BETA

257 Amendments of Søren Bo SØNDERGAARD

Amendment 10 #

2013/2017(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that the Transparency Register is an important tool to safeguard the interests of the citizens; calls therefore for an evaluation of the allocation of resources to the Joint Transparency Register Secretariat; believes that the Secretariat needs sufficient resources to fulfil its mandate in a meaningful way;
2013/05/08
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 54 #

2013/2015(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 172
172. Notices that, more generally, the sustainability of projects is often in doubt due to the limited administrative capacity, the delayed adoption of relevant texts and the uncertainties over the future funding on the part of the beneficiaries;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 56 #

2013/2015(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 176
176. Notes with satisfaction that the interventions reflect the programme's objectives despite the wide range of sectors to be covered, and the delayed adoption of Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 and the absence of a multiannual approach;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 14 #

2012/2176(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that the EEAS is a recently created institutionstructure resulting from the consolidation of several different services and that 2011 was its first operational year with numerous technical challenges to be overcome, particularly in procurement and recruitment; notes, furthermore, that the excessive administrative burden resulting from setting up arrangements are not likely to be repeated in subsequent years;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 22 #

2012/2176(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Urges more transparency as to the competences of the EEAS's administrative structure and the reduction of dual competences; requests the publication of the schedule of responsibilities; request that the EEAS submit all information on the Service Level Agreements established with the Council and the Commission respectively;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 71 #

2012/2176(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Points out that a number of EEAS delegations operate in a high risk environment in terms of corruption and fraud; believes that it is pivotal to the protection of the Union's financial interests that EEAS staff receives the appropriate training and awareness building in order to detect any misconduct; believes that a comprehensive whistleblower policy is essential to the protection of the Union's financial interests;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 74 #

2012/2176(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Considers that budget support systems for third country governments are not properly audited and calls for a better scrutiny of the financial operations at an earlier stage.; insists that an independent national audit body must be an ultimate condition for granting budget support;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 2 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/rRefuses to grant the Secretary- General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Council's and the Council's budget for the financial year 2011;
2013/09/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 2 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Council's and the Council's budget for the financial year 2011; / Postpones its decision on granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Council's and the Council's budget for the financial year 2011;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 5 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes, however, that the Presidency in office of the Council accepted Parliament's invitation to the debate held in plenary on 17 April 2013 on the 2011 discharge reports; endorses the Presidency's openness to develop a fruitful cooperation between Parliament and the Council to find mutually acceptable solution to the outstanding concerns with the preparation of the discharge;
2013/09/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 6 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Highlights the role that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives the Parliament in respect of the budget discharge;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 7 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. AcknowledgNotes the Irish Presidency's proposal to establish an interinstitutional working group to negotiate possible solutions to the Council's discharge; looks to the Lithuanian Presidency for a specific proposal;
2013/09/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 7 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the budget of the European Council and the Council should be separated in order to contribute to the transparency of their financial management and to better accountability of both institutions;deleted
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 8 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that, after the creation of the European External Action Service, the European Council and Council's budget became mainly administrative;deleted
2013/09/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 8 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that, contrary to what the Council has claimed, there is no Parliament-Council ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ concerning discharge for the Council;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 9 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Invites the European Council and the Council to send Parliament theirReiterates its hope that Parliament will receive the complete annual activity report withincluding a comprehensive overview of all the human resources available to both institutions, broken down by category, grade, gender, nationality and vocational training; points out that the legal service of the Parliament as well as independent legal experts agree that Parliament has a right to information;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 10 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Hopes that Parliament will receive the internal budget decisions of the Council;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 12 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. CongratulatesTakes note of the fact that the Council onhas takingen measures to improve the performance of the ‘Europa building’ project, and in particular on having set up a permanent team to follow the carrying-out of the project together with the reporting plan and the creation of a document platform;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 13 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Council to provide a thorough written explanation detailing the total amount of appropriations used in the purchase of the Résidence Palace building, the budget items from which these appropriations were drawn, the instalments that have been paid thus far, the instalments that remain to be paid, and the purpose that the building will serve no later than 1 July 2013;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 15 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Is interested in receiving moreCalls on the Council to submit all information on the Service Level Agreements established with the EEAS and the concrete measures taken to promote administrative modernisation; is of the opinion that the Council's human resources management has not been efficient enough;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 18 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that effective supervision of the Union's budget implementation requires cooperation between Parliament and the Council through a working arrangement; regrets the difficulties encountered in previous discharge proceduresRegrets that the Council continues to refuse to answer the questions of the Parliament, and considers that effective supervision of the Union's budget implementation requires that the Council is willing to have an open and formal dialogue with Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 20 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Reiterates that the Parliament is still waiting for the reply of the Council on the actions and request for documents set out in its resolution of 10 May 20121; calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament's committee responsible for the discharge procedure with comprehensive written answers to these questions;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 22 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Reiterates that it is only possible to implement effective budgetary control through the cooperation of Parliament and the Council, the main elements of which must comprise: formal meetings between representatives of the Council and the parliamentary committee competent to grant discharge, answering questions put by the committee's members on the basis of a written questionnaire, and submitting documents to serve as background material for budgetary controls on request; 1the expenditure of the Council must be scrutinised in the same way as that of other institutions; is of the opinion that the fundamental elements of such scrutiny are laid down in its resolution of 23 October 20121; Or. en OJ L 350, 20.12.2012, p. 71.
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 23 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Regrets the difficulties encountered in discharge procedures for the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 financial years, which were due to lack of cooperation from the Council; points out that the Parliament refused to grant discharge to the Secretary-General of the Council in respect of the implementation of the Council's budget for the financial years 2009 and 2010 for the reasons set out in its resolutions of 10 May 20111, 25 October 20112, 10 May 20123 and 23 October 20124;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 25 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Recalls that, during negotiations on a revised Financial Regulation, no agreement could be reached on ways in which the discharge procedure could be improved; believes that if the Council continues to refuse to cooperate with the Parliament, Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control is forced to introduce to the Commission its questions and request for information about the budget of the Council;
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 26 #

2012/2169(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. RegDeplorets that not all the Union institutions respect the same standards in relation to transparency; believes that the Council cshould make improvements in that regard; is convinced that Parliament and the Council, as joint legislators, should apply the same standards of transparency.
2013/02/26
Committee: CONT
Amendment 6 #

2012/2168(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights the added value of the parliamentary procedure leading up to the annual Parliament discharge; reiterates that the Parliament discharge is an additional possibility for exercising, in public, a critical scrutiny of the institution's financial management, thereby facilitating Union citizens' understanding of Parliament's particular governance structure and working methods; reiterates its request to hold a separate plenary debate on Parliament's discharge with the President of the Parliament;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 30 #

2012/2168(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recommends to follow up the recommendation of the Court of Auditors to request staff to deliver at appropriate intervals documents confirming their personal situation and that it implements a system for the timely monitoring of these documents;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 47 #

2012/2168(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
36. Welcomes the formal decision to discontinue the Prize for Journalism that in 2011 represented an expenditure of EUR 154 205 as proposed by the Committee on Budgetary Control and voted in Plenary in the 2010 discharge report; acknowledges that contacts with journalists were reinforced in the Member States by organising thematic seminars in the capital cities, thereby using the Parliament's existing administrative capacity, while providing journalists with an opportunity to exchange views with Members and to acquire a complete understanding of Parliament's structure and role in the legislative process;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 51 #

2012/2168(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36 a. Recalls its request to introduce rules to ensure that the General Expenditure Allowance is transparent and that it is used solely for the purpose for which it is intended;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 52 #

2012/2168(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36a. Calls upon the Secretariat to devote sufficient resources to the control of the Members' documents confirming their personal situation, financial interest and outside activities;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 58 #

2012/2168(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
41. Takes note of the Bureau's adoption, by unanimity, of the ‘New global security concept’ on 6 July 2011 which includes the idea of reserving the various entrances to Parliament for different categories of users; requests to be informed of the implementation of the ‘New global security concept’ by the end of 2013; insists on the continuing reinforcement of security in the Parliament's premises while ensuring easy access for the public;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 67 #

2012/2168(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42 a. Requests to receive information from the Secretariat General on the procedure to be followed on the evaluation of the joint transparency register, which is due to take place in 2013, according to the inter-institutional agreement reached in 2011;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 76 #

2012/2168(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Insists that the communication budget must be used only to provide citizens with factual information on EU policies; stresses that that also applies to social media activities;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 77 #

2012/2168(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
45. Regrets that the audience of Europarl TV, although greater in 2011 as compared with 2010*1 , continues to be very low in the case of direct individual users (excluding viewers through partnership agreements with regional TVs) despite the considerable financing that it still received in 2011, amounting to some EUR 8 000 000 (item 3 2 4 6); regrets further that no cost-benefit evaluation of Europarl TV has being made, despite the fact that this was requested by Parliament in its resolution on the discharge 2010; wbelcomes, howievers, the decision of the Bureau of 12 December 2012 to implement a set of reforms in order to achieve significant savingsin view of the persistent low number of viewers, that Europarl TV should be discontinued;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 93 #

