2022/2063(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part

12. Calls on the Commission to re- assess its implementation of the EIC Fund in the frame of the Horizon Europe program and to find a ~~new~~proper management mode that reflects the ambitious and transformative nature of the EIC as the investor of reference to breakthrough innovation in Europe; urges the Commission to include in this new approach: ;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas the strategy for innovation aims to promote rules based on openness, green, digital, social solutions and also deliver on the Union strategic priorities and contribute to the EU objectives and policies, including the European Green Deal and shall contribute to tackling global challenges, including SDGs by following the principles of the Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement and achieving a net-zero GHG economy by 2050 at the latest;

Amendment 110 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point a

(a) ~~maintaining the~~Ensure a role ofor the ~~Investment Committee and~~EIC Fund Board, to closely monitor the fulfilment of the EIC Ffund ~~Board~~investment guidelines, while relying on the EIB team and the external fund managers for day-to-day ~~portfolio~~ management of the operations;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point a a (new)

(a a) Making full use of the added value of co-investment by external investors, while maintaining the possibility of the EIC Fund: 1. being the sole investor, including through taking equity without co- investment from external investors being required 2. being the major investor without leading the investment round 3. leading an investment round;

Amendment 112 #

Lina GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point b

(b) aAn investment strategy for ~~equity investments~~the EIC fund that would encourage the EIC fund to take risk as sole investor based on milestones reflecting the merits of the innovation as well as the strategic objectives of the Union, using convertible instruments for companies that need patient capital and working hand in hand with them, during the lifetime of their grant implementation, to look for co- investors for their next investment round. This approach will increase the ability of the EIC Fund to take risk in a faster process, with the benefit of the support to the companies in their search for private investment, especially important in order to boost the successful participation of under-represented regions and women-led companies, which face even more difficulties to finance their start-ups;

Amendment 113 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point b

(b) aAn investment strategy for equity investments based on milestones ~~reflecting~~based on the merits of the innovation as well as the strategic objectives of the Union; rather than solely on the willingness of other investors to join the investment round;

Amendment 114 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point c – indent 1 (new)

- d) Special attention to the promotion of women across the innovation sector while aiming to achieve gender parity, in all relevant positions;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point c a (new)

(c a) maintain the construction that allows the EIB team to be embedded in the Agency to deliver the high quality due diligence. Requests the Commission to build on this successful collaboration and agree on an arrangement with the EIB to have the embedded EIB team represent the EIC Fund in board meetings of investees

Amendment 116 #

Jordi SOLÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point c a (new)

(c a) ensuring that every decision throughout the whole procedure is aligned with the Paris Agreement, the Green Deal’s objectives and the principle of “do no significant harm";

Amendment 117 #

Jordi SOLÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point c b (new)

(c b) improving the gender balance and the geographical balance across the Union’s regions of EIC beneficiaries;

Amendment 118 #

Jordi SOLÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point c c (new)

(c c) ensuring an efficient collaboration with National Contact Points as well as regional authorities if applicable;

Amendment 119 #

Massimiliano SALINI, Andrea CAROPPO, Salvatore DE MEO, Aldo PATRICIELLO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Calls on the Commission to carry out the activities of the European Innovation Council in accordance with the requirements of Articles 9 and 45 of the Regulation (EU) 2021/695 establishing Horizon Europe, specifically respecting the provisions relating to project risks and bankability, openness to all types of innovation, including incremental innovation, support for all types of innovators, including SMEs and Mid-Caps, and the use of all forms of support provided, including the grant-only support.

Amendment 12 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas the Pathfinder provides grants to high-risk cutting-edge projects that explore new and deep-tech areas with the aim of developing potentially radical innovative technologies of the future and new market opportunities. The Pathfinder is supporting primarily collaborative projects in the range of TRL 1 to 4 and selected through bottom-up calls;

Amendment 120 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Calls on the Commission to implement the activities of the European Innovation Council in line with the provisions of Articles 9 and 48 of the Regulation establishing Horizon Europe, respecting in particular the provisions relating to project risks and bankability, openness to all types of innovation including incremental innovation, support for all types of innovators, including SMEs and Mid-Caps, and the use of all forms of support provided, including the grant-only support;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Calls on the Commission to refrain from the use of the DNSH principle as additional eligibility criterion for EIC projects;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12 b. Calls on the Commission to adept the Model Grant Agreement to include a clear definition of ‘EIC Inventor’ and to stipulate a clear policy on access rights for EIC Inventors which only provides broad access rights to EIC Inventors when a research organisation does not have an active policy and structure in place to support the use of research results for economic activities;

Amendment 123 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)

12 c. Calls on the Commission to instate a system of continuous and agile evaluation of the performance of the EIC and particularly the Accelerator;

Amendment 124 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 d (new)

12 d. Calls on the Commission to include a rigorous and continuous assessment of the evaluation procedure, taking into serious account complaints raised by applicants that can show clear inconsistencies in the evaluation of their proposal. Invites the Commission to inform the Parliament on how it handles individual complaints that demonstrate a clear failure by the evaluators;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 e (new)

