10 Amendments of Markus PIEPER related to 2022/2063(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
A c. whereas Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 stipulates that the EIC has two objectives. Firstly, to identify, develop and deploy high-risk innovations of all kinds, including incremental, with a strong focus on breakthrough, disruptive and deep-tech innovations that have the potential to become market-creating innovations. Secondly, to support the rapid scale-up of innovative companies (meaning mainly SMEs, including start- ups, and, in exceptional cases, small mid- caps) at Union and international levels along the pathway from ideas to market;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas the Accelerator will provide financial support to: a. SMEs including start-ups and, in exceptional cases, small mid-caps that have the ambition to develop and deploy in Union and international markets their breakthrough innovations and to scale-up rapidly b. any type of high-risk innovation, including in particular breakthrough and deep-tech innovations that are key to Europe's future growth;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F d (new)
Recital F d (new)
F d. whereas the structured professional investment advice delivered by the Investment Committee and the EIB team embedded in the European Innovation Council and SMEs ExecutiveAgency (EISMEA) was able to deliver the high quality due diligence due to the unique cooperation between the EISMEA and the EIB in combination with investment expertise brought in by the external experts, including serial investors and VCs, on the Investment Committee;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. Reminds that the EIC Fund is set up to support startups and SMEs developing deeptech innovations. Highlights that cash flows are crucial for startups and SMEs, and that long delays in receiving expected funding can bankrupt these kinds of companies. Emphasises therefore the importance of the EIC Fund being able to invest within market conform timeframes. Deplores the examples where the EIC Fund failed to achieve this objective and where the original investment decision of the EIC Fund was rendered irrelevant, due to the long time lag and the company’s development during that time;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes the importance of professional preparation of an investment decision and therefore highlights the role of the EIC Fund Investment Committee as well as the support for the due diligence provided by the EIB. Commends, in this context, the valuable work performed by the EIB team embedded in the EISMEA. Notes that the due diligence performed by the EIB leading to the first investment decision is broadly considered to be of high quality, which creates trust among investors. Regrets, however, that for further decisions of the EIC Fund, like joining an investment round after the initial investment decision or establishing a rationale for an investment, seem to take too long in part due to the time it takes the EIB to provide its input for that decision. Believes in this regard that the rationale and accompanying processes for these decisions need to reflect the nature of the EIC Fund as risk investor more strongly;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 q (new)
Paragraph 11 q (new)
11 q. Points to the importance of the EIC Board as principle advisor to the European Commission regarding the implementation of the EIC as well as the development of broader innovation policy, particular with regards to improving the innovation ecosystem in Europe as well as identifying strategically relevant technologies. Stresses that the EIC Board should be fully and timely informed, both by the EISMEA and other Commission services involved, on all developments in the implementation of the EIC, as well as be presented with any and all information regarding the EIC it requests;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 s (new)
Paragraph 11 s (new)
11 s. Is alarmed by the fact that the EIC Work Programme requires any project to comply with the Do No Significant Harm principle as enshrined in Regulation (EU) 2020/852, known as the EU Taxonomy. Highlights that the 2022 Work Programme refers to the principle both as an evaluation criterion for the EIC Accelerator and as an eligibility criterion for the EIC in general. Recalls that the scope of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 is limited to financial markets. Recalls that the Horizon Europe legislation in no way requires compliance with the DNSH principle. Concludes therefore that there is no legal base for this additional eligibility criterion;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Calls on the Commission to refrain from the use of the DNSH principle as additional eligibility criterion for EIC projects;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 e (new)
Paragraph 12 e (new)
12 e. Calls on the relevant Union bodies, including the European Court of Auditors and the EIC Board, to develop a dedicated auditing strategy for the EIC which reflects the particular nature of the EIC;