2012/2168(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47a. Regrets the fact that until now the Commission has not made clear which part of the costs it will carry relating to the running of the House of European History which makes it impossible for the European Parliament to calculate the precise budgetary consequences in this respect; calls upon the Secretary-General to increase the pressure on the Commission to come up with the required information as soon as possible and at the latest before September 2013;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 82 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Regrets that the Council continues to refuse to cooperate with Parliament with regards to the Council discharge; believes that this leaves the competent Committee on Budgetary Control with very few instruments and that eventually the Committee is forced to introduce to the Commission its questions and requests for information about the budget of the Council;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 102 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading after paragraph 39 (new)
The Commission as part of the Troika
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 103 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Notes with concern the participation of the Commission, together with the IMF and ECB, in the so-called Troika in designing and supervision of the adjustment programs for the European deficit countries;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 104 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 b (new)
39b. Believes it to be deeply undemocratic that the Commission assumes ever greater powers to control national budgets, without any serious oversight by Parliament;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 105 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 c (new)
39c. Points out that the targets of the adjustment programs are unrealistic since they underestimate the implications of the deepening recession especially in Greece where the estimated public deficit will not fall below 3 % of GDP until 2020, while the public debt will reach 186 % of GDP in 2013 and 152 % in 2020 and the reasons offered for these divergences are the 'longer and more severe recession' than expected because the GDP has declined by more than 10 % since the start of the programme and it will continue to decline; notes furthermore that the policy recommendations remain unchanged and in the meantime unemployment has risen from 8,3 % of the labour force in 2007 to nearly 17 % in 2011 and more than 26 % in 2012;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 106 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 d (new)
39d. Is highly concerned that Commissions' austerity policies are also blighting the lives of millions of Europeans, most especially in the Southern and Eastern countries of the periphery; notes that the official unemployment rate in 2011 was in Greece 17,7 % and in Spain 21,7 %; is highly concerned about the increase of the rates in 2012 in Spain to 26,1 % and in Greece to 26,8 % while the youth unemployment rate for the EU was 22,7 % in Spain and Greece it was over 50 %; therefore urgently invites the Commission to change its politics by giving up their austerity orientation in order to fight unemployment;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 107 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 e (new)
39e. Strongly criticises that Commission’s policy on austerity has focussed on expenditure cuts and privatisations resulting in the postponement or cancellation of infrastructure projects as well as reductions in recurrent expenditure in healthcare, education, social provision and welfare benefits; therefore public employment has been reduced significantly in many countries and, due to the recession and the impact of austerity policies, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of the population at risk of poverty; deplores that the poorest sectors have been hit worst but, in the crisis stricken countries, many middle-class citizens have also been affected;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 108 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 f (new)
39f. Notes that historically, social policies in Europe have been provided by managing or removing the market in the provision of services, through food subsidies or the free provision of health services and certain levels of education; deplores that now the de-commodification of public services is being reversed through the introduction of vouchers and user fees for health and education services;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 109 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 g (new)
39g. Criticises that the Commission advocates with their adjustments programs the flexibility of labour markets, pay freezes, cuts in pensions and increased retirement ages, together with an easing of restrictions on layoffs and limits on unemployment benefits; is of the opinion that all these represent a further weakening of the provisions of Europe's vaunted social model;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 110 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 h (new)
39h. Notes with concern the pressure currently exerted by the Troika on Cyprus, Greece and Sweden to privatise the water sector. Recalls that recent water privatisation policies in the United Kingdom and Portugal show that privatisation generally lead to cost increases, rather than cost reductions; is concerned about the potential risks for public health of this development; therefore urges the Troika to reconsider their policies and not to demand the privatisation of the water sector;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 136 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
67. WelcomNotes the entrycoming into force of the European Stability Mechanism but reiterates its warning against the setting-up of that Mechanism outside the Union's institutional framework as this precludes any actual democratic and budgetary control by the institutions of the Union;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 139 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 a (new)
67a. Notes that both the EFSF and the ESM benefit from the service of prominent Union institutions, such as the Commission and the ECB, whilst their respective relationship do not find a sufficient legal basis and control of the institutions according to the procedure laid down in the TFEU; underlines that the creation outside the institutions of the Union represents a setback from the evolution of the Union, essentially at the expense of Parliament, the Court of Auditors and the Court of Justice;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 140 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 b (new)
67b. Criticizes the fact that ESM Treaty lacks sufficient provisions for ensuring effective external audit; regrets that in Article 24 (Board of Auditors) of the by- laws of the Treaty only one member can be nominated by the Court of Auditors while two members upon the proposal of the Chairperson;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 141 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 c (new)
67c. Is worried about news that the German Government is going to claim a permanent seat for a German member from the Federal Court of Auditors in the Board of Auditors of the ESM1;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 142 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 d (new)
67d. Is concerned by the regulation of paragraph 6 of Article 24 of the by-laws of the Treaty with the agreed procedure only to inform Parliament by sending the annual report of the Board of Auditors to Parliament; underlines the right of Parliament to have a debate on the annual report with the Board of Auditors in presence of the Board of Governors of the ESM;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 181 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 a (new)
124a. Is concerned about the fact that regional policy has focussed on the regional and urban level, but this is to the detriment of the national level, which is often more appropriate for promoting development;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 184 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 b (new)
124b. Is of the opinion that the full use of resources requires more democratic participation and not elite planning;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 186 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 c (new)
124c. Is concerned that the 'Smart Specialisation' proposed by the Union whereby every region should be a world leader in some area cannot work as there are not sufficient products to go round and over-specialisation is likely;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 188 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 d (new)
124d. Considers intra-regional trade important and underlines the position that there should be greater attention to promoting more ecologically sustainable forms of production by using local resources for local consumption, for example in the case of food or energy generation;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 189 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 e (new)
124e. Underlines the loud call from journalists and Union officials alike for uniformity in gathering, cataloguing, archiving and reporting of data of the regional policy, to be mandated by the Union institutions and sanctioned for non-compliance;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 190 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 f (new)
124f. Is of the opinion that in line with the Lisbon Treaty investigative journalism needs a clear definition and broad interpretation of what constitutes a document; is of the opinion that a swift implementation of workable FOI (Freedom of Information) laws across the Union is imperative, as is the systematic, proactive and centralised disclosure of data and documents, especially in relation to regional policy;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 191 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading after paragraph 124 f (new)
Greece
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 192 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 g (new)
124g. Is concerned by criticism of the effectiveness of Regional Policy in Greece, e.g. by the former Greek Minister of Economic Affairs Mr Michaelis Chrysochoidis, including in 2011 when he mentioned that the regional funds in Greece were primarily spent for consumption instead of being invested in advanced and competitive technologies; calls on the Commission to maintain close contacts with critics in order to scrutinise Greece's regional policy and, if necessary, to correct it;1
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 193 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 h (new)
124h. Notes that one of the important reasons for the current debt problems of Greece can be found in large infrastructure projects of the country that were co-financed by the Union, especially the so called "Megala Erga" projects; notes that the construction of the new Athens airport and of new tramways, railways, highways and the bridge connecting the Peleponnes to central Greece, resulted in high costs and had put pressure on the national budget;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 195 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading after paragraph 130 (new)
Italy
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 196 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 130 a (new)
130a. Is concerned by the fact that the Autostrada 3 in Calabria/Italy for which the Union has paid a huge amount from regional funds, is already under construction since 1997 and has not yet been finished;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 197 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 130 b (new)
130b. Is the concerned by the fact that the first section of the highway was extremely costly in comparison with other highway reconstructions in other parts of Europe and that the price per kilometre was about EUR 848 000 in Calabria, which is ten times higher than usual;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 198 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 130 c (new)
130c. Is deeply worried that apparently some of the enterprises involved in the reconstruction work were bribed by mafia clans for giving up their engagements 1;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 207 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading after paragraph 136 (new)
The European Union Solidarity Fund
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 209 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136 b (new)
136b. Notes with concern the executive summary of the Special Report No 24/2012 of the Court of Auditors on the European Union Solidarity Fund's response to the 2009 Abruzzo earthquake in which the Court of Auditors criticizes that the CASE project ("Complessi Antisismici Sostenibili Ecocompatibili", seismically isolated and environmentally sustainable housing) did not comply with the objectives of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF);
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 210 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136 c (new)
136c. Criticises the fact that EUSF grants were used for the CASE project which did not meet the target of accommodation all the affected people before the winter; criticizes, like the Court of Auditors, that the CASE apartments were clearly more expensive than apartments on the market and that additional cost had been avoided if more bidders had participated in tenders and more attention had been paid to economy when evaluating the bids; takes very seriously the reports about the involvement of the mafia and about an alleged connection between the high costs and the mafia;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 211 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136 d (new)
136d. Underlines the recommendations of the Court of Auditors in its Special Report No 24/2012 that the Commission should clarify the provisions of the Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in the light of the Aquila case in order to guarantee that the EUSF grants are used in accordance with the principles of sound financial management in future; demands that the Commission shall re-analyse the application for the assistance by the Italian authorities in the light of the eligible criteria in the Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002; calls the Commission to scrutinize the possibility of the reimbursement of the expected revenue of the CASE project to the Union budget; is still waiting for Commission's internal audit on Aquila's earth quake report;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 232 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading after paragraph 156 d (new)
Eurobarometer
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 233 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 e (new)
156e. Is concerned about the criticisms, much voiced in scientific publications, of Eurobarometer’s survey methods and calls on the Commission to give a detailed opinion of these;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 234 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 f (new)
156f. Is critical of the fact that Eurobarometer strategically manipulates results in its surveys by means of suggestive questions, a lack of choice of possible answers and an above-average number of positive answer categories;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 235 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 g (new)
156g. Is concerned that results obtained in this way might suggest a positive approach to integration which does not in fact exist among EU citizens and that the Commission is thereby deceiving itself, the other EU institutions and the public over the actual desire for integration among the inhabitants of the Member States;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 236 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 h (new)
156h. Calls on the Commission to arrange for future Eurobarometer surveys to be carried out by a neutral organisation which is independent of the EU institutions, as experience shows that there is often scope for manipulation when a survey involves an identity of object and subject, thus providing an opportunity to put public opinion research to the service of achieving political objectives;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 244 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading after paragraph 159 (new)
Galileo
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 245 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 a (new)
159a. Is concerned by a report by the German government from the beginning of 2011, which has been quoted by the Financial Times Deutschland, which shows that the Galileo project will face further delays and cost EUR 1,5 billion extra.1 Or. en See "BBC news science and environments" from 18 January 2011
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 246 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 b (new)
159b. Is worried about the Commission's mid-term review of the project from 2011 which said that EUR 3,4 billion would be not enough to complete the infrastructure resulting from the Galileo programme, owing to the increased cost of the development phase, the increased prices of launchers, the lack of competition for the award of some packages;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 247 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 c (new)
159c. Is concerned about reports that the real operating costs of the Galileo system will be much higher than estimated by the Commission which means that it would be necessary to subsidize the project to the tune of EUR 750 million per year;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 248 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 d (new)
159d. Notes that in 2007 the Union stepped in the project after a consortium of eight European companies withdrew their investment for fear that the project's cost would spiral out of control and the revenues would be lower than originally envisaged; is concerned that the now expected revenues of the navigation system will be lower than expected in 2007;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 249 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 e (new)
159e. Notes that in context of the skyrocketing costs of Galileo there are increasing doubts on the sense of this system; notes that even the former CEO of a German company, which has a contract to build 14 satellites for the Galileo global positioning system, was quoted in a diplomatic cable exposed by Wikileaks as calling Galileo a "stupid idea that primarily serves French interests", and a waste of taxpayers' money;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 253 #

2012/2167(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 173 a (new)
173a. Notes with concern the finding of the Court of Auditors that in 15 out of 28 audited cases, the information available in the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual entitlements (PMO) on the personal and family situation of the staff members was not up to date; recommends to the Commission to follow up the recommendation of the Court of Auditors to request staff to deliver at appropriate intervals documents confirming their personal situation and that it implements a system for the timely monitoring of these documents.
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 2 #

2012/2166(DEC)

Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds for the financial year 2011; / Postpones its decision on granting the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds for the financial year 2011;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 5 #

2012/2166(DEC)

Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 2
2. Approves the closure of the accounts of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds for the financial year 2011 / Postpones the closure of the accounts of the of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds for the financial year 2010;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 52 #

2012/2166(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54 a. Agrees with the Commission that in the event that no sustainable solution is found for the provision of the necessary financial information from the WBG to the relevant Union institution it will have consequences for the future cooperation with the WBG; calls on the Commission to stop its grants and contribution agreements with the WBG if no solution is found;
2013/02/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 4 #

2012/2107(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas the Council (General Affairs and External Relations), shortly before the accession of Cyprus to the EU, requested the Commission to submit a proposal for an aid programme with particular emphasis on the economic integration of the island and on improving contacts between the two communities and within the EU and that on 7 July 2004, the Commission proposed a package of two regulations: one for a financial support instrument to encourage the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community and a ‘direct trade’ regulation; it proved, however, that has never been adopted; it proved, however, legally wrong and hence difficult for the Council to agree on the adoption of this package and the two regulations had to be decoupled;
2012/11/12
Committee: CONT
Amendment 16 #

2012/2107(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas there is a need to have reliable data concerning the size of the Turkish Cypriot community as well as its dynamicssituation after the division of Cyprus in 1974, especially the immigrantas affected by the illegal influx of thousands of settlers;
2012/11/12
Committee: CONT
Amendment 23 #

2012/2107(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the existing de facto division of Cyprus dates back to Turkey's military invasion of in the Nnorthern part of the island in July 1974;
2012/11/12
Committee: CONT
Amendment 26 #

2012/2107(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that as a result of the 1974 events, the vast majority of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots live separately on the respective sides of the buffer zone and that the resulting property issue has been one of the most difficult problems to solve as part of the ongoing efforts to reach a settlementcomprehensive solution;
2012/11/12
Committee: CONT
Amendment 34 #

2012/2107(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Observes that according to Protocol 10 of the Act of Accession while the whole island is legally part of the EU, the acquis communautaire is suspended in the Nnorthern part of the island, an area over which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control; due to the occupation, this constitutes a unique political, legal and diplomatic context,
2012/11/12
Committee: CONT
Amendment 37 #

2012/2107(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that according to Regulation (EC) No 389/2006, rules of International Law and the respective UN Security Council Resolutions, the EU is bound not to recognise any public authority other than the Government of the Republic of Cyprus;
2012/11/12
Committee: CONT
Amendment 43 #

2012/2107(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Observes that the sample of 34 contracts selected from nine of the main projects out of 24 projects funded through the programme and covering all five of the instrument's policy objectivespolicy objectives of Regulation (EC) No 389/2006, (which are: developing and restructuring of infrastructure, promoting social and economic development, fostering reconciliation, confidence- building measures and support to the civil society, bringing the Turkish Cypriot community closer to the EU and preparing for the introduction and implementation the acquis communautaire upon the reunification of Cyprus);
2012/11/12
Committee: CONT
Amendment 75 #

2012/2107(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Regrets the loss of the seawater desalination plant project which was an unfortunate setback; recalls that this project was not only the main project in the water sector but also the largest bi-communal project funded under the instrument and that the plant was intended to provide 23 000 m3 of clean drinking water per day covering the needs of an estimated 100 000 people and recalls that water supply is becoming an increasingly critical issue for the island following a 40 % decrease in the mean annual rainfall in the past 30 years; is deeply concerned that the cancellation of the project due to the restrictions, imposed by the Greek Cypriot contractor by the Turkish army means that this serious environmental issue will not be addressedremain unresolved in the occupied areas;
2012/11/12
Committee: CONT
Amendment 11 #

