Activities of Francesca DONATO

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 25

If two or more installations are located close to each other and if their operator is the same or if the installations are under the control of operators who are engaged in an economic or legal relationship, the installations concerned shall be considered as a single unit for the purpose of calculating the capacity threshold referred to in Article 70a.deleted

2022/12/20
Committee: ENVI

2022/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 25

Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 70h – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a

(a) they have a ~~sufficien~~legitimate and direct interest;

2022/12/20
Committee: ENVI

2022/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 25

Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 70i – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

The operating rules shall take into account inter alia the nature, type, size and density of these ~~installations and the specificities of pasture based cattle rearing systems, where animals are only seasonally reared in indoor~~ installations.

2022/12/20
Committee: ENVI

2022/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) as of 1 January 2027, for all new buildings with a useful floor area larger than 2000 square meters; an~~deleted

2022/07/06
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a decision
Recital 9

(9) Democratic life and public services will also ~~cru~~depend principally ~~depend~~ on digital technologies and therefore they should be fully accessible for everyone, as a best–in- class digital environment providing for easy-to-use, efficient and personalised services and tools with high security and privacy standards.

2022/03/29
Committee: ITRE

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

Directive (EU) 2018/2001
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3

(a) Member States shall grant no support for: (i) the use of saw logs, veneer logs, stumps and roots to produce energy. (ii) the production of renewable energy produced from the incineration of waste if the separate collection obligations laid down in Directive 2008/98/EC have not been complied with. (iii) practices which are not in line with the delegated act referred to in the third subparagraph.deleted

2022/05/04
Committee: PETI

2021/0218(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17

(17) The increasing number of electric vehicles in road, rail, maritime and other transport modes will require that recharging operations are optimised and managed in a way that does not cause congestion or blackouts and takes full advantage of the availability of renewable electricity and low electricity prices in the system. In situations where bidirectional charging would assist further penetration of renewable electricity by electric vehicle fleets in transport and the electricity system in general, such functionality should also be made available. In view of the long life span of recharging points, requirements for charging infrastructure should be kept updated in a way that would cater for future needs and would not result in negative lock-in effects to the development of technology and services.

2022/03/17
Committee: ITRE

2021/0218(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive (EU) 2018/2001
Article 15a

1. In order to promote the production and use of renewable energy in the building sector, Member States shall set an indicative target for the share of renewables in final energy consumption in their buildings sector in 2030 that is consistent with an indicative target of at least a 490 % share of energy from renewable sources in the buildings sector in the Union’s final consumption of energy in 2030. The national target shall be expressed in terms of share of national final energy consumption and calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in Article 7. Member States shall include their target in the updated integrated national energy and climate plans submitted pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 as well as information on how they plan to achieve it.

2022/05/04
Committee: PETI

2021/0218(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 23

(23) Increasing ambition in the heating and cooling sector is key to delivering the overall renewable energy target given that heating and cooling constitutes around half of the Union's energy consumption, covering a wide range of end uses and technologies in buildings, industry and district heating and cooling. To accelerate the increase of renewables in heating and cooling, an annual 1.1 percentage point increase at Member State level should be ~~made binding as a minimum~~recommended for all Member States. For those Member States, which already have renewable shares above 50% in the heating and cooling sector, it should remain possible to only apply half of the binding annual increase rate and Member States with 60% or above may count any such share as fulfilling the average annual increase rate in accordance with points b) and c) of paragraph 2 of Article 23. In addition, Member State- specific top-ups should be set, redistributing the additional efforts to the desired level of renewables in 2030 among Member States based on GDP and cost- effectiveness. A longer list of different measures should also be included in Directive (EU) 2018/2001 to facilitate increasing the share of renewables in heating and cooling. Member States may implement one or more measures from the list of measures.

2022/03/17
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. Each Member State shall set national energy efficiency contributions for final and primary energy consumption to meet, collectively, the ~~binding~~ Union target set in paragraph 1 . Member States shall notify those contributions together with an indicative trajectory for those contributions to the Commission as part of the updates of their integrated national energy and climate plans in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, and as part of their integrated national energy and climate plans as referred to in, and in accordance with, the procedure set out in Article 3 and Articles 7 to 12 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 . When doing so, Member States shall use the formula defined in Annex I of this Directive and explain how, and on the basis of which data, the contributions have been calculated.

2022/03/21
Committee: ITRE

10. Within the energy efficiency ~~obligation~~ scheme, Member States may authorise ~~obligated~~ parties to carry out the following:

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 10 – point a

(a) to count towards their obligation certified energy savings achieved by energy service providers or other third parties, including when obligated parties promote measures through other State- approved bodies or through public authorities that may involve formal partnerships and may be in combination with other sources of finance. Where Member States so permit, they shall ensure that the certification of energy savings follows an approval process that is put in place in the Member States, that is clear, transparent, and open to all market participants, and that aims to minimise the costs of certification;Does not affect the English version.)

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 10 – point b

(b) to count savings obtained in a given year as if they had instead been obtained in any of the four previous or three following years as long as this is not beyond the end of the ~~obligation~~ periods set out in Article 8(1).

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall assess and, if appropriate, take measures to minimise the impact of the direct and indirect costs of energy efficiency ~~obligation~~ schemes on the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries exposed to international competition.

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 11

11. Member States shall, on an annual basis, publish the energy savings achieved by each ~~obligated~~ party, or each sub- category of ~~obligated~~ party, and in total under the scheme.

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. Where Member States decide to ~~fulfil their obligations to achieve the~~work towards meeting the energy savings ~~required~~targets under Article 8(1) by way of alternative policy measures, they shall ensure, without prejudice to Article 8(89) and (910), that the energy savings required under Article 8(1) are achieved among final customers.

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 7

7. Enterprises that implement an energy performance contract shall be exempted from the re~~quirement~~commendations of paragraphs 1 and 2 provided that the energy performance contract complies with the requirements set out in Annex XIV.

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b

(b) the Union's 2030 headline targets on energy efficiency set out in Article 4(1) with a view to revising those that targets upwards in the event of substantial cost reductions resulting from economic or technological developments, or where needed to meet the Union's decarbonisation targets for ~~2040 or~~ 2050, or its international commitments for decarbonisation;

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point c

(c) if Member States sh~~all~~ould continue to achieve new annual savings in accordance with point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 8 for the ten-year periods after 2030;

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point d

(d) if Member States sh~~all~~ould continue to ensure that at least 3% of the total floor area of heated and/or cooled buildings owned by public bodies is renovated each year in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 6 with a view to revising the renovation rate in that Article;

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point e

(e) if Member States sh~~all~~ould continue to achieve a share of energy savings among vulnerable customers, people affected by energy poverty, and, where applicable, people living in social housing, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 8 for the ten-year periods after 2030;

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point f

(f) if Member States sh~~all~~ould continue to achieve a reduction of final energy consumption in accordance with Article 5(1).

2022/03/22
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1

(1) The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market by laying down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, marketing and use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This Regulation pursues a number of overriding reasons of public interest, such as a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights, and it ensures the free movement of AI- based goods and services cross-border, thus preventing Member States from imposing restrictions on the development, marketing and use of AI systems, unless explicitly authorised by this Regulation.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) Artificial intelligence systems (AI systems) can be easily deployed in multiple sectors of the economy and society, including cross border, and circulate throughout the Union. Certain Member States have already explored the adoption of national rules to ensure that artificial intelligence is safe and is developed and used in compliance with fundamental rights obligations. Differing national rules may lead to fragmentation of the internal market and decrease legal certainty for operators that develop or use AI systems. A consistent and high level of protection throughout the Union should therefore be ensured, while divergences hampering the free circulation of AI systems and related products and services within the internal market should be prevented or reduced, by laying down minimum uniform obligations for operators and guaranteeing the ~~uniform~~organic and consistent protection of overriding reasons of public interest and of rights of persons throughout the internal market based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). To the extent that this Regulation contains specific rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data concerning restrictions of the use of AI systems for ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement, it is appropriate to base this Regulation, in as far as those specific rules are concerned, on Article 16 of the TFEU. In light of those specific rules and the recourse to Article 16 TFEU, it is appropriate to consult the European Data Protection Board.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) Artificial intelligence is a fast evolving family of technologies that can contribute to a wide array of economic and societal benefits across the entire spectrum of industries and social activities. ~~By improving prediction, optimising operations and resource allocation, and personalising digital solutions available for individuals and organisations, t~~The use of artificial intelligence can provide key competitive advantages to companies and support socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes, for example in healthcare, farming, education and training, infrastructure management, energy, transport and logistics, public services, security, justice, resource and energy efficiency, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) At the same time, depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use, artificial intelligence may generate serious risks and cause harm to public interests and rights that are protected by Union law. Such harm might be material or immaterial.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) This Regulation should also apply to Union institutions, offices, bodies and agencies when acting as a provider or user of an AI system. AI systems exclusively developed or used for military purposes should also be exincluded ~~from~~in the scope of this Regulation ~~where that use falls under the exclusive remit of the Common Foreign and Security Policy regulated under Title V of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU)~~. This Regulation should be without prejudice to the provisions regarding the liability of intermediary service providers set out in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [as amended by the Digital Services Act].