12 e. Calls on the relevant Union bodies, including the European Court of Auditors and the EIC Board, to develop a dedicated auditing strategy for the EIC which reflects the particular nature of the EIC;

Amendment 126 #

Mauri PEKKARINEN, Ivars IJABS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recommends that an independent Union body established under Article 187 TFEU as the main entity responsible for the implementation of the EIC is the best institutional setting to deliver the implementation of the Accelerator along the lines set out above; recommends that this body should be set up at the latest by 2025;deleted

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recommends that a thorough assessment is made of possibilities to improve EIC's implementation, considering also an independent Union body established under Article 187 TFEU as the main entity responsible for the implementation of the EIC is the best institutional setting to deliver the implementation of the Accelerator along the lines set out above; underlines the need to ensure that in any case, applicants are treated equally, and the implementation ensures transparency, accountability and prevention of conflicts of interest; recommends that this body should be set up at the latest by 2025;

Amendment 128 #

Lina GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ, Patrizia TOIA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 – indent 1 (new)

- e) The EIC should increase collaboration and synergues with EIT and its Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) with the overall aim of strengthening the creation of innovative companies; With the aim of avoiding silos and the duplication of efforts and strategies, the EIT and EIC should envisage reciprocal and systematic exchanges of information, as well as having a common number in each of their governing board;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Calls on the Commission to include in the Work Programme targeted measures to improve participation of companies from underrepresented countries and to enhance participation of female innovators and measures to monitor their progress;

Amendment 13 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS, Markus PIEPER

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

B b. whereas the Accelerator will provide financial support to: a. SMEs including start-ups and, in exceptional cases, small mid-caps that have the ambition to develop and deploy in Union and international markets their breakthrough innovations and to scale-up rapidly b. any type of high-risk innovation, including in particular breakthrough and deep-tech innovations that are key to Europe's future growth;

Amendment 130 #

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Calls for a better geographical balance of EU countries in the EIC Accelerator projects’ portfolio in order to allow the potential of all Member States to be represented while respecting the principle of excellence;

Amendment 131 #

Lina GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ, Patrizia TOIA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13 b. Calls on the Commission to include measures to improve the participation of SMEs and to make the EIC accelerator accessible and attractive for innovative SMEs, by the simplification of the application process to decrease barriers for SMEs;

Amendment 132 #

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13 b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the instrument supports a wide range of projects in terms of their scale, so that small companies developing and scaling- up high-impact innovations could have equal access to it;

Amendment 133 #

Lina GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ, Patrizia TOIA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)

13 c. Calls on the Commission to revise the EIC accelerator current submission process and its time to grant, aligning the EIC platform to the evaluation criteria of the EIC accelerator. Such revision should aim to a fast and simple instrument fit for the needs of European deep-tech start- ups, reaching a target time to grant of 4 to 5 months;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 d (new)

13 d. Recommends that an InvestEU compartment is explored outside of the EIC fund, for companies which just need a matching fund to complete their upscaling rounds. The companies in these situations are typically out of the scope of the EIC but they still find a second financing gap for upscaling even with a market ready technology worth to be supported through InvestEU;

Amendment 135 #

Lina GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ, Patrizia TOIA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 e (new)

13 e. Calls on the Commission to clarify rules and procedures regarding the interpretation of non-bankability and co- investment criteria, enhancing communication and better involving national contact points;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 f (new)

13 f. Calls on the Commission to improve the synergies and collaboration with the EIT;

Amendment 14 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Accelerator is implemented by mainly usesing EIC blended finance ~~of EIC loans and grants~~ awarded through a single process and with a single decision, providing the supported innovator with a single global commitment to financial resources covering the various stages of innovation until market deployment, including pre- mass commercialisation. The support will be provided through one continuously open and bottom-up call;

Amendment 15 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Accelerator mainly uses blended finance of EIC loans and grants awarded through a single, clear and transparent process and with a single decision, providing the supported innovator with a single commitment to financial resources covering the various stages of innovation until market deployment, including pre- mass commercialisation;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas the Horizon legislation allows for the Union to bear alone the initial risk of selected innovation and market deployment actions, while the aim is to de-risk these as well as to stimulate, from the outset and during the development of the action, co-investments from alternative sources and even substitute investors allowing the Union to exit the investment;

Amendment 17 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

C b. whereas Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 requires the Commission to establish a special purpose vehicle for the implementation of EIC blended finance and for the Commission to manage all operational elements of Accelerator projects, including the grant or other non- repayable forms of support;

Amendment 18 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the EIC Pilot and EIC Enhanced Pilot successfully demonstrated the feasibility of the EIC; as a fully-fledged programme as outlined in the general conclusions of the 2022 Evaluation Study published by the European Commission1a _________________ 1a “Evaluation study on the European Innovation Council (EIC) Pilot” (European Commission, 2022)

Amendment 19 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the EIC Pilot and EIC Enhanced Pilot ~~successfully demonstrated the feasibility of the EIC;~~ tested the feasibility of the EIC, despite the investment conditions for the companies were not clear upfront;1a _________________ 1a European Commission, Directorate- General for Research and Innovation, Evaluation study on the European Innovation Council (EIC) pilot : final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/261324