2012/2080(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Article 182 – paragraph -1 (new)
The proceedings of Parliament shall be broadcast in real time on its website with the multilingual soundtrack in which all speeches appear in their original language as well as a soundtrack from all active interpretation booths.
2012/07/06
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 12 #

2012/2080(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Article 182 – paragraph 1
Immediately after the sitting, an indexed audiovisual record of the proceedings, including the multilingual original language soundtrack as well as the soundtrack from all active interpretation booths, shall be produced and made available on the internetParliament's website during the current and the next parliamentary term, after which it shall be preserved in the records of Parliament. That audiovisual record shall be linked to the verbatim reports of the proceedings as soon as they are available.
2012/07/06
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 39 #

2012/2078(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Deeply deplores the decision by the Heads of State or Government to take a number of fundamental steps – in the form of the Euro Plus Pact, the Fiscal Pact and the ESM Treaty – in the direction of a euro-government and a euro-state without a clear popular mandate from the electorate; stresses that all decisions which have the effect of extending the EU’s powers must be taken in accordance with the ordinary revision procedure under the Treaty (Article 48 TEU) which requires a Convention to be convened; (If adopted, this amendment should be placed before Article 1).
2013/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 2 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/rRefuses the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for implementation of the Council's budget for the financial year 2010;
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 2 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for implementation of the Council's budget for the financial year 2010 / Postpones the discharge to the Secretary- General of the Council for implementation of the Council's budget for the financial year 2010;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 4 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that, in accordance with Article 319 TFEU, ‘The European Parliament, acting on a recommendation from the Council, shall give a discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget’Highlights the role that the TFEU gives the European Parliament in respect to the budget discharge;
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 7 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Notes the Council's reply that the amounts for the budget lines for interpretation and delegations' travel expenses should be more in line with the real consumption and calls for better budgetary planning in order to prevent a recurrence of present practices in the future;deleted
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 8 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the fact that, in its annual report for 2010, the Court of Auditors concluded, based on its audit work, that the payments as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for the administrative and other expenses of the institutions and bodies were free from material error; points out that the most likely error rate as regards administrative expenditure in general is estimated at 0.4% (paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10);
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 9 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges receipt of a series of documents for the 2010 discharge procedure (final financial statements for 2010, including the accounts, the financial activity report and the summary of the 2010 internal audits); still awaiting all necessary documents for a discharge (including the full 2010 internal audit);
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 10 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Regrets that no response tothe Council refuse to answer thoese questions has yet been received;
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 10 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the fact that the Council submitted the abovementioned documents to Parliament; hopes that theHopes that the Parliament will receive the full annual activity report that will also provide a comprehensive overview of all human resources available to the Council, broken down by category, grade, gender, participation in vocational training and nationality;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 11 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Deplores the fact that the attitude of the Council obstructs democratic control as well as transparency and accountability vis-à-vis the European taxpayers;
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 12 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Thanks the Danish Presidency for its constructive input throughout the 2010 discharge procedure; rRegrets, however, that the Danish Presidency has not been able to maintain the achievements of the Spanish and Swedish presidencies, which were steps in the right direction;
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 13 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – point a
(a) an official meeting on the basis of a written questionnaire, possibly held ‘in camera’, between representatives of the Council and of Parliament's committee responsible for the discharge procedure, in order to answer committee members' questions. The meeting should be attended by the Secretary-General of the Council, the bureau of the committee responsible for the discharge procedure, the rapporteur and the members representing the political groups (coordinators and/or shadow rapporteurs);
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 14 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – point b – indent 4 a (new)
- the publication of the internal budget decisions of the Council;
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 15 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Regrets the difficulties encountered in the discharge procedures for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 financial years, which were due to the unwillingness of the Council to engage in an open and formal dialogue with the Committee on Budgetary Control as well as to answer the questions of the Committee; points out that Parliament refused to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009 for the reasons set out in its resolutions of 10 May 2011 and 25 October 2011;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 17 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Reiterates that the Parliament is still waiting for the reply of the Council on the actions and request for documents set out in the two above mentioned resolutions; calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament's committee responsible for the discharge procedure with comprehensive written answers to the following questions: (a) with regard to previous Council discharge debates in Parliament's committee responsible for the discharge procedure, the Council did not attend these meetings regularly, however, it is considered of utmost importance that the Council attends in order to reply to committee members' questions referring to the Council discharge. Does the Council agree to attend future debates on the Council discharge in Parliament's committee responsible for the discharge procedure? (b) why does the Council change the presentation/the format of the internal audit every year? Why is the internal audit so short, generic and unclear every year? Will the Council for the 2010 discharge onwards please present the internal audit in (a) language(s) other than French? (c) has an external audit been carried out? If so, may Parliament's committee responsible for the discharge procedure see it? If an external audit does not exist, why has the Council chosen not to make one? (d) until now, the activity of the Council implied co-financing with the Commission, which has experienced an increase after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. What audit and control systems have been put in place to ensure full transparency? Given that the Treaty of Lisbon increased the co-financing with the Commission, what is the Council's understanding of 'respond to the appropriate enquiries'? (e) the Court of Auditors, in its annual report 2009, found that in two out of six procurement procedures audited, the Council did not respect the rules of the Financial Regulation for the publication of the outcome of the procedure. Has the Council scrutinised more samples of similar procurements? Has the internal procedure been streamlined in order to avoid similar cases in the future? (f) staff of European Union Special Representatives (EUSRs): Please indicate the staff (all staff, establishment plan and others) — number of posts, grade — for the EUSRs in the Council for 2009. In which way and when will the EUSRs-staff posts be allocated between the Council and the European External Action Service (EEAS)? What was the travel budget for each of the EUSRs? How many of the EUSRs' staff were transferred on 1 January 2011 to the EEAS? How many will remain with the Council and why? (g) the Council highlights budgetary questions concerning the consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon in point 2.2 in the financial activity report (11327/10, FIN 278). Has the Council solved the problems concerning Mr Solana's expenditures? What part of the expenditures falls under the Council budget and what part falls under the Commission budget? (h) what were the operational expenditures, administrative expenditures, staff, buildings, etc. envisaged by the Council for 2009 in order to set up the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission (HR/VP)? (i) the HR/VP came into office on 1 December 2009. How was the cost distributed between the Council and the Commission (for staff, travel, etc.)? How did the Council prepare the budget for the HR/VP for 2010? Which budget lines and sums were reserved for her activities? (j) how will office space released in the process of staff transfer to the EEAS influence Council's plans on buildings? Have arrangements been made for the subsequent use of such office space? What is the anticipated cost for the removals? When were calls for tenders for the removals (if any) published? (k) what was the administrative and operational expenditure related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) tasks, which were at least part- financed from the Union budget in 2009? What was the total amount of CFSP expenditure in 2009? Could the Council identify at least the main missions and their cost in 2009? (l) what was the cost of meetings for Council working groups on CFSP/CSDP in Brussels and elsewhere and where did these meetings take place? (m) what was the administrative expenditure relating to the implementation of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)/CSDP military operations? What share of the total amount of expenditures arising from military operations has been charged to the Union budget? (n) what was the administrative expenditure implemented for the operation of the 'ATHENA' mechanism, how many posts were needed for that mechanism, will any of the posts in question be transferred to the EEAS? To whom will the postholders report? (o) there is a low occupation rate of posts in the Council's establishment plan (91 % in 2009, 90 % in 2008). Does this consistently low rate cause any repercussions on how the Council's General Secretariat (CGS) functions? Can the CGS perform all its functions with the current occupation rate? Are lower occupation rates specific to any particular services? What are the reasons for the persistent discrepancy? (p) what is the total number of posts assigned to the task of 'policy coordination' and administrative support (as defined in the Commission's annual staff screening reports)? What is its percentage in relation to the overall number of posts? (q) to achieve the administrative objectives in 2009 the Council added teleworking to its working procedures. How does the Council prove the efficiency of this working procedure? In addition, the Council is asked to report on further measures taken in this respect and in particular those to improve the quality of financial management as well as their impact; (r) the Council increased its posts by 15 (8 AD and 7 AST) to cover the staffing requirements of the Irish language unit. How many staff members deal with other languages (staff per language)? Are there already staff employed for and from the applicant countries? If the answer is in the affirmative — how many posts are concerned (separated per country and language)? (s) the 'Reflection Group' was established on 14 December 2007, and its members appointed on 15-16 October 2008. What were the reasons why the necessary financing could not have been envisaged and included in Budget 2009? Is a transfer in Budget 2009 from the contingency reserve to a budget position financing a structure conceived in 2007 strictly budget neutral? The Council earmarked EUR 1 060 000 for the 'Reflection Group'. How many posts can be allocated to this group? (t) the expenditures concerning travel delegations still seem to be problematic (cf. Council note 15 June 2010, SGS10 8254, II bullet, page 4). Why do these expenditures appear in so many different budget lines? (u) why does the internal audit still find it necessary to add 'les frais de voyage des délégués et les frais d'interprétation' (delegates' travelling expenses and interpretation expenses) after strong criticism in the last two resolutions from Parliament on the Council discharge? (v) the Council again has used underspending on interpretation to provide extra financing for delegations' travel expenses; as a result, actual 2009 commitments for travel expenses amounted to considerably less than the initial budget, and less than half of the amount available after the transfer (EUR 36 100 000 initial and EUR 48 100 000 available after transfer against EUR 22 700 000 committed).What were the reasons for this EUR 12 000 000 transfer (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/10, FIN 278 -point 3.3.2-VI bullet)? Why is the transfer from interpretation to delegates' travelling expenses estimated at EUR 12 000 000 by the Council at page 12 and at EUR 10 558 362 at page 13? What has the remaining amount transferred from interpretation been spent on (the total amount transferred from interpretation is EUR 17 798 362)? In addition, the Council is asked to explain the large amount of recovery orders made before 2009 and carried over to 2009 (EUR 12 300 000) as well as recoveries made from declarations relating to 2007 (EUR 6 300 000); (w) in 2009 the Council, as it did in 2008, reallocated a considerable amount of its budget to buildings, in particular, more than doubling the initial allocations to the acquisition of the Residence Palace (reallocated EUR 17 800 000 in addition to EUR 15 000 000 earmarked in Budget 2009). What are the reasons for this? Can the CGS provide concrete figures of the savings achieved as a result of this? What was the initially projected cost of the Residence Palace Building? Does the Council think the initially projected cost will be accurate or could the cost be higher than estimated? What steps are envisaged to finance the building? (x) implementation of the Council budget — appropriations carried over: Could the Council present the estimated amount and subject of the invoices which were not received by June 2010 for the year 2009 and therefore carried over? (y) the carry-over to 2010 of the appropriations of assigned revenues accrued in 2009 amounted to EUR 31 800 000. This is about 70 % of the assigned revenue for 2009. What are the reasons for this high carry-over ratio? What will happen/has happened to this revenue in 2010? (z) what does 'technical provision of EUR 25 000 000 for the launch of the European Council 2010' mean? (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/10, FIN 278 — point 3.1, IV bullet); (aa) what is the level of confidentiality of the Council budget specified by the different budget lines? (ab) can the Council point out the specific measures taken to improve the quality of the Council's financial management, in particular as regards the points raised in paragraph 5 of Parliament's resolution of 25 November 2009 accompanying its decision on discharge to the Council for the financial year 2007? (ac) Calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament's Committee responsible for the discharge procedure with the following documents: - the full list of budgetary transfers concerning the 2009 Council budget; - a written statement on the Council's mission expenses as carried out by the EUSRs; - the Members States' declaration for 2007 (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/10, FIN 278 — point 3.2.2, II bullet); and - the report of the 'Reflection Group' in order to understand why such a report costs EUR 1 060 000 (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/10, FIN 278 — point 2;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 18 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 – indent 12 – indent 1
– Parliament will be represented at the meeting by the Vice-President responsible for budgetary questions, the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Secretary-General,deleted
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 19 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 – indent 12 – indent 2
– the Council will be represented by the Presidency-in-Office and the Secretary- General,deleted
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 20 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 – indent 13
– the Presidency-in-Office of the Council will be invited toshould actively attend the presentation of the annual report of the Court of Auditors and Parliament's debate in plenary on the discharge;
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 21 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that on 31 January 2012 the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control sent a letter to the Presidency-in- Office of the Council, stating his wish to re-establish political dialogue and forwarding supplementary questions from the Committee on Budgetary Control on the discharge to the Council; will therefore amplify this resolution by taking the Council's replies into account;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 23 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Committee on Budgetary Control to enter into dialogue with the Council regarding ways in which the discharge procedure could be organised between the two institutions with due regard for their responsibilities as laid down by the Treatycontinue to put pressure on the Council with a view to establishing an effective dialogue.
2012/09/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 23 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Welcomes the fact that the Presidency- in-Office of the Council took part in the debates in plenary on the 2009 discharge and invites it also to take part in the debates on the 2010 discharge; regrets that the Presidency-in Office of the Council refused to participate in a formal dialogue on the 2010 discharge at the Committee meeting on the 29. February 2012;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 26 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the opinion that the efficiency and stability of the discharge procedure between Parliament and the Council would benefit from an agreement between the two institutions on the key aspects of this procedure;deleted
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 31 #