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety and fundamental rights, common normative standards for all ~~high-risk~~ AI systems should be established to restrict or prevent the use or marketing of systems known to be high-risk. Those standards should be consistent with the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (the Charter) and should be non- discriminatory and in line with the Union’s international trade commitments.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety and fundamental rights, common normative standards for all ~~high-risk~~ AI systems should be established. Those standards should be consistent with the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (the Charter) and should be non-discriminatory and in line with the Union’s international trade commitments.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) In order to introduce a proportionate and effective set of binding rules for AI systems, a clearly defined risk- based approach should be followed. That approach should tailor the type and content of such rules to the intensity and scope of the risks that AI systems can generate. It is therefore necessary to prohibit certain artificial intelligence practices, including those defined as ‘high-risk’, and to lay down requirements for ~~high~~medium/low-risk AI systems and obligations for the relevant operators, and to lay down transparency obligations for certain AI systems.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15

(15) Aside from the many beneficial uses of artificial intelligence, that technology can also be misused and provide novel and powerful tools for manipulative, exploitative and social control practices. Such practices are particularly harmful and ~~should~~absolutely must be prohibited because they contradict Union values of respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, democracy and the rule of law and Union fundamental rights, including the right to non-discrimination, data protection and privacy and the rights of the child.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems intended to distort human behaviour, whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur, should be forbidden. Such AI systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age, physical or mental incapacities. They do so with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. The intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the AI system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. Research for legitimate purposes in relation to such AI systems should not be stifled by the prohibition, if such research does not amount to use of the AI system in human- machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by public authorities or on their behalf may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. They may violate the right to dignity and non- discrimination and the values of equality and justice. Such AI systems evaluate or classify the trustworthiness of natural persons based on their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics. The social score obtained from such AI systems may lead to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts, which are unrelated to the context in which the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. ~~Such AI systems should be therefor~~It is therefore extremely important for such AI systems to be prohibited.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) The use of those systems for the purpose of law enforcement ~~should~~must therefore be prohibited, ~~except in three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, where the use is~~as a matter of principle and without any general exceptions. Only in exceptional cases and on the basis of decisions taken by the judicial authority competent on the matter and in the territory of one of the Member States, within the scope of the following three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, may the use of such systems be permitted to the extent and for the time period strictly necessary to achieve an extremely substantial public interest, the importance of which ~~outweighs~~is considered by the relevant judicial authority to prevail over the risks. Those situations involve the search for potential victims of crime, including missing children; certain threats to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack; and the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of perpetrators or suspects of the criminal offences referred to in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA38 if those criminal offences are punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least t~~hre~~en years and as they are defined in the law of that Member State. Such threshold for the custodial sentence or detention order in accordance with national law contributes to ensure that the offence should be serious enough to potentially justify the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems. Moreover, of the 32 criminal offences listed in the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, some are in practice likely to be more relevant than others, in that the recourse to ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification will foreseeably be necessary and proportionate to highly varying degrees for the practical pursuit of the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of the different criminal offences listed and having regard to the likely differences in the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm or possible negative consequences. _________________ 38 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) In order to ensure that those systems are used in a responsible and proportionate manner, it is also important to establish that, in each of those three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, certain elements should be taken into account, in particular as regards the nature of the situation giving rise to the request and the consequences of the use for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned and the safeguards and conditions provided for with the use. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to appropriate limits in time and space, having regard in particular to the evidence or indications regarding the threats, the victims or perpetrator. The reference database of persons should be appropriate for each use case in each of the three situations mentioned above.deleted

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) Each use of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement ~~should~~must be subject to an express and specific authorisation by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of a Member State. Such authorisation should in principle be obtained prior to the use, except in duly justified situations of urgency, that is, situations where the need to use the systems in question is such as to make it effectively and objectively impossible to obtain an authorisation before commencing the use. In such situations of urgency, the use should be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary and be subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions, as determined in national law and specified in the context of each individual urgent use case by the law enforcement authority itself. In addition, the law enforcement authority should in such situations seek to obtain an authorisation as soon as possible, whilst providing the reasons for not having been able to request it earliern independent judicial authority of a Member State. Such authorisation absolutely must be obtained prior to the use.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement necessarily involves the processing of biometric data. The rules of this Regulation that prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, such use, which are based on Article 16 TFEU, should apply as lex specialis in respect of the rules on the processing of biometric data contained in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, thus regulating such use and the processing of biometric data involved in an exhaustive manner. Therefore, such use and processing should only be possible in as far as it is compatible with the framework set by this Regulation, without there being scope, outside that framework, for the competent authorities, where they act for purpose of law enforcement, to use such systems and process such data in connection thereto on the grounds listed in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. In this context, this Regulation is not intended to provide the legal basis for the processing of personal data under Article 8 of Directive 2016/680. However, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for purposes other than law enforcement, including by competent authorities, should not be covered by the specific framework regarding such use for the purpose of law enforcement set by this Regulation. Such use for purposes other than law enforcement should therefore not be subject to the requirement of an authorisation under this Regulation and the applicable detailed rules of national law that may give effect to it.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) ~~High-risk~~ AI systems should only be placed on the Union market or put into service if they comply with certain mandatory requirements. Those requirements should ensure that ~~high-risk~~ AI systems available in the Union or whose output is otherwise used in the Union do not pose unacceptable risks to important Union public interests as recognised and protected by Union law. AI systems identified as high-risk should be limited to those that have a significant harmful impact on the health, safety and fundamental rights of persons in the Union and such limitation minimises any potential restriction to international trade, if any.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28

(28) AI systems could produce adverse outcomes to health and safety of persons, in particular when such systems operate as components of products. Consistently with the objectives of Union harmonisation legislation to facilitate the free movement of products in the internal market and to ensure that only safe and otherwise compliant products find their way into the market, it is important that the safety risks that may be generated by a product as a whole due to its digital components, including AI systems, are duly prevented and mitigated. For instance, increasingly autonomous robots, whether in the context of manufacturing or personal assistance and care should be able to safely operate and performs their functions in complex environments and always under close supervision by human intelligence, with the ability to stop any of their actions quickly, if necessary. Similarly, in the health sector where the stakes for life and health are particularly high, increasingly sophisticated diagnostics systems and systems supporting human decisions should be reliable and accurate and never totally independent of human control. The extent of the adverse impact caused by the AI system on the fundamental rights protected by the Charter is of particular relevance when classifying an AI system as high-risk. or medium/low-risk. Those rights include the right to human dignity, respect for private and family life, protection of personal data, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and of association, and non- discrimination, consumer protection, workers’ rights, rights of persons with disabilities, right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, right of defence and the presumption of innocence, right to good administration. In addition to those rights, it is important to highlight that children have specific rights as enshrined in Article 24 of the EU Charter and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (further elaborated in the UNCRC General Comment No. 25 as regards the digital environment), both of which require consideration of the children’s vulnerabilities and provision of such protection and care as necessary for their well-being. The fundamental right to a high level of environmental protection enshrined in the Charter and implemented in Union policies should also be considered when assessing the severity of the harm that an AI system can cause, including in relation to the health and safety of persons.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30

(30) As regards AI systems that are safety components of products, or which are themselves products, falling within the scope of certain Union harmonisation legislation, it is also appropriate to classify them as high-risk under this Regulation if the product in question undergoes the conformity assessment procedure with a third-party conformity assessment body pursuant to that relevant Union harmonisation legislation. ~~In particular,~~Examples of such products are machinery, toys, lifts, equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres, radio equipment, pressure equipment, recreational craft equipment, cableway installations, appliances burning gaseous fuels, medical devices, and in vitro diagnostic medical devices.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32

(32) As regards stand-alone AI systems, meaning high-risk AI systems other than those that are safety components of products, or which are themselves products, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk if, in the light of their intended purpose, they pose a high risk of harm to the health and safety or the fundamental rights of persons, taking into account both the severity of the possible harm and ~~its probability of~~the possibility that it may occur~~rence~~ and they are used in a number of specifically pre- defined areas specified in the Regulation. The identification of those systems is based on the same methodology and criteria envisaged also for any future amendments of the list of high-risk AI systems.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37

