States should not discard their own representation in international forums for the sake of one-size-fits-all representation speaking with one voice for all EU countries;
Amendment 64 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 78 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers that unified representation of the Member States within international financial institutions, including the proposal for single representation of the euro area countries within the IMF, poses serious problems in terms of financial sovereignty;
Amendment 80 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Considers that Member States, given that they remain sovereign states, have the right to defend, at first hand, the interests of their people and their national interests in international forums; therefore vehemently rejects any code of conduct intended to inhibit individual action by Member States;
Amendment 89 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers it dangerous and anti- democratic to believe that peer review makes for greater accountability to the people than the traditional formal democratic accountability model based on the ‘agent and principal’ concept (in which elections are the means whereby ‘agents’ – elected representatives – are made accountable by the ‘principal’, in other words electors);
Amendment 91 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 1
Paragraph 9 – indent 1
Amendment 99 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 2
Paragraph 9 – indent 2
Amendment 115 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 3
Paragraph 9 – indent 3
– Calls for a formalised and regular ‘financial dialogue’ to be organised in the European Parliament for the purpose of establishing guidelines regarding the adoption of European positionsproviding an opportunity, in the run- up to major international negotiations, making sure that these positions are known and ensuring follow-upto discuss the most pressing issues under negotiation; the European institutions, the Member States and, where appropriate, the heads of the international organisations concerned would be invited to attend; the nature (public or in camera) and frequency of this dialogue would depend on practical requirements;
Amendment 131 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 5
Paragraph 9 – indent 5
Amendment 139 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 6
Paragraph 9 – indent 6
Amendment 158 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 7
Paragraph 9 – indent 7
Amendment 164 #
2015/2060(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 8
Paragraph 9 – indent 8
Amendment 17 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for the introduction of a consolidated common tax base for corporation tax in order to standardise tax returcountries to work together and, when necessary, coordinate their action with a view to widening the tax base for large companies and doing away with legal loopholes, exemptions, and reductions;
Amendment 24 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Maintains that countries need to enter into international agreements with a view to prohibiting operations involving the use of tax havens; calls for tax havens to be put out of action;
Amendment 25 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Maintains that capital movements and financial transactions have to be supervised, regulated, and taxed, given that this is a more effective way to combat tax fraud and tax evasion; points to the urgent need to monitor capital with a view to stamping out laundering of the proceeds from trafficking and other illicit activities;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for the establishment of a globally accepted definition of tax havens, of penalties for operators making use of them and of a blacklist of countries that do not combat tax evasion or accept a blacklist to be drawn up of such tax havens and countries distorting competition with favourable tax conditions, including those in the EU, by end of 2015; the definition of tax havens should include but should not be limited to the following: "Provision for tax measures which entail no or nominal taxes, a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities and a lack of transparency in legislative, legal or administrative provisions, or where advantages are granted even without any real economic activit,y as has already been called for previouslynd substantial economic presence within country offering such tax advantages";
Amendment 29 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for the establishment of a globally acceptedstandard UN definition of tax havens, of penalties, including the withdrawal of business licences, for operators making use of them and of a blacklist of countries that do not combat tax evasion or accept it, as has already been called for previously;
Amendment 49 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on EU bodies such as, for instance, the EIB and the EBRD not to cooperate any longer through their financial intermediaries with non-cooperative tax jurisdictions – in common parlance ‘tax havens’;
Amendment 62 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls for a review of existing double taxation agreements in order to allow for a 'fair share' of the tax base to be taxed in developing countries;
Amendment 63 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Furthermore, calls on the Commission to propose changes to EU company law to effectively ban shell companies and similar entities by introducing for example substance requirements, limitation of multiple directorships etc.
Amendment 74 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses the urgent need for a study on the impact of international tax treaties in individual countries;
Amendment 76 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for a code of conduct to be established for governments of the countries concerned in order to ensure tax systems are managed efficientlyPoints to the need to enable developing countries to play a genuine role on equal terms when international taxation regulations are drawn up, especially within the UN;
Amendment 91 #
2015/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the EU and the Member States to enforce the recommendations of theprinciple that multinational companies must adopt country-by-country reporting as standard, requiring them to publish as part of their annual report on a country-by-country basis for each territory in which they operate the names of all subsidiaries, their financial performance, relevant tax information, assets and number of employees, and to ensure that this information is publicly available; Calls for CbC reportsing to be implemented for multinational companies in all sectors and in all countries.;
Amendment 1 #
2015/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the importance of the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in providing urgently needed investment for jobs, boosting jobs, reducing unemployment and gprowthmoting sustainable development for regions in the EU, alsoparticularly including those which are suffering most from the financial, economic and social crisis; welcomes the objective of making the use of these funds more effective and efficient by strengthening their link with the EU's economic governance framework;
Amendment 23 #
2015/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the need for a stable and predictable investment environment, not least with a view to attracting private investment; underlines the role of sound economic governance in the creation of this kind of favourable investment environment; emphasises the need for an overall investment framework in the EUexpresses its concerns about the negative impact that reprogramming might have on the aforementioned but also on the undermining of the effectiveness of cohesion policy; underlines the role of strengthening aggregate demand in the creation of this kind of favourable investment environment; emphasises the need for an investment framework in the EU that supports public and productive investment in order to contribute to social progress, to create full employment, reducing unemployment, strengthening quality public services and ecological sustainability;
Amendment 32 #
2015/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the Commission's intention to use its reprogramming powers carefully, preferring stability over too frequent reprogramming; expresses its concerns that the application of Article 23 CPR may lead to economic instability and uncertainty, deteriorating the situation in Member States and regions which confront problems and have been most affected by the crisis; stresses the need for a well-founded and detailed justification for reprogramming, with a detailed assessment of why it delivers more effective and efficient results and to ensure all the other possible available options;
Amendment 39 #
2015/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Expresses its disapproval for the institutionalisation of the principle of macroeconomic conditionality and the link between cohesion policy and Structural Funds on the one hand and Stability and Growth Pact, package of economic governance and any economic agreement of Member States, on the other; the assumptions underlying them are undeniably different and their objectives diametrically opposed; emphasises that the purpose of cohesion policy should not be to impose stringent macroeconomic and financial conditions necessitating austerity measures or to penalise Member States and regions; stresses that cohesion policy is designed to ensure balanced growth and eliminate inequalities with a view to achieving genuine convergence; indicates that funding for European regions cannot be suspended for non-compliance by Member States with macroeconomic conditions and suspending funding for Member States in difficulties will make the situation worse;
Amendment 44 #
2015/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to give careful consideration to the economic and social effects on the regions affected by a suspension of payments; underlines the importance of the principles of proportionality and effectiveness when the Commission proposes such a suspension of payment but also the social and economic conditions prevailing in the Member State concerned before taking any decision; underlines that decisions to suspend payment should not be linked to the economic policies of Member States but only to the detection of serious infringements of the system of project management, control and monitoring and spending irregularities concerning Member States which have failed to take corrective measures;
Amendment 60 #
2015/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Parliament to submit a proposal concerning the review of the implementation of Article 23 CPR as defined in paragraph 17 of this Article;
Amendment 135 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) This Regulation constitutes an essential step towards the completion of the Capital Markets Union as set out in the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, entitled 'Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union' of 30 September 2015. The aim of the Capital Markets Union is to help businesses tap into more diverse sources of capital from anywhere within the European Union (hereinafter 'the Union'), make markets work more efficiently and offer investors and savers additional opportunities to put their money to work, in order to enhance growth and create jobs.
Amendment 136 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Disclosure of information in case of offers of securities to the public or admission of securities to trading on a regulated market is vital to protect investors by removing asymmetries of information between them and issuers. Harmonising this disclosure allows for the establishment of a cross-border passport mechanism which facilitates the effective functioning of the internal market in a wide variety of securities.
Amendment 138 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
Amendment 142 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The aim of this Regulation is to ensure investor protection and market efficiency, while enhancing the single market for capital. The provision of information which, according to the nature of the issuer and of the securities, is necessary to enable investors to make an informed investment decision ensures, together with rules on the conduct of business, the protection of investors. Moreover, such information provides an effective means of increasing confidence in securities and thus of contributing to the proper functioning and development of securities markets. The appropriate way to make this information available is to publish a prospectus.
Amendment 157 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Where offers of securities to the public are addressed only to domestic investors in one Member State, and thus have no cross-border effects, and where such offers do not exceed a total consideration of EUR 105 000 000, the passport mechanism under this Regulation is not needed and drawing up a prospectus may represent a disproportionate cost. Therefore it is appropriate to allow Member States to decide to exempt such kinds of offers from the prospectus obligation set out in this Regulation, taking into account the level of domestic investor protection they deem to be appropriate. In particular, Member States should be free to set out in their national law the threshold between EUR 5100 000 and EUR 105 000 000, expressed as the total consideration of the offer over a period of 12 months, from which this exemption should apply.
Amendment 181 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) To ensure the uniform structure of the prospectus summary, general sections and sub-headings should be provided, with indicative contents which the issuer should fill in with brief, narrative descriptions including figures where appropriate. As long as they present it in a fair and balanced way, issuers should be given discretion to select the information that they deem to be material and meaningful.
Amendment 241 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 74 – indent 3
Recital 74 – indent 3
Amendment 243 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78
Recital 78
Amendment 281 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) an offer of securities with a total consideration in the Union of less than EUR 5100 000, which shall be calculated over a period of 12 months;
Amendment 339 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the total consideration of the offer is less than a monetary amount calculated over a period of 12 months, which shall not exceed EUR 105 000 000.
Amendment 344 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The referred thresholds shall be assessed after one year of the implementation of this Regulation and they shall be modified if the assessment so indicates.
Amendment 366 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The content of the summary shall be accurate, fair, clear and not misleading. It, when read together with the other parts of the prospectus, be accurate, fair, clear and not misleading. The summary should be read as an introduction to the prospectus and the content of the summary shall be consistent with the other parts of the prospectus.
Amendment 373 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) be written in the official languages used in the part of the Member State where the investment product is distributed or where it has been written in a different language, it shall be translated into one of those languages. The translation shall faithfully and accurately reflect the content of the original document.
Amendment 390 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The summary shall include the following statement: 'Risks appearing in this "Summary" section of the prospectus are, necessarily, selective, incomplete and condensed. Accordingly, prospective investors should consider not only the information in this "Summary" but also the additional risks and uncertainties described in the other sections of the prospectus.'
Amendment 408 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 6 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 6 – point c
(c) under a sub-section titled 'What are the key risks that are specific to the issuer?' a brief description of no more than fiveshort summary of the most material risk factors specific to the issuer contained in the category of highest materiality according to Article 16.
Amendment 420 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 7 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) under a sub-section titled 'What are the key risks that are specific to the securities?' a brief description of no more than five of the most material risk factors specific to the securities, contained in the category of highest materialityshort summary of the risks specific to the securities which the issuer regards as the principal risks relating to the securities according to Article 16.
Amendment 498 #
2015/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. The risk factors featured in a prospectus shall be limited toinclude all risks which are specific to the issuer and/or the securities and are material for taking an informed investment decision, as corroborated by the content of the registration document and the securities note. They shall be allocated across a maximum of three distinct categories which shall differentiate them by their relative materiality based on the issuer's assessment of the probability of their occurrence and the expected magnitude of their negative impact.
Amendment 109 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
-
-
Amendment 178 #
2015/0226(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Recital 38 a (new)
Recital 38 a (new)
(38a) Account should be taken of the viewpoints expressed by the Member States’ academic communities on the risks associated with reviving securitisation;
Amendment 27 #
2015/0218(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 a (new)
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) The Commission should always carry out a suitable impact assessment to accompany this agreement or, in the event that this is not possible, make provision for a mid-term review to study the actual impact of this measure on the European olive oil market and the situation for European producers and assess the need for compensatory measures for European producers.
Amendment 37 #
2015/0218(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
The annual tariff quota referred to in Article 1 of this Regulation shall be made available only after the exhaustion of the volume of the annual olive oil duty free tariff rate quota provided for in Article 3(1) of Protocol 1 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement, and after an assessment of the European olive oil market in order to anticipate possible compensatory measures for European producers.
Amendment 1 #
2015/0076(NLE)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Approves conclusion of the agreement, while regretting that no improvements can be made, particularly regarding information provided and the automatic, binding and unrestricted nature of exchanges of information;
Amendment 27 #
2015/0068(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The challenge posed by cross-border tax avoidance, aggressive tax planning and harmful tax competition has increased considerably and has become a major focus of concern within the Union and at global level. Tax base erosion is considerably reducing national tax revenues, whichhence hindersing Member States in applying growth-friendly tax policies and in fulfilling the constitutional obligations in terms of fundamental rights, aggravating social and economic inequality, increasing political power of cross-border business, shifting taxation towards less mobile factors such as labour and consumption, thus making the tax system less progressive, and widening the democratic deficit. In particular, rulings concerning tax-driven structures lead to a low level of taxation of artificially highlow amounts of income in the country giving the advance ruling and may leave artificially low amounts of income to be taxed in any other countries involved. An increase in transparency is therefore urgently required. The tools and mechanisms established by Council Directive 2011/16/EU13 need to be enhanced in order to achieve this. __________________ 13 Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ L 64 of 11.3.2011, p. 1).
Amendment 37 #
2015/0068(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) Transparency only deploys its benefits fully when it is combined with the possibility of wider public scrutiny. The proposed reforms should hence aim at making publicly available all information on tax rulings exchanged along the provisions of this Directive.
Amendment 55 #
2015/0068(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Member States should exchange the basic information to be communicated also with the Commission. This would enable the Commission at any point in time to monitor and evaluate the effective application of the automatic exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements and to make available to the public the exchanged information on rulings. Such communication will not discharge a Member State from its obligations to notify any state aid to the Commission.
Amendment 69 #
2015/0068(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to enhance the efficient use of resources, facilitate the exchange of information and avoid the need for Member States each to make similar developments to their systems to store information, specific provision should be made for the establishment of a central directory accessible to all Member States and the Commission where Member States would upload and store information instead of exchanging it by email. The central directory should then be publicly accessible and searchable. The practical arrangements necessary for the establishment of such a directory should be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2) of Directive 2011/16/EU.
Amendment 111 #
2015/0068(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 8a – paragraph 2
Article 8a – paragraph 2
2. The competent authority of a Member State shall also communicate information to the competent authorities of all other Member States as well as to the European Commission on advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements issued within a period beginning ten years before the entry into force but still valid on the date of entry into force of this Directiveand still valid on the date of entry into force of this Directive, in order to allow for a full picture of rulings have an impact on current tax schemes;
Amendment 118 #
2015/0068(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 8a – paragraph 3
Article 8a – paragraph 3
Amendment 159 #
2015/0068(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 21 – paragraph 5
Article 21 – paragraph 5
5. TBy December 2016 the Commission shall develop a secure central directory where information to be communicated in the framework of Article 8a of this Directive may be recorded in order to satisfy the automatic exchange provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 8a,. The Commission shall have access to the information recorded in this directory and shall ensure access by the public to the information stored in the directory. The necessary practical arrangements shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2).
Amendment 176 #
2015/0068(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 27
Article 27
9a. Article 27 is amended as follows: Reporting Every 3 years after entry into force, the Commission shall submit a report on the application of this Directive to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Amendment 13 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The austerity policies in response to the economic and financial crisis has lve resulted toin a lowering of the level of investments within the Union. Investment has fallen by approximately 15% since its peak in 2007. The Union suffers in particular from a lack of investment as a consequence of market uncertainty regarding the economic future and the fiscal constraints on Member States. This lack of investment slow, in relative terms, while the absolute loss in investment due to the deep recession in some Member States is much larger. The Union suffers in particular from a lack of investment as a consequence of the arbitrary fiscal constraints on Member States, with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact and the Fiscal Compact, resulting in a deeper recession, sluggish recovery and uncertainty regarding the economic future. This lack of investment, which has been particularly severe in the Member States most affected by the crisis and the policies prescribed in the Memorandums of Understanding signed with the Troika, delays economic recovery and negatively affects job creation, long-term growth prospects and competitiveness.
Amendment 16 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Comprehensive action is required to reverse the vicious circle created by a lack of investment. Structural reforms and fiscal responsibility are necessary preconditions for stimulating investment. Along with a renewed impetus towards investment financing, these preconditions can contributeIncreased public investment and reforms that reduce inequality, support rising wages and social transfers and enhance fiscal sustainability through a fair and progressive tax system are a way to establishing a virtuous circle, where investment projects help support employment and demand and lead to a sustained increase in growth potential.
Amendment 18 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Throughout the economic and financial crisis, the Union has made efforts to promote growth, in particular through initiatives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy that put in place an approach for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The European Investment Bank ('EIB') has also strengthened its role in instigating and promoting investment within the Union, partly by way of an increase in capital in January 2013, which, in terms of jobs and living conditions for the people, has been a failure. Further action is required to ensure that the investment needs of the Union are addressed and that the liquidity available on the market is used efficiently and channelled towards the funding of viable investment projects that are socially and environmentally viable.