2011/2203(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls therefore on the Committee on Budgetary Control to draw up a list of the key aspects that might be included in such an agreement.deleted
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 9 #

2011/2202(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1a (new)
-1a. Points to the significant savings that could be made if Parliament were to have a single seat;
2012/03/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 81 #

2011/2202(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42a (new)
42a. Is of the opinion that the House of European History is an improper task of Parliament, especially in the current period of financial austerity, improperly put under the communications budget; regrets that the legal analysis for this legal base, is not publically available; wishes to be informed what progress is being made to limit Parliament's budgetary exposure to this project e.g. by ending it; or if it is to go ahead, to make it fully independent;
2012/03/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 126 #

2011/2202(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64 b (new)
64b. Regrets that office space was used in 2010 by accredited lobbying organisations, thus creating preferential treatment to these organisations on behalf of EU taxpayers resources;
2012/03/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 160 #

2011/2202(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 a (new)
84a. Takes the view that the possibility should be considered of making both environmental improvements and savings in Parliament’s budget by means of different working methods which are greener and cheaper but do not detract from Parliament’s work, including the use of teleconferences and more constituency weeks (‘green weeks’);
2012/03/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 110 #

2011/2201(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 a (new)
51a. Criticises that the Council used Article 122 TFEU in 2010 for setting up the European Stability Facility (EFSF) because that Article is only applicable for natural disasters and not for economic catastrophes;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 111 #

2011/2201(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 b (new)
51b. Is concerned about the fact that the European Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) contain neither any elements of democratic control by Parliament nor audit control by the Court of Auditors; strongly criticises that the EFSF has not even a provision for external public audit;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 112 #

2011/2201(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 c (new)
51c. Underlines the warning of Parliament in its resolution of 23 March 20111 against establishing the permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM) outside the Union institutional framework as this decision entails problems for the control mechanism of the institutions of the Union and it constitutes a high risk for the whole budget of the Union due to the fact that a part of the ESM and EFSF funds are guaranteed by the Commission's budget; 1 European Parliament resolution of 23 March 2011 on the draft European Council decision amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro (P7_TA(2011)0103).
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 113 #

2011/2201(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a (new)
5 a. Criticises that the current EFSF framework foresees neither any element of political control by Parliament, nor any financial control or audit by the Court of Auditors; is of the opinion that the political control of the EFSF currently exercised by national parliaments is insufficient and is far from a proper control of this program;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 114 #

2011/2201(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 b (new)
53b. Is concerned about the fact that the new European Stability Mechanism (ESM) contains no reference to any form of control by Parliament or audit competences by the Court of Auditors;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 115 #

2011/2201(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 c (new)
53c. Is concerned about the fact that the Court of Auditors did not pay sufficient attention to these new challenges in the Union in its annual report on 2010; especially deplores that the Court of Auditors did not mention these risks for the Union budget in a sufficient way; underlines that the Court of Auditors has to give the new European Stability Mechanism a prominent role in its further work;
2012/03/07
Committee: CONT
Amendment 55 #

2011/2174(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Annex I (new) – Article 7 (new)
Article 7 Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members 1. An Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members (‘the Advisory Committee’) is hereby established. 2. The Advisory Committee shall be composed of five members, appointed by the President at the beginning of his or her term of office from amongst the members of the bureaux and the coordinators of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs, taking due account of the Members' experience and of political balance. Each Member of the Advisory Committee shall serve as chair for six months on a rotating basis. 3. The President shall also, at the beginning of his or her term of office, nominate reserve Members for the Advisory Committee, one for each group not represented on the Advisory Committee. In the event of an alleged breach of this Code of Conduct by a Member of a political group not represented on the Advisory Committee, the relevant reserve Member shall serve as a sixth full Member of the Advisory Committee for the alleged breach under consideration. 4. The Advisory Committee shall give guidance to Members for the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of this Code of Conduct. On request of the President, the Advisory Committee shall also assess alleged cases of breach of this Code of Conduct and advise the President on possible action to be taken. 5. The Advisory Committee may, after consulting the President, seek advice from outside experts. 6. The Advisory Committee shall issue an annual report on its activities, including on the interpretations and application of the provisions of this Code of Conduct. Annual reports shall be published on Parliament’s website.
2011/11/07
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 60 #

2011/2174(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Annex I (new) – Article 8 (new)
Article 8 Procedure in the event of possible breaches of the Code of Conduct 1. Where there is reason to think that a Member may have breached this Code of Conduct, the President may refer the matter to the Advisory Committee. 2. The Advisory Committee shall examine the circumstances of the alleged breach, and on the basis of the conclusions of its findings, make a recommendation to the President on a possible decision. 3. If, taking into account the advice of the Advisory Committee, the President concludes that the Member concerned has breached the Code of Conduct, he or she shall, after hearing the Member, adopt a reasoned decision laying down a penalty, which he or she shall notify to the Member. The penalty may consist of one or more of the measures listed in Article 153(3) of the Rules of Procedure. 4. The internal appeal procedures defined in Rule 154 of the Rules of Procedure shall be open to the Member concerned. 5. Any penalty imposed on a Member after the expiry of the time-limits laid down in Rule 154 of the Rules of Procedure shall be announced by the President in plenary and prominently published on Parliament's website for the remainder of the parliamentary term.
2011/11/07
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 63 #

2011/2174(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Annex I (new) – Article 8 a (new)
Article 8a Legislative Footprint Rapporteurs are invited to keep and publish, in a standard template annexed to their report, a record of their principal contacts with, and the contributions made by, outside interests when drafting a report.
2011/11/07
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 64 #

2011/2174(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Annex I (new) – Article 9 (new)
Article 9 Implementation The Bureau shall lay down implementing measures for this Code of Conduct, including a monitoring procedure, and shall update the amounts referred to in Articles 4 and 5, when necessary. The Bureau or the Conference of Presidents may bring forward proposals to revise this Code of Conduct, which, at all events, shall be reviewed no later than two years after its entry into force.
2011/11/07
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 19 #

2011/2048(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Invites the Commission to simplify procedures for public procurement;
2011/06/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 21 #

2011/2048(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Urges the Commission to examine more carefully the rules concerning the obligation of a public procurement;
2011/06/27
Committee: CONT
Amendment 30 #

2011/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Urges the Commission, furthermore, to revise the rules on compulsory public procurement, inter alia with a view to reviewing the minimum threshold at which public procurement must take place;
2011/07/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 3 #

2011/2025(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B
B. whereas rapid technological developments have brought new challenges in terms of personal data protection as a result of the increased reliance on complex information technology tools for data processing as well as enhanced online activity, including e-commerce,
2011/03/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 12 #

2011/2025(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for the data protection dimension of the internal market to be enhanced both online and offline through the uniformisation of Member States' legislation and increased legal certainty, with excessive restrictions and further organisational costs being avoided, and, especially as regards definitions, grounds for and lawfulness of data processing, data subject rights, international transfers and national data protection authorities, to ensure increased legal certainty and reduce excessive administrative burdens reduced, especially for SMEs;
2011/03/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 22 #

2011/2025(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises the need for a coherent application of data protection rules, taking into account the impact of new technologies on individuals' rights, while ensuring free circulation of personal data to facilitate the smooth functioning of both the internal market and the Internet and its characteristic openness and interconnectivity;
2011/03/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 31 #

2011/2025(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines the importance for any future legislation to be technologically- neutral to ensure that data subjects' rights are always valid and enforceable regardless of the technology used for processing personal data; calls upon industry, research and development and innovation sectors to incorporate the principle of privacy by design and to promote PETs (Privacy Enhancing Technologies) in order to guarantee a high level of protection of personal data throughout the Single Market;
2011/03/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 32 #

2011/2025(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Notes that the development and broader use of cloud computing raises new challenges in terms of privacy and protection of personal data; calls, therefore, for a clarification of the capacities of transparency on behalf of data controllers, data processors and hosts as to better allocate the corresponding legal responsibilities and so that the data subjects know where their data are stored, who has access to their data, who decides the use to which the personal data will be put, and what kind of back-up and recovery processes are in place;
2011/03/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 33 #

2011/2025(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Calls on the Commission to clarify the rules on applicable law in the Data Protection Directive 95/46, especially in situations where companies operate in several Member States or have branches outside the European Union;
2011/03/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 37 #

2011/2025(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the need for awareness-raising activities on data protection to ensure that the rules on consent are implemented every individual knows his or her rights in terms of personal data protection and understands the short and long term consequences of providing certain types of data as well as the conditions attached to providing such data, including the different modalities of consent, data portability and the right to be forgotten. Awareness raising a uniform way, especially in the online environmentbout such information is not only relevant to online activity but also to employment relationships and intra or inter corporate transfers of personal employment data;
2011/03/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 48 #

2011/2025(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for a revision and simplificatn extension of the current personal data breach notification system with a view to making data processing by all data controllers less cumbersome and expensivebeyond the telecom sector to serious data breaches;
2011/03/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 56 #

2011/2025(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to examine the modalities for access, rectification and deletion of data, as well as recourse to Alternative Dispute Resolution and judicial collective redress in the internal market;
2011/03/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 64 #

2011/2025(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to carry out an impact assessment of self-regulatory initiatives as tools for better enforcement of data protection rules.deleted
2011/03/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 3 #

2011/2014(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that each of the funding channels carries its own specific benefits and drawbacks with regard to specific spending objectives as displayed in the table in the explanatory statement; states that budget support may have as little positive effect as any other development-policy instrument so long as development- unfriendly concepts are pursued in other policy areas;
2011/10/10
Committee: CONT
Amendment 5 #

2011/2014(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to consider introducing direct budget support in Afghanistan under rigorous and well- defined conditions, as it is the best instrument for building capacity in the Afghan administration; it must not be tied to harmful economic-policy conditions such as privatisation, cuts in the public sector or trade liberalisation; believes this could achieve sustainable, long-term- oriented results;
2011/10/10
Committee: CONT
Amendment 10 #

2011/2014(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission, at the same time, to set rigorous and well-defined conditions for the disbursement of budget support which are clear and measurable; takes the view that these objectives should aim to achieve results which can be evaluated by way of indicators and pre- defined benchmarks on accountability and transparency; underlines that baselines assessing future progress need to be defined from the outset; considers mechanisms to fight corruption and fraud to be of the utmost importance in this context; states that the effectiveness of development-policy measures in the partner countries must be checked on the basis of local criteria;
2011/10/10
Committee: CONT
Amendment 36 #

2011/2014(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Underlines the fact that investments by the international community in Afghanistan shouldall be aligned with the needs of the GIRoA and the people of Afghanistan;
2011/10/10
Committee: CONT
Amendment 37 #

2011/2014(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Is of the opinion that development strategies must be designed by recipient governments themselves, in consultation with a broad spectrum of civil society, and must be agreed by national parliaments; further, that civil society and parliamentarians must be involved throughout every stage of implementation, monitoring and the evaluation of results, and that this requirement must be a decisive eligibility criterion for budget support;
2011/10/10
Committee: CONT
Amendment 40 #

2011/2014(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Considers the development of the security situation in Afghanistan to be a major future challenge for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and calls on the Commission to develop, together with the international community, a strategy on how to ensure security for Afghanistan and to stimulate a self-sustainable economy, inter alia with a view to being able to exercise proper control over aid;
2011/10/10
Committee: CONT
Amendment 35 #