(37) Another area in which the use of AI systems deserves special consideration is the access to and enjoyment of certain essential private and public services and benefits necessary for people to fully participate in society or to improve one’s standard of living. In particular, AI systems used to evaluate the credit score or creditworthiness of natural persons should be classified as high-risk AI systems, since they determine those persons’ access to financial resources or essential services such as housing, electricity, and telecommunication services. AI systems used for this purpose may lead to discrimination of persons or groups and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example based on racial or ethnic origins, disabilities, age, sexual orientation, or create new forms of discriminatory impacts. Considering the very limited scale of the impact and the available alternatives on the market, it is appropriate to exempt AI systems for the purpose of creditworthiness assessment and credit scoring when put into service by small-scale providers for their own use. Natural persons applying for or receiving public assistance benefits and services from public authorities are typically dependent on those benefits and services and in a vulnerable position in relation to the responsible authorities. If AI systems are used for determining whether such benefits and services should be denied, reduced, revoked or reclaimed by authorities, they may have a significant impact on persons’ livelihood and may infringe their fundamental rights, such as the right to social protection, non- discrimination, human dignity or an effective remedy. Those systems should therefore be classified as high-risk. Nonetheless, this Regulation should not hamper the development and use of innovative approaches in the public administration, which would stand to benefit from a wider use of compliant and safe AI systems, provided that those systems do not entail a high risk to legal and natural persons. Finally, AI systems used to dispatch or establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services should also be classified as high- risk since they make decisions in very critical situations for the life and health of persons and their property.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37

(37) Another area in which the use of AI systems deserves special consideration is the access to and enjoyment of certain essential private and public services and benefits necessary for people to fully participate in society or to improve one’s standard of living. In particular, AI systems used to evaluate the credit score or creditworthiness of natural persons should be classified as high-risk AI systems, since they determine those persons’ access to financial resources or essential services such as housing, electricity, and telecommunication services. AI systems used for this purpose may lead to discrimination of persons or groups and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example based on racial or ethnic origins, disabilities, age, sexual orientation, ~~or create new forms of discriminatory impacts. Considering the very limited sc~~political orientation or personale of the impact and the available alternatives on the market, it is appropriate to exempt AI systems for the purpose of creditworthiness assessment and credit scoring when put into service by small-scale providers for their own usepinions, or create new forms of discriminatory impacts. Natural persons applying for or receiving public assistance benefits and services from public authorities are typically dependent on those benefits and services and in a vulnerable position in relation to the responsible authorities. If AI systems are used for determining whether such benefits and services should be denied, reduced, revoked or reclaimed by authorities, they may have a significant impact on persons’ livelihood and may infringe their fundamental rights, such as the right to social protection, non- discrimination, human dignity or an effective remedy. Those systems should therefore be classified as high-risk. Nonetheless, this Regulation should not hamper the development and use of innovative approaches in the public administration, which would stand to benefit from a wider use of compliant and safe AI systems, provided that those systems do not entail a high risk to legal and natural persons. Finally, AI systems used to dispatch or establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services should also be classified as high- risk since they make decisions in very critical situations for the life and health of persons and their property.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38

(38) Actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of AI systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance, arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter. In particular, if the AI system is not trained with high quality data, does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness, or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service, it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. Furthermore, the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights, such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, could be hampered, in particular, where such AI systems are not sufficiently transparent, explainable and documented. It is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk a number of AI systems intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy, reliability and transparency is particularly important to avoid adverse impacts, retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. In view of the nature of the activities in question and the risks relating thereto, those high-risk AI systems should include in particular AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for individual risk assessments, polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of natural person, to detect ‘deep fakes’, for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings, for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons, or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups, for profiling in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. AI systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be considered high-risk AI systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42

(42) To ~~mitig~~eliminate the risks from high- risk AI systems placed or otherwise put into service on the Union market for users and affected persons, the use of these systems must be prohibited, and only systems known to be medium/low-risk must be permitted to be placed on the market, applying to the latter certain mandatory requirements ~~should apply~~, taking into account the intended purpose of the use of the system and according to the risk management system to be established by the provider.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68

(68) Under certain conditions, rapid availability of innovative technologies may be crucial for health and safety of persons and for society as a whole. It is thus appropriate that under exceptional reasons of public security or protection of life and health of natural persons and the protection of industrial and commercial property, Member States could authorise the placing on the market or putting into service of AI systems which have not undergone a conformity assessment.deleted

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70

(70) Certain AI systems intended to interact with natural persons or to generate content may pose specific risks of impersonation or deception irrespective of whether they qualify as high-risk or not. ~~In certain circumstances, t~~The use of these systems should therefore be subject to specific transparency obligations without prejudice to the requirements and obligations for high-risk AI systems. In particular, natural persons should be notified that they are interacting with an AI system~~, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use~~. Moreover, natural persons should be notified when they are exposed to an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system. Such information and notifications should be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. Further, users, who use an AI system to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, places or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic, should disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated by labelling the artificial intelligence output accordingly and disclosing its artificial origin.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 71

(71) Artificial intelligence is a rapidly developing family of technologies that requires novel forms of regulatory oversight and a safe space for experimentation, while ensuring responsible innovation and integration of appropriate safeguards and risk mitigation measures. To ensure a legal framework that is innovation-friendly, future-proof and resilient to disruption, national competent authorities from one or more Member States should be ~~encourag~~advised to establish artificial intelligence regulatory sandboxes to facilitate the development and testing of innovative AI systems under strict regulatory oversight before these systems are placed on the market or otherwise put into service.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 81

(81) The development of AI systems other than high-risk AI systems in accordance with the requirements of this Regulation may lead to a larger uptake of trustworthy artificial intelligence in the Union. Providers of non-high-risk AI systems should ~~be encouraged to~~nonetheless create codes of conduct intended to foster the ~~voluntary~~ application of the ~~mandatory~~ requirements applicable to high-risk AI systems. Providers should also be encouraged to apply ~~on a voluntary basis~~ additional requirements related, for example, to environmental sustainability, accessibility to persons with disability, stakeholders’ participation in the design and development of AI systems, and diversity of the development teams. The Commission may develop initiatives, including of a sectorial nature, to facilitate the lowering of technical barriers hindering cross-border exchange of data for AI development, including on data access infrastructure, semantic and technical interoperability of different types of data.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

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

(c) specific requirements for high-risk and non-high-risk AI systems and obligations for operators of such systems;

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3

~~3. This Regulation shall not apply to AI systems developed or used exclusively for military purposes.~~deleted

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1

(1) ‘artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means an automated system or software that is developed with one or more of the techniques and approaches listed in Annex I and can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the environments they interact with;

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

~~The Commission is empowered to adopt~~ delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to amend the list of techniques and approaches listed in Annex I, in order to update that list to market and technological developments on the basis of characteristics that are similar to the techniques and approaches listed therein.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

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

(b) the consequences of the use of the system for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned, i~~n particular the~~rrespective of the level of seriousness, probability ~~and~~or scale of those consequences.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. As regards paragraphs 1, point (d) and 2, each individual use for the purpose of law enforcement of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces shall be subject to a prior authorisation granted by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of the Member State in which the use is to take place, issued upon a reasoned request and in accordance with the detailed rules of national law referred to in paragraph 4. ~~However, in a duly justified situation of urgency, the use of the system may be commenced without an authorisation and the authorisation may be requested only during or after the use.~~

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point g

(g) the extent to which the outcome produced with an AI system is not easily reversible or remedied, whereby outcomes having an impact on the health or safety of persons shall not be considered as easily reversible or remedied;

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

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

(a) identification and analysis of the known or andy foreseeable risks associated with each high-risk AI system;

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall be such that any residual risk associated with each hazard as well as the overall residual risk of the high-risk AI systems is judged ~~acceptable~~limited and acceptable by the user, provided that the high- risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse. Those residual risks shall be communicated to the user.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3

~~3. The Commission is empowered to adopt~~ delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to amend Annex IV where necessary to ensure that, in the light of technical progress, the technical documentation provides all the necessary information to assess the compliance of the system with the requirements set out in this Chapter.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1

1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed with capabilities ~~enabl~~offering the technical possibility of automatically recording of events (‘logs’) while the high-risk AI system is operating. Those logging capabilities shall conform to recognised standards or common specifications.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. HAll AI systems, including high-risk AI systems, shall be accompanied by instructions for use in an appropriate digital format or otherwise that include concise, complete, correct and clear information that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to users.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii

(ii) the level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity referred to in Article 15, where applicable, against which the ~~high-risk~~ AI system has been tested and validated and which can be expected, and any known and foreseeable circumstances that may have an impact on that expected level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity;