Amendment 20 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) The policies hitherto implemented have destroyed employment, particularly in the countries of southern Europe, but are also affecting the entire Union, especially young people.
Amendment 21 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 b (new)
Recital 4 b (new)
(4b) Growth as we know it is no longer possible, as our planet has its limits; proof of this can be found in the climate crisis.
Amendment 22 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 c (new)
Recital 4 c (new)
(4c) It is, however, possible to create high- quality, stable employment whilst respecting the earth’s limits.
Amendment 23 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 d (new)
Recital 4 d (new)
(4d) Food production is an extremely important source of self-employment and of direct and indirect employment.
Amendment 36 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The EFSI should support strategic investments with high economic, social and environmental value added contributing to achieving Union policy objectives.
Amendment 67 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The EFSI should target investments that are expected to be economically and technic, technically, socially and environmentally viable, which may entail a degree of appropriate risk, whilst still meeting the particular requirements for EFSI financing.
Amendment 70 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Decisions on the use of the EFSI support for infrastructure and large mid- cap projects should be made transparently by an Investment Committee (subject to a prior rigorous cost-benefit assessment that includes the social and environmental impacts). The Investment Committee should be composed of independent experts who are knowledgeable and experienced in the areas of investment projects, as well as society representatives of the areas affected. The Investment Committee should be accountable to a Steering Board of the EFSI, who should supervise the fulfilment of the EFSI's objectives. To effectively benefit from the experience of the EIF, the EFSI should support funding to the EIF to allow the EIF to undertake individual projects in the areas of small and medium enterprises and small mid-cap companies.
Amendment 92 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The economic and financial crisis has led to a lowering of the level of investments within the Union. Investment has fallen by approximately 15% since its peak in 2007.. The Union suffers in particular from a lack of investment as a consequence of market uncertainty regarding the economic future and the fiscal constraints on Member States, which have been aggravated by austerity policies. This lack of investment slows economic recovery and negatively affects job creation, long-term growth prospects and competitiveness.
Amendment 92 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The purpose of the EFSI shall be to support investments in the Union and to ensure increased access to financing for companies having up to 3000 employees, with a particular focus onsmall and medium enterprises, including small and medium enterprise-sized farms, through the supply of risk bearing capacity to the EIB ('EFSI Agreement').
Amendment 102 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
Amendment 109 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The EFSI Agreement shall provide that the EFSI shall have an Advisory Board composed of representatives from European social partners, including representatives of agricultural organisations and national social partnersʼ organisations (including those in stateless nations in the European Union). The members of the Executive Board shall take part in meetings of the Social Council.
Amendment 115 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The EU guarantee shall be granted for EIB financing and investment operations approved by the Investment Committee referred to in Article 3(5) or funding to the EIF in order to conduct EIB financing and investment operations in accordance with Article 7(2). The operations concerned shall be consistent with Union policies, giving priority to job-creation projects that take account of the planetʼs limits and do not entail land seizure or hoarding, and support any of the following general objectives:
Amendment 121 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) development of infrastructure, including in the areas of transport, particularly in industrial centres; energy, in particular energy interconnections; and digital infrastructure; investment of any kind in infrastructure, and in transport- related infrastructure especially, shall be assessed for its value to society;
Amendment 127 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Throughout the economic and financial crisis, the Union has made efforts to promote growth, in particular through initiatives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy that put in place an approach for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The European Investment Bank ('EIB') has also strengthened its role in instigating and promoting investment within the Union, partly by way of an increase in capital in January 2013. Unfortunately, none of these measures bore fruit, plunging the EU into a phase of profound economic stagnation. Further action is required to ensure that the investment needs of the Union are addressed and that the liquidity available on the market is used efficiently and channelled towards the funding of viable investment projects.
Amendment 135 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) support for small and medium-sized farms;
Amendment 138 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e b (new)
(eb) relocation of production of small and medium industries and support for local business infrastructure.
Amendment 149 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The EFSI is part of a comprehensive approach to address uncertainty surrounding public and private investments. The strategy has three pillars: mobilising finance for investment, making investment reach the real economy and improving the investment environment in the Union, it being necessary to guarantee at the same time social and economic cohesion within the European Union.
Amendment 152 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Financing agreements signed in relation to operations supported under this Regulation shall include clauses allowing exclusion from EIB financing and investment operations and, if necessary, appropriate recovery measures in cases of closure as a result of production being relocated in any way, fraud, corruption or other illegal activity in accordance with the EFSI Agreement, EIB policies and applicable regulatory requirements. The decision whether to apply an exclusion from the EIB financing and investment operation shall be taken in accordance with the relevant financing or investment agreement..
Amendment 171 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The purpose of the EFSI should be to help resolve the difficulties in financing and implementing productive investments in the Union and to ensure increased access to financing. It is intended that increased access to financing should be of particular benefit to small and medium enterprises. It is also appropriate to extend the benefit of such increased access to financing to mid- cap companies, which are companies having up to 3000 employees. Overcoming Europe's current investment difficulties should contribute to strengthening the Union's economic, social and territorial cohesion, through the creation of stable and fairly remunerated jobs.
Amendment 201 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The EFSI should support public and private strategic investments with high economic, social and environmental value added contributing to achieving Union policy objectives.
Amendment 206 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) EFSI-supported investments must be closely tailored to development of all the necessary infrastructures, that is to say sustainable transport, digital and energy networks. Priority must also be given to environmental projects relating to water supply, sewage treatment and renewable energy, as well as projects relating to new information technologies and telecommunications.
Amendment 267 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The EFSI should target projects delivering high societal, environmental and economic value. In particular, the EFSI should target projects that promote job creation, and long- term growth and competitiveness. The EFSI should support a wide range of financial products, including equity, debt or guarantees, to best accommodate the needs of the individual project. This wide range of products should allow the EFSI to adapt to market needs whilst encouraging public and private investment in the projects.. The EFSI should not be a substitute for private market finance but should instead catalyse private finance by addressing market failures so as to ensure the most effective and strategic use of public money. The requirement for consistency with State aid principles should contribute to such effective and strategic use.
Amendment 284 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) The EFSI should target projects with a higher risk-return profile than existing EIB and Union instruments to ensure additionality over existing operations. The EFSI should finance projects across the Union, including in the countries most affected by the financial crisis. The EFSI should only be used where financing is not available from other sources on reasonable terms.
Amendment 330 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Decisions on the use of the EFSI support for infrastructure and large mid- cap projects should be made byrooted in an Investment Committee. The Investment Committee should be composed of independent experts who are knowledgeable and experienced in the areas of investment projects. The Investment Committee and in accordance with the strategic guidelines set out in this regulation. The Investment Committee, whose composition must be approved by the European Parliament, should be accountable to a Steering Board of the EFSI, who should supervise the fulfilment of the EFSI's objectives. To effectively benefit from the experience of the EIF, the EFSI should support funding to the EIF to allow the EIF to undertake individual projects in the areas of small and medium enterprises and small mid-cap companies.
Amendment 369 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In order to allow for further increase in its resources, participation in the EFSI should be open to third parties, including Member States, national promotional banks or public agencies owned or controlled by Member States, private sector entities and entities outside the Union subject to the consent of existing contributors. Third parties may contribute directly to the EFSI and take part in the EFSI governance structure. They may not, however, alter the underlying general approach set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 403 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) In accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Iinfrastructure and project investments supported under EFSI should be consistent with State aid rules, especially when they are intended to finance essential public services or major projects of social interest. To that end, the Commission has announced that it will formulate a set of core principles, for the purpose of State aid assessments, which a project will have to meet to be eligible for support under the EFSI. If a project meets these criteria and receives support from the EFSI, the Commission has announced that any national complementary support, will be assessed under a simplified and accelerated State aid assessment whereby the only additional issue to be verified by the Commission will be the proportionality of public support (absence of overcompensation). The Commission has also announced that it will provide further guidance on the set of core principles with a view to ensuring an efficient use of public funds.
Amendment 442 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Alongside the financing operations that will be conducted through the EFSI, a European Investment Advisory Hub (‘EIAH’) should be created. The EIAH should provide strengthened support, free of charge, for project development and preparation across the Union, by building on the expertise of the Commission, the EIB, national promotional banks and the managing authorities of the European Structural and Investment Funds. This should establish a single point of entry for questions related to technical assistance for investments within the Union.
Amendment 475 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) To partially finance the cContributions from the European Union budget, the available envelopes of the Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2014-2020, provided by Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of should be determined by the European Parliament and ofby the Council, and the Connecting Europe Facility, provided by Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, should be reduced. Those programmes serve purposes that are not replicated by the EFSI. However, the reduction of both programmes to finance the guarantee fund is expected to ensure a greater investment in certain areas of their respective mandates than is possible through the existing programmes. The EFSI should be able to leverage the EU guarantee to multiply the financial effect within those areas of under the flexibility arrangements provided for within the multi-annual budget, but without affecting the structural funding earmarked for cohesion policy or funds intended to finance research, and development and innovation and transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructure compared to if the resources had been spent via grants within the planned Horizon 2020 and Connecting Europe Facility programmes. It is, therefore, appropriate to redirect part of the funding presently envisaged for those programmes to the benefit of EFSIctivities, including the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2014-2020. __________________ 2 Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 104). 3 Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129).
Amendment 507 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) Although the projects identified under the project pipeline may be used by the EIB in the identification and selection of EFSI -supported projects, the project pipeline should have a broader scope of identifying projects across the Union. This scope may include projects that are capable of being fully financed by the private sector or with the assistance of other instruments provided at European or national level. The EFSI should be able to support financing and investment to projects identified by the project pipeline, but there should be no automaticity between inclusion on the list and access to EFSI support and the EFSI be conferred with discretion to select and support projects that are not included on the list.
Amendment 520 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) To ensure accountability to European citizens, the EIB should regularly report to the European Parliament and the Council twice a year on the progress and impact of the EFSI.
Amendment 564 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The purpose of the EFSI shall be to support investments in the Union and to ensure increased access to financing for companies having up to 3000 employees, with a particular focus on micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, through the supply of risk -bearing capacity to the EIB (‘EFSI Agreement’).
Amendment 589 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. The EFSI Agreement shall be open to accession by Member States. Subject to the consent of existing contributors, the EFSI Agreement shall also be open to accession by other third parties, including national promotional banks or public agencies owned or controlled by Member States, and private sector entities. Under no circumstances shall the strategic objectives laid down in this Regulation be altered.
Amendment 609 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 a (new)
Article 1 a (new)
Article 1a Eligibility criteria for EFSI-related guarantees 1. The projects to be financed must be (a) consistent with Union policies; (b) economically and technically viable; (c) complementary to private investment or intended to finance public infrastructure likely to trigger private investment. 2. The EFSI Agreement shall stipulate that the Fund is to support investment seeking to attain at least one of the following two general objectives: (a) development of infrastructure, including in the areas of transport, energy, in particular energy interconnections, and digital networks; (b) investment in education and training, health, research and development, information and communications technology and innovation; (c) expansion of renewable energy and energy and resource efficiency; (d) infrastructure projects in the environmental, natural resources, urban development and social fields; (e) providing financial support for the companies referred to in Article 1(1), including working capital risk financing. 3. Once the financing policy has been determined, including where risk assessment and management are concerned, the EFSI Steering Board shall ensure that investment is spread evenly in terms of sectors and among the countries and regions of the Union.
Amendment 703 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The EFSI Agreement shall provide for the creation of a European Investment Advisory Hub (‘EIAH’) within the EIB. The EIAH shall have as its objective to build upon existing EIB and Commission advisory services in order to provide advisory support free of charge for investment project identification, preparation and development and act as a single technical advisory hub for project financing within the Union. This shall include support on the use of technical assistance for project structuring, use of innovative financial instruments, use of public-private partnerships and advice, as appropriate, on relevant issues of EU legislation. The European Investment Advisory Hub shall take the form of a network, physically present in all Member States so as to be accessible to all economic agents, public and private, irrespective of their geographical location.
Amendment 720 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
The EIAH shall be partially financed by the Union up to a maximum amount of EUR 20 000 000 per year during the period ending on 31 December 2020 for the additional services provided for by the EIAH over existing EIB technical assistance. For the years after 2020 the financial contribution from the Union shall be directly linked to the provisions included in the future multi-annual financial frameworks.
Amendment 753 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. The EFSI Agreement shall provide that the EFSI shall be governed by a Steering Board, which must include representatives of the Member States and which shall determine the strategic orientation, the strategic asset allocation and operating policies and procedures, including the investment policy of projects that EFSI can support and the risk profile of the EFSI, in conformity with the objectives under Article 5(2). The Steering Board shall elect one of its members to be Chairperson.
Amendment 871 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
The Investment Committee shall be composed of at least six independent experts and the Managing Director. Independent experts shall have a high level of relevant market experience in project finance andfrom different countries and the appropriate scientific communities and of the Managing Director. Independent experts shall include representatives of the employment and social affairs fields providing a high level of relevant market experience in the financing of projects related to areas considered to have priority under this Regulation, to the extent that they shall be drawn from social affairs, employment, and environmental fields, and representatives of the scientific community. They shall be appointed by the Steering Board for a renewable fixed term of three years.
Amendment 929 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 956 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 974 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 987 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Amendment 999 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Amendment 1026 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
In addition, the EU guarantee shall be granted for support of dedicated investment platforms and national promotional banks, via the EIB, that invest in operations meeting the requirements of this Regulation. In that case, the Steering Board shall specify policies regarding eligible investment platforms. Those platforms shall, as far as possible, involve public authorities active in the fields concerned and the social partners.
Amendment 1241 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) an assessment of the added value, and the social and economic impact, including the mobilisation of private sector resources, and job creation, and an assessment of the estimated and actual outputs, outcomes and impact of EIB financing and investment operations at an aggregated basis;
Amendment 1403 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 1405 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 1406 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 1408 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 1416 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 1423 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 1425 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 1428 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) Annex II is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this RegulationThe Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament with a view to releasing the resources necessary to finance the Union contribution intended to achieve the aims of the EFSI set out in this Regulation, in accordance with the preceding subparagraph.
Amendment 1443 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19
Article 19
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013
Article 19
Article 19
Amendment 10 #
2014/2245(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that the economic crisis and the austerity measures have greatly increased economic and social disparities, worsening the differences between (and within) Member States; calls on the Commission to consider the effects on regional and social cohesion of its macroeconomic policies and recommendations, as well as of its investment and competition policies;
Amendment 22 #
2014/2245(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the important role of cohesion policy in mitigating the effects of the financial, economic and social crisis, as well as its positive effects on all regions; underlines its importance in closing the public/ and private investment gaps, especially in the Member States hit most by the crisis;
Amendment 24 #
2014/2245(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses the difficulties of many Member States with financial difficulties to achieve their co-financing targets; calls on the Commission to review these levels and funding requirements in order to allow these Member States to make full use of the support provided through structural and cohesion funds;
Amendment 27 #
2014/2245(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the reform of cohesion policy has focused on delivering an investment policy; welcomes the Commission’s Investment Plan, and endorses its proposal to finance the new EFSI by making national contributions to the fund fiscally neutral as regards the SGP; stresses the interdependence of cohesion policy with the EU’s other investment initiatives; calls on the Commission to create a coherent and effective investment framework;
Amendment 61 #
2014/2245(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the EIB to increase its financing of investments by MSMEs, cooperatives and the public sector, with the aim to strengthen social and regional cohesion.