2011/0455(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5a (new)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 11a - paragraph 1
(da) Article 11a paragraph 1 shall be amended as follows: 1. An official shall not, in the performance of his duties and save as hereinafter provided, deal with a matter in which, directly or indirectly, he has any personal interest such as to impair his independence, and, in particular, family and financial interests. All staff, whether on permanent or temporary contracts, shall upon appointment submit a declaration of interests. The declaration of interest shall be filled out according to a standard form. It shall among others contain the following information: -the occupational activities of an official for the past 3 years; - membership of any boards or committees of any companies, non- governmental organisations, associations or other bodies established in law, or any other relevant outside activity an official is undertaking; - any holding in any company or partnership, where there are potential public policy implications or where that holding gives an official significant influence over the affairs of the body in question; - any other financial interests which might influence the performance of the official; The declaration shall be updated annually or if a change occurs. The declarations shall be scrutinized by the Appointing Authority.
2012/03/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 36 #

2011/0455(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5a (new)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 11 – paragraph 2a (new)
5 a. Article 11 shall be amended as follows: The following paragraph shall be inserted after the second paragraph: "All staff, whether on permanent or temporary contracts, shall upon appointment submit a declaration of interest. The declaration shall be updated annually or if a change occurs. The declarations shall be scrutinized by the Appointing Authority."
2012/03/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 47 #

2011/0455(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6a (new)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 22a – paragraph 1
6a. Article 22a paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following: "1. Any official who, in the course of or in connection with the performance of his duties, becomes aware of facts which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible illegal activity, including fraud or corruption, detrimental to the interests of the Communities, or of conduct relating to the discharge of professional duties which may constitute a serious failure to comply with the obligations of officials of the Communities shall without delay inform either his immediate superior or his Director-General or, if he considers it useful, the Secretary-General, or the persons in equivalent positions, an independent complaints procedure, supported by independent confidentiality officers, or the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) direct. Information mentioned in the first subparagraph shall be given in writing. This paragraph shall also apply in the event of serious failure to comply with a similar obligation on the part of a Member of an institution or any other person in the service of or carrying out work for an institution."
2012/03/06
Committee: CONT
Amendment 5 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. ConsenRejects to the draft Council regulation laying down the Mmultiannual Ffinancial Fframework for the years 2014-2020;
2013/09/19
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 13 #

2010/2291(ACI)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6 – point b
(b) the scope of the register, which covers all relevant actors but excludes, among others, social partners as actors in the social dialogue, as well as c. Churches, and political parties and local, regional and municipal authorities; are likewise exempted from the register. However, their representation offices or legal bodies, offices and networks created to represent them towards the European institutions, as well as their associations, are expected to register.
2011/04/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 21 #

2010/2291(ACI)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6 – point d
(d) the demand for relevant financial information;, while being of the opinion that all interest representatives, including consultancies and law firms when their purpose is to influence policy rather than case-law, must declare their clients' expenditure in the same way with reference to bandwidths of EUR 10,000.
2011/04/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 22 #

2010/2291(ACI)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6 – points d a, d b and d c (new)
(da) the establishment of a 'joint Register Secretariat' which must scrutinise and ensure the accuracy of the information in the register, while considering it important that sufficient resources (staff and money) be granted for that purpose; (db) the suggested sanctions in the case of non-compliance with the rules such as suspension or exclusion from the register or withdrawal of the access badges to the European Parliament , while believing that a decision to apply such sanctions must be published on the register's website; (dc) the requirement for interest representatives always to declare the entity or entities for which they work or which they represent in accordance with the code of conduct, while believing that , if applicable, interest representatives should reveal by whom their clients are funded;
2011/04/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 35 #

2010/2291(ACI)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraphs 7 a and 7 b (new)
7a. Calls on the Bureau of the Parliament to establish a triviality limit for the requirement on Members to register gifts, services and the like rendered to them; 7b. Further believes that interest representatives should be obliged to disclose the same information on lobbying expenditure spent on Members as Members are obliged to disclose in their financial declarations, applying the same triviality limit;
2011/04/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 36 #

2010/2291(ACI)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Recalls the importance of a thorough review of the common register no later than two years following its initial entry into force; considers that that review should be used to move towards mandatory registration and improve the quality of data in the register (e.g. financial information);
2011/04/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 21 #

2010/2144(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – indent 2 a (new)
- The questions the Parliament wants written answers to are: 1. With regard to the discharge procedure: does the Council agree to replace the informal practices of the so- called 'gentlemen's agreement' by formal and official bilateral meetings between the Council and Parliament's competent committee? 2. With regard to previous Council discharge debates in Parliament's competent committee, the Council did not attend these meetings regularly; however, it is considered of utmost importance that the Council attends in order to reply to committee members' questions referring to the Council discharge. Does the Council agree to attend future debates in Parliament's competent committee on the Council discharge debates? 3 . What is the understanding of the Council of "sufficient degree of financial and administrative autonomy across the full spectrum of the budgetary cycle" in order to reach a possible future agreement with the Parliament? 4. What timetable does the Council envisage considering the difficulties related to the deadlines of the discharge procedure? 5. Why does the Council change the presentation/the format of the internal audit every year? Why is the internal audit so short, generic and unclear every year? Will the Council for the 2010 discharge onwards please present the internal audit in (an) other language(s) than French? 6. Has an external audit been carried out? If so, may Parliament's competent committee see it? If an external audit does not exist, why has the Council chosen not to make one? 7. Until now, the activity of the Council implied co-financing with the Commission, which has experienced an increase after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. What audit and control systems have been put in place to ensure full transparency? Given that the Treaty of Lisbon increased the co-financing with the Commission, what is the Council understanding of "respond to the appropriate enquiries"? 8. The Court of Auditors in its Annual Report 2009 found that, in two out of six procurement procedures audited, the Council did not respect the rules of the Financial Regulation for the publication of the outcome of the procedure. Has the Council scrutinised more samples of similar procurements? Has the internal procedure been streamlined in order to avoid similar cases in the future? 9. Staff of European Union Special Representatives (EUSR): Please indicate the staff (all staff, establishment plan and others) - number of posts, grade - for the EUSR in the Council for 2009. In which way and when will the EUSR-staff posts be allocated between the Council and the European External Action Service (EEAS)? What was the budget for travelling for each individual EUSR? How many EUSR staff were transferred on 1 January 2011 to the EEAS? How many will remain with the Council and why? 10. Invites the Council to provide a written statement on the Council's mission expenses as carried out by the special representatives. 11. The Council highlights budgetary questions concerning the consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon in point 2.2 in the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278. Has the Council solved the problems concerning Mr. Solana's expenditures? What part of the expenditures falls under the Council budget and what part falls under the Commission budget? 12. What were the operational expenditures, administrative expenditures, staff, buildings, etc envisaged by the Council for 2009 in order to set up the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission (HR/VP)? 13. The HR/VP came into office on 1 December 2009. How was the cost distributed between the Council and the Commission (for staff, travel, etc.)?How did the Council prepare the budget for the HR/VP for 2010? Which budget lines and sums were reserved for her activities? 14. How will office space released in the process of staff transfer to the EEAS influence Council's plans on buildings? Have arrangements been made for the subsequent use of such office space? What is the anticipated cost for removal? When were calls for tenders for the removals (if any) published? 15. What was the administrative and operational expenditure related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy/Common Security and Defence Policy (CFSP/CSDP) tasks, which were at least part-financed from the Union budget in 2009? What was the total amount of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) expenditure in 2009? Could the Council identify at least the main missions and their cost 2009? 16. What was the cost of meetings for Council working groups on CFSP/CSDP in Brussels and elsewhere and where did these meetings take place? 17. What was the administrative expenditure relating to the implementation of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)/CSDP military operations? What share of the total amount of expenditures arising from military operation has been charged to the Union budget? 18. What was the administrative expenditure implemented for the operation of the "ATHENAE" mechanism, how many posts were needed for that mechanism, will any of the posts in question be transferred to the EEAS? To whom will the postholders report? 19. There is a low occupation rate of posts in the Council's establishment plan (91 % in 2009, 90 % in 2008). Does this consistently low rate cause any repercussions on the functioning of the Council's General Secretariat (CGS)? Can CGS perform all its functions with the current occupation rate? Are lower occupation rates specific to any particular services? What are the reasons of the persistent discrepancy? 20. What is the total number of posts assigned to the task of 'policy coordination' and administrative support (as defined in the Commission's annual staff screening reports)? What is its percentage in relation to the overall number of posts? 21. To achieve the administrative objectives in 2009 the Council added teleworking to its working procedures. With what measurements does the Council prove the efficiency of this working procedure? 22. The Council increased its posts by 15 (8 AD and 7 AST) to cover the staffing requirements of the Irish language unit. How many staff are occupied by the other languages (staff per language)? Are there already staff employed for and from the applicant countries? If the answer is in the affirmative - how many posts are concerned (separated per country and language)? 23. The Reflection Group was established on 14 December 2007, and its members appointed on 15-16 October 2008. What were the reasons why the necessary financing could not have been envisaged and included in Budget 2009? Is a transfer in Budget 2009 from the contingency reserve to a budget position financing a structure conceived in 2007 strictly budget neutral? 24. The Council earmarked EUR 1°060°000 for the “Reflection Group”. How many posts can be allocated to this group? May the Parliament receive the report of the “Reflection Group” in order to understand why such a report costs EUR 1° 060°000 (cf. the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 2.2)? 25. The expenditures concerning travel delegations still seem to be problematic, (cf. Council note 15 June 2010, SGS10 8254, II bullet, page 4). Why do these expenditures appear in so many different budget lines? 26. Why does the internal audit still find it necessary to add “les frais de voyage des délégués et les frais d’interprétation” (delegates travelling expenses and interpretation expenses) - after strong criticism in the last two resolutions from the Parliament on the Council discharge? 27. The Council again has used underspending on interpretation to provide extra financing for delegations' travel expenses. As a result, actual 2009 commitments for travel expenses amounted to considerably less than the initial budget, and less than a half of the amount available after the transfer (EUR 36.1 million initial and EUR 48.1 million available after transfer against EUR 22.7 million committed).What were the reasons for this EUR 12 million transfer (cf. the financial activity re-port – 11327/10, FIN 278 -point 3.3.2-VI bullet)? Why is the transfer from interpretation to delegates travelling estimated at EUR 12 million by the Council at page 12 and at EUR 10°558°362 at page 13? What has the remaining amount transferred from interpretation been spent on (the total amount transferred from interpretation is EUR 17°798°362)? 28. In 2009 the Council, as it did in 2008, reallocated a considerable amount of its budget to buildings, in particular, more than doubling the initial allocations to the acquisition of the Residence Palace (reallocated EUR 17.8 million in addition to EUR 15 million earmarked in Budget 2009). What are the reasons for this? Can CGS provide concrete figures of the savings achieved as a result of this? What does the Residence Palace Building cost? Does the Council think the envisaged amount will be reached or could the cost be higher than estimated? What steps are foreseen to finance the building? 29. Implementation of the Council budget - appropriations carried over: Could the Council present the estimated amount and subject of the invoices which were not received by June 2010 for the year 2009 and therefore carried over? 30. The carryover to 2010 of the appropriations of assigned revenues accrued in 2009 amounted to EUR 31.8 million. This is about 70 % of the assigned revenue for 2009. What are the reasons for this high carryover ratio? What will happen/has happened to this revenue in 2010? 31. What does “technical provision of EUR 25 million for the launch of the European Council 2010” mean? (cf. the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 3.1, IV bullet) 32. What is the level of confidentiality of the Council budget specified by the different budget lines? 33. Will the Council give the Parliament the Members States' declaration for 2007 (cf. the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 3.2.2, II bullet)? 34. Can the Council point out the specific measures taken to improve the quality of the Council's financial management, in particular as regards the points raised in paragraph 5 of Parliament's resolution1 of 25 November 2009 accompanying its decision on discharge to the Council for the financial year 2007?
2011/02/21
Committee: CONT
Amendment 83 #

2010/2143(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
46. Notes that Article 12(9) of the Parliament's Internal Rules for the implementation of the budget, adopted on 27 April 2005, provide that the Internal Auditor's area of competence does not include the appropriations from Parliament's budget managed by political groups; further notes that the specific rules on the use of those appropriations require each political group to establish its own internal financial rules and to implement an internal control system but no mention is made of the internal audit function;
2011/02/22
Committee: CONT
Amendment 84 #