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 b (new)

— having regard to the Statement by the EIC Board on the EIC Work Programme for 2022 and future of the EIC Fund1a _________________ 1a https://eic.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022- 02/Statement%20by%20the%20EIC%20B oard%20on%20the%20EIC%20Work%20 Programme%20for%202022%20and%20f uture%20of%20the%20EIC%20Fund.pdf

Amendment 20 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

D a. whereas the Pathfinder during the EIC Pilot constituted a rebranding of the FET Open and FET Launchpad programmes and generally, the novelties of the EIC Pathfinder, most notably portfolio management and Programme Managers, were introduced only late in the pilot. Under the pilot the implementation modalities of the Pathfinder were therefore largely the same as the general implementation modalities of Horizon 2020;

Amendment 21 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

D b. whereas between 2018 and 2020, the EIC Pilot funded 330 Pathfinder projects. Furthermore, applications for the Pathfinder were numerous, with variable success rates (between 6 and 50%) depending on the different types of actions;

Amendment 22 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)

D c. whereas the geographical spread of participation and particularly coordination of the Pathfinder Pilot was concentrated in the EU15 and Associated Countries. Furthermore, a country’s position in the European Innovation Scoreboard seemed to be reflected in the success of its innovators in the Pathfinder Pilot - the Innovation Leaders had the highest success rate and Emerging Innovators had the lowest success rates;

Amendment 23 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)

D d. whereas blended finance was introduced successfully and the EIC Fund was incorporated during the Pilot. The effectiveness of the Accelerator Pilot was under pressure due to low success rates;

Amendment 24 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D e (new)

D e. whereas the Pathfinder under Horizon Europe largely has the same structure and features as under the Pilot, except that the Transition Activities are identified as a separate programme part under Horizon Europe;

Amendment 25 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the EIC Fund under its original structure, as put in place in 2020 under the EIC Pilot, was functioning appropriately: 140 equity investment decisions were taken and these had a leverage of a factor 2.7, showing that the EIC Fund in its original structure was capable of establishing significant co- investment;

Amendment 26 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the EIC Fund under its original structure, as put in place in 2020 under the EIC Pilot, was ~~functioning appropriately~~able to deliver a relevant share of the selected operations despite the recurrent delays and incidences in signing the blended finance instrument;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

F a. whereas more than 50% of the blended finance investments under the pilot included a convertible loan as a way for the Union to take on the earliest initial risks;

Amendment 28 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)

F b. whereas the Evaluation Study concludes that “the EIC Fund is underpinned by well-justified public policy goals and market needs” and that “a contentious point on the Fund structure pivots around the interpretation of two eligibility rules: non-bank ability and co-investment”;

Amendment 29 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F c (new)

F c. whereas the due diligence procedure as established under the pilot has been particularly successful as it delivers high quality due diligence assessments as confirmed by the fact that several of these assessments were used to attract external investors, indicating that investors regard the due diligence of enough quality to base their investment decisions on;

Amendment 3 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 c (new)

— having regard to the Commission Press Release of 5 August 2022 entitled 'EIC Accelerator implementation update'1a _________________ 1a https://eic.ec.europa.eu/news/eic- accelerator-implementation-update-2022- 08-05_en

Amendment 30 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS, Markus PIEPER

Motion for a resolution
Recital F d (new)

F d. whereas the structured professional investment advice delivered by the Investment Committee and the EIB team embedded in the European Innovation Council and SMEs ExecutiveAgency (EISMEA) was able to deliver the high quality due diligence due to the unique cooperation between the EISMEA and the EIB in combination with investment expertise brought in by the external experts, including serial investors and VCs, on the Investment Committee;

Amendment 31 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F e (new)

F e. whereas the EIC Work Programme for 2021 was adopted already in March 2021, which enabled the EIC to start the implementation significantly earlier than Horizon Europe in general;

Amendment 32 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F f (new)

F f. whereas the Annotated Model Grant Agreement for Horizon Europe was published extremely late, which created significant uncertainty among applicants, including potential applicants under the EIC;

Amendment 33 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F g (new)

F g. whereas the introduction of Programme Managers has the potential to increase the effectiveness of the EIC in stimulating more strategic and break through innovation in Europe;

Amendment 34 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F h (new)

F h. whereas eight Programme Managers have been appointed, covering expertise in a wide range of fields and their role is to proactively review projects (and where necessary amend the direction of those projects) and built EIC Portfolios;

Amendment 35 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

F i. whereas the work of the Programme Managers still lacks visibility and is experienced as lacking transparency by stakeholders;

Amendment 36 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F j (new)

F j. whereas the EIC is a new type of Programme which carries more financial risk than normal Union spending, which requires a dedicated auditing strategy;

Amendment 37 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F k (new)

F k. whereas under the 2021 and 2022 Work Programmes 1.55 billion EUR and 1.71 billion EUR, respectively, was made available for the EIC; both years, roughly 430 millions EUR stemmed from the Next Generation EU budget, all of which was made available for grant components of the EIC; about 52% of the available budget was allocated to open, bottom-up calls under the Open calls; 65% of available funding was allocated to the grant components of the EIC, while 35% was allocated to investment components; nearly 70% of the available funding was allocated to the Accelerator, with 20% going to the Pathfinder;