Amendment 70 #
2014/2245(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the closer alignment of cohesion policy with the overall economic strategy and the EU’s Economic Governance Framework; opposes creating a close link between financial and fiscal objectives and cohesion policy; calls on the Commission to ensure that the effectiveness of the ESIF is not compromised by macroeconomic policies; calls for the full and formal involvement of Parliament in the future governance structure of the fund;
Amendment 14 #
2014/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas some Member States are trying to reduce the costs of red tape by eliminating some of the smaller beneficiaries of CAP subsidies;
Amendment 17 #
2014/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas controls cause a delay in the payment of aid and, if a beneficiary has requested an advance from the bank, the latter asks for it to be reimbursed;
Amendment 49 #
2014/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls for, with regard to small farms divided into numerous plots, a much simpler system for processing applications;
Amendment 50 #
2014/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Calls for controls to be organised in such a way that the audit is carried out within a time frame that does not lead to late payments;
Amendment 60 #
2014/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls for the costs of CAP red tape and controls never to be reduced by eliminating aid to small beneficiaries;
Amendment 62 #
2014/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls for a simplified auditing method for small farms, which eliminates red tape;
Amendment 78 #
2014/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Supports the approach of reducing controls in Member States where error rates have been extremely low over a given period; calls at the same time, however, for controls to be stepped up in Member States where the error rate is high or increasing . This approach should be applied within Member States also to create an environment where farmers are incentivised to comply with regulation, with the aim of zero unannounced inspection where there is no history of breaches of regulation;
Amendment 1 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph a
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph a
a. take immediate action to ensure that a comprehensive and ambitious agreement is reached on the TTIP enhancing fair competition on both sides of the Atlanticsuspends all actions with regards to the TTIP agreement in view of guaranteeing the adequate democratic scrutiny of the citizens of the options, at both European and national level;
Amendment 11 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph b
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph b
b. take immediate action to ensure that free and fair competition on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as market access,any dispositions in the Treaty are subordinated to the right of the EU and its Member-States to define the levels of protection and that any such policy is not secured at the cost of social cohesion or the delivery of critical infrastructure or public services and is addressed on the basis of maintaining the highest standards possible within theand is done so with regard to existing levels of protection, especially within areas such as health and safety, education, consumer, labour and environmental legislation;
Amendment 28 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas it is important for Europethe need to get out of the commercial and agriculture to secure a mutually beneficial trade deal with the US in order to advance Europe’s position as a key player on the global marketal export policy is important for European agriculture;
Amendment 29 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph c
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph c
c. take immediate action to include restrictions on state aid in the agreement; propose greater transparency within state aid rules and within the allocation of state aidallow individual member states use more state aid to vulnerable sectors of industry and allow for more proactive public sector enterprises. ;
Amendment 38 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas respect for food safety and human and animal health standards will be a fundamental tenet of the negotitrade relations for European agriculture;
Amendment 43 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph d
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph d
d. take immediate action to ensure that market accessongoing negotiations on financial services are combined with upward convergence in financial regulation; support high international standards in on-going cooperation efforts in other international foraand any eventual Agreement are used as an opportunity to improve and enforce higher standards through regulatory convergence;
Amendment 48 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas practices such as the treatment of poultry meat with chlorinated products, the treatment of pork meat with organic acid and the use of Somatotropin in bovine are commonly used in the meat and dairy sectors in the US;
Amendment 52 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph e
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph e
e. take immediate action to ensure that aggressive tax planning, and distortion of competition by e.g. moving of headquarters across the Atlantic to obtain competition-distorting conditions, are addressedprevent fiscal competition, namely through the dumping in the taxation of profits and financial gains and maintenance of offshores and other fiscally privileged zones;
Amendment 54 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the use of antibiotics in the EU is more restrictive than in the US and the US has not banned other pharmaceutical products as growth promoters in animals including the use of ractopanima, banned in 160 countries;
Amendment 57 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas there is a majority both in the European Parliament and amongst EU citizens which demands a prohibition of products from cloned animals and their descendants;
Amendment 61 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas the EU animal welfare standards have no equivalence in the US;
Amendment 63 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C e (new)
Recital C e (new)
Ce. having regard to the use and approval of new GMOs in the US and its use for animal and human consumption;
Amendment 65 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C f (new)
Recital C f (new)
Cf. whereas there are many sensitivities and problems with products in the US’s market defaulting protected geographical indications including port wine;
Amendment 66 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph f
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph f
f. take immediate action to ensure that systematic movement of capital across the Atlantic, in order to avoid tax payments in the country of production and/or sale of goods or services, is addressedprohibited or subject to heavy taxation within the realm of TTIP;
Amendment 67 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C g (new)
Recital C g (new)
Cg. considering that each year in the United States of America, an estimated 9 million people get sick, 55,000 are hospitalized, and 1,000 die of foodborne disease caused by known pathogens, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157 (E. coli O157), Listeria monocytogenes (Lm), and Campylobacter as outlines in the report ‘Foodborne Illness Source Attribution Estimates for Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157 (E. coli O157), Listeria monocytogenes (Lm), and Campylobacter using Outbreak Surveillance Data’ by the Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC);
Amendment 68 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C h (new)
Recital C h (new)
Ch. whereas existing agreements between the US and the EU, particularly those relating to the recognition by the United States of winemaking practices, recognition of geographical indications for this sector, agreements related to sanitary measures for the protection of public and animal health have not solved today divergent conception of risk analysis;
Amendment 69 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph g
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph g
Amendment 70 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C i (new)
Recital C i (new)
Ci. whereas the import of products which fail to meet EU standards on animal welfare, food safety, human and animal health, put farmers, consumers and animals in the EU at a disadvantage;
Amendment 71 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C j (new)
Recital C j (new)
Cj. whereas the survival of small and medium-sized farms cannot be abandoned to the volatility of prices in the international markets;
Amendment 72 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C k (new)
Recital C k (new)
Ck. whereas the approval of TTIP would lead us to a situation of weakening of the European legislation to permit the use of carcinogens and other substances of very high concern as pesticides, posing a health hazard to workers, consumers and communities, as well as weaken, slow or stop efforts to regulate endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals;
Amendment 73 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C l (new)
Recital C l (new)
Cl. whereas the approval of TTIP would obstruct efforts to save bee populations, risking irrevocable damage to the quality and quantity of our food supply;
Amendment 74 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C m (new)
Recital C m (new)
Cm. whereas the approval of TTIP would install a ‘regulatory ceiling’ hampering global pesticide regulation.
Amendment 80 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph h
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph h
Amendment 81 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
a. prioritise an ambitious and balanced result of the negotiations for agriculture, the three main components of which (market access, geographical indications and sanitary and phytosanitary measures) should be tackled early and in parallel reorientation of trade and agricultural policy by removing the negotiation process, in order to give Parliament enough time to discuss and evaluate this chapter with stakeholders and European citizeagriculture and food out of the negotiations;
Amendment 98 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph i
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph i
i. propose the introduction of a national court systems-first principle, to be supplemented with mediation and intergovernmental dispute mechanisms in legal disputes in order to ensure easier access and lower litigation costs than those offered by current ISDS- mechanisms, benefitting especially SMEs (having fewer resources available than large corporations), thus insists on the protection of democratic powers of legislators and takes immediate action to ensure the removal of any investor - state dispute settlement body (ISDS) as any interference from non- democreating more equal competition conditions; stress that any and all dispute mechanisms set in place within the TTIP-framework must uphold full transparency and be subject to democratic principlesc or non -EU bodies, contravenes democratic principles of sovereignty, transparency and scrutiny;
Amendment 105 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
b. firmly commit to the strict preservation of standards on food safety and, human and animal health and animal welfare, as defined under EU legislation, and ensure that fundamental values of the EU such as the precautionary principle are not undermin, the recognition of animals as sentient beings as enshrined in Article 13 TFEU, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are not undermined and will be respected;
Amendment 119 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
ba. prevent products that have not been produced in line with EU food safety, human and animal health, and animal welfare standards from entering the EU-market;
Amendment 123 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph j
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph j
j. acknowledge the importance of state- owned enterprises for certain crucial services; and calls for immediate action in order to ensure that specific and identifiable provisions for the protection of State Owned Enterprises are prioritised;
Amendment 125 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
bb. prevent any interference of non- democratic or non-EU bodies in or prior to the democratic decision making process in the EU regarding any future SPS- measures that might be considered;
Amendment 137 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph k
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph k
k. stress the need to uphold the EU’s tradition for organisfor each Member State to organise its own public services, to prioritise funding itsfor public services, and calls for an exclusion of public services from the agreementimmediate action to make provisions to allow flexibility to bring public services back into public control;
Amendment 137 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
c. ensure a positive final outcome of the negotiations for agriculture reflecting both the offensive and defensive interests of the EU agricultural sector concerning the abolition or reduction of both tariff and non-tariff barriers, including in particular sanitary and phytosanitary standards andthat trade relations between the EU and the US do not put access to land for feeding local populations at risk; prevent products coming to market with proicedures, so that EU producers make genuine gains s below costs of production, including terms of access to the US markethe correct remuneration of the producers;
Amendment 145 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph l
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph l
l. propose that there should be no obligation in TTIP to expose sensitive sectors to competitiontake immediate action in order to table additional vulnerability provisions which will allow for the exclusion of susceptible sectors from any final trade agreement; any agreed provisions should be made in tandem with consultation with relevant stakeholders and interested committees.
Amendment 155 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph l a (new)
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph l a (new)
la. ensure that the application of the Lisbon Treaty Article 218.10 (TFEU) which provides that the European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure;
Amendment 156 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
d. secensure a level playing field, treating as sensitive those products for which direct competition would expose EU agricultural producers to excessive pressure, for example in cases where regulatory conditions and related costs of production in the EU diverge from those in the USthat the precautionary principle is not called into question, as this means the defence of quality standards and food safety demanded by European consumers, and serves as an added value that ensure the maintenance of public health;
Amendment 187 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
e. secure significantly improvedthe protection of EU geographical indications and better consumer information as an essential element of a balanced agreement, taking the relevant chapter of the CETA with Canada as a good example;
Amendment 203 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
ea. not question the aspects relating to the establishment of standards of European public procurement law, as applied in practice, especially at regional and local level, when you take into account, for example, compliance labour and social legislation and collective agreements, GPP, local hiring and prioritize local development, or attention to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which ensures that, when awarding the contract to the highest bidder, you can weigh in addition to price, other criteria such as social aspects related to sustainability;
Amendment 211 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
f. engage in a fully transparent, timely and comprehensive manner with all agricultural stakeholders on all aspects of the negotiations.sure the application of the Lisbon Treaty Article 218.10 (TFEU) which says that the European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure;
Amendment 219 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
fa. ensure that products such as GMOs or coming from cloned animals and their descendants, and with substances banned in the EU do no enter the EU market or end up in the EU food chain;
Amendment 226 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
fb. remove regulatory cooperation and any investor-state dispute settlement body (ISDS) as these defy EU standards on animal welfare, food safety, public and animal health, transparency, accountability and traceability.
Amendment 3 #
2014/2224(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1a (new)
Paragraph 1a (new)
1a. Considers it extremely important to secure a net increase in the appropriations against EU budget lines relating to economic and social cohesion to at least double the current amounts, together with a radical change in the way in which the appropriations are allocated; believes an immediate revision of the MFF also to be extremely important, in order to secure a net increase in the amounts currently provided for, which should be at least doubled; considers it extremely important for the funds for this increase to be made available by raising the contributions of the Member States with the highest GNI and per capita income, which will require changes to be made to the current breakdown among Member States;
Amendment 7 #
2014/2224(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Considers it extremely important to set up support to Member States, in particular those already in recession, in connection with investment in infrastructure, public amenities, research, innovation and development;
Amendment 8 #
2014/2224(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 14 #
2014/2224(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Urges the Commission, in view of the deepening of the crisis and the significant increase in poverty to which this is giving rise, to make combating poverty a genuine priority by putting forward specific measures to reduce poverty and arrangements under which the EU budget can be used to supplement action taken by Member States;
Amendment 19 #
2014/2224(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Is opposed to the EU budget being used to fund a militarist, neo-liberal Union; points to the need for a different approach which supports sustainable development, stronger, environment- friendly domestic demand based on higher wages, full employment based on jobs with rights, social well-being, the eradication of poverty and social exclusion, and economic and social cohesion;
Amendment 30 #
2014/2224(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 34 #
2014/2224(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Considers it extremely important for the funds for this increase to be made available by raising the contributions of the Member States with the highest GNI and per capita income, which will require changes to be made to the current breakdown among Member States;
Amendment 21 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. Wwhereas, although this is clearly an area of Member State responsibility, there are potential advantages for forest- based businesses are keen to seeof better coordination and a higher profile for this important economic sector, as well aswhich guarantees of jobs at European level;
Amendment 56 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F A. Whereas ownership of the forest is highly dispersed and investment is unattractive, in view of the risk and the long economic cycle of forestry;
Amendment 116 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 A. Recognises the high dispersion of ownership and underlines the importance of supporting stakeholder groups as a key element for enabling sustainable forest development strategies.
Amendment 119 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the holistic approach and the recognition of the economic, environmental and social role played by European forests and European forestry; underlines the need to place criteria of social and environmental valorisation above the mere logic of financial profit in the evaluation of the various strategies of forestry development;
Amendment 147 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that rural areas have very close links to forestry, particularly within the context of agroforestry activities, and welcomes in this connection the recognition of the role of forestry in the Rural Development Programme of the 2014-2020 CAP;
Amendment 150 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 A. Considers that it is very important to adopt measures to combat and monitor on a European scale the main pests which have decimated a large part of European woodlands, together with the creation of specific support measures to prevent and fight fires including helplines which enable early intervention, avoiding soil erosion, and the recovery of vegetation cover.
Amendment 158 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 B. Considers it necessary to create a structure for monitoring timber markets with a view to ensuring that fair prices are paid to producers and avoiding abuses by upstream agents.
Amendment 186 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Expressly supports the resource-efficient use of timber as a raw material and opposes legally binding rules for prioritising the uses of wood, as this not only restricts the energy market but is also impossible to enforce in many rural areas, if only for infrastructure reasons; in this connection, supports an open, market-oriented approach and freedom for market participants;
Amendment 226 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Takes the view that forest management plans can be an important strategic instrument for the implementation of concrete measures at the level of individual businesses, while supporting the principle thatithout prejudice to entrepreneurial freedom and the voluntary nature of such measures, stakehould be voluntary, in accordance with entrepreneurial freedomer solutions, possibly in partnership with local authorities; calls at the same time for a clear separation between forest management plans and the management plans under Natura 2000, in view of the need to curb excessive bureaucracy, particularly for small and medium-sized forestry undertakings;
Amendment 239 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to create incentives and support new business models, such as production cooperatives, that seek to encourage small private forest owners to manage their forest actively and sustainably; underlines that such support must be linked to the criteria of environmental sustainability including biodiversity and the multifunctional nature of the forest;
Amendment 241 #
2014/2223(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 A. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to direct European research and development programmes towards increasing knowledge of treatment and prevention of the pathologies which affect European woodlands as well as issues dealing with fires, including fire prevention and firefighting, and the recovery of woodland after fires.
Amendment 4 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the economic recovery in the EU slowed down considerably in the course of 2014 but has a prospect of catching up in 2015 and of doing even better in 2016;
Amendment 26 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomesRegret that the Commission’'s Annual Growth Survey 2015, which endeavours to promote a return to higher growth levels and to strengthen the recovery; supportdid not focus its analysis of the true causes of the crisis; questions the three main pillars approach (boosting investment, accelerating structural reforms and pursuing responsible growth friendly fiscal consolidation) as the right way to achieve these goals; welcomes the Commission’s suggestions for improving the European Semester by simplifying procedures and increasing national ownership as needed, considering that only 10-15 % of the Country Specific Recommendations are fully implemented by the Members Statesrecovery;
Amendment 38 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses concern that most Member States are still losing market shares globally and have a growing negative net international investment position; believes that the EU economy as a whole needs to boost its competitiveness further in the global economy, particularly by increasing competition in the product and services markets in order to enhance innovation-dRegret that the Commission's Annual Growth Survey 2015, did not focus its analysis of the true causes of the crisis; questions the three main pillars approach (boosting investment, accelerating structural reforms and pursuing responsible growth friven efficiency, while keeping labour costs in line with productivitdly fiscal consolidation) as the right way to achieve recovery;
Amendment 46 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that the lack of investment is caused by low confidence, high indebtedness, slow deleveraging and subdued expectations ofexcessive austerity biased policies, and lack of aggregate (public and private) demand;
Amendment 59 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesExpresses its concern about the Iinvestment Pplan for Europe, which is an important instrument for increasing private and publof President Junker, in particular regarding the assumptions under which the creation of the European Fund for Strategic iInvestment; notes that the (EFSI) is built. This plan, is meant to trigger additional investment, develop new projects, attract investors and restore confidence; insufficient, and does not contain a single cent of fresh money and is based on an exercise of creative accounting and financial engineering without any credible basis.
Amendment 74 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls Questions the Members States actively to support the Investment Plprinciple of using public money to leverage an,d and to contribute to the European Fund for Strategic Investment, supplementing the amounts provided through the EU budget and by the EIB, in order to guttract additional private capital and draws attention to not feed the illusory idea and encourage the private sector to invest; welcomes the principle of using public money to leverage and attract additional private capital;ccording to which the creation of a climate of trust alone will be enough to resuscitate private investment.