2010/2143(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
47. Observes that only the rules of one out of seven political groups provide for the appointment of an internal auditor; agrees with the Court of Auditors that the functional independence of groups does not justify the non-application of regulatory provisions on the inStresses that all political groups have to have a yearly external audit and have to present an external audit functioncertificate;
2011/02/22
Committee: CONT
Amendment 85 #

2010/2143(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
48. Stresses that it is the responsibility of the political groups to put in place their internal auditcontrol system and that this should not be the responsibility of Parliament's Internal Auditor and calls on the Bureau to integrate, as a matter of priority, this obligation in the rules following after consulting the political groupsconsult the political groups on how further audit provisions can be developed;
2011/02/22
Committee: CONT
Amendment 110 #

2010/2143(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
67. Deplores the fact that EuroparlTV cannot be considered to be a success story in view of its very low number of direct users (excluding viewers through partnership agreements with regional TVs) in spite of the considerable annual appropriations that it receives, amounting to some EUR 9 000 000; requests an in- depth analysis of how to reach a broader audience, including a critical examination of the content, in order to transform EuroparlTV into a medium that will reach out to and inform the public objectively of politics in Parliament in a cost-efficient and attractive way;
2011/02/22
Committee: CONT
Amendment 115 #

2010/2143(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
68. Observes that, in the last few years, Parliament has greatly increased the number of and the budget for its prizes; expresses doubts as to whethdoes not consider those prizes represent at their bestto be part of Parliament's core competences and the tasks which stem from its legislative, budgetary and budgetary control prerogatives; calls on its Bureau to refrain from initiating the funding of new prizes;
2011/02/22
Committee: CONT
Amendment 124 #

2010/2143(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
70. Notes with concern the overall decline in turnout in the 2009 European Elections to 43,2%, in spite if the considerable efforts made to reinforce Parliament's institutional election campaign which cost some EUR 5 676 000; deplores the fact that Parliament's election campaign was rendered totally partial by its glorification of the current policy of the Union; is of the opinion that such a campaign should be absolutely neutral;
2011/02/22
Committee: CONT
Amendment 125 #

2010/2143(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
71. Notes that the total cost of setting-up the European Parliament Congressional Liaison Office in Washington in 2009 and 2010 is estimated to be some USD 400 000 annually as a result of an administrative arrangement with the Commission; notes that setting up the Office has not entailed the creation of any new posts, the postings being the result of redeployments, long- term missions and a system of one-year missions; is concerned about the possible future cost and requests that its competent committees be informed regularly and duly about any future plan having significant financial implication concerning this Office;
2011/02/22
Committee: CONT
Amendment 134 #

2010/2143(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
78. Is of the opinion that facilities within Parliament's buildings which are not required in connection with the Institution's activities must be economically self- supporting and should not be financed with subsidies from Parliament's budget; any exceptions for imputed costs must be shown separately; is concerned about the worsening working conditions and of the bad system of remuneration of the employees in these facilities; considers it important that the situation of the employees is prioritised in calls for tenders in this area;
2011/02/22
Committee: CONT
Amendment 1 #

2010/2001(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Points out the importance of the budgetary allocation in chapter 02 03 of the Commission's dDraft bBudget, believing that a better functioning of the internal market, without in any way limiting the possibility for Member States to take the lead in setting compulsory standards in areas such as food safety, animal welfare, environmental protection and social rights, can be achieved by improvements in the fields of notification and certification; is furthermore of the opinion that the budgetary allocation in the fields of standardisation and approximation of legislation is justified, as these measures will facilitate the operation and competitiveness of enterprises, while providing European consumers with safer products and services;
2010/08/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 1 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Citation -1 (new)
– having regard to Article 48(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 27 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Draft decision
Article 1
The following paragraph shall be added to Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: "3. The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality or of Member States whose currency is the euro.".
2011/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 73 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – introductory wording
9. States that, in order for the proposed draft European Council decision to be properly scrutinised, supplementary information is needed, notably concerning the envisaged design of the stability mechanism and the relations which it is intended to have with the Union institutions, with the proposed European Monetary Fund and with the International Monetary Fund; accordingly, makes its support for the draft European Council decision dependent on fulfilment of the following conditions:
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 74 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – point a
(a) a redrafting of the European Council draft decision as proposed in the amendments annexed hereto1, it being understood that, by shifting the proposed provision from Article 136(3) to Article 136(1) TFEU, the stability mechanism, notwithstanding its initial intergovernmental character, would be placed in a perspective of possible future incorporation into the framework of the Union, e.g. in the form of a special kind of agency, making use of the institutional patterns of enhanced cooperation;deleted
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 80 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – word separating points a and b
ordeleted
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 84 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – point b – introductory wording
(b) a clear declaration by the European Council ensuring that:deleted
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 87 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – point b – indent 1
– the operational features of the permanent stability mechanism and the conditionality measures (a stringent programme of economic and fiscal adjustment) will be decided on the basis of a recommendation by the Commission, after consulting Parliament, and that the Commission will be responsible for ensuring full respect of these measures and for the precautionary use of the mechanism, regularly reporting back to Parliament;deleted
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 91 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – point b – indent 2
– the Commission will carry out all the necessary tasks in implementing and monitoring the permanent mechanism and in assessing the financial situation of the Member States, regularly reporting back to Parliament;deleted
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 95 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – point b – indent 3
– the financial assistance under the mechanism will be subject to rigorous analysis and to a programme of economic and financial recovery; those Member States whose currency is the euro will act, when deciding to grant financial assistance, on the basis of an evaluation provided by the Commission, the European Central Bank and, in so far as it may be involved, the International Monetary Fund; andeleted
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 101 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – point b – indent 4
– the secretariat of the permanent stability mechanism will be provided by the Commission;deleted
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 104 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Points out that the strict conditionality for granting financial assistance under the European Stability Mechanism gives Member States whose currency is the euro the power to take competences from the Member States of the Union in the field of economic, financial and social policy, which essentially means an extension of the competences conferred on the Union; consequently, does not agree that the simplified Treaty revision procedure should be used and calls, in accordance with Article 48(2) TEU, for the ordinary Treaty revision procedure to be used;
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 105 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Insists on a broader debate concerning any Treaty change, involving all persons affected by future integration, through the convening of a convention, as a persuasive democratic option designed to address growing scepticism about the European Union within the 27 Member States;
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 117 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Underlines that any future Treaty changes must be adopted in accordance with the ordinary Treaty revision procedure;
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 121 #

2010/0821(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13b. Calls on the Member States to allow referenda in all 27 Member States on proposals for Treaty change;
2011/03/03
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 84 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) Binding agreements should be made with regard to access for Members of all political groups of European Parliament to classified documents and information in the area of CFSP and ESDP.
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 86 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 6
(6) The High Representative, or her representative, should exercise vis-à-vis the European Defence Agency, the European Union Satellite Centre, the European Union Institute for Security Studies and the European Security and Defence College the responsibilities provided for in their respective founding acts. The EEAS should provide these entities with the support currently provided by the General Secretariat of the Council.deleted
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 88 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 7
(7) Provisions should be adopted relating to the staff of the EEAS and their recruitment. For matters relating to its staff the EEAS should be treated as an institution within the meaning of the Staff Regulations. In accordance with Article 27(3) of the TEU, the EEAS will comprise officials from the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission as well as personnel seconded from the diplomatic services of the Member States. The High Representative will be the Appointing Authority, in relation both to officials subject to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities ("Staff Regulations") and agents subject to the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. The High Representative will also have authority over the Seconded National Experts ("SNEs") in post in the EEAS. The number of officials and servants of the EEAS will be decided each year as part of the budgetary procedure and will be reflected in the establishment plan.
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 94 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) The establishment of the EEAS and its implementation shall not lead to any additional costs, neither within the EU budget nor within the national budgets.
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 95 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. .The EEAS, which has its headquarters in Brussels, shall be a functionally autonomous body of the European Union, separate from the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council, with the legal capacity necessary to perform its tasks and attain its objectivesnot be a sui generis institution.
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 100 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The parliamentary control concerning the EEAS has to be entirely ensured. Therefore the European Parliament's right of scrutiny must be guaranteed to its full extent. This has to be assured for the national parliaments as well, especially in terms of the CSFP and ESDP.
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 106 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision – amending act
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – indent 2
- a directorate general for administrative, staffing, budgetary, security and communication and information system matters under the direct authority of the Secretary-General;
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 107 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision – amending act
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – indent 3
- the crisis management and planning directorate, the civilian planning and conduct capability, the European Union Military Staff and the European Union Situation Centre, placed under the direct authority and responsibility of the High Representative in her capacity as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; the specificities of these structures, as well as the particularities of their functions, recruitment and the status of the staff shall be respected.deleted
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 116 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision – amending act
Article 5 – paragraph 10
10. The Union delegations shall have the capacity to, upon request by Member States, support the Member States in their diplomatic relations and in their role of providing consular protection to Union citizens in third countries.
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 119 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision – amending act
Article 6 – paragraph 1 (b)
(b) if necessary, and on a temporary basis, specialised seconded national experts (SNEs)The establishment and the implementation of the EEAS shall not include any additional posts.
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 128 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. As regards operational expenditure arising from the implementation of the CFSP budget, the Instrument for Stability, the Instrument for Cooperation with Industrialised Countries, the Communication and Public Diplomacy as well as the Election Observation Missions, the Commission shall be responsible for their financial management under the authority of the High Representative in her capacity as Vice-President of the Commission.1 1 The Commission will make a declaration to the effect that the High Representative will have the necessary authority in this area, in full respect of the Financial Regulation.deleted
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 130 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. In the framework of the management of EU external cooperation programmes, which remain under the responsibility of the Commission, the High Representative and the EEAS shall contribute to the programming and management cycle for the following geographic and thematicThe planning, programming, management and implementation of operational expenditure of all financing instruments, on the basis of the policy objectives set out in the said instruments:f EU external action, namely - the Development Cooperation Instrument, - the European Development Fund, - the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, - the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, - the Instrument for Cooperation with Industrialised Countries, - the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation. - the Instrument for humanitarian aid shall not be transferred to the EEAS. The European Parliament must have the full budgetary and parliamentary control over these instruments.
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 133 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The EEAS shall in particular have responsibility for preparing the following Commission decisions on the strategic, multi-annual steps within the programming cycle: (i) country allocations to determine the global financial envelope for each region (subject to the indicative breakdown of the financial perspectives). Within each region, a proportion of funding will be reserved for regional programmes; (ii) country and regional strategic papers (CSPs/RSPs); (iii) national and regional indicative programmes (NIPs/RIPs).deleted
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 134 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. With regard to the European Development Fund and the Development Cooperation Instrument, any proposals, including those for changes in the basic regulations and the programming documents in paragraph 3 above, shall be prepared by the relevant services in the EEAS and in the Commission under the direct supervision and guidance of the Commissioner responsible for Development Policy and then jointly submitted with the High Representative for decision by the Commission.deleted
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 136 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. With regard to European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, any proposals, including those for changes in the basic regulations and the programming documents in paragraph 3 above, shall be prepared by the relevant services in the EEAS and in the Commission under the direct supervision and guidance of the Commissioner responsible for Neighbourhood Policy and then jointly submitted with the High Representative for decision by the Commission.deleted
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 142 #

2010/0816(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Annex – paragraph 1 (new)
1. General Secretariat of the Council 1.The military structures of the EU, located in the General Secretariat of the Council, as well as the civilian-military structures such as the European Union Military Staff, the European Defence Agency (EDA), the Crisis Management Planning Directorate (CMPD) and the European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC), shall neither be part of the EEAS nor institutionally connected to it. Furthermore the EU intelligence structures in particular the EU Situation Centre (SitCen) shall not be part of the EEAS. The European Parliament calls on the Council to stop the development of and abolish all military and civil-military structures under its competence, as well as stop the financing of military and civil- military activities.
2010/07/01
Committee: AFET
Amendment 10 #

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital V
V. Parliament has previously resolved to study the possibility of electing some MEPs on pan-European lists, considering that this would impart a genuine European dimension to the campaign, particularly by entrusting a central role to European political parties1,deleted
2011/11/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 18 #

2009/2134(INI)