Amendment 38 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F l (new)

F l. whereas under the 2021 and 2022 Work Programmes 13 calls topics were opened under the Pathfinder, of which 11 call topics for Challenges and 2 calls for Open;

Amendment 39 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F m (new)

F m. whereas under the Pathfinder Open Call of 2021, 868 proposals were submitted and 56 proposals were awarded, which means the success rate was 6.45%;

Amendment 4 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Innovation Council (EIC) is the EU’s flagship innovation programme to identify, develop and scale up breakthrough, and in particular deep tech, innovations; whereas EIC shall facilitate and enhance networking and cooperation and create synergies with the EIT particularly, between different innovation communities in EU, ensuring wide geographical coverage; whereas it was set up to foster Europe’s technological strategic autonomy as well as to improve the functioning of the European venture capital market;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F n (new)

F n. whereas that under the Pathfinder Open Call of 2022, 863 proposals were submitted and it is expect that around 60 proposals will be awarded, which means the success rate will be around 7%;

Amendment 41 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F o (new)

F o. whereas under the Pathfinder Challenges Call of 2021, 403 proposals were submitted and 39 proposals were awarded, which means the success rate was 9.7%;

Amendment 42 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F p (new)

F p. whereas for the Accelerator there were two cut-off dates in 2021 and 2022 respectively;

Amendment 43 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F q (new)

F q. whereas the only funding transfered to Accelerator beneficiaries has been grant pre-payments and no funds have been transferred as part of (quazi) equity support with only one Investment Decision having been taken so far;

Amendment 44 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital F r (new)

F r. whereas for EIC Blended Finance projects the time-to-grant has been 12 months under Horizon Europe;

Amendment 45 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Eva MAYDELL, Pernille WEISS, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Jerzy BUZEK, Henna VIRKKUNEN, Markus PIEPER, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Is dismayed by the delays in the implementation of the blended finance actions under the Accelerator. Emphasises that the delays were completely and only the result of conflicts between different Directorates General of the European Commission about the management of the EIC Fund. Notes in this regard that the projects had been selected and that both the EIB and Investment Committee were ready to process the equity parts of the projects. Notes that conflicts only concerned the equity part of the project and should therefore not have affected the grant agreements. Deplores these internal Commission conflicts put at risk 96 European deep-tech companies. Welcomes that in late June 2022 the Commission seem to have been able to start moving forward with the implementation of these projects. Is dismayed that 51 beneficiaries selected following the October 2021 cut-off were informed in August 2022 that the Commission was not able sign their grant agreement in summer 2022 and that the Commission now hoped to sign in October 2022. Strongly condemns these intolerable delays leading to a time-to-grant of 12 months. Deeply concerned that, except for one exceptional Investment Decision, no decisions for actual investments have been taken by the EIC Fund. Notes that only in the summer of 2022 the Commisison started signing term sheets for beneficiaries selected in 2021 and that most will be signed after summer;1a _________________ 1a https://eic.ec.europa.eu/news/eic- accelerator-implementation-update-2022- 08-05_en

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1 a. Reminds that the EIC Fund is set up to support startups and SMEs developing deeptech innovations. Highlights that cash flows are crucial for startups and SMEs, and that long delays in receiving expected funding can bankrupt these kinds of companies. Emphasises therefore the importance of the EIC Fund being able to invest within market conform timeframes. Deplores the examples where the EIC Fund failed to achieve this objective and where the original investment decision of the EIC Fund was rendered irrelevant, due to the long time lag and the company’s development during that time;

Amendment 47 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)

-1 b. Notes that under the EIC Pilot with the structure of the Fund in place at the time, the EIC managed to deliver professional investment decisions largely conforming to market norms. Stresses that this structure was at the time accepted by all services of the European Commission;

Amendment 48 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)

-1 c. Recalls that EIC Blended Finance should be awarded through a single process and through a single decision covering both the grant and the financial instruments. Reminds that Commission should manage all operational elements of Accelerator projects;

Amendment 49 #

Lina GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ, Patrizia TOIA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Is concerned about the announcement in early 2022 of changes to the structure of the Fund compared to the situation under the EIC Pilot, while the companies from the first two cut-offs from 2021 had been already selected for funding;

Amendment 5 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Innovation Council (EIC) is the EU’s flagship innovation programme to identify, develop and scale up breakthrough, and in particular deep tech, innovations; whereas it was set up to foster Europe’s technological strategic autonomy as well as to improve the functioning of the European venture capital market in the context of the earlier stages of company development;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Recognises that the Commission expressed concerns about the management of EIC Fund regarding the staffing implications as well as the potential Commission reputational liability for the investments;

Amendment 51 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Acknowledges the staffing concerns raised by the Commission regarding the management of the EIC Fund investment portfolio. Appreciates that the representation of the EIC Fund needs to be appropriate and that this requires a significant number of persons with significant experience to represent the EIC Fund. Considers, however, that directly employing these persons is not the only solution. Points out that the original Investment Committee together with the EIB had developed an alternative plan to solve the staffing issue. Concludes therefore that the staffing challenge is not a reason for restructuring the Fund;