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iii

(iii) any known or foreseeable circumstance, related to the use of the ~~high-risk~~ AI system in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, which may lead to risks to the health and safety or fundamental rights;

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1

1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way, including with appropriate human-machine interface tools, that they can always be effectively overseen by natural persons during the period in which the AI system is in use.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2

2. Human oversight shall aim at preventing or minimising the risks to health, safety or fundamental rights that may emerge when an AI system, especially a high-risk AI system, is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, in particular when such risks persist notwithstanding the application of other requirements set out in this Chapter.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – point b

(b) remain vigilant and aware of the possible tendency of automatically relying or over- relying on the output produced by a high- risk AI system (‘automation bias’), in particular for high-risk AI systems used to provide information or recommendations for decisions to be taken by natural persons;

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – point d

(d) be able to decide, in a~~ny particular situation~~ll cases, not to use the high-risk AI system or otherwise disregard, override or reverse the output of the high-risk AI system;

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1

1. HAll high-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way that they achieve, in the light of their intended purpose, an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity, and perform consistently in those respects throughout their lifecycle.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. ~~High-risk~~All AI systems shall be resilient as regards errors, faults or inconsistencies that may occur within the system or the environment in which the system operates, in particular due to their interaction with natural persons or other systems.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. HAll AI systems, especially high-risk AI systems, shall be resilient as regards attempts by unauthorised third parties to alter their use or performance by exploiting the system vulnerabilities.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

The technical solutions aimed at ensuring the cybersecurity of ~~high-risk~~all AI systems shall be appropriate to the relevant circumstances and the risks.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

The technical solutions to address AI specific vulnerabilities shall include, where appropriate, measures to prevent and control for every possible attack, including attacks trying to manipulate the training dataset (‘data poisoning’), inputs designed to cause the model to make a mistake (‘adversarial examples’), or model flaws.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Providers of AI systems, and high-risk AI systems in particular, shall:

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) ensure that their ~~high-risk~~ AI systems are compliant with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title;

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) when under their control, keep the logs automatically generated by their ~~high- risk~~ AI systems;

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point j

(j) upon request of a national competent authority, demonstrate the conformity of the ~~high-risk~~ AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1

1. Providers of ~~high-risk~~ AI systems shall keep the logs automatically generated by their ~~high-risk~~ AI systems, to the extent such logs are under their control by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law. The logs shall be kept for a period that is appropriate in the light of the intended purpose of the ~~high-risk~~ AI system and applicable legal obligations under Union or national law.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2

2. Providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU shall maintain the logs automatically generated by their ~~high-risk~~ AI systems as part of the documentation under Article 74 of that Directive.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1

PAll providers of AI systems, and high-risk AI systems in particular, which consider or have reason to consider that a ~~high-risk~~n AI system which they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation shall immediately take the necessary corrective actions to bring that system into conformity, to withdraw it or to recall it, as appropriate. They shall inform the distributors of the ~~high-risk~~ AI system in question and, where applicable, the authorised representative and importers accordingly.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1

Where the ~~high-risk~~ AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1) and that risk is known to the provider of the system, that provider shall immediately inform the national competent authorities of the Member States in which it made the system available and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate for the ~~high-risk~~ AI system, in particular of the non- compliance and of any corrective actions taken.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1

PAll providers of AI systems, especially high-risk AI systems, shall, upon request by a national competent authority, provide that authority with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the ~~high-risk~~ AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, in an official Union language determined by the Member State concerned. Upon a reasoned request from a national competent authority, providers shall also give that authority access to the logs automatically generated by the ~~high- risk~~ AI system, to the extent such logs are under their control by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2

2. Where an importer considers or has reason to consider that a ~~high-risk~~n AI system is not in conformity with this Regulation, it shall not place that system on the market until that AI system has been brought into conformity. Where the high- risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the importer shall inform the provider of the AI system and the market surveillance authorities to that effect.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3

3. Importers shall indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark, and the address at which they can be contacted on the ~~high-risk~~ AI system or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or its accompanying documentation, as applicable.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4

4. Importers shall ensure that, while a ~~high-risk~~n AI system is under their responsibility, where applicable, storage or transport conditions do not jeopardise its compliance with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5

5. Importers shall provide national competent authorities, upon a reasoned request, with all necessary information and documentation to demonstrate the conformity of a ~~high-risk~~n AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title in a language which can be easily understood by that national competent authority, including access to the logs automatically generated by the ~~high-risk~~ AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law. They shall also cooperate with those authorities on any action national competent authority takes in relation to that system.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2

2. Where a distributor considers or has reason to consider that a ~~high-risk~~n AI system is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, it shall not make the ~~high-risk~~ AI system available on the market until that system has been brought into conformity with those requirements. Furthermore, where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the distributor shall inform the provider or the importer of the system, as applicable, to that effect.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 3

3. Distributors shall ensure that, while a ~~high-risk~~n AI system is under their responsibility, where applicable, storage or transport conditions do not jeopardise the compliance of the system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 4

4. A distributor that considers or has reason to consider that a ~~high-risk~~n AI system which it has made available on the market is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title shall take the corrective actions necessary to bring that system into conformity with those requirements, to withdraw it or recall it or shall ensure that the provider, the importer or any relevant operator, as appropriate, takes those corrective actions. Where the ~~high-risk~~ AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the distributor shall immediately inform the national competent authorities of the Member States in which it has made the product available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective actions taken.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1

~~High-risk~~ AI systems which are in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, to the extent those standards cover those requirements.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3

3. ~~High-risk~~ AI systems which are in conformity with the common specifications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, to the extent those common specifications cover those requirements.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47

~~[...]~~deleted

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 2

2. The EU declaration of conformity shall state that the ~~high-risk~~ AI system in question meets the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title. The EU declaration of conformity shall contain the information set out in Annex V and shall be translated into an official Union language or languages required by the Member State(s) in which the ~~high-risk~~ AI system is made available.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1

1. Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that natural persons are informed that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences, unless those systems are available for the public to report a criminal offence.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2

2. Users of an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system shall inform of the operation of the system the natural persons exposed thereto. ~~This obligation shall not apply to AI systems used for biometric categorisation, which are permitted by law to detect, prevent and investigate criminal offences.~~

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

However, the first subparagraph shall not apply where the use is authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences or it is necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the arts and sciences guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties.deleted

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3

3. The AI regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities. Any significant risks to health and safety and fundamental rights identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation or closure of the sandbox and, failing that, in the suspension of the development and testing process until such mitigation takes place.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Member States ~~shall~~may undertake the following actions:

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1

1. Providers shall establish and document a post-market monitoring system in a manner that is proportionate to the nature of the artificial intelligence technologies and the risks of the ~~high-risk~~ AI system.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 2

2. The post-market monitoring system shall actively and systematically collect, document and analyse relevant data provided by users or collected through other sources on the performance of ~~high- risk~~ AI systems throughout their lifetime, and allow the provider to evaluate the continuous compliance of AI systems with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Providers of ~~high-risk~~ AI systems placed on the Union market shall report any serious incident or any malfunctioning of those systems which constitutes a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights to the market surveillance authorities of the Member States where that incident or breach occurred.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. The following infringements shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 51 000 000 EUR:

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 3

3. The non-compliance of the AI system with any requirements or obligations under this Regulation, other than those laid down in Articles 5 and 10, shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 2500 000 EUR.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. This Regulation shall not apply to the AI systems which are components of the large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex IX that have been placed on the market or put into service before [123 months after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)], unless the replacement or amendment of those legal acts leads to a significant change in the design or intended purpose of the AI system or AI systems concerned.