2. Proposes that 25 MEPs be elected by a single constituency formed of the whodele territory of the European Union; pan- European lists would be composed of candidates drawn from at least one third of the States, and may ensure an adequate gender representation; each elector would be enabled to cast one vote for the EU- wide list in addition to their vote for the national or regional list: and seats would be allocated without a minimum threshold in accordance with the D’Hondt method; further, proposes that an electoral authority be established at EU level in order to regulate the conduct and to verify the result of the election taking place from the pan-European list;d
2011/11/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 26 #

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 - point (ii)
(ii) Proposes to enter into a dialogue with the European Council to explore the possibility of reaching agreement on a durable and transparent mathematical formula for the apportionment of seats in Parliament respecting the criteria laid down in the Treaties and the principles of plurality between political parties and solidarity among States; considers that the Treaties should be revised to provide that no Member State shall have less than 10 seats or more than 80;
2011/11/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 3 #

2009/2070(DEC)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
1. _______Postpones its decision on granting the Council’s Secretary- General discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2008;
2010/03/03
Committee: CONT
Amendment 6 #

2009/2070(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that the preparation of the budget and the discharge of the budget are two separate procedures and that the ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ between the Council and the Parliament over the preparation of their respective sections of the budget shouldmust not absolve the Council of its responsibility to be fully accountable to the public for the funds placed at its disposal;
2010/03/03
Committee: CONT
Amendment 15 #

2009/2070(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 - introductory part
11. Reminds the Council of itDeplores that the Council still did not answer the questions raised in Parliament’s resolution of 25 November 20091, which requires it to verify progress on the following matters:
2010/03/03
Committee: CONT
Amendment 18 #

2009/2070(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b Asks the ECA why there is no mention of the unsolved problems, as pointed out in Parliament’s resolution of 25 November 2009 accompanying its decision on discharge for 20071, in its Annual Report on 2008 concerning the Council.
2010/03/03
Committee: CONT
Amendment 19 #

2009/2070(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the audits carried out by the Council’s internal audit service in 2008 (eight financial audits and one mixed audit), as well as the considerable share of their recommendations which have been accepted; however, points out that the note on this issue which was submitted 1 OJ L 19, 23.1.2010, p. 9. to the discharge authoritiesy was of a rather general nature, and requests more detailed information on the implementation of audit recommendations as without them it would be impossible to grant the discharge;
2010/03/03
Committee: CONT
Amendment 20 #

2009/2070(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a Asks, in order to grant the Council discharge ,for the following: (a) as regards Chapter 22 - Operating expenditure - item 2 2 0 0: the text of the Decision No 190/2003 and the related Decision concerning ESDP/CFSP expenses - a full explanation of the need to transfer money from one item to another within the Council’s budget (b) as regards Chapter 22 - Operating expenditure - item 2 2 0 2: how much in Euros has been allocated for the interpretation at European Security and Defence meetings pursuant to Decision No 56/2004 of the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative concerning interpreting for the European Council, the Council and its preparatory bodies? (c) as regards Chapter 22 - Operating expenditure - item 2 0 0 2: to receive a copy of Decision 56/2004 (d) as regards Chapter 22 - Operating expenditure - item 2 0 0 2: in which budget line and how much in Euros has been transferred from this line for the delegates’ travel expenses?
2010/03/03
Committee: CONT
Amendment 123 #

2009/2069(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
76. Recalls the European Court of Auditors' remarks in its 2006 and 2007 Annual Reports on the need to establish clear rules to define the liabilities and responsibilities of Parliament and of the members of the fund in the event of a deficit; calls on the Secretary General to put forward a proposal by 31 December 2010 to resolve this, while respecting the decision by the Plenary that no additional tax money will be used to cover the deficit;
2010/03/03
Committee: CONT
Amendment 186 #

2009/2069(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 135
135. Invites the competent authorities to renew the whole of Parliament's own fleet of sedan cars for protocol and representational purposes with hybrid cars which are less polluting by 31 December 2010 and to reserve the use of those cars to the President, political group Chairs and high- profile visitors and to ensure that the cars at the disposal of the Members in Brussels and Strasbourg conform with European Emission Standard 5 by that date;
2010/03/03
Committee: CONT
Amendment 188 #

2009/2069(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 135a (new)
135a. Is surprised that a majority of the cars purchased in 2008 (an AUDI A 8 3.0 Tdi and 3 BMW 730 i) were considered to be the most environmentally friendly cars fitting the needs of the users, knowing that there were less energy consuming and more environmental friendly alternatives available at the time of the purchases;
2010/03/03
Committee: CONT
Amendment 6 #

2009/0813(NLE)


Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas Article 14(3) of the Treaty on European Union lays down that the members of the European Parliament shall be elected by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot,
2010/03/11
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 16 #

2009/0813(NLE)


Article 2
2. Regrets that the Council did not adopt the necessary measures in time to enable the additional MEPs to take up their seats as soon as the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, and considers it unacceptable that one of the solutions envisaged in the context of the amendment sought is not in keeping with Article 14(3) of the Treaty on European Union and the spirit of the 1976 Act, which was designed to ensure that MEPs are elected directly, rather than indirectly through an election within a national parliament;
2010/03/11
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 58 #

2008/2331(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Calls on the Commission to propose a functioning system where a Member State issuing an EU Blue Card to a highly qualified third-country worker shall provide professional education for two persons of the country/region of origin of the EU Blue Card holder concerned;
2009/03/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1 #

2008/2283(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Notes that, despite amendments to the Financial Regulation, its rules on procurement are still excessively cumbersome for smaller institutions, such as the European Data Protection Supervisor, especially in relation to tenders for contracts for relatively small amounts; invites the Commission - when carrying out its preliminary work prior to drawing up any future proposals for amendment to the Financial Regulation - to consult extensively with the European Data Protection Supervisor and his Secretariat in order to ensure that their concerns are also fully taken into account in the final draft;
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 1 #

2008/2282(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Notes that, despite amendments to the Financial Regulation, its rules on procurement are still excessively cumbersome for smaller institutions, such as the Ombudsman, especially in relation to tenders for contracts for relatively small amounts; invites the Commission - when carrying out its preliminary work prior to drawing up any future proposals for amendment to the Financial Regulation - to consult extensively with the Secretary General of the Ombudsman and its Secretariat in order to ensure that their concerns are also fully taken into account in the final draft;
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 6 #

2008/2281(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Notes that, despite amendments to the Financial Regulation, its rules on procurement are still excessively cumbersome for smaller institutions, such as the CoR, especially in relation to tenders for contracts for relatively small amounts; invites the Commission - when carrying out its preliminary work prior to drawing up any future proposals for amendment to the Financial Regulation - to consult extensively with the Secretary General of the CoR and its administration in order to ensure that their concerns are also fully taken into account in the final draft;
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 1 #

2008/2280(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes that, despite amendments to the Financial Regulation, its rules on procurement are still excessively cumbersome for smaller institutions, such as the EESC, especially in relation to tenders for contracts for relatively small amounts; invites the Commission - when carrying out its preliminary work prior to drawing up any future proposals for amendment to the Financial Regulation - to consult extensively with the Secretary General of the EESC and its administration in order to ensure that their concerns are also fully taken into account in the final draft;
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 3 #

2008/2279(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Notes that, despite amendments to the Financial Regulation, its rules on procurement are still excessively cumbersome for smaller institutions, such as the ECA, especially in relation to tenders for contracts for relatively small amounts; invites the Commission - when carrying out its preliminary work prior to drawing up any future proposals for amendment to the Financial Regulation - to consult extensively with the Secretary General of the ECA and its administration in order to ensure that their concerns are also fully taken into account in the final draft;
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 1 #

2008/2278(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Notes that, despite amendments to the Financial Regulation, its rules on procurement are still excessively cumbersome for smaller institutions, such as the Court of Justice, especially in relation to tenders for contracts for relatively small amounts; invites the Commission - when carrying out its preliminary work prior to drawing up any future proposals for amendment to the Financial Regulation - to consult extensively with the Chancellor of the Court of Justice and its administration in order to ensure that their concerns are also fully taken into account in the final draft;
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 1 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
1. ...Postpones its decision on granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2007;
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 2 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
1. ...Grants the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2007;
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 3 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas on 10 November 2008 Parliament sent to the Council a letter1 inviting it to a bilateral meeting in order to discuss the issue of discharge, to which 1 GEDA No 319175. the Council has not given any official answer or follow-up,deleted
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 4 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the Council ignores Parliament's requests to review the Gentlemen's Agreement of 1970,deleted
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 5 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
1 4a. Reiterates its position expressed at paragraph 3 of its resolution of 22 April 2008 on the discharge in respect of the financial year 2006, as follows: "Regrets that, unlike other institutions, the Council does not submit an annual activity report to Parliament, citing the Gentlemen's Agreement of 1970 [...] and the absence of any corresponding requirement in the Financial Regulation; calls on the Council to reconsider the decision not to publish and transmit to Parliament an activity report in order to be more accountable to the general public and taxpayers" 1; Recalls that this statement is T6-0135/2008, not yet published in the OJ. also fully consistent with paragraphs 44 and 45 of Parliament's resolution of 19 February 2008 on transparency in financial matters1; requests the Council to reconsider its decision not to publish on its web site its annual activity report;
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 6 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Requests the Council to provide Parliament with the original text of 1970 Gentlemen's Agreement;deleted
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 7 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the Gentlemen's Agreement is not a binding document and in any case only states that the Council will not alter Parliament's budget estimates and therefore does not concern the implementation of the budget; only considers as a valid legal basis the above- mentioned Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006; 1 Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0051.deleted Or. en
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 8 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Council to reconsider its decision not to publish on its website or transmit to Parliament an activity report in order to be more accountable to the general public and taxpayers, in line with paragraphs 44 and 45 of Parliament's resolution of 19 February 2008 on transparency in financial matters1;deleted
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 9 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Requests the European Court of Auditors to pay special attention, in its next Annual report, to the budget execution of the Council;
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 10 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new) and related heading
1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p.1.Reasons for postponement of the decision on discharge 21b. Indicates that the reasons for postponement are as follows: a) the Council has not accepted any invitation to officially and formally meet Parliament's competent committee or its rapporteur to discuss matters concerning its budget execution for 2007; b) its competent committee or its rapporteur did not receive any comprehensive written answer, prior to the committee's vote on the draft report on 16 March 2009, providing Parliament with the information and documents requested from Council in the annex of a letter of 18 February 2009 signed by the rapporteur and the coordinators of its competent committee; c) Parliament has not received fundamental documents from Council, such as, the annual activity report and the full list of budgetary transfers; d) This lack of transparency and openness for an official and formal dialogue from the Council's side does not make a meaningful discharge possible and it prevents the Parliament in particular from the possibility to check whether none of the expenditure in the Council budget execution is of operational nature, in conformity with the Inter Institutional Agreement of 17 May 20061; Or. en
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 11 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new) and related heading
Further actions to be taken and documents to be presented to Parliament 21c. Calls on the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative for the CFSP to provide Parliament's competent committee, by 15 May 2009 at the latest, with comprehensive written answers to the following questions: A. concerning its "comptes hors budget" (cf. internal auditor's recommendation R.2 of 2007): - How many accounts "hors budget" did the Council have in 2007? - When were these accounts established and for what purpose? - Which is the legal base used for these accounts? Which amount is covered by every single account? - The list of all transactions for each of these accounts for the financial year 2007 as well as the list of authorising officers by delegation per budget line. B. concerning the "vérification des factures" (cf. internal auditor's recommendation R.1 of 2007): - On which ground did the internal auditor come to the conclusion that ex- ante verification did not work in a satisfactory manner? - Are all budgetary lines subject to ex ante and/or ex post controls? - How many invoices were checked, which percentage of the invoices were taken in the sample and what percentage of those contained errors? - Did the Council prepare any action plan to solve this problem and, if yes, when is it going to be implemented? C. concerning budget line 2202 (interpreting costs): - Reasons for the doubling (from 2006 to 2007) of budget line 2202 dedicated to interpretation. - Why does the Council need to transfer money from this line to delegates' travel expenses? - Why did the Council use EUR 12 672 000 from interpretation to delegates' travel expenses in 2006? - Why did it not increase the specific budget line for the same amount in 2007? - What is the specific amount the Council transferred, regarding the financial year 2007, from this budget line to line 2200 or any other line? D. concerning budget line 2200 (travel expenses of delegations): - The legal base for this budget line is partly Council decision (No 190/2003) of the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative for the CFSP, which has not been published in the Official Journal. - For the sake of transparency, could the Council put on its website and its register of references all its Decisions? F. concerning budget line 3002 (special advisers in the field of the ESDP/CFSP): Which amount did the Council transfer to this budget line for the year 2007 and for how many special advisers?
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 12 #

