BETA

4 Amendments of Ivailo KALFIN related to 2013/2055(ACI)

Amendment 3 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets furthermore the difficulty with which, even after the eight weeks deadline had elapsed, the Council reached an agreement on this revision, which has led to a delay in the availability of the funding for Croatia due as from 1 July 2013; hopewarns that this doesmust not become a worrying precedent for further enlargements;
2013/06/28
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes that the Council could eventually agree on a revision without any offsetting of the 2013 ceilings for payments by the required EUR 374 million; considers that, given the limited amount concerned and the current shortage of payment appropriations in the 2013 budget, this is the proper way to fulfil the obligation that the Member States took out when signing the Accession Treaty and to respect the provisions of point 29 of the IIA of 17 May 2006;
2013/06/28
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 6 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 7
7. Deplores however that as regards the revision in commitments the Council decided to neglect the political importance of adopting the Commission's proposal as such, opting instead for an offset of the appropriations required; denounces that this contradicts the spirit of the unanimous decision taken when signing the Treaty of Accession as well as of the IIA of 17 May 2006; highlights that such decision represent a dangerous precedent and sends a wrong political signal not only to Croatia but to the other candidate countries as well; stresses that this decision of the Council is accepted only because it concerns the last 6 months of the current MFF (2007- 2013); points out that this should not constitute a precedent for future enlargements that might occur under the next MFF (2014-2020);
2013/06/28
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 8
8. Considers riskyRegrets that heading 5 has been identified as the main source for the offsetting in commitments, since this could lead to the lack of the necessary resources to cover the challenged salary adjustments in case the ruling of the Court of Justice comes still in 2013;
2013/06/28
Committee: BUDG