Amendment 98 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is still concerned about the lack of progress in reducing excessive private debt levels; points out that this is not only a concern for financial stability, as it also limits the EU’'s growth potential and makes the ECB’'s monetary policy less effective; calls on the Commission to make proposals for the preparation of effective procedures for private sector deleveraging, including bankruptcy and insolvency procedures, as the huge debt burden weighing on companies and households is one of the key factors limiting private investment;
Amendment 107 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the ambitiousExpresses concern about the structural reforms implementosed byin those Member States most affected by the crisis; welcomes as wellalthough the fact that those Member States that have successfully implemented adjustment programmes or financial sector programmes have been able to return to the capital markets, where they now access capital at low interest rates, almost all imbalances remains unsolved and social impacts have been dramatic;
Amendment 119 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Member States to make theirsupport labour markets more efficient, to modernisewith active job creation policies and avoiding downward pressure on wages to strength social protection systems, including pensions, and to improve and streamline the legal and administrative environment for business investment; stresses that structural reforms need to be complemented by well-targetede need for, longer- term investments in education, research and development, innovation, infrastructure, ICT and sustainable energy;
Amendment 136 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 145 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for urgent action to be taken by the Commission to fight tax fraud and tax evasion; calls for a tax system that is simple, fair and transparent; reiterates its call on the Member States to shift taxes from labour to consumpintroduce more fiscal fairness by taxing increasingly the financial sector and financial transactions;
Amendment 157 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 160 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Reiterates its call on the Commission to improve the governance of the single market; urges the Commission to align the aims of the Single Market with those of the European Semester; believes that analytical tools, composed of indicators measuring the implementation of the single market,meditate the European Semester; believes that a thoughtful analysis of the effects of imposed austerity policies can provide useful guidance for country-specific recommendations and the Annual Growth Survey;
Amendment 165 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 171 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Reiterates the importance of ensuring labour mobility (both cross-border and cross-sectoral), enhanced labour prolabour market policies supporting collective bargaining and limiting the use of precarious work, preserving the necessary scope of work security, improved educativity (connected with skills trainings to improve employability) and labour market flexibility, while preserving the necessary scope of work securityon and training opportunities for workers (on and off the job), enhancing labour productivity, and ensuring opportunities for labour mobility (both cross-border and cross-sectorial);
Amendment 181 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 188 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Draws attention to the need to reflect on the large number of countries that were under the excessive deficit procedure – 24 among 28, and note that the decrease in the number of countries under the excessive deficit procedure – down to 11 in 2014 from 24 in 2011 was not accompanied by an improvement in the performance of the economies that remain without growing, with high unemployment and some of them suffering deflationary processes;
Amendment 191 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. In light of those facts, urges the Commission to launch a process of reform of the Stability and Growth Pact in order to make it more adapted to the needs of economies and more oriented to growth and employment;
Amendment 192 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Agrees with the Commission that most Member States need to continue to pursue growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; iInvites Member States with sufficient fiscal space to consider reducing taxes and social security contributions with a view to stimulating privateincrease public investment and promote higher wages, with a view to stimulate public and private consumption and investment;
Amendment 222 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Is concerned that only five Member States were found to be fully compliant with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) which questions again the reasonableness of the stability pact rules;
Amendment 227 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. WelcomesIs concerned about the Alert Mechanism Report; welcomes the gradual reduction of internal imbalances in the EU economy; draws attention to the external imbalances, including the large trade surplus and the effect it will have in perpetuating austerity and prevent member states to choose their own development policies;
Amendment 236 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 9 #
2014/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, according to the same forecast, unemployment in the euro area rose from 11.3 % at the end of 2012 to 12 % at the end of 2013, and may fall slightly to 11.8 %remains at a high level in 2014;
Amendment 26 #
2014/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas, according to the Commission services’ spring 2014 forecast, the average inflation rate in the euro area was 1.3 % in 2013, down from 2.5 % in 2012; whereas inflation in the euro area has continued to be on a downward path since the beginning of 2014, reaching a low of 0.3 % in September, posing a risk of deflation;
Amendment 31 #
2014/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the level of public and private investment in the euro area has been stagnating at levels significantly below those registered before the start of the crisis and needs to be given a fresh boost as a matter of urgency;
Amendment 35 #
2014/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas credit to the private sector has moved further into negative territory, with an annual rate of change of -2.4% in December 2013, compared with -0.2% in December 2012, demonstrating the failure of the central bank’s policy, in particular its unconventional operations; whereas the lack of credit affecting SMEs in some Member States is one of the main problems delaying the economic recovery;
Amendment 113 #
2014/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with concern that the ECB has announced that it will purchase asset- backed securities (ABS) and covered bonds in order to empower the credit-easing impact of the TLTROs; stresses that such, in practice, interventions on ABS market must be conducted in a transparent manner that does not create excessive risks for the ECB’s balance sheetrepresent a potential vehicle for purchasing toxic assets held by the financial sector;
Amendment 131 #
2014/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that the impact of the unconventional monetary policyfailure of what are known as unconventional measures, currently in use on the real economy should not be overombined with the austerity policiest imated; stresses that such measures are transitory in nature and that their main advantage is that they can give Member States time to consolidposed on the Member States, is still standing in the way of genuine policies to combate their fiscal situation and implement structural reforms that will create conditions for crisis and reinvigorate economic activity to rebound;
Amendment 142 #
2014/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls that monetary policy alone cannot stimulate aggregate demand unless it is complemented by adequate fiscal and structural national reforms and policieStresses that a single monetary policy aimed at guaranteeing price stability, without any objectives in terms of economic growth, job creation and higher wages, is not capable of tackling the highly diverse economic situations in the Member States and is, on the contrary, one of the causes of the current crisis;
Amendment 155 #
2014/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls that the independence of the ECB in the conduct of its monetary policy, as enshrined in the Treaties, is crucial to the objective of safeguarding price stabilitypreventing the adoption of genuine measures to exit the crisis;
Amendment 162 #
2014/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Maintains that the Statute, guidelines and sham independence of the ECB need to be changed, allowing all Member States to be represented on an equal footing in its governing body, so as to ensure that every Member State can control its national central bank and monetary policy, with a view to promoting economic growth and employment;
Amendment 186 #
2014/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Emphasises that the SSM contributes to ensuring confidence in the euro area banking sector, and thus to financial stability; recalls that democratic accountability of the new SSM towards Parliament is crucial to ensuring the credibility of the new supervisory regime; stresses, therefore, the importance of the Interinstitutional Agreement between Parliament and the ECB, concluded in November 2013, on the practical modalities of the exercise of democratic accountability over the SSM, and of its full implementationrepresents a further step in the process of taking fundamental supervisory mechanisms away from countries and citizens;
Amendment 5 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas all possible resources from the Member States and the EU, including those of the EIB, need to be efficiently mobilised without delay to sustainenhance public and private investments in line with the EU 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growthinvestments, supporting projects that promote sustainable growth and quality job creation, as well as infrastructures, particularly in the social, public health and public education sectors;
Amendment 8 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the economic and financial crisis, coupled with austerity policies, has seriously undermined economic growth in many Member States, leading to rapidly worsening social conditions, steadily growing inequalities and imbalances between European regions and failure to achieve the objective of social cohesion and real convergence, thereby destabilising European integration and democracy;
Amendment 9 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the EIB is an instrument designed to support social cohesion and is able to provide valuable assistance to Member States facing difficulties in the critical social and economic situation now confronting us; whereas, particularly in view of the shortage of public funding, it is, through increased lending and support for targeted investment projects, in a position to facilitate economic recovery in those Member States that are in financial difficulty and subject to the provisions of fiscal adjustment programmes, as well as helping to iron out social inequalities;
Amendment 13 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas particular efforts should be made to expand jowe recognize the root cause of the fall int interventions (combining EIF or other guarantee tools) for financing SMEs or tangible and intangible sustainable infravestment and credit is due to the combined effect of reduced public spending and private over-indebtedness, as well as an oligopolistic banking structures;
Amendment 29 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is deeply concerned at the current situation of economic stalling in the EU, and in particular the significant decline in public and private investment– around 18 % below 2007 levels – and by the staggering 35 % drop in lending to SMEs between 2008 and 2013; underlines that such a decline represents a massive hurdle for a sustainable recovery as well as for genuine social progress towards the EU 2020 objectives;
Amendment 31 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out, in that perspective, that national projections demonstrate that nearly half of all Member States will not achieve their national targets on education schemes and greenhouse gas reductions by 2020 and that trends regarding employment and poverty reduction are even worse, moving away rather than towards the national EU 2020 target; calls for economic reinvigoration and an end to austerity policies in all Member States;
Amendment 33 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out that austerity measures, neo-liberal structural reforms and budget cuts in many Member States, in particular those under the supervision of the Troika, have led to a historically low level of private investment following a dramatic reduction in purchasing power and flagging demand, accompanied by a widening income divide and worsening poverty;
Amendment 34 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 40 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Strongly criticises President Juncker’s investment plan which involves recycling existing funds and seeks to leverage private capital in a ratio of 1:15 in an economic climate characterised by recession and deflation; notes that it does not constitute a reliable investment programme in which new funds support targeted measures and public and productive investments contributing to social progress, the creation of full employment, a reduction in unemployment, the strengthening of quality public services and environmental sustainability;
Amendment 43 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes note in that context of the establishment of a Task Force, led by the Commission and the European Investment Bank, with a view to identifying concrete actions to boost investment, including a pipeline of potentially viable projects of European relevance to be realised in the short and medium term; emphasises that this Task Force should explicitly identify hurdles and remedies for increasing investments and; emphasises that this Task Force should not act as in intermediary to subsidise private investment with public guarantees, but actively seek the involvement of Parliament, social partners and CSOs in the development of public investment projects;
Amendment 45 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes note once again in that context of the deeply antidemocratic nature of this process, with the establishment of a Task Force, led by the Commission and the European Investment Bank, leaving aside the European Parliament and the Member States, with a view to identifying concrete actions to boost investment, including a pipeline of potentially viable projects of European relevance to be realised in the short and medium term; emphasises that this Task Force shoulde Member States should be able to explicitly identify hurdles and remedies for increasing investments and actively seek the involvement of Parliament, social partners and CSOs;
Amendment 56 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that the EIB is called on to play an instrumental role in financing such an EU investment plan; calls, therefore, on the Council, the Commission and the EIB Board of Governors to duly assess the consistency between the new tasks assigned to the EIB within such a plan and the effective needs of the EIB in terms of capital and public guarantees provided to its lending operations, asset purchases and involvement in special-purpose vehiclesand the needs of the European economy;
Amendment 60 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 71 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Regrets the fact that, despite being a public bank, the EIB has a strict banking culture that does not meet the needs of society and the real economy and prevents it from fully playing its essential and aspirational role as a tool oriented towards supporting social cohesion. Economic considerations regarding sound investments with good returns and profits often dominate at the expense of sustainable, environmental and social considerations. It is therefore necessary to strike a new balance between better evaluation and the best possible investment, so that especially in the current critical climate projects that steer the economy towards a path of growth and promote full employment can be supported without hindrance;
Amendment 73 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the extra lending capacity resulting from the recent EUR 10 billion EIB capital increase has been underused; urges the Task Force to identify the factors and hurdles behind this situation;
Amendment 78 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission and the EIB to foster the inclusion of investment in the human capital within its scope of action, especially in Member States with high levels of unemployment and low rates of productivityto boost, by lending, activities designed to achieve full employment and reduce unemployment, support public and productive investments and indispensable infrastructure projects, especially in Member States with high levels of unemployment and low rates of productivity that are facing problems, are subject to stringent fiscal discipline programmes and have been particularly hard hit by the crisis;
Amendment 89 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Points out that investment programmes and growth tools in general must not be undermined by the terms and conditions of the Stability Pact, the economic governance package, the fiscal adjustment programmes and the Memoranda programmes. The new European Fund for Strategic Investments which will operate under the EIB as a special purpose fund must not be linked to the demand for new neoliberal structural reforms in Member States which would aggravate the devastating effects of the austerity programmes;
Amendment 91 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that risk-sharing instruments ultimately involving the provision of public subsidies should only be foreseen where there are market failures generating external costs or for the execution of missions of general inteand diresct such as the provision of public goods and services of general economic interestpublic provision is not available;
Amendment 94 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that risk-sharing instruments ultimately, since they almost always involvinge the provision of public subsidies should only be foreseenand since they constitute financial engineering instruments, risk- sharing instruments should be used as a last resort and only where there are market failures generating external costs or for the execution of missions of general interest such as the provision of public goods and services of general economic interest;
Amendment 95 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Points out that any involvement of public resources in risk-sharing instruments and more specifically in first- loss tranches of investment vehicles should either be explicitly linked to the reduction of measurable external negative costs, or the generation of measurable positive external costs or the implementation of public services obligations and services of general economic interest; points out that Article 14 TFEU provides a legal basis for establishing such a link by means of an ordinary legislative proposal;
Amendment 112 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls, therefore, for a comprehensive evaluation of the pilot projects on the basis of an inclusive and open consultation process that will involve public, national and local bodies; highlights also the need for funded projects to be evaluated in terms of added value, the environment, productivity and jobs; also calls on the Commission to submit, via the ordinary legislative procedure, a legislative proposal which will better frame the future project bond strategy, including an enhancement of the EIB performance indicators framework for quality investment, so as to identify and measure both the impact of the funded projects in terms of external costs and their social and environmental returns;
Amendment 114 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Is concerned by the potential generalization of Project Bond Initiatives as a means to reduce costs for private investment, either through lower interest rates or socialization of losses, rather than the more limited scope of providing support to investments of public interest where private investment can be shown to provide indispensable expertise or know- how that is not available to the public sector;
Amendment 155 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Calls on the EIB to take all necessary measures to ensure the utmost reliability of financial intermediaries, to enhance transparency in its lending and publish information on the amounts disbursed, the recipients of these funds, the regions and sectors to which they were allocated and the environmental, social and macroeconomic impact of these loans;
Amendment 158 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Reminds the EIB that it has a duty, in all its financial transactions, to implement mechanisms to safeguard European environmental, labour, social, human rights, transparency and public procurement standards;
Amendment 162 #
2014/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25 a. Expresses its concern about the lack of transparency regarding the way ‘global loans’ are allocated and monitored in terms of tax governance; recalls that the EIB should ensure that recipients of loans do not evade taxes by availing themselves of tax havens or use other harmful tax practices such as ‘tax rulings' and abusive transfer pricing;
Amendment 11 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Ba (new)
Recital Ba (new)
Ba. whereas abandoning public policies and allowing the market to act has weakened producers’ bargaining power still further. Therefore, as an instrument for increasing bargaining power, POs have not achieved their objectives;
Amendment 16 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the share of the total value of F&V production marketed by POs in the Union has shown a gradual increase, from 31 % in 2004 to 47 % in 2012, indicating that POs have strengthened theidespite which they have not succeeded in maintaining remunerative prices for proleducers;
Amendment 26 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. Whereas the organisation rate among producers remains low on average, there was however an increase, which was also due to the closure of thousands of small farms throughout Europe;
Amendment 34 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. Whereas the total EU agricultural area cropped with F&V fell by 6 % between 2003 and 2010, indicating that farmers switched to other crops; whereas, according to the 2015 AREFLH study, this decline was greater in southern Europe than in northern Europe;
Amendment 35 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the total EU agricultural area cropped with F&V fell by 6 % between 2003 and 2010, indicating that farmers have switched to other crops or, in many cases, have given up farming; whereas, according to the 2015 AREFLH study, this decline was greater in southern Europe than in northern Europe;
Amendment 36 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Ha (new)
Recital Ha (new)
H A. Whereas the fall in production and consumption of fruit and vegetables was more pronounced in the countries of southern Europe due to austerity policies, which caused significant falls in income, leading to the inability of families to purchase fresh fruit and vegetable products and the adoption by families of an unhealthy diet.
