Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
Next event: Deadline Amendments 2012/06/04 more...
- Committee draft report 2012/05/07
- Amendments tabled in committee 2012/06/11
- Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading 2012/09/26
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | CONT | RIVELLINI Crescenzio (EPP) | STAVRAKAKIS Georgios (S&D), STAES Bart (Verts/ALE), CZARNECKI Ryszard (NI), SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo (GUE/NGL), ANDREASEN Marta (EFD), EHRENHAUSER Martin (NI) |
Opinion | ECON | ||
Opinion | ITRE | ||
Opinion | REGI | KLEVA Mojca (S&D) |
Legal Basis RoP 076
Activites
-
2012/09/26
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- 2012/06/11 Amendments tabled in committee
-
2012/06/04
Deadline Amendments
- 2012/05/07 Committee draft report
-
2012/04/18
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2012/03/27
Non-legislative basic document
-
N7-0052/2012
summary
PURPOSE: to present the Special report of the European Court of Auditors (No 2/2012) on the efficiency of financial instrument for SMEs co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. CONTENT: the European Court of Auditors (ECA) concludes in its special report (No. 2/2012) that the effectiveness and efficiency of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) spending on financial instruments for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were hampered by the regulatory framework being inappropriate for the different types of financial instruments used. There were widespread delays in the funds reaching the recipient SMEs and the supported actions were ineffective in leveraging in private investment. SME financing gap assessments, when prepared, suffered from significant shortcomings. In addition, some recipient SMEs were charged unjustified management fees by the financial intermediaries used. The ECA's performance audit shows that the Structural Funds regulatory framework used for this SME support through financial instruments was originally designed for grant spending, and thus unfit to take into account the specific characteristics of the debt and equity instruments used. There were weaknesses in: the provisions for leveraging and 'recycling' the funds, the justification for amounts allocated to financial engineering measures, the conditions to justify the recourse to preferential private sector treatment, and the eligibility conditions for working capital. Court recommendations: the ECA makes a number of recommendations to the Commission to improve the regulatory framework for these instruments, as well as for managing efficiency and effectiveness. These include: ensuring that Member State proposals are justified by gap assessments of sufficient quality to be used when approving the measures; providing a reliable and technically robust monitoring and evaluation system; exploring the possibility of supplying Member States with simplified and tested structures and instruments to speed up implementation and reduce management costs; defining and setting minimum requirements for leverage and 'recycling' of funds. If these recommendations cannot be implemented under the Cohesion policy framework then the special report concludes that consideration should be given to finding more effective ways of providing this type of support to small and medium sized enterprises.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm', 'title': 'Regional Policy'}, HAHN Johannes
-
N7-0052/2012
summary
-
2012/03/27
Date
Documents
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities/6/committees |
|
activities/6/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/3 |
|
activities/3/date |
Old
2012-06-11T00:00:00New
2012-05-07T00:00:00 |
activities/3/docs/0/title |
Old
PE491.184New
PE489.375 |
activities/3/docs/0/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Committee draft report |
activities/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE491.184New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE489.375 |
activities/3/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Committee draft report |
activities/5/date |
Old
2012-10-23T00:00:00New
2012-06-11T00:00:00 |
activities/5/docs |
|
activities/5/type |
Old
EP 1R PlenaryNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/8 |
|
activities/2/committees/0/shadows/4/group |
Old
ECRNew
NI |
activities/5 |
|
committees/0/shadows/4/group |
Old
ECRNew
NI |
activities/6/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Plenary |
activities/7 |
|
activities/6/date |
Old
2012-10-25T00:00:00New
2012-10-23T00:00:00 |
activities/2/committees/0/shadows |
|
committees/0/shadows |
|
activities/1/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
PURPOSE: to present the Special report of the European Court of Auditors (No 2/2012) on the efficiency of financial instrument for SMEs co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. CONTENT: the European Court of Auditors (ECA) concludes in its special report (No. 2/2012) that the effectiveness and efficiency of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) spending on financial instruments for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were hampered by the regulatory framework being inappropriate for the different types of financial instruments used. There were widespread delays in the funds reaching the recipient SMEs and the supported actions were ineffective in leveraging in private investment. SME financing gap assessments, when prepared, suffered from significant shortcomings. In addition, some recipient SMEs were charged unjustified management fees by the financial intermediaries used. The ECAs performance audit shows that the Structural Funds regulatory framework used for this SME support through financial instruments was originally designed for grant spending, and thus unfit to take into account the specific characteristics of the debt and equity instruments used. There were weaknesses in:
Court recommendations: the ECA makes a number of recommendations to the Commission to improve the regulatory framework for these instruments, as well as for managing efficiency and effectiveness. These include:
If these recommendations cannot be implemented under the Cohesion policy framework then the special report concludes that consideration should be given to finding more effective ways of providing this type of support to small and medium sized enterprises. New
PURPOSE: to present the Special report of the European Court of Auditors (No 2/2012) on the efficiency of financial instrument for SMEs co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. CONTENT: the European Court of Auditors (ECA) concludes in its special report (No. 2/2012) that the effectiveness and efficiency of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) spending on financial instruments for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were hampered by the regulatory framework being inappropriate for the different types of financial instruments used. There were widespread delays in the funds reaching the recipient SMEs and the supported actions were ineffective in leveraging in private investment. SME financing gap assessments, when prepared, suffered from significant shortcomings. In addition, some recipient SMEs were charged unjustified management fees by the financial intermediaries used. The ECA's performance audit shows that the Structural Funds regulatory framework used for this SME support through financial instruments was originally designed for grant spending, and thus unfit to take into account the specific characteristics of the debt and equity instruments used. There were weaknesses in:
Court recommendations: the ECA makes a number of recommendations to the Commission to improve the regulatory framework for these instruments, as well as for managing efficiency and effectiveness. These include:
If these recommendations cannot be implemented under the Cohesion policy framework then the special report concludes that consideration should be given to finding more effective ways of providing this type of support to small and medium sized enterprises. |
procedure/legal_basis |
|
procedure/subject/0 |
3.45.02 Small and medium-sized enterprises SMEs, craft industries
|
activities/2/committees/3/date |
2012-06-21T00:00:00
|
activities/2/committees/3/rapporteur |
|
committees/3/date |
2012-06-21T00:00:00
|
committees/3/rapporteur |
|
activities/3 |
|
activities/3/date |
Old
2012-10-23T00:00:00New
2012-05-07T00:00:00 |
activities/3/docs |
|
activities/3/type |
Old
EP 1R PlenaryNew
Committee draft report |
activities/7 |
|
activities/6/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Plenary |
activities/7 |
|
activities/8 |
|
activities/1/docs/0/text |
|
activities/3 |
|
activities/3/date |
Old
2012-09-11T00:00:00New
2012-05-07T00:00:00 |
activities/3/docs |
|
activities/3/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee draft report |
activities/6/date |
Old
2012-07-09T00:00:00New
2012-10-23T00:00:00 |
activities/6/type |
Old
EP 1R CommitteeNew
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/5/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Committee |
activities/7 |
|
activities/3/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE489.375
|
activities/3 |
|
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/1/commission/0 |
|
other/0 |
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|