5 Amendments of Elisa FERREIRA related to 2009/2173(INI)
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that the system of competition rules have weathered the storm so far, but that the crisis has brought home the urgency for an EU framework for cross- border crisis management in the financial sector, including a solution for the ‘too- big-to-fail’ institutions, and a quick and full implementation of the recommendations of the de Larosière Report including a single European regulator and a bail-out fund or equivalent system;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Invites the Commission to explain what criteria will be used to decide on a possible extension of the Temporary Community framework for State aid measures, as the EU is officially out of recession, despitestarting to give signs of recovery, despite increased social and territorial internal divergences and persisting economic difficulties and unemployment; takes the view that the questionnaires to Member States, assessing the Temporary framework, do not alone provide a sufficient basis for such a decision, and calls for additional (independent) studies to be commissioned;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls for a similar report on the evolution of social and territorial cohesion in the EU in the aftermath of the economic crisis;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Asks the Commission for a thorough investigation on the generalised large scale use, by some European firms, of low-cost highly skilled temporary labour contracts and internships, as an abusive economic strategy that is detrimental to the principles of decent work and a source of competition distortion;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the very firm stance the Commission has taken on anti-competitive behaviour in recent years, which causes great harm to consumers and to the economy; is concerned, however, that the instrument of ever higher fines may be too blunt and suggests that a wider range of more sophisticated instruments might be more effective as a deterrent; favours a ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach, win which the penalties to punish bad behaviour and incenast behaviour of enterprises is taken into account and a set of penaltives to reward good behaviour, not limited to fines, may be used to sanction recurrent infringements;