Amendment 40 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the volume of fruit & vegetable production has also fallen in recent years, whilst its value has tended to remain stable in real terms, reaching EUR 48.25 billion in 2012 despite which it has not been able to offer farm gate prices in line with production costs and wages;
Amendment 42 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. Whereas data from Freshfel Europe indicates that consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables in the EU-28 stood at 387 g a day per capita in 2012, a decrease of 8.7 % as compared with the average for the 2007-11 period; whereas this decline seems to reflect long-term trends towards greater consumption of processed foods, and the impact of the economic crisia model that promotes the consumption of these fast-food products at the expense of traditional diets based on vegetables and seasonal fruits;
Amendment 57 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. Whereas the crisis caused by the Russian ban has had significant negative effects on the F&V sector; whereas this situation stems from a political position of the EU and that the consequences should be borne by the EU budget regardless of underlining the importance of the existence of strong POs to collectively deal with unexpected and adverse situations should be stressed;
Amendment 58 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the crisis caused by the Russian ban has had significant negative effects on the F&V sector; whereas the importance of the existence of strong POs to collectively deal with unexpected and adverse situations must be underlinedit must be underlined that these crises should be addressed with adequate policies;
Amendment 68 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. Whereas the Commission’s report identifies complexity of rules and lack of legal certainty as weaknesses of the current F&V regime, omitting the inappropriateness of these rules for the specific nature of small and medium-sized family farms; whereas Commissioner Hogan has committed himself to simplifying the regime in the first year of his term;
Amendment 71 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Qa (new)
Recital Qa (new)
Q A. Whereas the fact that only one third of the funds have effectively been used by POs:
Amendment 78 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomeRejects the Commission’s report, which despite attempting to provides a balanced picture of the evolution of the F&V regime since the 2007 reform, identifying areas where progress has been achieved whils, makes no reference to the underlying problem, which is the abandonment of public policies for this sector. And whilst it also referrings to problems that persist; it offers no solutions to them;
Amendment 86 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to intensify effortadopt mandatory regulations to tackle unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the food supply chain which negatively impact producer returns, depress incomes and threaten the viability and sustainability of the sector;
Amendment 95 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the degree of organisation of the sector, as measured by the share of the total value of F&V production marketed by OPOs, has steadily increased in recent years in the Union as a whole, although at the cost of closing thousands of farms and the desertification of large areas of land;
Amendment 100 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that, despite this increase, the degree of organisation among producers remains low on average and takes very different forms across countries and regions of the EU, and that addressing this problem is crucial for the future of the F&V regime;
Amendment 101 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that, despite this increase, the degree of organisation among producers remains low on average and that addressing this problem is crucial fordue to the fact that POs cannot resolve the issue of decent prices and that active policies are required to ensure the future of the F&V regime;
Amendment 105 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5a (new)
Paragraph 5a (new)
5a. Emphasises that it is important to strengthen the role of professional farmers’ organisations by establishing collective bargaining frameworks involving both businesses and professional organisations and assigning the role of arbitrator to the public authorities and making it possible to reach agreements on minimum farm gate prices;
Amendment 107 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 110 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses in this context that it is important to increase the overall level of support to POs and to provide stronger incentives both for the merging of existing POs and the creation of new ones , considering that only 1/3 of the potential of EU aid is being used; Considers it necessary to reflect very seriously about the system and the need to promote ways to get aid to those in need;
Amendment 129 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the Commission, in its upcoming review of implementing legislation and as part of its ‘simplification’ agenda, to increase legal certainty for national administrations and POs and to reduce the administrative burden imposed on them; stresses that this review should not change the basic structure of the scheme with regard to fruit and vegetables;
Amendment 139 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that reducing complexity, including in the rules for creating new POs and respective limits, should be the first step in making them more attractive for farmers; requests that the Commission identify additional measures for increasing the attractiveness of POs; and include social and economic value criteria for small and medium-sized farms corresponding to the need to preserve the rural environment and the sustainability of the sector;
Amendment 140 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that reducing complexity, including in the rules for creating new POs, should be the first step in making them more attractive for farmers; requests that the Commission identify additional measures for increasing the attractiveness of POAsks the Commission to guarantee that when distributing funds for cases of crisis (such as the Russian ban) not belonging to a PO will not be an impediment to receiving those funds;
Amendment 165 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that associations of producer organisations (AOPs) could play an important role in increasing the bargaining power of farmers and urges the Commission to reinforce incentives for setting up APOs and envisage a greater role for them in the future, although this measure cannot be divorced from effective measures to combat abusive practices in the retail industry and the need to control imports from third countries;
Amendment 177 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is adamant that third-country production methods for exports to the EU must provide European consumers with the same guarantees in terms of health, food safety, animal welfare, sustainable development and minimum social standards as those required of EU producers; calls on the Commission to do everything possible to exclude agricultural products from TTIP negotiations, taking into account the sensitivity of this sector and the significant regulatory differences between the EU and the USA;
Amendment 188 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Urges the Commission to identify the reasons for the reducedminimal take-up of crisis prevention and management (CPM) instruments (only 16% of POs used this resource, which represented only 2.8% of total aid) and to consider how the situation can be improved, taking into account examples of best practice among existing POs;
Amendment 215 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that encouraging healthier eating habits goes hand in hand with understanding more about farming and how food is produced and, supports, in this context, the objective of strengthening the educational dimension of the school fruit and milk programmes, highlighting the need to involve fruit and vegetable producers and defend local marketing and consumption networks, thereby promoting social and regional cohesion;
Amendment 220 #
2014/2147(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 A. Whereas the promotion of healthy eating habits also involves boosting the purchasing power of households and providing access to affordable products, which is incompatible with policies that promote unemployment, increasingly low wages and cuts in social benefits;
Amendment 14 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, as decided in the 2003 Mid- Term Review of the CAP, dairy quotas will expire on 31 March 2015,in spite of farmers’ protests;
Amendment 20 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the exposure of dairy farmers to international market prices is caused largely by the fact that dairy quotas were established in 1984 at an overall level of 10 % higher than EU requirements, thereby immediately generating a significant dependence on international markets;
Amendment 67 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas European dairy products significantly contribute to the success of the EU’s agri-food industry and the prosperity of rural economies where small and medium family farms predominate;
Amendment 89 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that dairy farmers are particularly vulnerable to income variations and risks owing to high capital costs, rigidity of supply owing to the production process and the perishability of production, volatile dairy commodity prices, input and energy costs, and that a sustainable livelihood from dairy farming is an ongoing challenge as production costs are frequently close to or above farm gate prices;
Amendment 98 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges the Commission to address the crisis currently facing the dairy sector as a result of a dip in global demand, global price volatility and the Russian embargo, and recognises the clear lack of targeted measures taken thus far in addressing the impact of the Russian embargo;
Amendment 114 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the dairy crisis of 2009 occurred under the quota structure, although overall quotas exceed EU requirements, adding that the soft landing mechanism increased this surplus still further; reminds the Commission that the delay in responding to the crisis forced many dairy farmers out of business, and expresses concern regarding the Commission’s capacity to respond rapidly and effectively to market crises;
Amendment 129 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the medium and long-term prospects for the dairy sector in both domestic and global markets remain favourable andstrongly dependent on the demand of emerging countries and the development of their capacity for self-sufficiency, as a key part of the agri- food industry, the dairy sector has significant long-term growth and job creation potential which should be targetconsidered under the new Investment Plan;
Amendment 142 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Acknowledges the important socio- economic contribution dairy farming makes across the EU and its particular importance in disadvantaged and outermost regions, where it is often the only type of farming possible, and is therefore fundamental in ensuring social, economic and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 173 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Considers it necessary to foresee calling into question a quotas system to control supply in the dairy sector due to the unavailability of a mechanism with an equivalent effect on the market;
Amendment 175 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes the view that EU dairy policy after the expiry of milk quotas presents an opportunity for the EU economy, and considers that any future measures must strengthen its competitiveness and facilitate growth and innovationshould present new regulatory mechanisms to make it possible to adjust supply to demand, ensuring equitable distribution of production across the whole EU area and avoiding this regulation being left simply to the methods of the markets;
Amendment 209 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights that implementation of the Milk Package is still at an early stage; expresses disappointment, nevertheless, with the low levels of implementation and the lack of response to the fall in prices well below production costs;
Amendment 217 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses that strengthening contractual relations represents a concrete method of ensuring help in promoting equitable distribution along the supply chain and reinforces the responsibility of stakeholders to take account of the market situation and respond accordingly; stresses, however, that while this is necessary it is insufficient to ensure equitable distribution of the value of production among the agents in this chain;
Amendment 244 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Notes however that these contracts have always been possible, and therefore the fact that they still exist should lead to a reflection on the need to find mechanisms that effectively protect farmers from abuse by distributors and their dominant position in the retail market;
Amendment 276 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Reminds the Commission of the importance of transparency across the whole supply chain for the sector, currently dominated by large-scale distribution which absorbs a large proportion of the value created upstream, to encourage stakeholders to respond to market signals; notes the increased importance of accurate and timely information in the post-quota market;
Amendment 328 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points out that global dairy demand is predicted to grow by 2 % per annum, offering opportunities for products of EU origin; notes, however, that the market is increasingly dominated by dried dairy products; also notes the existence of significant investments by emerging countries in order to supply a growing proportion of their own needs;
Amendment 352 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Warns however that these negotiations will never be able to include concessions in view of EU laws, namely regarding the use of substances prohibited in the EU, environmental rules, rules on animal well-being, food safety, labelling and certification;
Amendment 361 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses the continuing need to identify and develop new markets, increase the EU global market share, secureneed to reflect on the current EU surplus and develop contacts with new markets through cooperation agreements, ensuring fair access for EU exporters and stimulate export growthto these markets;
Amendment 386 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses the need for the sector to move away fromnot to rely solely on unprocessed bulk production; considers that full use should be made of research measures to develop innovative high-value dairy products in high growth markets such as medicinal nutritional products and nutritional products for infants and athletes;
Amendment 411 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses that existing ‘safety net’ measures such as public intervention and private storage aid are not suitable toolshave proved insufficient to address persistent volatility or a crisis in the milk sector;
Amendment 457 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Urges the Commission to work on a market regulation mechanism which adjusts supply to demand and ensures an equitable distribution of production throughout the EU territory, protecting the food sovereignty of the Member States and ensuring fair prices for farmers;
Amendment 460 #
2014/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Stresses that dairy producers are particularly vulnerable to imbalances in the supply chain, in particular owing to fluctuating demand, rising production costs and decreasing farm gate prices and abuses of power by large-scale distribution; considers that the downward pressure on prices by retailers from own- brand labelling and the persistent use of liquid milk as a ‘loss leader’ by retailers undermines the work and investment of producers in the dairy sector and devalues the end product for the consumer, requiring greater inspection both of the quality of milk sold and its provenance and of dumping practices whereby milk is sold at well below production costs;
Amendment 170 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the current economic situation calls for urgent, comprehensive and decisive measures to face the threat of deflation or very low invery low inflation and the threat of deflation, low growth and high unemployment;
Amendment 213 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Believes that internal devaluation such as wage restraint is just as harmful to the collective of the euro zone as excessive debt;
Amendment 228 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that major policy initiatives which included policy recommendations were based on economic forecasts that had not anticipated the low growth and inflation experienced and have not fully taken into account the underestimation of the size of the fiscal multiplier, the importance of spillover effects across countries in a period of synchronised consolidation and the deflationary impact of cumulative structural reforms, leading to the failure of those initiatives;
Amendment 250 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the current situation calls for closer and inclusive economic coordination (to increased aggregate demand, improve fiscal sustainability and allow for fair and sustainable structural reforms and related investments) and for swift reactions so as to correct the most obvious fault lines in the economic governance framework;
Amendment 262 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes that the crisis tools promoted and implemented by the European institutions and Member States have resulted in a decline in internal demand and consumption, which has subsequently led to deflation, negative growth and an increase in unemployment, particularly among young people;
Amendment 269 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Warns that the accumulation of procedures makes the economic governance framework complex and not transparent enough, which is detrimental to the ownership and acceptance by parliaments, social partners and citizens of guidelines, recommendations and reforms stemming from this framework;economic governance framework undermines the relevance of democratic choices made at the national and local level which is in contradiction with the primacy of local parliaments, social partners and citizens.
Amendment 286 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Believes that the economic governance framework has not been able to alleviate the negative social impacts of the crisis and has in some cases prolonged the crisis for ordinary people;
Amendment 289 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 339 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Insists that the economic governance framework - in particularly the SGP - must not prevent Member States from adopting the necessary counter-cyclical actions aimed at stimulating internal demand, countering high unemployment, social exclusion and low growth;
Amendment 383 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 415 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Deplores, however, the fact that the communication does not touch upon the nature of ‘'unusual events’' falling outside the control of a Member State which could allow it to temporarily depart from the adjustment path towards achieving its MTO, leaving an unacceptable margin for discretion for european institutions and paving the way for the different treatment of similar situations;
Amendment 470 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Insists that the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) and euro area recommendation must be better designed and put to better use to allow for a global economic debate, notably as regards convergence in the euro areathe structural flaws and inequalities in the euro area and the rise in unemployment and social exclusion; proposes that the country-specific recommendations (CSRs) should be established on the basis of striking a better balance between the AGS and the macroeconomic imbalance procedure (MIP), and suggests that the euro area recommendation should be madenon- compulsory following a proper debate with the European Parliament, with incentives being offered so as to encourage the implementation thereof; requests that the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) recommendation be joined together with the CSRand preceded by a proper debate in National and European Parliaments;
Amendment 488 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Asks the Commission to verify whetherConsiders that the current 1/20 rule on debt reduction is sustainable and whether it needs to be reconsidernot viable for many of the member states and should be revoked;
Amendment 511 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Asks the Commission's to make the three-pillar strategy (investment, fiscal rules and structural reforms), presented in the AGS 2015, more concrete under the euro area recommendation and in the CSRs and to strengthen its approach by building a fourth pillar on taxation, with a particular focus on european-wide tax evasion, avoidance and arbitrage;
Amendment 569 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Asks the Commission to take into account all relevant factors, including real growth and, inflation and unemployment, when evaluating the economic and fiscal situations of Member States under the EDP;
Amendment 598 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Commission, when evaluating the fiscal position of Members States, to include a better balance betweenassessment of the impact of the agreed fiscal measures and the fiscal figures based on estimated potential growth for GDP, output gaps and structural deficits that may introduce unexpected radical change at a later stage;on GDP growth, drawing from the experience of consistently optimistic forecasts for adjustment countries and the debate on the fiscal multiplier.