2022/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises the strong link with the Farm to Fork strategy and the need for a holistic approach to the food system; calls on the Commission to establish an evidence-based evaluation of the implementation of the strategy’s measures and targets, in particular of the individual and cumulative impacts on the social and economic sustainability of agriculture in the EU, food security and prices, and the potential risks of displacing biodiversity losses abroad by the replacement of local agricultural production with imports; stresses, in this respect, that trade agreements such as the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement or the EU-Mexico Trade Agreement, whether currently in force or under negotiation, are contrary to the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy;

2021/01/21
Committee: AGRI

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses the key role of the common agricultural policy (CAP) in protecting and promoting farmland biodiversity; underlines the potential of the green architecture components of the CAP in promoting and providing incentives for the transition to more sustainable agricultural systems for producing food and maintaining high nature value farmland; highlights the importance of pasture systems that preserve many millions of hectares of grassland and hedges and that are key sources of biodiversity; considers that Member States must ensure the timely development and uptake of actions which contribute to enhancing the delivery and potential of biodiversity benefits in line with the required level of ambition;

2021/01/21
Committee: AGRI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to carry out holistic and cumulative assessments of the impact of the implementation of the strategy’s measures and targets on the social and economic sustainability of agriculture and forestry within and outside the EU, on food safety and on prices;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Acknowledges the efforts made to date by the EU Member States and by the various sectors involved and stakeholders, in particular in the agriculture and forestry sector; emphasises that sustainable and effective management of natural processes is of the utmost importance for maintaining biodiversity, and that, in particular, greater efforts should be made to link different urban, agricultural and protected areas that support biodiversity in relation to the negative impact of climate change; recognises that the EU already has the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the recognition of organic farming, family livestock production and pasturing as a strong components on the EU’s path towards more sustainable food systems; underlines that the development of ~~organic food production~~such systems must be accompanied by research, innovation and scientific transfer, market and supply chain development, and measures stimulating demand for ~~organic~~sustainable food, ensuring both the stability of the ~~organic~~agricultural products market and the fair remuneration of farmers;

2021/01/21
Committee: AGRI

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Underlines the importance of sustainable forest management for the health and longevity of forest ecosystems and the preservation of the multifunctional role of forests; highlights the potential of agroforestry to improve and boost ecosystem services and farmland biodiversity, while enhancing farm productivity; draws the attention of the Commission and the Member States to the obvious fact that the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement, like many other trade agreements aimed at making it easier to import into the EU food produced under conditions resulting in major deforestation, will have the effect of automatically increasing the EU’s ‘imported deforestation’, in clear contradiction with the Biodiversity Strategy and the Green Deal ambitions;

2021/01/21
Committee: AGRI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Expresses strong support for~~Notes the targets of protecting at least 30 % of the Union’s marine and terrestrial areas~~, and of strictly protecting at least 10 % of these areas, including primary and old-growth forest~~; stresses that impact assessments should evaluate the effects of increasing the protected areas, including losses; stresses that th~~ese~~is target should be ~~binding and~~ implemented by Member States in accordance with science-based criteria and biodiversity needs, socio-economic aspects, and respect for the property rights of farmland and forest owners; underlines that, in addition to increasing protected areas, the quality of protected areas should be ensured and clear conservation and management plans implemented, together with adequate compensation for the effects suffered by stakeholders;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Emphasises that the protection and restoration of rural areas and the protection of wild animal species must be consistent with local economic development, providing for sustainable management policies based on containment and careful monitoring of the spread of wildlife in the areas concerned;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Emphasises that it is important for the EU and the global biodiversity strategies to have the same level of ambition, particularly with regard to the level of protection; emphasises that the updated zero draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, which takes into account the results of the second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, does not include a reference to strict protection; calls, therefore, on the Commission to ensure that any soil protection targets are sufficiently flexible to allow their implementation to take account of the specific conditions and opportunities in each country and the rights of land and forest owners, with strict protection being a voluntary option for land and forest owners;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Stresses the need to clarify the definitions of the different elements of the strategy in consultation with Member States and stakeholders, in particular in the areas of agriculture, fisheries and forestry;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the upcoming ~~legislative~~ proposal on the EU Nature Restoration Plan and reiterates its call for a restoration target of at least 30 % of the ~~EU’s~~ land and seas, which should be implemented by each Member State consistently throughout all of their territory and based on thorough and convincing impact assessments; considers that in addition to an overall target for restoration ~~target~~, ecosystem- specific ~~target~~opportunities should be ~~set~~considered, with a particular emphasis on ecosystems for the dual purposes of biodiversity restoration and climate change mitigation and adaptation; stresses that after restoration, no ecosystem degradation should be allowed; stresses the need to prioritise positive incentives and the voluntary participatory bottom-up process with a view to increasing acceptance, motivation and commitment to protecting and restoring biodiversity; calls, therefore, for a very careful approach to any new legally binding instruments;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that the Biodiversity Strategy’s actions must adequately tackle all five main direct drivers of change in nature: changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution; and invasive alien species; stresses that climate change has been assessed globally, with differences emerging between regions, and that its impact on nature is already being felt by ecosystems and by the genetic base of their component species; notes that this impact is expected to increase over the coming decades, in some cases outweighing the impact of changes in the use of the land and sea and other factors; emphasises that acting early in these areas is a priority;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Highlights that soil biodiversity is the basis for key ecological processes; notes with concern the increased soil degradation and the lack of specific EU legislation; calls on the Commission to submit a ~~legislative~~ proposal for ~~the establishment of a common framework~~a new soil strategy for the protection and sustainable use of soil, t~~hat includes a specific decontamination target~~o be implemented in a manner consistent with other policies;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Recalls that the EU has committed to achieving land degradation neutrality by 2030, but that this target is unlikely to be achieved; calls on the Commission, therefore, to present an EU-level strategy on desertification and land degradation;deleted

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Commission to set specific ambitious targets on urban biodiversity, nature-based solutions and green infrastructure and to develop a Trans-European Network for Green Infrastructure (TEN-G) linked to the Trans- European Nature Network (TEN-N); calls, in particular, on the Commission to share the administration of these TEN-G and TEN-N areas with local communities and with forestry, agriculture and research operators and all other stakeholders, by setting up intermediate management structures to encourage shared approaches for adopting effective, participatory, transparent and consistent long-term solutions that tackle biodiversity loss in a tangible manner;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Expresses its support for the 2030 targets of bringing at least 25 % of~~Notes the 2030 targets and is in favour of increasing agricultural land ~~unde~~for organic ~~farm management, which should become the norm in the long term, and ensuring that at least 10 % of~~production or for other agroecological practices that are in line with market developments, and of devoting, by way of a voluntary approach, agricultural land ~~consists of~~at EU level to high- diversity landscape features~~, which should be implemented at farm level, targets which should both be incorporated into EU legislation~~; considers it imperative that farmers receive financial and other support and training in the transition towards ~~agroecological practices~~more sustainable practices, including by establishing appropriate compensation for products grown in this way;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Insists that priority for protected areas must be environmental conservation and restoration and that no activity in these areas should undermine this goal; c~~Calls on the Commission to avoid future marine renewable energy developments and bottom-trawling fishing within Marine Protected Areas;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Underlines that the new EU Forest Strategy must be ~~fully aligned~~consistent with the Climate Law and the Biodiversity Strategy; ~~calls for the inclusion in the Nature Restoration Plan of specific binding targets for the protection and restoration of forest ecosystems, which should also be incorporated into the Forest Strategy;~~

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Stresses that the future EU Forest Strategy should be used as the overarching framework to coordinate all forestry policies, including biodiversity aspects, with sustainable forest management at its centre, taking due account of the prevailing roles of the Member States’ forestry policies and laws and of the principle of subsidiarity; stresses the important role of the Standing Forestry Committee and the Advisory Committee on Forestry and Cork as the main forums for exchanging information and providing the Commission with opinions, advice and skills on the different policies and initiatives on forests and forestry; stresses the need to take into account the diversity and the different characteristics of European forests from an economic, social and ecological perspective;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Stresses that the Union’s tree planting initiatives should be based on ~~pro~~sustainable forestation, ~~sustainable~~climate-adapted reforestation and the greening of urban areas; calls on the Commission to ensure that these initiatives are carried out only in a manner compatible with and conducive to the biodiversity objectives, and to guarantee the necessary biological connections between the different areas (urban, rural and protected) in the territories concerned;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls on the Commission to urgently present a proposal for an EU legal framework ~~based on mandatory due diligence~~ that ensures sustainable and deforestation-free value chains;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s targets of reducing the use of more hazardous and chemical pesticides by ~~50 %,~~up to 50 %, reducing the use of fertilisers by at least 20 % and nutrient losses by at least 50 % by 2030, which should be made binding; considers that the derogation envisaged in Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 should be clarified and must only be applied for agricultural reasons and assessed on the basis of health and environmental factorand limiting nutrient losses by 2030, in view of the need to safeguard the production potential of EU farms;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Stresses that, in order to achieve the stated objectives, it is essential to find alternative solutions to ensure that farmers have access to a range of suitable, safe, effective and affordable tools, as well as access to the latest information and technology and the best advisory services; calls on the Commission, in particular, to encourage and promote alternative solutions to pesticides and fertilisers, ensuring sufficient investment for their research and development; calls on the Commission, moreover, to revise the legislation to allow swift adjustments to be made when authorising alternative products in order to get them onto the market quickly;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Strongly regrets the decline of pollinators, which are a key indicator of the health of the environment; reiterates the position expressed in its resolution of 18 December 2019 on the EU Pollinators Initiative5and calls for an urgent revision of the initiative; _________________ 5 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0104.deleted