Amendment 52 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Reminds that the text of Article 11(3) was included in the Commission proposal for Horizon Europe and was never challenged during the legislative procedure. Highlights that this means that the Commisson ought to have been fully aware of this text when it set up the EIC Fund in 2020. Stresses that the Commission Decision to set up the EIC Fund, which included the original structure, was adopted by the College of Commissioners and had the support of all services of the Commission. Emphasises that the same is true for the 2021 EIC Work Programme, which made no mention of the need to restructure the EIC Fund. Concludes that the issue of compliance with Article 11(3) was raised internally in the Commission around the summer of 2021 after the programme already started. Considers that raising such a fundamental issue during a running programme after having missed several opportunities to raise the issue in the three years preceeding the start of the programme is at the very least a case of gross mismanagement and at worst a unacceptable attempt by a settled bureaucracy to undermine the creation of a new way of working as envisaged by the colegislators;

Amendment 53 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights that Article 216(1) of the Financial Regulation expressly empowers the Commission to apply direct management of investments either by the Commission directly (Article 216(1b)) or through ‘a dedicated investment vehicle’ (Article 216(1a)); stresses that this form of implementation allows for more flexibility and more strategic consideration in investment decisions and portfolio management than indirect management; rejects the notion that transferring the management of the Fund to the European Investment Bank (EIB) and an external fund manager will allow for the flexibility and strategic consideration needed to make the EIC a success;deleted

Amendment 54 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS, Markus PIEPER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights that Article 216(1) of the Financial Regulation expressly empowers the Commission to apply direct management of investments either by the Commission directly (Article 216(1b)) or through ‘a dedicated investment vehicle’ (Article 216(1a)); stresses that this form of implementation allows for more flexibility and more strategic consideration in investment decisions and portfolio management than indirect management; ~~rejects the notion~~highlights that transferring the management of the Fund to the European Investment Bank (EIB) and an external fund manager will call for a close monitoring per operation to allow for the flexibility and strategic consideration needed to make the EIC a success and not to become another EIB backed VC fund;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes the importance of professional preparation of an investment decision and therefore highlights the role of the EIC Fund Investment Committee as well as the support for the due diligence provided by the EIB. Commends, in this context, the valuable work performed by the EIB team embedded in the EISMEA. Notes that the due diligence performed by the EIB leading to the first investment decision is broadly considered to be of high quality, which creates trust among investors. Regrets, however, that for further decisions of the EIC Fund, like joining an investment round after the initial investment decision or establishing a rationale for an investment, seem to take too long in part due to the time it takes the EIB to provide its input for that decision. Believes in this regard that the rationale and accompanying processes for these decisions need to reflect the nature of the EIC Fund as risk investor more strongly;

Amendment 56 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Recalls that the EIC Fund under its original structure, as put in place in 2020 under the EIC Pilot, was functioning appropriately;

Amendment 57 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Takes note of the procedure for investment decisions under the original structure: a. The European Commission prepared Work Programmes with call definitions b. The EISMEA opened the calls and manages the evaluation and selection procedure, which included the initial decision for grant-based or (part) equity- based support c The final proposal selection was under there sponsibility of the European Commission d. Those proposals awarded an equity component were channelled to the EIC Fund e. The EIB Group, in its role of Investment Advisor, would undertake financial due diligence. In parallel, the EIC Fund would perform “Know Your Customer” compliance checks with the help of service providers duly contracted f. The EIC Fund would classify the proposals for investment into four types of scenarios, translated into the 4 ‘buckets’. This classification would not be static, as cases would be moved from one bucket to the other as the due diligence process evolved, based on its findings, or on the initiation of co-investment interest - resulting inter alia from the de-risking operated by the EIC Accelerator support, or at later stage as the operation unfolds and milestones are reached: i. Bucket 0: No Go Bucket 0 included cases for which initial assessment or due diligence, at any stage, reports substantial negative issues preventing any investment ii. Bucket 1: low maturity and failure to attract co-investment Bucket 1 included cases that were not sufficiently mature for regular investors, due to remaining very high risk despite the awarded EIC Accelerator support. The proposal could receive support through: a. Quasi-equity or a combination of quasi- equity and equity if the proposal concerned EU strategic interests or addressed a societal challenge” b. Grant-based support in all other cases iii. Bucket 2: Co-investment opportunities Bucket 2 included cases where potential investors show immediate interest in co- investing into EIC selected companies. EIC Fund could still co-invest in this company. iv. Bucket 3: Alternate investment opportunities Bucket 3 included cases where potential investors showed immediate interest inproviding the full investment into EIC candidate companies g. The EIB would negotiate draft financing terms with the beneficiary and co-investors (if any), or advise the company in case of alternate investors. h. The EIC Investment Committee appointed by the EC would examine the due diligence together with the structuring proposal from the EIB Group. i. The EIC Investment Committee would recommend financing operations to the EIC Fund Board. j. The EIC Fund Board would either approve (sometimes with conditions) or reject the operation. Provided that the EIC Fund Board approved the investment, the EIB would guide the work of the lawyers for each specific transaction leading to legal documents which would be signed by the EIC Fund Board;

