Activities of Younous OMARJEE related to 2023/2121(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Cohesion policy 2014-2020 – implementation and outcomes in the Member States (debate)
Amendments (18)
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas cohesion policy is one of the elements that binds the EU together and reducing its budget allocations and/or renationalising it could lead to the gradual disintegration of the EU and fuel anti-EU sentiment across the Union;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas alongside CRII+, CARE and SAFE, cohesion policy acted as a bulwark against the series of crises faced by the EU during the programming period – the COVID-19 pandemic, preserving jobs and helping affected businesses, the war in Ukraine, the mass influx of refugees, the energy crisis, inflation and the considerable drop in purchasing power;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the series of crises and implementation of emergency programmes have together hindered the proper implementation of the programme, causing an accumulation of delays in many regions;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas in many cases, the Member States implemented the Recovery and Resilience Facility concurrently with cohesion policy, and often without consulting or cooperating with regional authorities, even to take stock of what had been implemented;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
Recital B d (new)
Bd. whereas the legal basis for the Recovery and Resilience Facility is Article 175 TFEU and, in this sense, the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion, and effective coordination with cohesion policy, should have been pursued by the Member States and guaranteed by the European Commission;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B e (new)
Recital B e (new)
Be. whereas many Member States failed to fully implement the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and Europe’s regions are often more willing and able to implement such funds;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B f (new)
Recital B f (new)
Bf. whereas in the 2014-2020 period, cohesion policy prove to be too complex to implement for the managing authorities, competent regional bodies and final beneficiaries;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B g (new)
Recital B g (new)
Bg. whereas the system for checking on cohesion funds was mainly designed to detect errors, and does not detect fraud so easily;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B h (new)
Recital B h (new)
8h. whereas the fight against fraud must be based on increased and direct cooperation between the services of the European Commission and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office; whereas the absence of clear distinction between error, anomaly and fraud considerably complicates and makes more cumbersome the management and implementation of cohesion policy;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Opposes any renationalisation of cohesion policy;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls that Article 174 TFEU is designed to lead to specific policies being created for territories and regions facing particular problems; notes in this connection that the European Union has drawn up an urban agenda and a rural agenda, and that an island agenda is expected;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Recalls that, pursuant to Article 349 TFEU, the outermost regions must continue to benefit from policies and regulatory provisions adapted to their structural constraints and specific needs; takes the view that the outermost regions should be considered part of the less developed regions category;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Stresses that economic, social and territorial development continues to be very uneven across the EU, and that major inequalities persist between Member States, between regions (including regions within the same Member State), between different types of area (as referred to in Article 174 and Article 349 TFEU), and within the richest urban areas;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Expresses concern about how further EU enlargement will affect the current classification of different regions, given that the average GDP per capita could fall significantly; calls for consultation and structured work between the European Commission and the European Parliament on this matter before a new legislative proposal is brought forward;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3e. Calls on the European Commission to simplify future cohesion policy;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3f. Notes that although real progress has been made (especially with regard to simplified costs), there is still a long way to go in terms of simplifying matters for final beneficiaries and making legal processes more secure for managing authorities; stresses that this has been felt in particular in the excessive amount of checks on funds; calls for the rules for extrapolating the error rate to be dropped, as their application has proven to be arbitrary for the managing authorities;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 g (new)
Paragraph 3 g (new)
3g. Calls on the European Commission to assess the possibility of a mid-term review of the 2021-2027 cohesion policy regulations in order to simplify fund procedures for final beneficiaries and managing authorities;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls for a chapter on economic, social and territorial cohesion to be included in the European Semester’s country-specific recommendations in future;