11 Amendments of Sharon BOWLES related to 2013/2104(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets that the Commission has not yet publishedNotes the importance of the GBER in the whole SAM process as a block exemption from the notification requirement for certain categories of aid can seriously reduce the administrative burden for Member States and allows the Commission to concentrate its resources on the most distortive cases and to better prioritise its enforcement activities; believes therefore that the draft new GBER so that the RAG can be analysed together with the GBERand its set of common principles should have been published by the Commission before any specific guidelines; regrets that Article 109 TFEU – the Treaty basis for the enabling regulation and, indirectly, the GBER – provides only for consultation of Parliament, not codecision; believes that this democratic deficit cannot be tolerated; proposes that this deficit be overcome as soon as possible, through interinstitutional arrangements in the field of competition policy, and corrected in the next Treaty change;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Encourages the Commission to continue to issue soft law guidelines in the field of competition policy, in particular on State aid, duly taking into account the existing ECJ case law, in order to ensure some legal certainty for the stakeholders;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Welcomes the new proposed rules on transparency (paragraphs 127 and 128 of the draft guidelines); encourages Member-States to comply with these rules and publish in a central website complete and accurate information about granted aid;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the fact that the primary role of State aid control is to ensure a level playing field in the internal market; fully supports the SAM overall aim of tailoring State aid rules to the need to promote economic growth in the EU; notes that it is particularly relevant to promote economic growth in the most disadvantaged regions of the EU, keeping distortive effects within the internal market to a minimum;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission, however, to ensure that promoting economic growth through State aid will not again lead to an increase in public debt; underlines the need for less, but better-targeted, State aid; emphasises the need to avoid subsidy races between Member-States, particularly in times of tight budgetary constraints across the EU;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that there is a margin of overlap between cohesion policy structural funds and State aid to companies; highlights that a significant part of the expenditure under EU cohesion policy in the period 2014-2020 falls under the GBER and that not only the RAG but also other horizontal or sector-specific guidelines are relevant in this context; notes that all these State aid instruments have to be coherent among themselves and with the cohesion policy objectives and that all these rules should ultimately ensure effective spending of public money and promote growth;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Notes that, contrary to other types of State aid which can be granted across the EU, regional aid should by definition have a limited geographical scope and population coverage;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Calls on the Commission to consider the economic effects of its regional aid decisions in a wider geographical context as border regions can compete with the EEA territory for economic activity location; recommends to the Commission to take this point into consideration in its EU neighbourhood policy and the negotiations with candidate countries;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5d. Agrees with the Commission that it should be avoided that State aid leads to relocation of an activity from one site to another within the EEA; expresses doubts, however, about the proposed draft paragraphs 24-25 and 122-124; notes in particular that the figure of two years is necessarily arbitrary and that this rule may be impossible to enforce as any causal link, and the existence of a plan two years ahead will be difficult to prove; is concerned that this rule may favour non-European over European companies and that it may lead to relocation outside the EEA when an activity could otherwise be attracted by regional aid to assisted areas;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 e (new)
Paragraph 5 e (new)
5e. Expresses doubts also about the ineligibility for regional aid of "firms in difficulties within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty" (paragraph 11 of the draft guidelines), noting that this is not only inconsistent with helping firms affected by the economic crisis in assisted regions but also impossible to implement, given that those guidelines explicitly contain no precise definition of firms in difficulty;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 f (new)
Paragraph 5 f (new)
5f. Is convinced that it is essential that some margin of flexibility for the revision of the guidelines is kept, as mentioned in draft paragraph 177, in order to allow for any future required adjustments, since these guidelines are designed to cover a period of 7 years;