Amendment 58 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5 c. Notes that the Commission has developed a 'transition arrangement' under which the EIC Fund remains in the ownership of the Commission while an external fund manager will take the Investment Decisions of the Fund; hihglights that the external fund manager will also staff the Investment Committee and that this means that there will no longer be independent experts on the Committee who delivered invaluable expertise nor will there be any representative of the Commission to ensure policy coherence; takes note of the description of this arrangement in the 2022 EIC Work Programme;

Amendment 59 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Eva MAYDELL, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Notes with concern that un~~der~~til the transitional arrangement announced in the EIC 2022 work programme~~, substantia~~ is in place, all Single Award Decisions and all iInvestment dDecisions need to be approved by the College of Commissioners and are thereby accompanied by another level of scrutiny; ~~regards this as an unacceptable situation~~is dismayed by the prospect that, even when the external fund manager is responsible for Investment Decisions, the College will still need to approve the Single Award Decisions; regards this as an unacceptable situation because this makes the decision taking process even longer, complex and with more uncertainty for the applicants while the EIC investment decisions even without this extra layer fail to meet industry standards in terms of time or agility. Notes that this additional step also consolidates the direct involvement of the Commission rather than creating distance from the Commission in order to manage liability;

Amendment 6 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas Regulation (EU) 2021/695 identifies the European Innovation Council (EIC) as “a centrally managed one-stop shop” which “shall focus mainly on breakthrough and disruptive innovation, targeting especially market-creating innovation, while also supporting all types of innovation, including incremental”;

Amendment 60 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Eva MAYDELL, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Notes with concern that under the transitional arrangement for the investments announced in the EIC 2022 work programme, substantial investment and grant decisions need to be approved by the College of Commissioners and are thereby accompanied by another level of scrutiny; regards this as an ~~unacceptable~~inefficient and temporary situation;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Notes with deep concern that even setting up the transition arrangement for the EIC Fund takes months due to continuous internal discussions between Commission services. Notes that the transition arrangement for the EIC Fund was agreed in principle within the Commission in late 2021 and incorporated in the 2022 EIC Work Programme published in February 2022 as well as finally confirmed by a Commission Decision in April 2022. Notes that in June 2022 the Commission started processing the grant components of the Accelerator projects selected in June 2021, indicating sufficient progress was made in setting up the transition arrangement of the EIC Fund to start implemented blended finance projects. Notes that for grantees selected under the June 2021 cut-off most of the grant agreements were signed in the summer of 2021. This results in a time-to-grant of more than a year. Notes that the Commission communicated in May 2022 that grant components for the October 2021 cut-off date EIC Blended Finance grantees would be finalised by the end of May or early June.1a Notes that the Commission had to inform these grantees over the summer of 2022 that the grants would not be ready by July and would likely have to wait untill October of 2022. Concludes that for this cut-off the time-to- grant will also be at least one year. Furthermore, notes that the Commission Decision confirming the details on restructuring of the EIC Fund was not take before summer 2022 and that all investment decisions of the Fund therefore still need to be approved by the College of Commissioners of the European Commission; _________________ 1a https://sciencebusiness.net/news/commissi on-says-european-innovation-council- grant-logjam-end-june

Amendment 62 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Highlights that Article 216(1) of the Financial Regulation expressly empowers the Commission to apply direct management of investments either by the Commission directly (Article 216(1b)) or through “a dedicated investment vehicle” (Article 216(1a)). Stresses that this form of implementation allows for more flexibility and more strategic consideration in the investment decisions as well as portfolio management than indirect management. Rejects the notion that transferring the management of the Fund to the EIB and an external fund manager will allow for the flexibility and strategic consideration needed to make the EIC a success;

Amendment 63 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Is dismayed by the delays in the implementation of the blended finance action under the EIC Accelerator, as a year after the first cut-off date, no equity or grant agreement had been signed; emphasises that the delays were completely and only the result of conflicts between different Directorates-General of the Commission about the management of the EIC Fund; deplores the fact that these inter-service conflicts put at risk 96 European deep tech companies;deleted

Amendment 64 #

Ivars IJABS, Mauri PEKKARINEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Is ~~dismay~~concerned by the delays in the implementation of the blended finance action under the EIC Accelerator, as more than a year after the first cut-off date, no ~~equity or grant~~blended finance agreement had been signed; emphasises that the delays were completely and only the result of conflicts between different Directorates-General of the Commission about the management of the EIC Fund; deplores the fact that these inter-service conflicts put at risk 96 European deep tech companies;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. (new) Underscores that the EIC Board’s strategic advice needs to be more thoroughly implemented in the work of the EIC, including its recommendations to increase diversity and the inclusion of participants from widening countries to realise the potential of innovators across Europe and to foster practical collaborations with the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT);