Amendment 624 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Acknowledges, based on the current situation, that the economic governance framework must be corrected and completed in both the medium and long term to allow for the EU and the euro area to meet the challenges of growth, economic convergence, long- lasting investment, job creation and reliance;
Amendment 662 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls for a new legal framework and a policy shift for future assistance programmes in order to ensure that all decisions are taken under the responsibility of the Commission with full and real involvement of European and National Parliament;
Amendment 711 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
Amendment 751 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 – indent 1
Paragraph 37 – indent 1
– a ‘taxation union’commitment to European-wide measures against tax fraud and evasion and corporate tax dumping,
Amendment 766 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 – indent 2
Paragraph 37 – indent 2
– a social dimension, including a minimum wage mechanism and a minimum unemployment benefit scheme for the euro area and in-depth reforms to favour mobilityreduce income inequalities,
Amendment 796 #
2014/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 – indent 4
Paragraph 37 – indent 4
– a euro area fiscal capacity notably to finance counter cyclical actions, structural reforms or part of debt reduction;
Amendment 9 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas compliance with the EU fiscal and macroeconomic surveillance frameworkfiscal sustainability is essential to the proper functioning of the European Monetary Union (EMU);
Amendment 16 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 24 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas low or negative growth and unemployment are responsible for lower revenues and increasing social expenditure and are, thus, the main cause for fiscal unsustainability;
Amendment 29 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas, in the context of persistently high debt and unemployment levels, low nominal GDP growth, and the challenges of an ageing society and of supporting job creation, particularly for young people, fiscal consolidation must continue in a growth-friendly and differentiated mannergrowth and job creation policies are the crucial pre- conditions to fiscal consolidation;
Amendment 34 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the priorities for this year’s European Semester were established by the European Council in March, and were reconfirmed in June; whereas the emphasis is on policies that enhance competitiveness, support job creation and fight unemployment, and on the follow-up to reforms to improve the functioning offurther deregulate labour markets;
Amendment 40 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the global financial crisis and the sovereign debt crisis in the EU have significantly hampered access byausterity policies have significantly hampered demand, restricting the flow of credit to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to financial resources;
Amendment 55 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the fact that economic recovery in the EU is under way; reiterates, howgrowth in the EU has stagnated, with 0,2% in the 2nd semester of 2014. Furthermore, ever,n that this recovery is fragile and uneven, and must be sustained in orderis stagnation scenario is uneven, with several member-states in recession. In any case, austerity policies are failing to deliver more growth and jobs in the medium term;
Amendment 59 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that even this extremely low growth was only possible because of 0,3% rise in household consumption, showing the importance of a shift from labour market deregulation to demand-oriented policies and wages increases;
Amendment 72 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the ambitiousNotes the structural reforms implemented by Member States under the macroeconomic adjustment programmes; finds it regrettable that the Member States in the rest of the euro area are less ambitious in modernising their economies, which is one of the reasons for the low growth prospects in the medium and long term which have caused recession, huge rises in unemployment and also public debt relative to GDP;
Amendment 89 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses, therefore, the importance of continuing the process of deep and sustainable structural reformshifting from austerity to public investment and demand-oriented policies to deliver on growth and jobs; reiterates, in this connection, the fact that the EU cannot compete on costs alone, but needs to invest more in research and development, education and skills, and resource efficiency, both at national and European level;
Amendment 100 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines, once again, the fact that the overall indebtedness of Member States in the euro area was worsened by austerity policies; Notes that this situation is not only an obstacle to growth but also puts a huge burden on future generations;
Amendment 106 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates, therefore, the fact that Member States should pay particular attention when devising economic policies and reforms as regards the impact on future generations not to deprive young people of theirjob opportunities from th, decent work and welfare starte;
Amendment 110 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the fact that the EMU is far from complete and reminds the Commission of its obligations and commitments to enhancachieve economic convergence and strengthen competitiveness in the EU; welcomes, in this respect, the commitment by the next President-elect of the Commission to deliver on the roadmap set out the report of 5 December 2012 entitled ‘Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union’in the EU;
Amendment 121 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 134 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes the 2014 package of country- specific recommendations (CSRs) by the Commission; notesIs puzzled by the Commission’'s assessment that some progress has been achieved in sustaining fiscal consolidation and structural reform, particularly in reforming labour marketswhen the opposite has occurred;
Amendment 141 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Supports the objective of placing emphasis on policies that enhance competitiveness, support job creation, fight unemployment and improve the functioning of the labour market; Notes however that emphasis on labour market and "competitiveness" that has inspired those policies has failed to deliver on any those objectives;
Amendment 154 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls, however, that Member States’ track record of implementing the CSRs is very lowariable; believes that there is an inconsistency between European commitment and national implementation of the CSRs by Member States; stresses the importance of ‘national ownership’ by the relevant governments of EU-level commitmentrespecting the sovereignty of elected governments and deplores persistent attempts by the Commission to put pressure or override national institutions;
Amendment 167 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. UnderRealinzes theat this fact that thesuch low levels of implementation of CSRs is a precoinseparable from the poor track record of European recommendiation fors in achieving economic convergence in the EMU, which is key to the proper functioning thereof, allowing for financial and economic stability that is conducive to growth and jobs;
Amendment 175 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Underlines the fact that a number of CSRs are based on EUhave no legal actbasis and that failure to act upon them may result in legal procedures; reminds Member States to deliver on their legal obligations under EU laware examples of interference of the Commission on national policies;
Amendment 181 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, to make full use of all measures provided for in EU law to support the enforcement of the implementation of the CSRsto assess the results of the implementation of the CSRs and other European policies on eurozone economic performance and evaluate the impact of its guidelines on growth and job creation;
Amendment 190 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Requests that the Commission report on a quarterly basis in Parliament’s competent committee on the measures taken to ensure progress on the implementation of the CSRs and on the progress achieved thus far; invites Member States to explain the reasons for non- compliance with the CRSs in Parliament’s competent committee; suggests that the economic results of complying member- states are compared with those of non- complying ones;
Amendment 192 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the President of the Eurogroup to effectively monitor the implementation of the CSRs by the Member States of the euro area, and to report on the progress made and the results as part of the assessment by the Eurogroup of the draft 2015 budgetary plans, to be submitted by mid-October 2014 by the Member States concerned;
Amendment 203 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Believes that with regard to the forthcoming European Semester, the policy of growth-friendly fiscal consolidation through growth should be pursued to improve fiscal sustainability; stresses, however, the fact that special emphasis should be placed on growth-enhancingdemand-oriented reforms and, policies and investment;
Amendment 214 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Encourages Member States to overcome domestic political opposition to modernise their economies,strengthen their public social security systems and health care, in order to avoid placing an excessive burden on future generationsrobbing future generations of the welfare state;
Amendment 224 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Believes that structural reforms should particularly be targeted at improving labour markets’ capacity to integrate young people into the workforce; believes, also, that structural reform should be aimed at theunemployment is, by far, the greatest threat to mid- and long-term sustainability ofor social security, health-care and pension systems, making job creation the absolute priority to protect these systems;
Amendment 238 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Points out that the absence of a well functioning internal labour marketrising levels of unemployment and precarious work and of a positive approach to immigration hampers growth in the EU; calls on the Commission and the Members States to establish a common labour market and abased on solid rights and an open modern immigration policy;
Amendment 248 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses, once again, its call on Member States to simplifyrove the redistributive capacity of their tax systems and reiterates its call to shift taxes from labour to consumption to make the use of resources more efficient and sustainablrevenue; calls on the Commission to take urgent action and develop a comprehensive strategy based on concrete legislative measures to fight tax fraud and tax evasion banning tax heavens and creating and a minimum corporate tax rate in the eurozone;
Amendment 264 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Reiterates the fact that structural reforms must be complemented by longer- term investment in education, research, innovation and sustainable energy; stresses, however, the fact that private investment is more conducive to growth than public investment;
Amendment 273 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Points out that government-induced growth risks being unsustainable over the medium term; stresses the fact that the already high levels of public debt do not allow for a significant increase in spending, if the reform and consolidation efforts are not to be in vainin a liquidity trap scenario, with historically low levels of credit to the real economy, even unconventional monetary policy will prove ineffective without public expenditure and investment; stresses the fact that austerity reforms and consolidation efforts proved counter- productive, particularly in the countries under the adjustment programmes which have consistently failed all consolidation objectives;
Amendment 285 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Believes that the biggest limitation on the EU economy is the low level of aggregate demand, which leads to low levels of private investment;
Amendment 294 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Underlines the fact that public and private investment is crucial, as it works on the supply and demand side of the economy, creating jobs, generating incomes for households, increasing tax revenue, helping governments consolidate and boosting growth;
Amendment 295 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Underlines the fact that public and private investment iss are crucial, as it works on the supply and demand side of the economy creating jobs, generating incomes for households, increasing tax revenue, helping governments consolidateing and boosting growth;
Amendment 300 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls on the Commission finally to deliver on its commitment to complete the single market, particularly as regards services; uUrges the Member States to deliver on their commitments on the EU2020 strategy, particularly with regard to research and innovation an objective only possible with full use of existing public resources and further public investment in this area;
Amendment 307 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Is concerned abouNotes that protectionist tendencies in certain Member States; points out that the Treaty does not provide for the restriction of the free movement of people, services or capital, and recalls that the Commission must safeguard and enforce these freedoms reflect the failure of eurozone to deliver on economic growth and convergence, job creation and improving social indicators and quality of life;
Amendment 310 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Underlines the fact that a lack of access to finance, particularly for SMEs, poses a huge obstacle to growth in the EUSMEs main obstacle is a depressed demand;
Amendment 315 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 326 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 335 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Stresses the fact that a solid and stable financial system, only possible with strong market-making public institutions, is crucial for future growth;
Amendment 345 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Maintains that, as the President of the ECB has said, action must not be confined to austerity measures, given that Member States have a vital role to play in boosting aggregate demand, a key factor in economic growth and employment;
Amendment 346 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Maintains that, as the President of the ECB has said, action must not be confined to austerity measures, given that Member States have a vital role to play in boosting aggregate demand, a key factor in economic growth and employment;
Amendment 350 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Stresses the need to strengthen democratic accountability to the European Parliament and the national parliaments as regards essential elements of the euro area’s operation, such as the European Central Bank, the European Stability Mechanism, Eurogroup decisions, and the monitoring and evaluation of financial assistance programmes;
Amendment 2 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Maintains that the 2015 budget, as regards the matters falling within the terms of reference of this committee, is cast in the same ideological mould as the EU now being built along federalist, neo- liberal lines, which is seeking to impose one governance model on all Member States, regardless of their specific nature and their level of development;
Amendment 3 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Notes that, accordingly, greater amounts are being allocated for analysis and control of the policies that the EU is imposing on its Member States;
Amendment 4 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Deplores the fact that the EU as such and coordination, supervision, and communication related to EMU in particular are accounting for a growing volume of expenditure, which is thus fuelling the propaganda machine – covering the European area and extending into non-EU countries – whose purpose is to disseminate the values of the current European model, even though these have already been rejected several times by referendum;
Amendment 5 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the European Parliament has strongly supported the creation of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and believes that the Union needs to further improve the supervision at Union level; believes that, besides the ECB, the ESAs are a cornerstone of fully functioning financial markets in the Union and are essential for the economic recovery and the creation of jobs and growth in Europe, as well as for the prevention of future crises in the financial sector;
Amendment 7 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Regrets the cut of EUR 481 289 for the school milk programme and the cut of EUR 900 073 for the school fruit programme, as both programmes have proven to be useful and efficient within the Member States and considers this cut to be extremely inappropriate given the current crisis and levels of child malnutrition in the EU; asks to increase the fund for both programmes to previous levels; asks that both programmes are designed to be less bureaucratic and more user friendly;
Amendment 12 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Condemns the fact that greater amounts are being earmarked for international economic and financial affairs, or what is termed financial assistance, which follows the EU approach of encroaching on the sovereignty of nation-states, but is serving merely to impose structural reforms and open the door to multinationals;
Amendment 13 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Notes that, faced with the financial crisis in the banking sector brought about by serious flaws in the workings of the market, the EU is responding with supervision by various agencies, in the hope that it can, by that shift, resolve inconsistencies inherent in the system;
Amendment 16 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Regrets the cut in funds to support beekeeping, as Parliament has consistently viewed beekeeping as a priority for the future of agriculture and for conservation of biodiversity;
Amendment 18 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 20 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a – new
Paragraph 15 a – new
15 a. Regrets the suggested cuts in rural development programmes. Asks the council to reconsider this given the current atmosphere given the ongoing increasing insecurity and depopulation in many rural communities;
Amendment 23 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 d – new
Paragraph 15 d – new
15 d. Calls on the council to use the money saved under 'enchancing public awareness of the Common Agricultural Policy' to increase the rural development budget.
Amendment 26 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes, however, that the response to the financial crisis in the banking sector, brought about by serious flaws in the workings of the market, is taking the form of supervision by various agencies, but the 2015 budget is completely overturning that approach by cutting the amounts earmarked for supervision, thus limiting the technical and human resources available to perform that task and creating an undoubted contradiction that is bound to cause confusion among the public about the EU’s real aims;
Amendment 30 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 42 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Objects to this budget, therefore, as it will not help to resolve any of the serious problems affecting the EU and its Member States and, indeed, constitutes a further stage in a policy that is causing the present economic stagnation, unemployment, and social inequalities.
Amendment 79 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) Where medicinal products are authorised within a Member State and have been prescribed in that Member State by a memberveterinarian, ofr a regulated animal health professionn equivalent professional as defined in the laws of Member States, for an individual animal or group of animals, it should in principle be possible for that veterinary prescription to be recognised and for the medicinal product to be dispensed in another Member State. The removal of regulatory and administrative barriers to such recognition should not affect any professional or ethical duty for dispensing professionals to refuse to dispense the medicine stated in the prescription.
Amendment 121 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. A marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product shall be valid for an unlimited period of time, except where new scientific knowledge gives grounds for reassessment.
Amendment 140 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 142 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) requirement to use take-back schemes for veterinary medicinal products for the disposal of unused veterinary medicinal products or waste materials derived from the use of such products and, if appropriate, additional precautions as regarding hazardous waste disposal of unused veterinary medicinal products or waste materials derived from the use of such productsin accordance with the law in force;
Amendment 152 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The information on the labelling shall be provided in the national language of every Member State where the veterinary medicinal product is made available on the market.
Amendment 173 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 29 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. By the way of derogation fromNotwithstanding paragraph 1, a competent authority or the Agency may not classify a veterinary medicinal product as subject to veterinary prescription if all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
Amendment 213 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) 140 years for antimicrobial veterinary medicinal products for cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, dogs and cats containing an antimicrobial active substance which has not been an active substance in a veterinary medicinal product authorised within the Union on the date of the submission of the application;
Amendment 218 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) 180 years for veterinary medicinal products for bees;
Amendment 220 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) 140 years for veterinary medicinal products for animal species other than listed in paragraph 1(a) and (c).
Amendment 229 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. Where a variation is approved in accordance with Article 65 extending the marketing authorisation to a another species not listed in Article 34(1)(a), the period of the protection provided for in Article 34 shall be prolonged by 42 years.
Amendment 234 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 3
Article 35 – paragraph 3
3. The period of the protection of the first marketing authorisation prolonged by any additional periods of protection due to any variations or new authorisations belonging to the same marketing authorisation (‘overall period of the protection of technical documentation’) shall not exceed 185 years.
Amendment 239 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
Article 38 – paragraph 1
1. Centralised marketing authorisations shall be granted by the Commission in accordance with this Section. They shall be valid throughout the Union and considered the priority procedure.
Amendment 254 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 2
Article 48 – paragraph 2
2. A minimum of 64 months shall elapse between the decision granting the first national marketing authorisation and the submission of the application for mutual recognition of the national marketing authorisation.
Amendment 256 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 4
Article 48 – paragraph 4
4. Within 9045 days of receipt of a valid application, the reference Member State shall prepare an updated assessment report for the veterinary medicinal product. The updated assessment report together with the approved summary of the product characteristics and the text to appear in the labelling and package leaflet shall be forwarded to all Member States and the applicant, together with the list of Member States where the applicant seeks to obtain recognition of the marketing authorisation (‘concerned Member States’).
Amendment 305 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 4 – point c
Article 69 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) the shortest withdrawal period deemed appropriate in the light of the most recent scientific studies, out of those stated in the summaries of the product characteristics.
Amendment 328 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2
Article 77 – paragraph 2
2. Where the pPharmacovigilance tasks havemay not, under any circumstances, been contracted out by the marketing authorisation holder to a third party, those arrangements shall be set out in details in the pharmacovigilance system master file.
Amendment 329 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 4
Article 77 – paragraph 4
Amendment 341 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1
Article 80 – paragraph 1
1. A competent authority may delegate any of the tasks entrusted to it as referred to in Article 79 to a competent public authority in another Member State subject to the written agreement of the latter.
Amendment 362 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 107 – paragraph 2
Article 107 – paragraph 2
2. Persons qualiVeterinarians, or equivalent professionals as defined toin the laws of Member States, prescribeing veterinary medicinal products in accordance with applicable national law shall retail antimicrobial products only for animals which are under their care, and only in the amount required for the treatment concerned.
Amendment 372 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 110 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 110 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) full name and contact details, qualifications and professional membership number of the personveterinarian, or equivalent professional as defined in the laws of Member States, writing the prescription;
Amendment 373 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 110 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 110 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) signature or an equivalent electronic form of identification of the personveterinarian, or equivalent professional as defined in the laws of Member States, writing the prescription;
Amendment 376 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 110 – paragraph 2
Article 110 – paragraph 2
2. A veterinary prescription shall only be issued by a persoveterinarian, or an equaliivalent professional as defined to do soin the laws of Member States, recognised by the appropriate professional association in accordance with applicable national law.
Amendment 396 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 115 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 115 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. By way of derogation from Article 111, where there is no authorised veterinary medicinal product in a Member State for a condition affecting a non-food producing animal, the veterinarian responsiblethe veterinarian responsible, or the equivalent professional as defined in the laws of Member States, may, under his/her direct personal responsibility and in particular to avoid causing unacceptable suffering, exceptionally treat the animal concerned with the following:
Amendment 436 #
2014/0257(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 125 – paragraph 1
Article 125 – paragraph 1
1. Competent authorities shall perform controls of manufacturers, importers, marketing authorisation holders, wholesale distributors and suppliers of the veterinary medicinal products regularly, at predetermined intervals laid down in Member States, and on a risk- basis, in order to verify that the requirements as set out in this Regulation are complied with.
Amendment 22 #
2014/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 726/2004
Article 56 – paragraph 1
Article 56 – paragraph 1
Amendment 61 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to ensure the safe use of medicated feed, its supply and use should be subject to presentation of a valid veterinary prescription which has been issued after examination of the animals to be treated. However, the possibility to manufacture medicated feed before a prescription is presented to the manufacturer should not be excluded.
Amendment 73 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Taking into account the serious public health risk posed by resistance to antimicrobials, it is appropriate to limit the use of medicated feed containing antimicrobials for food-producing animals. Preventive use orMedicated feed containing antimicrobials should not be used to enhance the performance of food-producing animals should in particular not be allowedprevent diseases in food-producing animals unless such use is permitted under Regulation (EU) 2015/... (Veterinary Medicinal Products). The ban on the use of antibiotics as growth-promoting agents as provided by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 should be strictly complied with.
Amendment 169 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Feed business operators manufacturing, storing, transporting and placing on the market medicated feed and intermediate products shall apply measures in accordance with Article 3 and 4 to avoid carry-over or restrict the levels determined by the European Food Safety Authority.
Amendment 171 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 180 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a
Carry-over limits for specific active substances shall be determined by a scientific risk assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), where such limits have not been already determined.
Amendment 189 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In Member States where reduction to these levels will be burdensome, the Commission and Member States shall promote potential funding sources to provide assistance to farmers to meet these targets, from within the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund or EU Health Programme, for example.
Amendment 194 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Amendment 226 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5
Article 15 – paragraph 5
5. The prescribed medicated feed may be used only for animals examined by the person who issued the prescription and only for a diagnosed disease. Significant and imminent health risks may be grounds for the limited and non-routine prophylactic use of vaccines and anti- parasitical treatments. The person who issued the prescription shall verify that this medication is justified for the target animals on veterinary grounds. Furthermore hethat person shall ensure that the administration of the veterinary medicinal product concerned is not incompatible with another treatment or use and that there is no contra-indication or interaction where several medicinal products are used.
Amendment 256 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the quantities required for one month's treatment or two weeks in case of medicated feed containing antimicrobial veterinary medicinal products, unless prescribed for longer by a veterinarian in exceptional cases with veterinarian justification.
Amendment 266 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. Medicated feed containing antimicrobial antibiotic veterinary medicinal products shall not be used to prevent diseases in food-producing animals or to enhance their performanceunless such use is permitted under Regulation (EU) 2015/... (Veterinary Medicinal Products).