2008/2277(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 d (new)
21d. Calls on the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative for the CFSP to provide Parliament's competent committee, by 15 May 2009 at the latest, with: - the full list of budgetary transfers concerning the 2007 budget of the Council; - its annual activity report for the year 2007; - the list of the associations which received money for the financial year 2007 specifying the amounts received per association? (budget line 2237 - other operating expenditure);
2009/02/23
Committee: CONT
Amendment 36 #

2008/2186(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Is shocked at the conclusions in the Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 16/2009 on the European Commission’s management of pre-accession assistance to Turkey, in which the Court of Auditors criticises the fact that the Commission did not ensure that there was an effective system for assessing individual projects in the period 2002-2008 and that it is therefore not easy to assess how the funds were managed, including whether value for money was obtained;
2010/03/03
Committee: CONT
Amendment 29 #

2008/0142(COD)

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 33 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 95s 42, 152 and 308 thereof,
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 47 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Some issues related to cross-border healthcare, in particular reimbursement of healthcare provided in a Member State other than that in which the recipient of the care is resident, have been already addressed by the Court of Justice. As healthcare was excluded from the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market it is important to address these issues in a specific Community legal instrument in order to achieve a more general and effective application of principles developed by the Court of Justice on a case by case basis.deleted
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 48 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) This directive aims to establish a general framework forcomplement Regulation 1408/71 and its successor Regulation 883/2004 with regard to the provision of safe, high quality and efficient cross-border healthcare in the Community and to ensure patients mobility and freedom to provide healthcarethe application of patients' rights in the framework of patients mobility and a high level of protection of health, whilst fully respecting the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of social security benefits related to health and the organisation and delivery of healthcare and medical care and social security benefits in particular for sickness.
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 65 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) In accordance with the principles established by the Court of Justice, and without endangering the financial balance of Member States' healthcare and social security systems, greater legal certainty as regards the reimbursement of healthcare costs should be provided for patients and for health professionals, healthcare providers and social security institutions.deleted
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 66 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) It is appropriate to require that also patients who go for healthcare to another Member State in other circumstances than those envisaged for coordination of social security schemes established by the Regulation (EC) No. 1408/71 should be able to benefit from the principles of free movement of services in accordance with the Treaty and the provisions of this Directive. Patients should be guaranteed assumption of the costs of that healthcare at least at the level provided for the same or similar healthcare had they been provided in the Member State of affiliation. This fully respects responsibility of the Member States to determine the extent of the sickness cover available to their citizens and prevents any significant effect on the financing of the national healthcare systems. Member States may nevertheless provide in their national legislation for reimbursement of the costs of the treatment at the tariffs in force in the Member State of treatment if this is more beneficial for the patient. This may be the case in particular for any treatment provided through European reference networks as mentioned in Article 15 of this Directive.deleted
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 68 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) For the patient, therefore, the two systems are coherent; either this directive applies or Regulation 1408/71. In any event, any insured person who requests an authorisation to receive a treatment appropriate to his/her condition in another Member State shall always be granted this authorisation under the conditions provided for in Regulation 1408/71 and 883/04 when the treatment in question cannot be given within the time medically justifiable, taking account his current state of health and the probable course of the disease. The patient should not be deprived of the more beneficial rights guaranteed by Regulation.1408/71 and 883/04 when the conditions are met.deleted
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 69 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
(23) The patient may choose which mechanism they prefer, but in any case, where the application of Regulation 1408/71 is more beneficial for the patient, the patient should not be deprived of the rights guaranteed by that Regulation.deleted
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 76 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
(26) This Directive does not provide either for transfer of social security entitlements between Member States or other coordination of social security schemes. The sole objective of the provisions regarding prior authorisation and reimbursement of healthcare provided in another Member State is to enable freedom to provide healthcare for both patients and healthcare providers and to remove unjustified obstacles to that fundamental freedom within the patient's Member State of affiliation. Consequently the Directive fully respects the differences of national health-care systems and the Member States' responsibilities for organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.deleted
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 96 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
(37) Realising the potential of the internal market for cCross-border healthcare requires cooperation between providers, purchasers and regulators of different Member States at national, regional or local level in order to ensure safe, high quality and efficient care across borders. This is particularly the case for cooperation in border regions, where cross-border provision of services may be the most efficient way of organising health services for the local populations, but where achieving such cross-border provision on a sustained basis requires cooperation between the health systems of different Member States. Such cooperation may concern joint planning, mutual recognition or adaptation of procedures or standards, interoperability of respective national information and communication technology systems, practical mechanisms to ensure continuity of care or practical facilitating of cross- border provision of healthcare by health professionals on a temporary or occasional basis. Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications stipulates that free provision of services of a temporary or occasional nature, including services provided by health professionals, in another Member State should not, subject to specific provisions of Community law, be restricted for any reason relating to professional qualifications. This Directive shouldall be without prejudice to those provisions of Directive 2005/36/EC.
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 111 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1
This Directive establishes a general framework foraims at complementing the existing framework on the coordination of social security systems (Regulation 1408/71/EC and its successor Regulation 883/2004/EC) with a view to the application of patients' rights in the context of the provision of safe, high quality and efficient cross-border healthcare.
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 131 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. When the circumstances under which an authorisation to go to another Member State in order to receive appropriate treatment under Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 must be granted are met, the provisions of that Regulation shall apply and the provisions of Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this Directive shall not apply. Conversely, when an insured person seeks healthcare in another Member State in other circumstances, Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this Directive apply and Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 shall not apply. However, whenever the conditions for granting an authorisation set out in Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 are fulfilled, the authorisation shall be accorded and the benefits provided in accordance with that Regulation. In that case Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this Directive shall not apply.deleted
2009/01/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 215 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Subject to the provisions of this Directive, in particular Articles 76, 87 and 9, the Member State of affiliation shall ensure that insured persons travelling to another Member State with the purpose of receiving healthcare there or seeking to receive healthcare provided in another Member State, will not be prevented from receiving healthcare provided in another Member State where the treatment in question is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State of affiliation to which the insured person is entitled. The Member State of affiliation shall reimburse the costs to the insured person, which would have been paid for by its statutory social security system had the same or similar healthcare been provided in its territory. In any event, it is for the Member State of affiliation to determine the healthcare that is paid f, according to the same mechanisms as provided for by Regulation 1408/71/EC and its successor rRegardless of where it is providedulation 883/2004/EC.
2009/02/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 223 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The costs of healthcare provided Member States must ensure that physicians and service providers which are working anos contract partners of their Member State shall be reimbursed by the Member State of affiliation in accordance with the provisions of this Directive up to the level of costs that would have been assumed had the same or similar healthcare been provided in the Member State of affiliation, without exceeding the actual costs of healthcare receivedrespective national health systems or statutory social security systems are obliged to accept the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC), form E-112 etc. and treat patients showing their EHIC on the same conditions as stipulated by the Regulation on the coordination of social security systems. Member States must oblige service providers to post an EHIC symbol in the lobby of the service provider (e.g. in a similar way to credit cards in shops and restaurants) to indicate that the EHIC is accepted there in line with that Regulation.
2009/02/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 232 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The Member State of affiliation may impose on a patient seeking healthcare provided in another Member State, the same conditions, criteria of eligibility and regulatory and administrative formalities for receiving healthcare and reimbursement of healthcare costs as it would impose if the same s must ensure that physicians and service providers which are working as contract partners of their respective national health systems or statutory social security systems are prohibited to treat patients from another Member State on a private basis or demanding upfront cash payments from them, in such cases that the patient can prove her or his status as an insured person of the respective statutory similar healthcare was provided in its territory, in so far as they are neither discriminatory nor an obstacle to freedom of movement of personsocial security system of the respective Member State of affiliation by the European Health Insurance Card, form E-112 etc..
2009/02/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 239 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall have a mechanism for calculation of costs that are to be reimbursed to the insured person by the statutory social security system for healthcare provided in another Member State. This mechanism shall be based on objective, nondiscriminatory criteria known in advance and the costs reimbursed according to this mechanism shall be not less than what would have been assumed had the same or similar healthcare been provided in the territory of the Member State of affiliation.deleted
2009/02/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 242 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. Patients travelling to another Member State with the purpose of receiving healthcare therereceiving healthcare in another Member State than their Member State of affiliation or seeking to receive healthcare provided in another Member State shall be guaranteed access to their medical records, in conformity with national measures implementing Community provisions on the protection of personal data, in particular Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC.
2009/02/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 248 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8
1. For the purposes of reimbursement of healthcare provided in another Member State in accordance with this Directive, hospital care shall mean: (a) healthcare which requires overnight accommodation of the patient in question for at least one night. (b) healthcare, included in a specific list, that does not require overnight accommodation of the patient for at least one night. This list shall be limited to: - healthcare that requires use of highly specialised and cost-intensive medical infrastructure or medical equipment; or - healthcare involving treatments presenting a particular risk for the patient or the population. 2. This list shall be set up and may be regularly updated by the Commission. Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 19(3). 3. The Member State of affiliation may provide for a system of prior authorisation for reimbursement by its social security system of the cost of hospital care provided in another Member State where the following conditions are met: (a) had the healthcare been provided in its territory, it would have been assumed by the Member State’s social security system; and (b) the purpose of the system is to address the consequent outflow of patients due to the implementation of the present Article and to prevent it from seriously undermining, or being likely to seriously undermine: (i) the financial balance of the Member State’s social security system; and/or (ii) the planning and rationalisation carried out in the hospital sector to avoid hospital overcapacity, imbalance in the supply of hospital care and logistical and financial wastage, the maintenance of a balanced medical and hospital service open to all, or the maintenance of treatment capacity or medical competence on the territory of the concerned Member State. 4. The prior authorisation system shall be limited to what is necessary and proportionate to avoid such impact, and shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination. 5. The Member State shall make publicly available all relevant information on the prior authorisation systems introduced pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 3.Article 8 deleted Hospital and specialised care
2009/02/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 303 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State of affiliation shall ensure that administrative procedures regarding the use of healthcare in another Member State related to any prior authorisation referred to in Article 8(3), reimbursement.22.1 c) and Art. 22.2 of Regulation 1408/71, coverage of costs of healthcare incurred in another Member State and other conditions and formalities referred to in Article 6(31), are based on objective, non- discriminatory criteria which are published in advance, and which are necessary and proportionate to the objective to be achieved. In any event, an insured person shall always be granted the authorisation pursuant to Regulations on coordination of social security referred to in Art. 3.1 f) whenever the conditions of Art.22.1 (c) and Art. 22.2 of Regulation 1408/71 are met.
2009/02/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 308 #

2008/0142(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall specify in advance and in a transparent way the criteria for refusal of the prior authorisation referred to in Article 8(3).
2009/02/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 42 #

2007/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Deplores the defiance and non- implementation by the EU of the verdict of the European Court of First Instance on 12 December 2006 and the British Court of Appeal decision in favour of PMOI on 7 May 2008.
2008/11/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 83 #

2007/0228(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 - paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. A Member State issuing an EU Blue Card to a highly qualified third-country worker shall provide education for two persons of the country/region of origin of the EU Blue Card holder concerned. The education should as far as possible be within the subject area of the Blue Card holder.
2008/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 136 #

2007/0228(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 - paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The EU Blue Card holder shall have the right to remain on the territory for as long as he or she is engaged in training activities aimed at further increasing his or her professional skills or re- qualification of his or her professional profile.
2008/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 102 #

2007/0145(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Annex – Action 1 – Section A – paragraph 2 – point j
(j) shall restablish a joint tuition fee regardless of the actual place of study of the students within the masters programmepect the right of the Member States to decide the model of financing in education;
2008/05/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 112 #

2007/0145(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Annex – Action 1 – Section B – paragraph 2 – point j
(j) shall restablish a joint tuition fee regardless of the actual place of study of the students within the masters programmepect the right of the Member States to decide the model of financing in education;
2008/05/29
Committee: CULT