Amendment 66 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is deeply concerned about the apparent policy for the EIC Fund to never to be the lead investor in an equity round, in particular in combination with the requirement for companies to bring in matching co-investment from external investors~~; b~~. Believes this goes against the objective of the EIC. Highlights the fact that this was not the policy at the beginning of the EIC pilot and that this policy change was introduced with retroactive effect to applications submitted before the policy change. Is deeply concerned about the fact that this created cash flow problems for many applicants as well as to only a third of the committed equity investments actually taking place;

Amendment 67 #

Lina GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ, Patrizia TOIA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is deeply concerned about the ~~appar~~co- investment policy for the EIC Fund never to be the lead investor in an equity round, in particular in combination with the requirement for companies to bring in matching co-investment from external investors; believes this goes against the ~~objective~~strategic objectives and main logic of the EIC;

Amendment 68 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Recalls that the EIC can be the sole investor, taking on all the risk of an investment, in line with Regulation (EU) 2021/695. Notes that this role seems to be implemented only by providing convertible loans, while requiring matching co-investment for any equity investments;

Amendment 69 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Notes that the practice of requiring co-investment turns the EIC in a follower investment, which puts it at risk of either: a. offering free and partly exclusive access forprivate investors to excellent investment opportunities - which creates a riskof distorting the European venture capital market while at the same timereinforcing the relative risk-averse nature of the European market b. or, the EIC becoming redundant because the leadinvestor is setting the pace and standard for investment rounds, which put inquestion why startups would need the EIC at all;

Amendment 7 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas Regulation (EU) 2021/695 stipulates that the EIC shall operate in accordance with the following principles: (a) clear Union added value; (b) autonomy; (c) ability to take risk; (d) efficiency; (e) effectiveness; (f) transparency; (g) accountability;

Amendment 70 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8 c. Highlights that one of the reasons for establishing the EIC was that Europe lacks risk capital investors and particularly risk capital investors with expertise in deeptech markets. Notes in that regard that a dysfunctional market cannot be fully relied on as an effective mechanism to steer EIC investment and exit decisions;

Amendment 71 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)

8 d. Notes that risk investment comes in several forms and that all could potentially be of added value for deeptech companies. Recognises the specific benefits of venture capital funds as investors as well as highlights the potential of business angle investors. Considers both types of investors could be qualified investors and should be able to lead or be part of an investment round in which the EIC Fund is involved. Warns, in this regard, that a requirement of qualified co-investment could exacerbate the market failure the EIC was set up to address;

Amendment 72 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)

8 e. Is alarmed by the practice of converting convertible loans for companies that did not manage to attract additional investment to equity based on a valuation established at the time of granting the loan rather than on a valuation at the time of converting the loan. Points out in this regard that the EIC was set up to facilitate development and scaling of startups exactly in the phase where valuations can go up at a high pace because the risk of a technology is brought down rapidly and market entry comes closer. Concludes, therefore, that relying on an old valuation goes squarely against the objectives of the EIC. Furthermore, points out that the EIC Fund is supposed to take risk but by using convertible loans, most of the risk is essentially moved to the applicant;

Amendment 73 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Recognises that an external lead investor brings added value because this lead investor ~~may~~can have highly specialised knowledge of the market segment relevant for a specific investment, and ~~that~~ the EIC Fund, ~~owing~~due to its size ands well as general nature, ~~may not be able to match this specialised knowledge~~cannot match this specialised knowledge. Therefore, the specialised lead investor will be of more added value to the company’s development than the EIC Fund would be. Further recognises that having an external lead investor guarantees that the valuation as well as other terms of investment are set by the market;

Amendment 74 #

Lina GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ, Patrizia TOIA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Recognises that an external lead investor brings added value because this lead investor may have highly specialised knowledge of the market segment relevant for a specific investment, and that the EIC Fund, owing to its size and general nature, may not be able to match this specialised knowledge, however, acknowledges that this should not be an upfront requirement but an objective of the EIC fund during the lifetime of the grant project;

Amendment 75 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. 1. Firmly rejects the notion that the EIC Fund cannot be the sole investor or the lead investor~~; e~~. Emphasises that the ability to invest even when the market is not ready to do so is one of the key justifications for the existence of the EIC~~; c~~. Concludes that the investment policy of the EIC Fund should ~~reflect this~~explicitly allow for the possibility that: a. the EIC Fund is the sole investor through convertible loans or, in specific cases, through equity investments b. the EIC Fund can lead an investment round c. the EIC Fund can be the biggest investor while not being the lead investor;

Amendment 76 #

Lina GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ, Patrizia TOIA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Firmly rejects the notion that the EIC Fund cannot be the sole investor or the lead investor; emphasises that the ability to invest even when the market is not ready to do so is one of the key justifications for the existence of the EIC; concludes that the investment policy of the EIC Fund should reflect this to decisively encourage this kind of operations;

Amendment 77 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Notes that point 1.2.3 of Annex I of Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 requires the EIC Fund to define and implement an exit strategy for its investments. Observes that no such strategy seems to be in place;

