5 Amendments of Markus PIEPER related to 2010/2211(INI)
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes that a five-year period is too short, since authorisation procedures would be much too long and would not make it possible to use resources efficiently; points to the fact that a seven-year period has proved its worth in the past and that the programming period should in no circumstances be shorter; underscores the fact that a seven-year period, until 2020, would make the link with the EU 2020 strategy clearor even longer multiannual financial framework (MFF) period, would safeguard the efficiency;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. demands a proposal with the aim of stricter financial sanctions for Member States which do not adhere to the stability criteria, and considers thereby stronger automatisms;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that monies from funds set up in connection with cohesion policy must not be used, under the Stability and Growth Pact, as a means of ‘punishment’; that would be counterproductive for the regions and Member States affected and the EUffected;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Acknowledges that irregularities in the use of structural funds occur mostly and especially in Member States which repeatedly and intensely violate the stability criteria;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16 b. Demands that, for Member States where violation of stability criteria coincides with higher irregularities in the use of structural funds, a proposal on automatic regulation be put forward, which put these countries under an intensive European financial and management control concerning the use of EU structural funds;