9 Amendments of Marije CORNELISSEN related to 2012/2275(BUD)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Romanian authorities submitted the application for EGF financial contribution on 22 December 2011, supplemented by additional information up to 22 August 2012, and that its assessment was made available by the Commission on 19 October 2012 and that its assessment was made available by the Commission only on 19 October 2012; regrets the lengthy evaluation periods and inquires why this particular application required 8 months of assessment; urges the Commission to speed up the evaluation process;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Welcomes the first application of Romania for the EGF support;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Regrets that the redundancies in Cluj in Romania and Salo in Finland (application EGF/2012/006/ FI/Nokia from Finland) stem from a corporate decision of Nokia to move its production plants to Asia and are part of its plan to reduce global employment in Nokia Corporation by 17 000 workers by the end of 2013;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls for reciprocity in trade between the EU and third countries as an essential condition for EU companies to gain access to new non-European markets;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Notes that the EGF already acted in favour of 1 337 workers dismissed in result of re-location of Nokia from Germany to Romania in 2008; now three years after the EGF has to act again as the production plant opened in Cluj following the closure in Germany was closed down in 2011 as a consequence of re-location to Asia; inquires whether, at the time of relocation from Germany, Nokia had benefited from any financial incentives on regional, national or European level (in particular from the cohesion funds) to locate its plant in Romania;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes that the Commission proposal indicates that another EGF application is expected to cover the second wave of dismissals in Nokia centre in Salo and therefore calls on the Commission to clarify to what extent Nokia itself supports the redundancy financially;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Regrets that the Commission proposal do not present any statistics concerning unemployment rates in the region concerned; notes, however, that in 2011 almost 40% of the total working population of the Cluj-Napoca region in the area of IT and communications worked in Nokia; judges that the impact of Nokia dismissals on the employment situation in the region is considerable;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Expects the Commission to explain whether and how Nokia was involved in the creation of the coordinated package of personalised service and possibly in co- financing;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Regrets that there are no details concerning the types of training measures and internships to be provided within the coordinated package and how these are matched with the local skills and qualification needs and possible areas of future growth in the region;