Amendment 78 #

Lina GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ, Patrizia TOIA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes with concern that evaluators are giving ~~mixed~~confusing signals to stakeholders regarding the appropriate risk and bankability of EIC Accelerator proposals, affecting specially to the participation of under-represented regions and woman-led companies; recalls that one of the core principles of the EIC is the ability to take risk; recalls further that point 1.1.2 of Annex I to Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 identifies providing funding to non-bankable projects as a core objective of the EIC Accelerator; is deeply convinced that the EIC Accelerator can only be successful if there is a clear policy and communication on the appropriate risk for and bankability of EIC Accelerator projects;

Amendment 79 #

Massimiliano SALINI, Andrea CAROPPO, Salvatore DE MEO, Aldo PATRICIELLO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Highlights that the EIC, as stated in Article 9 of REGULATION (EU) 2021/695 establishing Horizon Europe "shall focus mainly on breakthrough and disruptive innovation, targeting especially market-creating innovation, while also supporting all types of innovation, including incremental"; notes with concern that incremental innovation is increasingly seen in evaluations as a reason to exclude worthy projects from funding; believes that the EIC should support all types of innovation helping companies to grow, and, in this regard, calls on the Commission to respect the wording of EU Regulation 2021/695;

Amendment 8 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS, Markus PIEPER

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

A c. whereas Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 stipulates that the EIC has two objectives. Firstly, to identify, develop and deploy high-risk innovations of all kinds, including incremental, with a strong focus on breakthrough, disruptive and deep-tech innovations that have the potential to become market-creating innovations. Secondly, to support the rapid scale-up of innovative companies (meaning mainly SMEs, including start- ups, and, in exceptional cases, small mid- caps) at Union and international levels along the pathway from ideas to market;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Underlines that Article 9 of the Regulation establishing Horizon Europe clearly states that the EIC shall focus mainly on breakthrough and disruptive innovation, while also supporting all types of innovation, including incremental; notes with concern that incremental innovation is increasingly seen in evaluations as a reason to exclude worthy projects from funding; believes that the EIC should support all types of innovation helping companies to grow, and, in this regard, calls on the Commission to respect the wording agreed by the co-legislators;

Amendment 81 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Shows concerns on the EIC accelerator submission process, that has been made longer and more complex by using several steps and an own EIC platform, outside the official Funding & Tender opportunities Portal;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4 a (new)

Pathfinder

Amendment 83 #

Massimiliano SALINI, Andrea CAROPPO, Salvatore DE MEO, Aldo PATRICIELLO

11 b. Recalls that Article 9 of Regulation 2021/695 establishing Horizon Europe states that "the EIC shall be open to all types of innovators including individuals, universities, research organisations and companies (SMEs, including start-ups, and, in exceptional cases, small mid-caps) as well as single beneficiaries and multidisciplinary consortia" and that "at least 70 % of EIC budget shall be dedicated to SMEs, including start-ups". Data on participation in the first rounds of the Horizon Europe/EIC calls for proposals reveal a concerning reduction in SME participation in the programme. The EIC should be a driving force for SME participation in Horizon Europe, a role performed by the SME Instrument of Horizon 2020. This is why it emphasizes the importance of keeping the EIC instruments accessible to all varieties of innovators and ensuring a suitable balance in project selection and funding distribution. Additionally, it asks the Commission to take into account restoring the 20% "quota" of resources for SMEs as outlined in Horizon 2020 and to take SME participation among the award criteria for project selection;

Amendment 84 #

Christian EHLER, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Hildegard BENTELE, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Pernille WEISS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11 b. Notes with concern that data on participation in Horizon Europe/EIC first rounds of calls for proposals show a worrying reduction in SME participation in the program; for this reason, stresses out that the EIC instruments should remain open to all types of innovators and that an appropriate balance should be ensured in the selection of projects and the disbursement of funding; further calls on the Commission to consider, in the context of the midterm evaluation, reintroducing the 20 % 'quota' of resources for SMEs as provided for in Horizon2020 and to include SME participation among the award criteria for project selection;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. 1. Is concerned about the apparent lack oftransparency in the management of the programme as reported by stakeholders.Highlights two main concerns of the stakeholders: a. Lack of transparency on how the topics forPathfinder Challenges are selected b. Lack of transparency on howthe Programme Managers implement the portfolio management, in particular in theproposal selection phase;

Amendment 86 #

Massimiliano SALINI, Andrea CAROPPO, Salvatore DE MEO, Aldo PATRICIELLO

11 c. According to Article 48 of Regulation 2021/695 establishing Horizon Europe, “the EIC Accelerator may also provide, under certain conditions, grant- only supports to SMEs, including start- ups, carrying out any type of innovation ranging from incremental to breakthrough and disruptive innovation and aiming at subsequently scaling-up”. The initial rounds of requests for proposals have revealed a growing interest from businesses, especially SMEs, in this fundamental type of support. Considers this support, which is unique in the landscape of European funding, as the best form of support for the development of business projects that do not necessarily require the sale of share capital; as a result, believes that instruments like grant-only support play an important role in fostering new markets, creating innovation, and fostering entrepreneurship and therefore must find adequate space in the implementation of the EIC; believes that a broader and more flexible use of the grant-only support can provide an easier implementation of the EIC, especially now that the EC has to catch up on equity financing;

Amendment 87 #