Amendment 286 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that appropriate collection systems are in place for medicated feed and intermediate products that are expired or in case the animal holder has received a bigger quantity of medicated feed than he actually uses for the treatment referred to in the veterinary prescription. Under such circumstances, the justification for such surpluses shall be expressly recorded in the veterinary record.
Amendment 289 #
2014/0255(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that develop appropriate collection systems are in place, in cooperation with the operators of the sector for medicated feed and intermediate products that are expired or in case the animal holder has received a bigger quantity of medicated feed than he actually uses for the treatment referred to in the veterinary prescription.
Amendment 1 #
2014/0170(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Aa (new)
Recital Aa (new)
whereas more than half of the Lithuanians polled in May 2013 voiced misgivings at the introduction of the euro;
Amendment 5 #
2014/0170(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. EndorsNotes the adoption of the euro by Lithuania on 1 January 2015;
Amendment 6 #
2014/0170(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3a (new)
Paragraph 3a (new)
3a. Regrets that the Lithuanian Government has adopted the euro without consulting the Lithuanian people through a referendum;
Amendment 7 #
2014/0170(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3b (new)
Paragraph 3b (new)
3b. Believes that the euro is inherently flawed and has exacerbated the imbalances between euro-zone countries which in turn has reinforced the sovereign debt crisis;
Amendment 8 #
2014/0170(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the fact that, according to the Convergence Report, in the year ending in April 2014 Lithuania had a mean inflation rate of 0.6%, and therefore fulfils this convergence criterion;
Amendment 9 #
2014/0170(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomNotes the fact that, according to the Convergence Report, in the reference year 2013 Lithuania had a budget deficit of 2.1% and a government debt of 39.4% of Gross Domestic Product, and therefore fulfils this convergence criterion; notes the fact that to meet the criteria, severe austerity measures such as increased retirement age and cuts in public servants' salaries have been put forward which has caused high unemployment to 12.40% in the first quarter of 2014 and increased income inequality;
Amendment 10 #
2014/0170(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomNotes the fact that, according to the Convergence Report, there have been no tensions surrounding the litas-euro exchange rate and Lithuania therefore fulfils this convergence criterion;
Amendment 12 #
2014/0170(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomNotes the fact that, according to the Convergence Report, during the reference period from May 2013 until April 2014 long-term interest rates in Lithuania averaged 3.6%, and Lithuania therefore fulfils this convergence criterion;
Amendment 18 #
2014/0170(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7a (new)
Paragraph 7a (new)
7a. Is concerned that the implemented austerity policies under the convergence criteria have caused mass emigration of Lithuanians and increased the income inequality; stresses that austerity should not be a model for accession to the euro or for the current euro-zone countries;
Amendment 19 #
2014/0170(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7b (new)
Paragraph 7b (new)
7b. Regrets the transposition of the Fiscal Compact Treaty into the Lithuanian Constitution;
Amendment 65 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The financial crisis has revealed that shareholders in many cases supported managers' excessive short-term risk taking. Moreover, there is clear evidence that the current level of “monitoring” of investee companies and engagement by institutional investors and asset managers is inadequate, which may lead to suboptimal corporate governance and performance of listed companies. A further important aspect concerns the lack of engagement by workers and the local community in companies’ major strategic choices.
Amendment 70 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Effective and sustainable shareholder engagement is one of the cornerstones of listed companies’ corporate governance model, which depends on checks and balances between the different organs and different stakeholders, alongside engagement by the various stakeholders: clients, suppliers, workers and the local community.
Amendment 106 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 2 – point j a (new)
Article 2 – point j a (new)
(ja) ‘stakeholder’ means any agent, person or group whose fate is strongly influenced by the company’s decisions, notably clients, suppliers, workers and the local community.
Amendment 121 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Chapter IB – article 3f – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Chapter IB – article 3f – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) to take account of the opinions and views of stakeholders in the company and where possible to include them in the discussion and decision-making process itself.
Amendment 152 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that shareholders have the right to vote on the remuneration policy as regards directors. Companies shall only pay remuneration to their directors in accordance with a remuneration policy that has been approved by shareholders. The policy shall be submitted for approval by the shareholders at least every three years. Member States shall ensure that the ratio between the remuneration of employees and the remuneration of directors (fixed and variable) shall on no account exceed 1 to 30.
Amendment 163 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The policy shall indicate the maximum amounts of total remuneration that can be awarded, and the corresponding relative proportion of the different components of fixed and variable remuneration. It shall explain how the pay and employment conditions of employees of the company were taken into account when setting the policy or directors' remuneration by explaining the ratio between the average remuneration of directors and the average remuneration of full time employees of the company other than directors and why this ratio is considered appropriate. The remuneration of directors may on no account be more than 30 times higher than the average remuneration of full- time employees. The policy may exceptionally be without a ratio in case of exceptional circumstances. In that case, it shall explain why there is no ratio and which measures with the same effect have been taken.
Amendment 175 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9b – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 9b – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) descriptive elements concerning the distribution of total remuneration among all employees and directors so as to provide proof of compliance with the maximum ratio referred to in Article 9.
Amendment 92 #
2014/0017(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The 2008 global financial crisis revealed important regulatory gaps, ineffective supervision, opaque markets and overly- complex products in the financial system. The Union has adopted a range of measures in order to render the banking system more solid and more stable, including strengthening capital requirements, rules on improved governance and supervision and resolution regimes. The progress made on the establishment of the banking union is also decisive in this context. However, the crisis also highlighted the need to improve transparency and monitoring not only in the traditional banking sector but also in areas where non-bank credit activities take place, called “shadow banking”, the scale of which is alarming, corresponding as it already does to half of the regulated banking system.
Amendment 98 #
2014/0017(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) A High-Level Expert Group chaired by Erkki Liikanen adopted a report on reforming the structure of the Union banking sector in October 2012. It discussed among other things the interaction between the traditional and the shadow banking systems. The report recognised the risks of shadow banking activities such as high leverage and pro- cyclicality, and it called for a reduction of the interconnectedness between banks and the shadow banking system, which had been a source of contagion in a system- wide banking crisis. The report also suggested certain structural measures to deal with remaining weaknesses in the Union banking sector, including complete separation of deposit services and investment activity.
Amendment 107 #
2014/0017(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Re-hypothecation is intended to provides liquidity and enables counterparties to reducinge funding costs. However, it creates complex collateral chains between traditional banking and shadow banking, posing financial stability risks. The lack of transparency on the extent to which financial instruments provided as collateral have been re-hypothecatused and the respective risks in case of bankruptcy can undermine confidence in counterparties and magnify risks to financial stability.
Amendment 109 #
2014/0017(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) This Regulation establishes information rules towards counterparties on re-hypothecation which should not prejudice the application of sectorial rules adapted to specific actors, structures and situationsseeks to establish stricter rules on information for counterparties on re-hypothecation. Therefore, the rules on re- hypothecation provided for in this Regulation should apply, for example, to funds and depositories only insofar as there are no more stringent rules on re-use foreseelaid down within the framework for investment funds constituting a lex specialis and taking precedence over the rules contained in this Regulation. In particular, this Regulation should be without prejudice to any rule restricting the ability of counterparties to engage in re- hypothecation of financial instruments that are provided as collateral by counterparties or persons other than counterparties.
Amendment 201 #
2014/0017(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the providing counterparty has granted its prior express consent as evidenced by the signature of the providing counterparty to a written agreement or an equivalent alternative mechanism explicitly setting out the forms of reuse of the financial instrument to be transferred.
Amendment 223 #
2014/0017(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point g
Article 20 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point g
(g) maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least threen times the amount of the profits gained or losses avoided because of the breach where those can be determined;
Amendment 226 #
2014/0017(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point i
Article 20 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point i
(i) in respect of legal persons, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least 10% of the total annual turnover of the legal person according to the last available accounts approved by the management body or, alternatively, at least EUR 5 000 000 if the above amount is lower than this figure; where the legal person is a parent undertaking or a subsidiary of the parent undertaking which has to prepare consolidated financial accounts according to Directive 2013/34/EU16, the relevant total annual turnover shall be the total annual turnover or the corresponding type of income according to the relevant accounting regime according to the last available consolidated accounts approved by the management body of the ultimate parent undertaking. __________________ 16 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19).
Amendment 47 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The analysis of different policy options points out that a unified approach under a common legal and financial framework, across the two existing schemes, is more appropriate and effective in meeting the specific objectives that the Common Agricultural Policy is pursuing through school schemes. This would allow Member States to maximise the impact of distribution within a constant budget and increase the management efficiency. However, in order to take into account the differences between the fruit and vegetables including bananas and milk products and their supply chains, certain elements should remain separate, such as the respective budgetary envelopes. In light of the experience with the current schemes, the participation in the scheme should continue to be voluntary for Member States. Taking into the account the different consumption situations across Member States, the possibility should be given to participating Member States to choose whether they want to distribute all or just one of the products eligible for the supply to children in educational establishments.
Amendment 61 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) A trend of declining consumption in particular of fresh fruit and vegetables including bananas and drinking milk has been identified. It is therefore appropriate to focus the distribution under the school schemes on these products. This would in turn also help reduce the organisational burden for schools, increase the impact of the distribution within a limited budget and would be in line with the current practice, as these products are most frequently distributed. However, efforts will also be made to ensure the distribution of locally grown products.
Amendment 73 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Educational measures that support the distribution are necessary in order to make the scheme effective in reaching its short- and long-term objectives of increasing the consumption of selected agricultural products and shaping healthier diets. Considering their importance, these measures should support both the fruit and vegetables including bananas and milk distribution. They should be eligible for the Union aid. As supporting measures they represent a critical tool to reconnect children with agriculture and its different products and to meet the objectives that the scheme is pursuing, Member States should be allowed to include a wider variety of agricultural products into their thematic measures. However, so as to promote healthy eating habits, Member States may involve their national health authorities should be involved in this process andto approve the list of these products, as well as the two groups of products eligible for the distribution, and decide on their nutritional aspects, if they so wish.
Amendment 74 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Educational measures that support the distribution are necessary in order to make the scheme effective in reaching its short- and long-term objectives of increasing the consumption of selected agricultural products and shaping healthier diets. Considering their importance, these measures should support both the fruit and vegetables including bananas and milk distribution. They should be eligible for the Union aid. As supporting measures they represent a critical tool to reconnect children with agriculture and its different locally-grown products and t. To meet the objectives that the scheme is pursuing, Member States should be allowed to include a wider variety of agricultural products into their thematic measures, preferably according to what is produced in the region. However, so as to promote healthy eating habits, the national health authorities should be involved in this process and approve the list of these products, as well as the two groups of products eligible for the distribution, and decide on their nutritional aspects.
Amendment 86 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to ensure a sound budgetary management, a fixed ceiling of the Union aid towards the distribution of fruit and vegetables including bananas and milk, supporting educational measures and related costs should be provided for. This ceiling should reflect the current situation. In light of the experience gained and with a view to simplify the management, the financing models should be approximated and based on a single approach as regards the level of Union financial contribution. It is therefore appropriate to limit the level of Union aid towards the price of products through a maximum Union aid per portionchild both for fruit and vegetables including bananas and for milk andto abolish the principle of obligatory co-financing for fruit and vegetables including bananas. Considering the price volatility of products in question, the power to adopt certain acts should be delegated to the Commission in respect of measures setting the levels of the Union aid towards the price of a portion of products and laying down the definition of a portion.
Amendment 92 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order to ensure the efficient and targeted use of Union funds, the power to adopt certain acts should be delegated to the Commission in respect of measures fixing the indicative allocations of the Union aid to each Member State and the methods for reallocating aid between Member States on the basis of aid requests received. The indicative allocations should be fixed separately for the fruit and vegetables including bananas and milk in line with the voluntary approach to distribution. The allocation key for fruit and vegetables including bananas should reflect the current allocations by Member States, will be based on the objective criteria of the number of children in the age group of six- to ten-year olds as a proportion of the population, taking into the account also the development status of regions concerned. In order to allow Member States to maintain used for bothe scale of their current programmes and with a view of encouraging others to take up the distribution of milk, it is appropriate to use the combination of two keys for the allocation of the funds for milk, namely the historical use of funds by Member States under the School Milk Scheme and the objective criteria of the number of children in the age group of six- to ten- year olds as a proportion of the population used for the fruit and vegetables including bananas. In order to find the right proportion for these two keys, the power to adopt certain acts should be delegated to the Commission in respect of adopting additional rules concerning the balance between the two criteria. Furthermore, considering the recurrent changes in the demographic or development situation of regions in Member States, the power to adopt certain acts should be delegated to the Commission in respect of assessing every three years whether the Member States' allocations, based on those criteria, are still up to datehemes.
Amendment 121 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The national strategy should be considered as the condition for the Member State’s participation in the scheme and as a strategic multiannual document with a timeframe of three to five years, setting out targets to be achieved by Member States and their priorities. Member States should be allowed to update them regularly, in particular in light of the evaluations and reassessment of priorities or targets.
Amendment 124 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to ensure the visibility of the scheme, Member States should explain in their strategy how they will guarantee the added value of their scheme, especially where products financed under the Union scheme are consumed at the same time as other meals provided to children in an educational establishment. In order to ensure that the educational purpose of the Union scheme is attained and effective, the power to adopt certain acts should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the rules concerning the distribution of the products financed under the Union scheme in relation to the provision of other meals in educational establishments and their preparationbe empowered to decide how best to promote it both nationally and locally as a tailored approach promoting local produce is likely to have the largest uptake.
Amendment 129 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to ensure that the price of products provided to children under the scheme fully reflects the amount of the aid provided and that subsidised products are not deflected from their intended use, the power to adopt certain acts should be delegated to the Commission in respect of establishment of price monitoring under the scheme. These acts will not act as deterrents to Member States encouraging the sourcing of local produce.
Amendment 175 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
Article 23 – paragraph 3
Article 23 – paragraph 3
3. As a condition for their participation in the school scheme Member States shall draw up, prior to their participation in the school scheme, and subsequently every sixthree years, at national or regional level, a strategy for the implementation of the scheme. The strategy may be amended by a Member State, in particular in the light of monitoring and evaluation. The strategy shall at least identify the needs to be met, the ranking of the needs in terms of priorities, the target population, the results expected and the quantified targets to be attained in relation to the initial situation, and lay down the most appropriate instruments and actions for attaining those objectives.
Amendment 200 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
Article 23 – paragraph 5
Article 23 – paragraph 5
5. When drawing up their strategies, Member States shall determine a list of agricultural products, in addition to fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk, that may occasionally be included under the supporting educational measures, as well as the region where they are produced.
Amendment 207 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
Article 23 – paragraph 6
Article 23 – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall choose the products to be featured in the distribution or to be included in supporting educational measures on the basis of objective criteria which may include the health and environmental considerations, seasonality, variety, or availability of local produce, always giving priority to the extent practicable to products originating in the Unregion, particularly to local purchasing, organic products, short supply chains or environmental benefits.. When this is impossible, the programme must justify this option.
Amendment 307 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
Article 23 a – paragraph 8
Article 23 a – paragraph 8
8. Member States participating in the school scheme shallmay, if they wish, publicise, at the places where the food is distributed, their involvement in the scheme and the fact that it is subsidised by the Union. Member States shallmay, if they wish ensure the added value and the visibility of the Union school scheme in relation to the provision of other meals in educational establishments.
Amendment 312 #
2014/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
Article 23 a – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 23 a – paragraph 8 a (new)
8 A. Member States guarantee that at least 5 % of their annual allocations are put towards measures promoting the programme and education for healthy eating.
Amendment 251 #
2013/0314(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The scope of this Regulation should be as broad as necessary to create a preventive regulatory framework. The production of benchmarks involves discretion in their determination and is inherently subject to certain types of conflicts of interest, which implies the existence of opportunities and incentives to manipulate those benchmarks. These risk factors are common to all benchmarks, and all of them should be made subject to adequate governance and control requirements. The degree of risk, however, is variable, and the approach adopted in each case should therefore invariably be tailored to the particular circumstances. Since the vulnerability and importance of a benchmark varies over time, restricting the scope by reference to currently important or vulnerable indices would not address the risks that any benchmark may pose in the future. In particular, benchmarks that are currently not widely used may be so used in the future, so that, in their regard, even a minor manipulation may have significant impact.
Amendment 252 #
2013/0314(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) Physical commodities present unique characteristics which must be taken into account in order to avoid undermining the integrity of commodity benchmarks and ensure the existing transparency in the commodity market. Accordingly Annex III of this Regulation reflects the principles developed for commodities benchmarks by IOSCO, the International Energy Agency and the International Energy Forum specially designed to apply to all commodity benchmarks within this Regulation.