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Calls on the Commission to draw up a new proposal to develop pollinators’ habitats, harnessing the ecosystem services provided by the relevant sectoral operators and the benefits that they bring, by providing farmers with appropriate advice that, in exchange for fair compensation, allows plant species to be planted to boost pollinators’ health and crop diversification on farmland to improve the pollination service and preserve biodiversity;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Regrets that the list of Union concern represents less than 6 % of IAS present in Europe; calls on the Commission to ensure proper coverage of IAS affecting threatened species on the EU list and to reinforce prevention by introducing mandatory risk assessments prior to the first import of non-native species and by adopting ~~white lists by 2030 at the l~~, by 2030 at the latest, white lists that are mandatory and that apply to all Member Statest;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls on the Commission to ensure effective biodiversity mainstreaming and proofing across EU spending and programmes ~~on the basis of the EU Taxonomy and the ‘do no significant harm’ principle~~; calls on the Commission to provide a comprehensive assessment of how the EUR 20 billion per year needed for nature could be mobilised, to make corresponding proposals for the Union’s annual budget and to examine the need for a dedicated funding instrument for TEN-N; considers that efforts should be made to reach 10 % annual spending on biodiversity under the multiannual financial framework (MFF) as soon as possible from 2021 onwards;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Commission to provide an assessment of all subsidies harmful to the environment with a view to their phasing out by 2030 at the latest; reiterates its calls for the reorientation of taxation systems towards an increased use of environmental taxation so that the circulation and provision of foodstuffs are not negatively affected; calls on the Commission to consider forms of compensation in response to the potential economic losses incurred;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Highlights the need for a ~~legally binding~~ biodiversity governance framework~~, similar to the Climate Law, which steers a path to 2050 through a set of binding objectives, including targets for 2030 and the COP15 commitments, and which establish~~ which establishes a monitoring mechanism with smart indicators that factors in the actual achievement of the targets over a longer period of time in line with natural cycles, a ~~monitoring mechanism with smart indicators; calls on the Commission to submit a legal proposal to this end in 2022~~s opposed to binding targets set using human-centred choices and legal instruments;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Notes that marine plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, affecting at least 267 species; calls on the Union to lead negotiations for an international agreement for plastic-free oceans by 2030; calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of involving local fishing communities based far and wide across the Member States in recovering and tackling plastic littering in the seas in order to meet this objective, in exchange for fair compensation for operators;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2273(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Underlines that the successful implementation of the strategy depends on the involvement of all actors and sectors, especially those most affected; calls on the Commission to create a stakeholder platform for discussion and to ensure an inclusive, equitable and just transition; stresses the importance of carrying out complete and in-depth impact assessments of the general strategy and any related legislative initiatives; stresses the need to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens when implementing the strategy;

2021/02/22
Committee: ENVI

2020/2223(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that ensuring a level playing field for undertakings in the single market also depends on decisively and effectively combating social and fiscal dumping;

2021/02/03
Committee: ECON

2020/2223(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the adoption of a Temporary Framework for State aid measures established in response to the COVID-19 crisis and takes the view that it should be extended even beyond the end of the movement restrictions for citizens, in order to allow for medium- and long- term intervention in all sectors that might suffer a negative economic impact in the coming years, in particular for SMEs;

2021/02/03
Committee: ECON

2020/2223(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls on the Commission to thoroughly assess the imbalances between Member States in the provision of State aid during the temporary regime, with regard to both the 2009 financial crisis and the current COVID-19 crisis; calls on the Commission to publish a historical report on the amount of State aid approved per country and per sector, with in-depth comparisons;

2021/02/03
Committee: ECON

2020/2223(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates the priority of ensuring that State aid rules are strictly and impartially adhered to, including when dealing with future banking crises, so that taxpayers and savers are protected against the burden of bank rescues; calls on the Commission to publish a historical report on the amount of State aid approved in the banking sector in the Member States, with in-depth comparisons;

2021/02/03
Committee: ECON

2020/2223(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Regrets that, despite the suspension of the Stability and Growth Pact, the Commission is continuing its moral suasion by stressing the need for rigour in public finances in the medium term, inducing countries with high levels of government debt to spend less than is necessary to support the economy against the background of an unpredictable crisis; points out that inadequate public intervention during lockdowns can destroy entire sectors of the economy and create deep and lasting structural and social crises;

2021/02/03
Committee: ECON

2020/2223(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for reflection on possible distortions of competition arising from the European Central Bank’s ~~pandemic emergency purchase programme (PEPP) and~~ corporate sector purchasing programme (CSPP);

2021/02/03
Committee: ECON

2020/2223(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the Commission to explore temporary solutions whereby large corporations operating in online trading and deliveries, which have been excessively rewarded by the restrictions to contain the Coronavirus, can help support traditional retail and catering activities, which, on the contrary, have been heavily penalised;

2021/02/03
Committee: ECON

2020/2223(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Expresses its concern about distortive state-funded competition from Chinese and other foreign undertakings acquiring European undertakings, especially those active in innovative technologies, and regrets the conclusion of the 'Comprehensive Agreement on Investment' negotiations with China, which fail to take sufficient account of these distortive aspects and of the more important issue of respect for human rights;

2021/02/03
Committee: ECON

2020/2223(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is of the opinion that the Union and the Member States need targeted policies and investments to reindustrialise and re- shore jobs and value chain activities; considers it a matter of priority in this regard to eliminate the austerity constraints inherent in the Stability and Growth Pact;

2021/02/03
Committee: ECON

2020/2223(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s determination to address unfair terms and practices, act decisively, and eliminate illegitimate obstacles to online competition in the European digital single market; points out that every day, large digital corporations transfer huge profits without paying the right taxes in the countries where the transactions actually took place; regrets that some Member States encourage tax avoidance through their tax and legal systems;

2021/02/03
Committee: ECON

2020/2202(INI)

Gunnar BECK, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Points out that bilateral or multilateral agreements need to be introduced to meet the pressing need for European citizens to have in place both a digital and paper-based solution for all processes relating to identity, health, education and/or training, work, social protection and banking services;

2022/11/09
Committee: PETI

2020/2176(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Shares with concern the Court’s observation that to compensate for a shortage of posts the Authority relies increasingly on consultants and interim staff, which may pose risks of inadequate supervision of complex work by external contractors and contractual litigation issues; urges the Authority to make sure that contracts avoid any confusion between the procurement of services and of interim workers;

2021/01/08
Committee: ECON

2020/2175(DEC)

Gunnar BECK, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Shares the Court’s observation that to compensate for a shortage of posts the Authority relies on consultants and interim staff, which may pose risks if too few qualified staff are to supervise complex work of external contractors or cause risks of contractual litigation; urges the Authority to make sure that contracts avoid any confusion between the procurement of services and of interim workers;

2021/01/08
Committee: ECON

2020/2175(DEC)

Gunnar BECK, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regret~~Notes that the budget does not disclose completely how the contributions from EU and EFTA Member States were calculated, nor were the Member States contributions adjusted to match the actual figures for the Authority’s pensions contributionsfunding key for and EFTA Member States’ contributions is determined by Article 62 of EIOPA´s founding regulation; calls on the Authority to swiftly publish a more detailed explanation on the calculation methods applied for EU, NCA and EFTA state contributions, and not to wait until the next SPD;

2021/01/08
Committee: ECON

2020/2174(DEC)

Gunnar BECK, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Shares with concern the Court’s observation that to compensate for a shortage of posts the Authority relies on interim staff, which may cause dependencies on the interim work agencies and pose risks of inadequate supervision of complex work by external contractors and contractual litigation issues; urges the Authority to make sure that contracts avoid any confusion between the procurement of services and of interim workers;

2021/01/08
Committee: ECON

2020/2174(DEC)

Gunnar BECK, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls its resolution of 13 January 2020 on institutions and bodies of the EMU: preventing post-public employment conflicts of interest and the decision of the European Ombudsman in case 2168/2019/KR of 7 May 2020; strongly agrees with the Ombudsman that the Authority should have forbidden the job move and that the measures put in place to prevent conflicts of interest are not sufficient to address the risks involved;

2021/01/08
Committee: ECON

2020/2174(DEC)

Gunnar BECK, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Welcomes the adoption by the Authority`s Board of Supervisors of its Policy on Independence and Decision Making Processes for avoiding Conflicts of Interests; calls on the European Court of Auditors to specifically scrutinize in its future audits of the Authority (i) if senior staff members have taken up certain positions in the financial industry after their term in office, (ii) the timely manner in which access to confidential information for staff members is withdrawn, once it became known that they are moving to another job;

2021/01/08
Committee: ECON

2020/2124(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Stresses the importance of avoiding fur~~Takes note of ther geographical ~~imbalances in the~~distribution of EIB’s lending activity ~~so as to ensure a broader geographical and sectoral~~and call for a fair allocation of investments, to reduce regional disparities and to enhance convergence; welcomes the efforts already made by the EIB in this regard;

2021/03/10
Committee: ECON

2020/2124(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Reiterates that supporting SMEs and mid-caps must remain a fundamental objective for the EIB, notably to assist them with decarbonisation and access to ICT tools; welcomes efforts made to provide online assistance and counselling to SMEs in accessing EIB lending; reiterates, moreover, that the EIB should further strengthen its support for micro- enterprises, especially in this time of economic crisis, including through cooperation with National Support Banks and local banking networks;

2021/03/10
Committee: ECON

2020/2124(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Gunnar BECK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24 a. Regrets the fact that at the end- 2019 the total disbursed exposure in Turkey, a country that does not respect several of the basic principles of freedom and democracy, amounted to EUR 12.3bn and a further EUR 0.8bn has been committed in signed operations not yet disbursed;

2021/03/10
Committee: ECON

2020/2124(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Gunnar BECK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26 a. Notes with concern that general administrative expenses are ever increasing and asks the EIB to maintain cost discipline as well as to keep its management structure lean and efficient;

2021/03/10
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas ~~overall, the banking sector has responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with resilience, mostly founded on~~ the regulatory reforms enacted since the major global financial crisis ~~and further supported by extraordinary public policy relief measures and capital conservation practices~~have proved ineffective in combating the causes of the banking crises that have followed, and whereas many of the rules were immediately suspended in order to allow the banking system to prop up the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

~~C. whereas the lack of a solution to the treatment of sovereign debt exposures and national options and discretions persists, undermining the European dimension of the Banking Union;~~deleted

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI, Gunnar BECK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Takes the view that supervision continues to focus too much on credit risk, underestimating the importance of financial risk;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI, Gunnar BECK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the supervisory authorities to monitor financial risks closely, in particular those linked to the shadow banking system, and to take appropriate steps wherever necessary; calls on the supervisory authorities, further, to monitor closely aspects linked to the professionalism of and generational change in governance, in particular in the smallest banks;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the vital contribution to addressing the crisis of public guarantee schemes, moratoria on loan repayments for borrowers in financial difficulty, the central banks’ liquidity programmes and the ECB’s targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTRO) and pandemic emergency purchase programme (PEPP); emphasises, therefore, that all the measures referred to above should remain in force for as long as necessary and should be withdrawn gradually;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the EBA to defer, at least until 31 December 2021, the suspension of the rules on default classification, and at the same time to raise from 1% to 5% the diminished financial obligation threshold, as laid down in paragraph 51 of the EBA Guidelines on the definition of default (EBA/GL/2016/07), in order to enable banks to assess the value of loans correctly, so that healthy firms are not erroneously categorised as bad payers;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Notes the ‘quick fix’ to the Capital Requirements Regulation31 extending transitional arrangements in order to support banks’ lending capacity32 ; calls, furthermore, for a two-year freeze on the timing of the minimum loss coverage requirements set out in the ‘NPL backstop Regulation’ and of supervisory expectations; _________________ 31Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 176, 27.06.2013, page 1). 32 Regulation (EU) 2020/873 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2020, amending Regulations (EU) No 575/2013 and (EU) 2019/876 as regards certain adjustments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ L 204, 26.6.2020, page 4).

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes the postponement of the implementation of the Basel III reforms and awaits the Commission’s upcoming proposal on the implementation of the finalised standards, taking into account the specificities of the EU banking sector; and the need to increase bank lending to the real economy, and in particular SMEs, in part by raising the thresholds for the supporting factor, which would increase their spending capacity;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI, Gunnar BECK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that ~~sound management of credit risk should remain the key priority for the SSM~~a detailed assessment of the systemic risks to the European banking system should remain the key priority for the SSM, and takes the view that financial risk is being underestimated, in particular as regards the exposure of the shadow banking system;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Stresses that ensuring proper and timely management of deteriorated exposures will be key to preventing a build-up of non-performing loans (NPLs) ~~in the short term~~; calls therefore for the deferral to December 2024 of the application of Article 500 CRR on the transfer of NPLs, in order to rule out any disproportionate impact on banks' capital, which would in turn have negative repercussions for lending to the real economy, and in particular to SMEs;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

198. Stresses that banks should diligently assess the financial soundness and viability of businesses, proactively engage with distressed debtors to manage their exposures, and offer financing and restructuring options to viable companies; takes the view that the prudential framework should be revised accordingly, to make possible and incentivise the granting of such options;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Takes the view that, in order to give the banks sufficient leeway to implement tolerance measures and avoid counterproductive capital absorptions as provided for in the current rules, the diminished financial obligation threshold laid down in paragraph 51 of the EBA Guidelines on the definition of default (EBA/GL/2016/07) should be raised from 1% to 5%;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Stresses the benefits of ~~banking consolidation in addressing the overcapacities and fragmentation of the banking sector~~providing incentives to establish properly supervised local banking systems in the European Union, with a view to boosting the credit system by focusing on knowledge of local industries and meeting the needs of networks of SMEs;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Is concerned that as Member States sell increasing amounts of~~Takes the view that any kind of risk weighting of the sovereign bonds~~, their share i~~ on banks’' balance sheets ~~grows, potentially aggravating the doom loop; considers that the creation of Next Generation EU will provide high-quality European asset~~could destabilise the European banking system and the sovereign bond market and undermine the very ability of the Member States to finance their own bond issues;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Welcomes the fact that while the SRB was not required to take resolution action in 2020, it nevertheless collaborated with the SSM regarding close-to-crisis cases; ~~apprecia~~notes the advancement of the current resolution planning cycle, and reiterates that MREL requests should be proportionate so that they represents one of the key elements in enhancing banks’ resolvability;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Regards it as essential to increase the transparency and ex ante predictability of the results of the public interest assessment, in order to provide the clarity needed to guarantee more consistent and proportionate MREL levels;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Considers it necessary to have in place an EU liquidation regime, based on greater use of preventive interventions as an alternative to deposit guarantee schemes, for banks for which the SRB assesses that there is no public interest in resolution;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI, Gunnar BECK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Invites the Commission, following detailed study and consultation with national authorities and parliaments, to reflect on the potential for further harmonisation of specific aspects of existing national insolvency laws in order to ensure a consistent and effective application of the crisis management framework;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Finds merit, in particular, in adopting a targeted approach to the harmonisation of the creditor hierarchy in bank insolvency proceedings, involving a raising of the coverage threshold for households and SMEs, in order to safeguard the credibility of the European banking system;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Considers it necessary to ~~revie~~allow the ~~public interest assessment so as to enable the application of resolution instruments to a wider groups of banks~~implementation under national deposit guarantee schemes of preventive and alternative measures (i.e. financing of the transfer of assets and liabilities from LSI banks in crisis to a third party) in order to ensure an orderly liquidation of small and medium-sized banks with a negative public interest assessment;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Notes the importance of depositors across the Banking Union enjoying the same level of protection of their savings, and takes the view that the threshold should be raised, at least for households and SMEs, in order to safeguard the credibility of the European banking system; takes note of the Commission proposal to further strengthen citizens’ confidence in the protection of deposits by introducing an EDIS;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Notes the Commission’s launch of the review of the CMDI framework, including the option of a hybrid EDIS, built around the idea of an initial liquidity support mechanism among national DGSs and aimed at financing any shortage of DGS means, irrespective of whether the funds have been used in a pay-out or preventive/alternative intervention, assuming that this choice is guided by the Least Cost Test (LCT);

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)

36a. Considers it necessary to amend DG COMP’s 2013 state aid rules and Banking Communication in a consistent manner in order to allow for preventive and alternative action by DGS in the context of crisis management, taking due account of recent CJEU rulings;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2122(INI)

Valentino GRANT, Francesca DONATO, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 b (new)

36b. Considers it essential to increase the transparency and ex ante predictability of the results of the public interest assessment, in order to provide the clarity needed to guarantee more consistent and proportionate MREL levels;

2021/05/27
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recognises that the EU faces the unprecedented challenge of mitigating the social and economic consequences of the historic recession and setting the course for a rapid economic recovery ~~link~~oriented to a sustainable and just transition and digital transformation; is convinced that, for this, a significant increase in public and private investment compared to the 2010s is indispensable and that the increased level of investment must be stabilised for many years to come;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the swift and strong response to the crisis in the area of monetary and fiscal policy, at both EU and Member State level, as well as the European Recovery Plan; ~~considers it essential~~acknowledges that the recovery package is fully aligned with the EU’s new growth strategy, i.e. in accordance with the principles of the European Green Deal (EGD), the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and with the aim to protect women’s rights and achieve gender equality; demands that funds and resources be directed to projects and beneficiaries that comply with our Treaty-based fundamental values and that recipient firms protect their workers, pay their fair share of taxes, and refrain from paying out dividends or offering share buy-back schemes aimed at remunerating shareholders;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Is of the view that the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is an inadequate tool for responding effectively to economic crises in the euro area and considers it advisable to revise the TFEU so that the ECB can directly purchase Member States' government bonds on the primary market;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the activation of the general escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact, and expects that it will remain activated at least until the end of 2021 and not before a complete upturn of all Member states in order to support their efforts ~~of the Member States~~ to recover from the pandemic crisis and strengthen their economic and social resilience;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recalls the specific need to foster growth convergence within the euro area;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Is concerned about the significant but uneven negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on government deficit and private debt, which further aggravates the situation of Member States that are particularly affected by the pandemic and/or pre-existing high levels of government debt; calls for a solution that guarantees the sustainability of public debt;deleted

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers it essential that the revision of the EU’s fiscal and economic policy framework should be completed by the time the escape clause is repealed and should enable fiscal policy to respond with discretion to shocks in the short term, and to gradually reduce high public debt ratios, by supporting growth, to an agreed reference value in the long term, while allowing a ~~sufficient~~considerable level of public investment, ~~progressiv~~sustainable tax policies and the repayment of loans in a cycle- comfortable manner~~, and the long-term modernisation of public commodities~~;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Hélène LAPORTE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Urges the Commission to review the methodology for calculating estimates of potential output and the output gap used for the assessment of the cyclical component of the structural balance; is of the view that this methodology has proven to be inadequate and, over the years, has been shown to produce excessive, distorting and damaging restrictions on the spending capacity of states;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Proposes a combination of expenditure rules for public non- investment expenditure and a golden rule for public investment which is central to both; wishes to see a rapid recovery from the COVID-19 crisis and a transition to a cleaner, socially sustainable and more ~~digital society~~competitive Eurozone;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Hélène LAPORTE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Urges the Commission, in the possible revision of the Stability Pact, to ease the rules that have proven to be too restrictive and often punitive with regard to the public debt and deficit, by adapting the criteria and thresholds to the new economic and social context in Europe; stresses the negative impact excessive current-account surpluses in the balance of payments are having on the stability of the euro area economy;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Welcomes the refocus of the European Semester Spring Package aimed at providing an immediate economic policy response to tackle and mitigate the health and socio-economic impact of COVID-19 and reboot economic activity; supports the Commission’s announcement of a reform of the European Semester to convert it into a tool to coordinate the recovery measures~~, framed by the principles of the EGD, the EPSR and the SDGs~~; is convinced that this has to include the coordination of measures concerning state aid and tax policies; underlines the need for ~~the integration of a new set of binding sustainability and wellbeing indicators and~~ alternative measurements of growth performance;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Hélène LAPORTE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Is concerned about the clear distortions of competition caused by the asymmetric volumes of state aid granted by Member States during economic crises, owing to different debt baselines; is of the view that the Commission's work on competition policy has been inadequate and damaging and has increased imbalances between EU economies; considers that it would be appropriate to conduct an in-depth assessment of the impact caused by the Commission's approach to competition and state aid;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Marco ZANNI, Francesca DONATO, Valentino GRANT, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Takes the view that Member States' policies and reforms should be discussed and decided on only by the national parliaments, applying the principle of subsidiarity; notes that the European Semester procedure has proven to be totally unsuccessful and damaging, imposing reforms that have made countries' economies weaker and more vulnerable, exacerbated wage deflation and increased precarious employment and poverty;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. considers appropriate to limit the interventions and recommendations to member countries to areas necessary to prevent or reduce the negative externalities produced by national policies, respecting the sovereignty of Member States in every other sector;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Recalls the urgent need to complete and reinforce the EMU architecture ~~with a view to~~aiming at protecting citizens and reducing pressure on public finances during external shocks so as to overcome social and economic imbalances, by creating a fiscal capacity for public investment, a macroeconomic stabilisation and cohesion function for the euro area, and a European unemployment benefit reinsurance scheme;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Hélène LAPORTE, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. considers extremely important to change the mandate of the ECB, placing as its first objective the full employment and subordinately the price stability, as well as widening its scope through the introduction of instruments necessary to correct the economic asymmetries among the Eurozone member countries;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2078(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Marco ZANNI, Antonio Maria RINALDI, Hervé JUVIN, Hélène LAPORTE, Valentino GRANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. considers necessary to intervene in the banking regulation and supervision system, allowing greater flexibility in complying with the convergence criteria towards countries with low credit demand and applying the same criteria more rigorously in those with excess credit demand, also in order to avoid the excessive increase in inflation;

2020/07/13
Committee: ECON

2020/2076(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Alessandro PANZA, Vincenzo SOFO, Rosanna CONTE, Stefania ZAMBELLI

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented recession in the Union, the effects of which will be felt even more strongly in the industrial sector, with many businesses notably weakened or forced to close down;

2020/06/15
Committee: REGI

2020/2076(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Alessandro PANZA, Vincenzo SOFO, Rosanna CONTE, Stefania ZAMBELLI

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the EU’s microenterprises and SMEs have traditionally generated a high share of the EU’s employment, and in so doing have ensured social and economic well-being and prosperity;

2020/06/15
Committee: REGI

2020/2076(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Alessandro PANZA, Vincenzo SOFO, Rosanna CONTE, Stefania ZAMBELLI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the EU’s industrial future is linked ~~to an alignment of the economy with the principles of the European Green Deal,~~above all to a full economic recovery following the pandemic crisis and to a roadmap towards a new growth policy for the EU~~, bring~~ carrying citizens, cities and regions to~~gether~~ the same higher level of development, and allowing for a just transition;

2020/06/15
Committee: REGI

2020/2076(INI)

Mathilde ANDROUËT, Francesca DONATO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c (new)

(c) Stresses the need to secure supply in the absence of local solutions, especially by ensuring a geographical spread of supply sources;

2020/06/15
Committee: REGI

2020/2076(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Alessandro PANZA, Vincenzo SOFO, Rosanna CONTE, Stefania ZAMBELLI

3. Stresses that in supporting microenterprises and SMEs through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) the goal should be, inter alia, an innovative and smart economic transformation, a greener and low carbon EU, as well as an EU which is more connected and aims to ensure long- term and sustainable employment;

2020/06/15
Committee: REGI

2020/2076(INI)

Francesca DONATO, Alessandro PANZA, Vincenzo SOFO, Rosanna CONTE, Stefania ZAMBELLI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Reitera~~Notes that the public sector has an important new role to play in facilitating a just transition by promoting a green and fair energy transition, green and blue investments, the circular economy, as well as climate adaptation of territories and risk prevention in all EU regions;

2020/06/15
Committee: REGI

2020/2076(INI)

Mathilde ANDROUËT, Francesca DONATO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – point a (new)

(a) Calls for the fortification of research sectors with policies ensuring a high level of patent protection and effective defences against industrial espionage;

2020/06/15
Committee: REGI

2020/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that cohesion policy must support ~~strong climate mainstreaming~~the process of alignment with the requirements for tackling climate issues in agriculture and food- related sectors;

2020/12/17
Committee: AGRI

2020/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that, in order to reach the target of a 32% reduction in GHG emissions in 2030, allocations from ESI funds supporting the transition towards climate neutrality in all eligible sectors would have to at least double, and 40% of ERDF resources would need to be allocated to the ‘green, low-carbon objective’1; __________________ 1 https://www.caneurope.org/docman/clima te-finance-development/3599-funding- climate-and-energy-transition-in-the- eu/filedeleted

2020/12/17
Committee: AGRI

2020/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights the importance of linking regional environmental strategies to, which already aim to achieve ambitious climate targets that ~~go beyond the overall target of achieving a climate- neutral EU by 2050~~strike a balance between economic and productive needs and climate change, taking into account the ~~pot~~fundamential contribution of the farming, food and forestry sectors;

2020/12/17
Committee: AGRI

2020/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that regional environmental strategies should support ~~renewable~~ energy production aimed at productivity and resource efficiency in the farming, food and forestry sectors; suggests that the relevant authorities prioritise the most sustainable options, ~~such as wind or solar, and subject bioenergy projects to strict sustainability criteria~~while taking into account the economic and productive needs of the farming, food and forestry sectors;

2020/12/17
Committee: AGRI

2020/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights the importance of re- localising food and feed production, ~~notably the production of plant proteins, in climate change mitigation~~and the rearing of various types of livestock, as this shortens transport distances and limits deforestation; underlines the opportunities offered by cohesion policy and regional environmental strategies in supporting this re-localisation;

2020/12/17
Committee: AGRI

2020/2074(INI)