Amendment 260 #
2013/0314(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) Many benchmarks are determined from input data that is provided by regulated venues, energy exchanges and emission allowance auctions. These venues are subject to regulation and supervision that ensures the integrity of the input data, provides for governance requirements and procedures for the notification of breaches. Therefore these benchmarks are released from certain obligations in order to avoid dual regulation and because their supervision ensures the integrity of the input data used. Many benchmarks, however, are based on data contributions from outside entities which are not necessarily termed APAs, ARMs, or CTPs within the meaning of MiFID 2. The fact of using such data, provided that they have been obtained directly from market observation, should not serve to exclude the benchmarks concerned from the scope of this Regulation.
Amendment 276 #
2013/0314(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35 a (new)
Recital 35 a (new)
(35a) This Regulation also establishes a recognition system allowing benchmark administrators located in a third country to supply their benchmarks in the Union, provided that these conform to the requirements set out in this Regulation or to internationally agreed IOSCO principles, and that effective cooperation arrangements exist with their home- country supervisors.
Amendment 281 #
2013/0314(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to respect for private and family, the protection of personal data, the right to freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the right to consumer protection, the right to an effective remedy, the right of defence. ThereforeAccordingly,, this Regulation should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles. Notably, when this Regulation refers to rules governing the freedom of expression in other media and the rules or codes governing the journalist professions, consideration should be given to these freedoms as they are guaranteed in the Union as in the Member States and as recognised under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and other relevant provisions.
Amendment 305 #
2013/0314(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) commodity benchmarks which comply with the IOSCO Principles of 5 October 2012 for Oil Price Reporting Agencies or the IOSCO Principles of 17 July 2013 for Financial Benchmarks, until such time as ESMA, on the basis of the review of the IOSCO Principles for Oil Price Reporting Agencies, and of Annex III of this Regulation, has determined whether and how commodity benchmarks can be encompassed within the scope of this Regulation or whether they should be governed by their own rules.
Amendment 339 #
2013/0314(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 11
(11) ‘regulated data’ means input data that is contributed directly from a trading venue as defined in point (25) of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of [MIFIR] or approved publication arrangement as defined in point (18) of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of [MIFIR] or an approved reporting arrangement as defined in point (20) of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of [MIFIR] in accordance with mandatory post -trade data requirements or an electricity exchange as referred to in point (j) of paragraph 1 of Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC19 or a natural gas exchange as referred to in point (j) of paragraph 1 of Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC20 or an auction platform referred to in Article 26 or in Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council, or data contributed by third countries or groupings of third countries or other competent public authorities under the technical conditions set out above; __________________ 19 OJ L 211, 14.8.2009 p. 55. 20 OJ L 9, 14.8.2009 p. 112.
Amendment 413 #
2013/0314(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall take into account the different characteristics of benchmarks and contributors, notably in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether the contributors are voluntary, the risks of input data being manipulated and international convergence of supervisory practices in relation to benchmarks. of this regulation. ESMA shall provide guidelines, after close consultation with ACER, with regard to applicability of legally binding codes of conduct in particular with regard to non-regulated entities and price reporting agencies within the EU.
Amendment 554 #
2013/0314(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) administrators authorised or registered in that third country comply with binding requirements which are equivalent to the requirements resulting from this Regulation, in particular taking into account if the legal framework and supervisory practice of a third country ensures compliance with the IOSCO principles on financial benchmarks published on 17 July 2013; and with the IOSCO Principles for Oil Price Reporting Agencies, published on 5 October 2012, and with the IOSCO Principles for the Regulation and Supervision of Commodity Derivative Markets published on 15 September 2011, when oil or commodity benchmarks are involved; and
Amendment 98 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Money market funds (MMF) provide, similar to banks and other financial institutions, short-term finance to financial institutions, corporates or governments. By providing finance to these entities, money market funds contribute to the financing of the European economy.
Amendment 100 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) They can be considered part of the Shadow Banking System on the basis that they perform maturity and liquidity transformation. However, in contrast with bank deposits, MMFs do not have access to official support and backstop facilities, and, whereas they have little ability to absorb losses, they also do not have explicit support from sponsor companies. Moreover, investors may perceive MMFs, in particular constant net asset value (CNAV) funds that seek to maintain an unchanging face value, as safe alternatives to bank deposits.
Amendment 106 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Large redemption requests force MMFs to sell some of their investment assets in a declining market, fuelling a liquidity crisis. In these circumstances, money market issuers can face severe funding difficulties if the market of commercial papers and other money market instruments dries up. Any contagion to the short term funding market could then also represent direct and major difficulties for the financing of the financial institutions, corporations and governments, thus the economy. In the absence of a credible solution to the too- big-too fail problem for banks this has major implications from an economic stability point of view.
Amendment 109 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to preserve the integrity and stability of the internal marketduce systemic risk and the possibility of public bail-outs by promoting more resilient MMFs and limiting contagion channels, it is necessary to lay down rules regarding the operation of MMFs, in particular on the composition of the portfolio of MMFs. Uniform rules across the Union are necessary to ensure that MMFs are able to immediately redeem investors, especially during stressed market situations. Uniform rules on the portfolio of a money market fund are also required to ensure that MMFs are able to face massive and sudden redemption requests by a large group of investors.
Amendment 122 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Asset Backed Commercial Papers (ABCPs) should not be considered eligible money market instruments to the extent that they respect additional requirements. Due to the fact that during the crisis certain securitisations were particularly unstable, it is necessary to impose maturity limits and quality criteria on the underlying assets. Not all categories of underlying assets should be eligible because some were more confronted to instability than others. For this reason the underlying assets should be exclusively composed of short-term debt instruments that have been issued by corporates in the course of their business activity, such as trade receivables. Instruments such as auto loans and leases, equipment leases, consumer loans, residential mortgage loans, credit card receivables or any other type of instrument linked to the acquisition or financing of services or goods by consumers should not be eligible. ESMA should be entrusted with drafting regulatory technical standards to be submitted for endorsement by the Commission with regard to the conditions and circumstances under which the underlying exposure or pool of exposures is considered to exclusively consist of corporate debt and the conditions and numerical thresholds determining when corporate debt is of high credit quality and liquid, due to the fact that these instruments have proven to be particularly unstable and intransparent.
Amendment 133 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) In order to limit risk-taking by MMFs it is essential to reduce counterparty risk by subjecting the portfolio of MMFs to clear diversification requirements. To this effect it is also necessary that the reverse repurchase agreements be fully collateralized and that, for limiting the operational risk, one reverse repurchase agreement counterparty cannot account for more than 20% of the MMF's assets. All over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives should be subject to Regulation (EU) No 648/20125. Over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives should not be eligible. __________________ 5 Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 1).
Amendment 162 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42 a (new)
Recital 42 a (new)
(42a) The financial crisis is evidence of the fact that the conduct and nature of constant net asset value MMFs make them more vulnerable to destabilising investor runs, which can spread quickly among funds, impairing liquidity and the availability of short-term credit, in particular for banks. Against this background, CNAV MMF should not be offered to retail investors.
Amendment 167 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) To allow for the specificities of CNAV MMFs it is necessary that CNAV MMFs, until they have been fully converted into VNAV MMFs, be permitted to use also the amortised cost accounting method for the purpose of determining the constant net asset value (NAV) per unit or share, subject to the agreement of national competent authorities. This notwithstanding, for the purpose of ensuring at all times the monitoring of the difference between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share, a CNAV MMF should also calculate the value of its assets on the basis of the marking to market or marking to model methods.
Amendment 171 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) As a MMF should publish a NAV that reflects all movements in the value of its assets, the published NAV should be rounded at maximum to the nearest basis point or its equivalent. As a consequence, when the NAV is published in a specific currency, for example €1, the incremental change in value should be done every €0.0001. In the case of a NAV at €100, the incremental change in value should be done every €0.01. Only if the MMF is a CNAV MMF, the MMF can publish a price that does not follow entirely the movements in the value of its assets. In this case the NAV can be rounded to the nearest cent for a NAV at €1 (every €0.01 move) for an interim period of five years.
Amendment 185 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45 a (new)
Recital 45 a (new)
(45a) In addition to NAV buffers, MMFs should impose redemption fees of up to 3% in case the weekly maturing assets fall below 15% of the fund's total assets at the end of any business day.
Amendment 194 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46 a (new)
Recital 46 a (new)
(46a) After a transitional phase of five years after publication of this regulation in the Official Journal all CNAV MMFs should be converted into VNAV MMFs.
Amendment 196 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) External support provided to a MMF other than a CNAV MMF with the intention of ensuring either liquidity or stability of the MMF or de facto having such effects increases the contagion risk between the MMF sector and the rest of the financial sector. Third parties providing such support have an interest in doing so, either because they have an economic interest in the management company managing the MMF or because they want to avoid any reputational damage should their name be associated with the failure of a MMF. Because these third parties do not commit explicitly to providing or guaranteeing the support, there is uncertainty whether such support will be granted when the MMF needs it. In these circumstances, the discretionary nature of sponsor support contributes to uncertainty among market participants about who will bear losses of the MMF when they do occur. This uncertainty likely makes MMFs even more vulnerable to runs during periods of financial instability, when broader financial risks are most pronounced and when concerns arise about the health of the sponsors and their ability to provide support to affiliated MMFs. For these reasons, MMFs should not rely on external support in order to maintain their liquidity and the stability of their NAV per unit or share unless the competent authority of the MMF has specifically allowed the external support in order to maintain stability of financial markets.
Amendment 209 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) Investors should be clearly informed, before they invest in a MMF, if the MMF is of a short-term nature or of a standard nature and if the MMF is of a CNAV type or not. In order to avoid misplaced expectations from the investor it must also be clearly stated in any marketing document that MMFs are not a guaranteed investment vehicle. CNAV MMFs should clearly explain to investors the buffer mechanism they are applying to maintain the constant NAV per unit or share. They should further explain to investors that they may impose redemption fees in case the weekly maturing assets fall below a specific threshold.
Amendment 223 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) It is essential to carry out a review of this Regulation in order to assess the appropriateness of exempting certain CNAV MMFs that concentrate their investment portfolios on debt issued by the Member States from the requirement to establish a capital buffer that amounts to at least 3 % of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets or the mandatory convergence into VNAV MMFs. Therefore, during the three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission should analyse the experience acquired in applying this Regulation and the impacts on the different economic aspects attached to the MMFs. The debt issued or guaranteed by the Member States represents a distinct category of investment displaying specific credit and liquidity traits. In addition, sovereign debt plays a vital role in financing the Member States. The Commission should evaluate the evolution of the market for sovereign debt issued or guaranteed by the Member States and the possibility to create a special framework for MMF that concentrate their investment policy on that type of debt.
Amendment 226 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Amendment 238 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11
(11) ‘amortised cost method’ means a valuation method which takes the acquisition cost of an asset and adjusts this value for amortisation of premiums (or discounts) until maturity; the use of this accounting method shall be subject to approval of national competent authorities;
Amendment 263 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
An MMF or an MMF manager may be established in a third country provided that the third country is not a country: - where there are no or nominal taxes, - where there is a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities, - where there is a lack of transparency in legislative, judicial or administrative provisions, - where there is no requirement for a substantive local presence, - which acts as an offshore financial centre.
Amendment 270 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
An AIF MMF or an AIFM of a MMF may be established in a third country provided that the third country is not a country: - where there are no or nominal taxes, - where there is a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities, - where there is a lack of transparency in legislative, judicial or administrative provisions, - where there is no requirement for a substantive local presence, - which acts as an offshore financial centre.
Amendment 280 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) financial derivative instruments used exclusively for hedging purposes;
Amendment 300 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 307 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A securitisation shall not be considered as eligible provided that all of the following conditions are met:.
Amendment 309 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 313 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 316 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 323 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 335 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 337 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 343 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
A financial derivative instrument shall be eligible for investment by a MMF if it is dealt in on a regulated market referred to in Article 50(1)(a), (b) or (c) of Directive 2009/65/EC or over-the-counter (OTC) , provided that all of the following conditions are in any case fulfilled:
Amendment 346 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the counterparties to OTC derivative transactions are institutions subject to prudential regulation and supervision and belonging to the categories approved by the competent authorities of the MMF's home Member State;
Amendment 349 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the OTC derivatives are subject to reliable and verifiable valuation on a daily basis and can be sold, liquidated or closed by an offsetting transaction at any time at their fair value at the MMF's initiative.
Amendment 352 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Securitisations as defined in Article 10 shall not be received by the MMF as part of a reverse repurchase agreement. The assets received by the MMF as part of a reverse repurchase agreement shall not be sold, reinvested, pledged or otherwise transferred.
Amendment 367 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Amendment 372 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. The aggregate risk exposure to the same counterparty of the MMF stemming from OTC derivative transactions shall not exceed 5% of its assets.
Amendment 382 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point c
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) OTC financial derivative instruments giving counterparty risk exposure to that body.
Amendment 396 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. The limit laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply in respect of holdings of money market instruments issued or guaranteed by a central, regional or local public authority or central bank of a Member State, the European Central Bank, the Union, the European stability mechanism or the European Investment Bank, or a central authority or central bank of a third country, or the public international body to which one or more Member States belongs.
Amendment 413 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point e
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) assignment methodologies shall be reviewed at least annuallytwice a year to determine whether they remain appropriate for the current portfolio and external conditions;
Amendment 449 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) at least 120% of its assets shall be comprised of daily maturing assets. A standard MMF shall not acquire any asset other than a daily maturing asset when such acquisition would result in the standard MMF investing less than 120% of its portfolio in daily maturing assets;
Amendment 453 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) at least 240% of its assets shall be comprised of weekly maturing assets. A standard MMF shall not acquire any asset other than a weekly maturing asset when such acquisition would result in the standard MMF investing less than 240% of its portfolio in weekly maturing assets.
Amendment 509 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 4
Article 25 – paragraph 4
4. Stress tests shall be conducted at a frequency determined by the board of directors of the manager of the MMF, after considering what an appropriate and reasonable interval in light of the market conditions is and after considering any envisaged changes in the portfolio of the MMF. Such frequency shall be at least yearsix- monthly.
Amendment 525 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5
Article 26 – paragraph 5
5. In addition to the marking to market method referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 and marking to model method referred to in paragraph 4, the assets of a CNAV MMF exceptionally may also be valued by using the amortised cost method. Amortised cost accounting shall be applied only when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled: (a) national competent authorities have accepted this accounting method; (b) it is deemed to allow for an appropriate approximation of the price of the instrument. The use of amortisation shall be restricted to instruments with low residual maturity and in the absence of any particular sensitivity of the instruments to market factors. A residual maturity of 60 days shall be considered to be the maximum. Materiality thresholds and escalation procedures shall be in place to ensure that corrective actions are promptly taken when the amortised cost no longer provides a reliable approximation of the price of the instruments: at the level of the overall portfolio, thresholds of 10 basis points shall be deemed to be appropriate.
Amendment 584 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the competent authority of the CNAV MMF, after consultation with ESMA, is satisfied with a detailed plan by the CNAV MMF specifying the modalities of the use of the buffer in accordance with Article 31;
Amendment 602 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
(ga) it shall not be offered to retail investors as defined in Article 4 (11) of Directive 2014/64/EU [MIFID II].
Amendment 603 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. If the weekly maturing assets of a CNAV MMF fall below 15% of the fund's total assets at the end of any business day, the MMF shall impose a redemption fee to investors redeeming their shares of up to 3%. Any fee imposed would be lifted automatically once the MMF's level of weekly liquidity returns to 30% of its total assets.
Amendment 619 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Each CNAV MMF shall establish and maintain a NAV buffer amounting at all times to at least 3% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets. The total value of the CNAV MMF's assets shall be calculated as the sum of the values of each asset of the MMF determined in accordance with Article 26(3) or (4). By [OJ please insert date: five years after entry into force of this Regulation], all CNAV MMF established, managed or marketed in the Union shall be converted into VNAV MMF.
Amendment 662 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The CNAV MMF shall inform immediately the competent authority and ESMA as well as each investor thereof in writing and in a clear and comprehensible way.
Amendment 686 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1
Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. A CNAV MMF may not receive external support other than in the form and under the conditions laid down in Articles 30 to 34.
Amendment 689 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
Article 35 – paragraph 2
Amendment 695 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 3
Article 35 – paragraph 3
Amendment 704 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36
Article 36
Amendment 730 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 37 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. All of the information referred to in the preceding paragraphs shall be posted on the MMF website. The information, with particular reference to the fund’s investment portfolio and liquidity levels, shall be updated weekly.
Amendment 772 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3
Article 43 – paragraph 3
Amendment 788 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4
Article 43 – paragraph 4
Amendment 796 #
2013/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
By three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall review the adequacy of this Regulation from a prudential and economic point of view. In particular the review shall consider the operation of the CNAV buffer and the operation of the CNAV buffer to those CNAV MMFs that, in future, might concentrate their portfolios on debt issued or guaranteed by the Member States as well as the mandatory conversion into VNAVs for those funds. The review shall: