Parltrack

Activites

• #3240
• 2013/05/21 Council Meeting
• #3235
• 2013/04/22 Council Meeting
• #3200
• 2012/11/20 Council Meeting
• 2012/10/23 Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T7-0360/2012 summary

    The European Parliament adopted by 517 votes to 105 with 63 abstentions a resolution aiming to achieve a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure. Parliament begins by recalling that pursuant to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, must adopt a regulation laying down the Multiannual Financial Framework and all items of revenue and expenditure of the Union must be shown in the budget. The EU budget as a key tool to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for the entire EU: Parliament states that it is fully aware that the negotiations on the MFF 2014-2020 are taking place in a very difficult social, economic and financial context, in which Member States are engaging in considerable efforts to make fiscal adjustments to their national budgets. It insists, however, that the Union cannot be seen as adding an extra fiscal burden on taxpayers. Parliament is convinced that the EU budget is a part of the solution to enable Europe to emerge from the current crisis by promoting investments in growth and jobs and helping Member States tackle, collectively and in concerted fashion and on a sustainable basis, the present structural challenges, in particular loss of competitiveness, rising unemployment and poverty. Balanced structural reforms at both national and EU level are required with the aim of promoting employment, improving public spending on  innovation, research and development, meeting our climate change and energy objectives, improving education levels and promoting social inclusion. With respect to the current crisis, Parliament considers that the EU budget should be at the heart of solidarity between Member States. It goes on to note that the EU budget represents only some 2 % of total government expenditure in the Union, and is hence more than 45 times smaller than the sum of government expenditure in the Member States, and that the EU budget is primarily an investment budget and that 94 % of its total returns are invested in the Member States themselves or for external priorities of the Union. Parliament emphasises that, for the regions and Member States, public investment would be minimised or impossible without the contribution of the EU budget. It also highlights the following issues: ·        delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy's seven flagship initiatives which will require a substantial amount of future-oriented investment, estimated at no less than EUR 1 800 billion up to 2020, while at the same time applying severe budgetary measures at national level; ·        the alarming situation young people face across the EU requires a particular effort; ·        measures are needed for a strong, diversified, competitive industrial base to support competitiveness and job creation in the EU;  ·        at least 20 % of expenditure must be climate-related mobilising investment for a sustainable and prosperous low-carbon economy. Level of expenditure: Parliament states that the shrinkage of the EU budget with respect to the national budgets is in flagrant contradiction with the extension of competences and tasks conferred on the Union by the Treaty. Since 2000 the gap between the EU own resources ceiling (1.29 % of GNI in commitment and 1.23 % in payment appropriations) and the MFF ceilings has grown dramatically. Parliament recalls furthermore that the MFF only sets maximum levels of expenditure, while the EU budget has always remained far below those levels. It considers that the Commission proposal, which represents a freeze of the MFF 2014- 2020 ceilings at the level of the 2013 ceilings, will not be sufficient to finance the EU’s existing policy priorities.  Parliament warns the Council against any attempt to reduce further the level of EU expenditure as proposed by the Commission. It firmly opposes any plea for linear, across-the-board cuts that would jeopardise the implementation and effectiveness of all EU policies, and challenges the Council, in case it proposes cuts, to clearly and publicly identify which of its political priorities or projects should be dropped altogether. In all, Parliament reaffirms its position in favour of a significant increase in the funding available for the Union programmes in the fields of: (i) competiveness, (ii) SMEs, entrepreneurship and (iii) sustainable infrastructure. Furthermore, the European Parliament : ·        underlines the importance of research and innovation and calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to agree on a specific roadmap for achieving the 3 % GDP target of investment in research;  ·        strongly rejects any attempt to further decrease the allocation for programmes, such as COSME programme; ·        maintains its position that cohesion policy funding should be maintained at least at the level of the 2007-2013 period and supports earmarking 25 % of the total cohesion policy allocation to the ESF; ·        supports the maintenance of the amounts allocated to the CAP in the budget year 2013 during the next financial programming period, with a more efficient allocation of its budget, via a fair distribution of direct payments and rural development allocations between Member States, regions and farmers; ·        supports the strengthening of the Union programme for environment and climate; ·        urges an increase in the financing of the concrete youth-specific instruments proposed by the Commission; ·        stresses the need to continue the programme for the most deprived persons;  ·        reiterates that the new responsibilities at international level conferred on the EU by the Treaties will require the achievement of Member States' 0.7 % GNI spending targets for Official Development Aid and the Commission's proposals for ‘Global Europe’ and the need to match the responsibilities of EEAS with adequate budgetary resources. Better spending: Parliament believes that in the present context of public budgetary constraints, Union added value is to be found notably in long-term investments that are beyond the reach of individual Member States. Tit stresses the need for coherence and simplification to further reduce the administrative burdens. Stressing again the principle of sound financial management, Parliament reminds Member States of their legal obligation to ensure that appropriations entered in the budget are used in accordance with this principle (90 % of the errors detected by the European Court of Auditors have been in Member States). It supports the introduction of ex ante conditionality provisions to ensure that EU funding, particularly in respect of the Cohesion Fund, the Structural Funds and the rural and fisheries funds, are better targeted to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives. Members consider that the regions should not be punished for the failure of the national level to comply with procedures related to economic governance. Generally, Parliament agrees on the need to rationalise administrative expenditure, so long as the institutions can perform their tasks and duties in accordance with their obligations and powers under the Treaties. It profoundly disagrees with the application of a linear staff reduction to all institutions, bodies and agencies, as their roles and responsibilities under the Treaties differ widely. It points again to the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a single seat, and urges the budgetary authority to raise this issue in the negotiations on the next MFF 2014-2020. Duration and mid-term revision: Parliament takes the view that for the next MFF, a 7-year period set until 2020 should be considered as a transitional solution, given that it makes a clear link with the Europe 2020 strategy. It believes, however, that a 5- or a 5+5-year period would better align the MFF's duration with that of the institutions' terms of office, thereby enhancing democratic accountability and responsibility. It also stresses the need for a mid-term revision to be enshrined in the MFF regulation, with a specific procedure including a binding calendar ensuring the full involvement of the next Parliament. Need for a more flexible MFF: Parliament believes that 5% flexibility is indispensable as regards the ceilings for the (sub)headings, to make it possible to adapt to new circumstances without increasing the overall amount and without requiring revision of the MFF. It welcomes the Commission's proposal to increase the level of legislative flexibility (possibility of departing from a given amount for the entire duration of the programme concerned) from 5 % to 10 %. It proposes to this end that the margins left under the commitment appropriations ceilings in one year's budget should be carried over to the next year when the need arises. It also stresses the need to introduce a global MFF margin for payment appropriations, enabling the carry-over of margins left under the payment appropriations ceiling to following years and mobilised in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure. Once again, Parliament expresses its concern about the current ever-growing level of outstanding commitments (RALs) and calls for a joint interinstitutional strategy for keeping the level of RALs under control to avoid, as much as possible, the risk of hampering the implementation of EU programmes because of a lack of payment appropriations at the end of the financial framework. Parliament also raises: i) the issue of budget surpluses; ii) the Council's regular linear cuts to the Commission's estimations for payment appropriations, which is not good budgeting (to this effect, Parliament considers it would be better to use the surpluses by reinjecting them back into the EU budget), iii) the issue of contingency margins; iv)the increase in the envelop of the Flexibility Instrument proposed by the Commission; v) its support for the Commission’s proposal that the Emergency Aid Reserve, the European Union Solidarity Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the reserve for crises in the agriculture sector, given their non-programmable nature, should be entered in the budget over and above the ceilings for the relevant headings. Unity of the budget: Once again, Parliament recalls that the EU budget covers all revenue and expenditure resulting from decisions taken by the EU institutions within the framework of their competences, and that it takes into account separately the Union's financial operations in the form of lending, borrowing and guarantees. It strongly urges the Commission and Council to list in a separate annex the budgetary or financial commitments and guarantees undertaken by the Union or by some of Member States in the framework of the European stabilisation mechanisms (EFSM, EFSF, ESM) in accordance with the relevant provisions of the TFEU. In an amendment adopted in plenary, Parliament expresses its firm conviction that any new fiscal capacity for eurozone Member States aiming at adjustments to country- specific asymmetric shocks and structural reforms and whose fiscal functions are not covered by the MFF must be developed within the Union framework and must be subject to proper democratic accountability through the existing institutions. It recalls that any new budgetary capacity must be part of the EU budget, thereby respecting its unity and to improve visibility and ensure the additionality of such a new budgetary capacity, a special new heading of the MFF should be created. In this regard, it strongly rejects any attempt to reduce the ceilings of the Commission's proposal on the MFF in order to secure resources for this new capacity. Parliament confirms its intention in the future to organise a specific public debate and hold a vote on the revenue side of the budget, as part of its examination of the annual draft budget. It believes that, in this way, a permanent debate on the financing system of the Union will be maintained. Own resources: Parliament regrets the current stalemate in the negotiations created by the lack of a genuine own resources system. These negotiations are organised in Council around two opposing camps, led by the net contributor countries to the EU budget, on the one hand, and by the net beneficiary countries of the EU budget, on the other, in a system which creates a purely accounting-based vision of ‘fair return’ Parliament reiterates its belief that the financing of the Union budget should return to a genuine system of own resources, as provided for in the Treaty of Rome and all successive EU treaties. It deeply regrets the fact that the current system, whereby the vast majority of the financing comes from national contributions, is non-transparent and unfair and is not subject to parliamentary control at either European or national level.Such a system violates, in essence, the letter and spirit of the Treaty. Parliament reaffirms its basic position, as stated in its resolution of 13 June 2012, that it is not prepared to give its consent to the next MFF Regulation without political agreement on reform of the own resources system, in line with the Commission's proposals of 29 June 2011, including its legislative proposals for genuine new own resources. Such a reform should aim at reducing the share of Member States' GNI-based contributions to the EU budget to a maximum of 40 % by 2020, thereby contributing to the consolidation efforts of Member States. Parliament then indicates what, in its eyes, should constitute the basis of the necessary political agreement: an in-depth reform of the financing of the EU budget, to return to a system of genuine, clear, simple and fair own resources, offering the guarantees over decision making and democratic control inherent in all public budgets; this reform must enter into effect during the 2014-2020 MFF; the Commission should react immediately to the formal request of several Member States, reaching the necessary threshold, to introduce a Financial Transaction Tax under enhanced cooperation. Any such legislative proposal by the Commission must be published together with a set of revised proposals on the own resources package, in order to ensure that revenues from this tax are wholly or partly allocated to the EU budget as a genuine own resource, thus reducing the national contributions of those Member States introducing this tax; an agreement on the reform of VAT as own resource, as well as its implementing modalities, must be concluded together with the agreement on the MFF; the new system must put an end to the existing rebates and other correction mechanisms. Any eventual compensation can only be accepted on the basis of the Commission proposal, as temporary by nature and justified by indisputable and objective economic criteria; in the event that implementation of the new own resources does not result in a significant decrease in Member States' GNI-based contributions to the EU budget, the Commission will come forward with additional proposals on the introduction of new genuine own resources. Interinstitutional negotiations: Parliament stresses that a stringent majority is required in both Parliament and Council to adopt the MFF, and points to the importance of exploiting to the full the provisions of Article 312(5), which imposes on the institutions the duty to carry out negotiations in order to reach agreement on a text to which Parliament can give its consent. It emphasises that this will be the first time an MFF regulation is adopted under the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which entail new cooperation arrangements among the institutions combining efficient decision-making and respect for the respective prerogatives. It welcomes, in this respect, the steps taken by the Hungarian, Polish, Danish and Cypriot Council Presidencies-in-office to establish a structured dialogue and regular information exchange with Parliament. It notes that any political agreement reached at European Council level constitutes no more than a negotiating mandate for the Council. After the European Council has reached a political agreement, fully-fledged negotiations between Parliament and the Council need to take place before the Council formally submits for Parliament's consent its proposals on the MFF Regulation. Parliament reiterates that, according to the TFEU, Parliament and the Council are the legislative bodies and the European Council does not have the role of legislator; stresses that the negotiations on the legislative proposals relating to the multiannual programmes will be pursued under the ordinary legislative procedure. It stresses that they are to be considered as a package, and reaffirms the principle that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’. It draws Council's attention to the annexed Working Document highlighting modifications to the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the MFF for the years 2014-2020 and to the proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on cooperation in budgetary matters and sound financial management. It advises that further modifications may become necessary depending on how negotiations on the MFF progress and points out that the Interinstitutional Agreement can be finalised only after the MFF procedure has been completed. With respect to the negotiations, Parliament expresses its readiness to enter into substantial discussions with the Council on both the MFF regulation and the IIA, and asks the Council to intensify contacts at all levels with a view to the 22-23 November European Council; stresses the need to reach the final agreement on the MFF as soon as possible. It points out, finally, that if no MFF has been adopted by the end of 2013, the ceilings and other provisions corresponding to 2013 will be extended until such time as a new MFF is adopted. It signals that, in this eventuality, Parliament would be ready to reach a swift agreement with the Council and Commission to adapt the internal structure of the MFF to reflect the new political priorities. It should be noted that an alternative motion for resolution tabled by the ECR group was rejected in plenary.

  • Results of vote in Parliament
• #3192
• 2012/10/16 Council Meeting
• 2012/10/12 Committee interim report tabled for plenary
  • A7-0313/2012 summary

    The Committee on Budgets adopted the interim report by Ivailo KALFIN (S&D, BG) and Reimer BÖGE (EPP, DE) in the interests of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure. Members recall that it is necessary for the EU to have both a budget and a budgetary procedure which fully reflect the transparent and democratic essence of the parliamentary decision-making and control process, on the basis of respect for the general principles of unity and universality, which require that all revenue and expenditure be entered in full with no adjustment against each other, and that there be a parliamentary debate and vote on both revenue and expenditure in line with Treaty competences. Although Members are fully aware that the negotiations on the MFF 2014-2020 are taking place in a very difficult social, economic and financial context, in which Member States are engaging in considerable efforts to make fiscal adjustments to their national budgets, they insist that the Union cannot be seen as adding an extra fiscal burden on taxpayers. Members are convinced that the EU budget is a part of the solution to enable Europe to emerge from the current crisis by promoting investments in growth and jobs and helping Member States tackle, collectively and in concerted fashion and on a sustainable basis, the present structural challenges, in particular loss of competitiveness, rising unemployment and poverty. Members also stress that the EU budget is primarily an investment budget and that 94% of its total returns are invested in the Member States themselves or for external priorities of the Union. They emphasise that, for the regions and Member States, public investment would be minimised or impossible without the contribution of the EU budget. Members insist that  the EU budget is a key tool to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for the entire EU Against budget cuts that would result in imbalances in the EU’s economy: Members feel that any cuts in the EU’s budget would inevitably increase imbalances and hamper the growth and competitive strength of the entire Union economy, as well as its cohesiveness, and would undermine the principle of solidarity as a core EU value. Members also note certain priorities for the agreement of future budgets and in particular two major ones: 1) More money for research and competitiveness to help EU out of the crisis: MEPs point out that the measures taken since 2008 have not yet brought about an end to the economic and financial crisis. They believe that a well-targeted, robust and sufficient EU budget is needed to help coordinate and enhance national efforts. They therefore call for significant increases in the budget for competitiveness, SMEs, entrepreneurship, sustainable infrastructure and research and innovation funding. 2) New life to be breathed into Cohesion Policy and the CAP: given the pressing need to secure public investment in growth and jobs, MEPs want the budget for cohesion policy to be maintained at least at the level of the 2007-2013 period. Equally, the budget for the common agricultural policy (CAP), which contributes to job creation in rural areas, should be at least maintained, while being used more effectively and efficiently. Members challenge the Council, if it proposes cuts, to identify clearly and publicly which of its political priorities or projects should be dropped altogether. Own resources: given the serious crisis situation facing Member States, balanced structural reforms at both national and EU level are necessary, in particularly in regard to own resources. To encourage a favourable outcome in terms of the current negotiations, Members consider that any political agreement will have to include the following aspects: there must be an in-depth reform of the financing of the EU budget, to return to a system of genuine, clear, simple and fair own resources, offering the guarantees over decision making and democratic control inherent in all public budgets; this reform must enter into effect during the 2014-2020 MFF, as proposed by the Commission; those Member States willing to introduce a financial transaction tax must now proceed with a formal request to the Commission for a proposal on enhanced cooperation in this field; the Commission will then have to react immediately with the publication of such a proposal together with a set of revised proposals on the own resources package, in order to ensure that revenues from this tax are wholly or partly allocated to the EU budget as a genuine own resource, thus reducing the national contributions of those Member States introducing this tax; an agreement on the reform of VAT as own resource, as well as its implementing modalities, must be concluded together with the agreement on the MFF; the new system must put an end to the existing rebates and other correction mechanisms; any eventual compensation can only be accepted on the basis of the Commission proposal, as temporary by nature and justified by indisputable and objective economic criteria; in the event that implementation of the new own resources does not result in a significant decrease in Member States’ GNI-based contributions to the EU budget, the Commission will come forward with additional proposals on the introduction of new genuine own resources. Interinstitutional negotiations: Members stress that a stringent majority is required in both Parliament and Council to adopt the MFF, and points to the importance of exploiting to the full the provisions of Article 312(5), which imposes on the institutions the duty to carry out negotiations in order to reach agreement on a text to which Parliament can give its consent. They emphasise that this will be the first time an MFF regulation is adopted under the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which entail new cooperation arrangements among the institutions combining efficient decision-making and respect for the respective prerogatives. Members also note that any political agreement reached at European Council level constitutes no more than a negotiating mandate for the Council. They insist that after the European Council has reached a political agreement, fully-fledged negotiations between Parliament and the Council need to take place before the Council formally submits for Parliament’s consent its proposals on the MFF Regulation. They also recall that according to the TFEU, Parliament and the Council are the legislative bodies and the European Council does not have the role of legislator; stresses that the negotiations on the legislative proposals relating to the multiannual programmes will be pursued under the ordinary legislative procedure. They insist on a qualitative approach to the MFF Regulation and related multiannual programmes negotiations; stresses that they are to be considered as a package, and reaffirms the principle that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’. They also draw Council’s attention to the annexed Working Document highlighting modifications to the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the MFF for the years 2014-2020 and to the proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on cooperation in budgetary matters and sound financial management; advises that further modifications may become necessary depending on how negotiations on the MFF progress; points out that the Interinstitutional Agreement can be finalised only after the MFF procedure has been completed.

• 2012/10/11 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • AFCO TRZASKOWSKI Rafał EPP
  • AFCO
  • AFET GIANNAKOU Marietta EPP
  • AGRI DE CASTRO Paolo S&D
  • BUDG BUDG/7/06443;BUDG/7/09389 BÖGE Reimer EPP KALFIN Ivailo S&D,
  • BUDG BUDG/7/06443;BUDG/7/09389 BÖGE Reimer EPP KALFIN Ivailo S&D,
  • CONT MULDER Jan ALDE
  • CONT MULDER Jan ALDE
  • CULT LØKKEGAARD Morten ALDE
  • CULT
  • DEVE GOERENS Charles ALDE
  • DEVE ZÁBORSKÁ Anna EPP
  • ECON
  • EMPL BERÈS Pervenche S&D
  • EMPL BERÈS Pervenche S&D
  • ENVI MATIAS Marisa GUE/NGL
  • ENVI
  • FEMM ZUBER Inês Cristina GUE/NGL
  • FEMM
  • IMCO BUŞOI Cristian Silviu ALDE
  • INTA KAMALL Syed ECR
  • INTA KAMALL Syed ECR
  • ITRE HERCZOG Edit S&D
  • ITRE HERCZOG Edit S&D
  • JURI ROTH-BEHRENDT Dagmar S&D
  • JURI ROTH-BEHRENDT Dagmar S&D
  • LIBE
  • LIBE HOHLMEIER Monika EPP
  • PECH FERREIRA João GUE/NGL
  • REGI KOVATCHEV Andrey EPP
  • TRAN SIMPSON Brian S&D
• 2012/10/09 Committee of the Regions: opinion
  • CDR1777/2012
• 2012/10/05 Amendments tabled in committee
  • PE496.663
• 2012/09/26 Committee draft report
  • PE496.558
• #3187
• 2012/09/24 Council Meeting
• 2012/08/13 Additional information
• #3184
• 2012/07/24 Council Meeting
• 2012/07/06 Supplementary legislative basic document
  • COM(2012)0388 summary

    Following the adoption of its proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 ("MFF Regulation"), the Commission submitted proposals for all the legislative acts concerning the multiannual programmes for that period. Two of these proposals imply amendments to the proposal for a MFF Regulation. It is also necessary to update the multiannual financial framework table included in the annex to the MFF Regulation to take into account the following elements: allocations for the Republic of Croatia are to be added to the Commission's proposal for EU-27 based on the Act of Accession signed on 9 December 2011. the availability of new data for regional GDP and national GNI results in changes to the regional and national eligibility under the Union's cohesion policy and therefore in a recalculation of the regional and national allocations. the most recent macro-economic forecasts and projections should be taken into account to calculate the maximum national allocations for Member States subject to capped cohesion envelopes as well as to express the ceilings of the MFF table for the period 2014-2020 as a percentage of EU-28 GNI. The proposed changes to the financial framework are as follows: (1) Horizontal "Asylum and migration" Regulation: on 15 November 2011, the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management (Horizontal Regulation) as well as: a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund; a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management; and a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa. These three specific Regulations provide that the provisions of the Horizontal Regulation shall apply to them. In the Horizontal Regulation, the Commission announced that it will amend its proposal for a MFF Regulation to extend the provisions of Article 7 to the programmes implemented under shared management under the Asylum and Migration Fund and Internal Security Fund. This is part of the Commission's endeavour to harmonise rules applicable to shared management. Accordingly, whilst every effort should be made to ensure that the national programmes under both Funds are adopted in 2014, a transfer to subsequent years of allocations not used in 2014 should be possible so as to avoid the loss of related commitment appropriations. (2) Horizontal "Cohesion" Regulation: on 6 October 2011, the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural and Rural Development Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 ("CSF Regulation"). Article 21 of the CSF Regulation provides for rules on conditionality linked to the coordination of the Member States' economic policies, including the possible suspension of commitments and payments for programmes supported from the Funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework. Article 21(8), last paragraph, of that Regulation provides that, when the conditions for lifting a suspension of commitments or payments are met, the Council shall, at the same time, decide, on a proposal of the Commission, to re-budget the suspended commitments. Consequently, Article 8 of the MFF has to be amended accordingly to allow for the transfer and re-budgeting of suspended commitments. The Commission also proposes: to amend Article 11 of its proposal for a MFF Regulation by splitting it into two Articles, so as to distinguish the case of the accession of a new Member State to the Union from that of the reunification of Cyprus; other minor amendments for clarification purposes. BUDGETARY IMPACT: (1) Incorporating the allocations for Croatia in the MFF table: the specific allocations for Croatia need to be added to the Commission's proposals for the following funds: the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the Asylum and Migration Fund, and the Internal Security Fund. These allocations are calculated on the basis of the same methodology applied for the EU-27, subject to the transitional provisions laid down in the Act of Accession whether in regard to cohesion or the common agricultural policy (progressive approach with a two-fold adjustment of allocations from 2014-2015). Besides benefiting from these pre-allocated amounts, Croatia shall also fully participate in all other internal policies. Therefore all the non pre-allocated envelopes need to be adjusted accordingly. The same approach as for the 2013 amounts for the closure of the Accession negotiations has been applied - i.e. the amounts are calculated in proportion to the share of Croatia in the GDP and the population of EU-27, resulting in an increase of all the proposed non pre-allocated envelopes by 0.62% As regards adjustments to Heading 5 (Administration), for the Commission, the net reinforcement will amount to 384 additional full time equivalent units, mostly in the form of posts to be added to the establishment plan with their phasing in to be completed by 2014. The other Institutions will need additional resources mainly for linguistic and legal expenditure, equipment and operating expenditure, communication activities and IT management tasks, requiring a net reinforcement of some 274 additional full time equivalent units. The additional cost over the period 2014-2020 for all institutions is estimated at EUR 536 million (2011 prices). The total allocation for Croatia thus amounts to EUR 13.741 billion in commitment appropriations and EUR 9.956 billion in payment appropriations. (2) Updating of the ceiling for Smart and Inclusive Growth and the subceiling for Economic, social and territorial cohesion: following the publication of regional GDP data for 2009, regional education and labour market data for 2010, and of GNI data for 2010, these Commission proposals now need to be updated: The three-year average determining eligibility shifts to 2007-2009 for regional GDP and to 2008-2010 for GNI. Furthermore, the maximum envelopes for those Member States subject to a cap of 2.5% of national GDP are now calculated on the basis of the Spring 2012 forecast and updated medium-term projections. The following changes result in the overall allocation for the EU-27: -EUR 5.506 billion in commitment appropriations over the 2014-2020 period. (3) Updating of the global ceilings for payment appropriations: the annual global ceilings for payments need to be updated on the basis of the most recent information available: the budget execution for the year 2011; the adopted budget for the year 2012; the draft budget for the year 2013 and the accompanying revised payment schedules. (4) Updating of the overall annual ceilings for commitments and payments expressed as a percentage of EU-GNI:  the overall annual ceilings for commitments and payments of the MFF table, according to the changes outlined above, need to be expressed in terms of a percentage of EU-28 GNI, calculated on the basis of the Commission's Spring 2012 macro-economic forecast and updated medium-term projections.

  • DG {u'url': u'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/', u'title': u'Budget'}, LEWANDOWSKI Janusz
• #3180
• 2012/06/26 Council Meeting
• #3168
• 2012/05/29 Council Meeting
• #3160
• 2012/04/24 Council Meeting
• #3158
• 2012/03/26 Council Meeting
• #3143
• 2012/01/27 Council Meeting
• 2011/12/14 Committee of the Regions: opinion
  • CDR0283/2011
• #3132
• 2011/12/05 Council Meeting
• #3125
• 2011/11/15 Council Meeting
• #3109
• 2011/09/12 Council Meeting
• #3107
• 2011/07/18 Council Meeting
• 2011/06/29 Legislative proposal
  • COM(2011)0398 summary

    PURPOSE: to lay down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020. PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation BACKGROUND: the Commission presented, on 3 March 2010, proposals for a Council Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2007-2013 and for a new Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) on cooperation in budgetary matters. These two proposals, once adopted, will replace the current IIA and bring the provisions on the 2007-2013 financial framework and on cooperation of the institutions in the budgetary procedure in line with the Treaty. Meanwhile, the provisions of the current IIA that are not rendered obsolete by the Treaty remain valid. These proposals deal with the new elements as compared with the March 2010 proposals, for both the proposal for a Regulation laying down the MFF for the years 2014 to 2020 and the draft IIA on cooperation in budgetary matters and sound financial management. This proposal for the MFF Regulation accompanied by the draft IIA represents the legal transposition of the Commission Communication on "A Budget for Europe 2020". It will be complemented by a proposal amending the Commission's proposal for a Regulation on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the Union in order to introduce a few new provisions which are part of the package of proposals for the 2014-2020 financial framework. A financial framework that is flexible: the financial framework must provide for adequate levels of flexibility to allow for effective resources allocation and a swift Union response to unforeseen circumstances. Recent experience demonstrates that challenges resulting from unforeseen events with global repercussions have reached a new quality. The Union will increasingly be exposed to the effects of globalisation of the economy and society, to climate change, energy dependency, migratory pressure and other global challenges, most of which in areas for which the Lisbon Treaty has increased the Union's responsibility and role. This is why the Commission is proposing a financial framework that seeks to strike the right balance between strict budgetary discipline and predictability of expenditure, on the one hand, and the flexibility needed to enable the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges. LEGAL BASIS: Article 312 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof. CONTENT: in view of the overall objective of flexibility, the rules applicable to the next financial framework may be defined as follows: Duration of the MFF and the overall framework proposed: the MFF will run for the period from 2014 to 2020. An Annex details the amounts year by year. The overall amount proposed for the 7-year period is EUR 1,025 billion in commitments (1.05% of EU GNI) and EUR 972.2 billion (1% of EU GNI) in payments. Respect of MFF ceilings and possibility to exceed them: the proposal lays down the principle of a requirement for the institutions to respect the ceilings in the course of the budget procedure in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. However, the proposal introduces the possibility to exceed the ceilings, if necessary, when the instruments not included in the financial framework are mobilised. The Emergency Aid Reserve, the Solidarity Fund, the Flexibility instrument, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the newly created Reserve for crises in the agriculture sector and the Contingency Margin are defined in Points 10 to 15 of the draft IIA. They are not included in the financial framework and ensure that financing in specific circumstances is provided in excess of the ceilings of the financial framework, if needed. They increase the flexibility of the financial framework and are mobilised jointly by the two arms of budgetary authority. In order to maintain the current level of flexibility and the roles of the institutions in the mobilisation of these instruments, the provisions governing them are included in the draft IIA. The procedure of mobilising the guarantees from the Union's budget for the loans provided under the Balance of Payments Facility and European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism is excluded from the obligation to respect the ceilings of the financial framework and therefore from a need to revise the MFF. The relevant ceiling that needs to be respected is the own resources ceiling. Respect of own resources ceiling: a change to this Article is proposed compared to the March 2010 proposal - an explicit reference to the fact that the use made of instruments which can be mobilised from outside the financial framework and of guarantees for a loan covered by the Union's budget according to Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 or Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 also need to respect the own resources ceiling. Technical adjustment of the financial framework: the financial framework is presented in 2011 prices. The procedure for its technical adjustment is maintained as well as the 2% deflator. A new element is introduced in paragraph 1(c) - the presentation of the absolute amount of the Contingency margin at the level of 0.03% of EU GNI as defined in Point 15 of the draft IIA. Adjustment of cohesion policy envelopes: this Article reproduces the text of point 17 of the current IIA and Article 5 of the March 2010 proposal. Thus, in 2018, if it is established that cumulated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any Member State for the years 2014-2016 has diverged by more than +/- 5 % from the cumulated GDP estimated in 2011 for the establishment of cohesion policy envelopes for Member States for the period 2014-2020, the Commission shall adjust the amounts allocated from funds supporting cohesion to the Member State concerned for that period. The total net effect, whether positive or negative, of the adjustments referred to in paragraph 1 may not exceed EUR 3 billion. Adjustments related to implementation: the wording of this article, which lays down rules for the adjustments related to implementation, corresponds to Point 18 of the current IIA. The preparation of the legal bases and then programming documents is usually quite lengthy and therefore a late adoption of the legal texts or programmes needs to be envisaged. The adjustment concerning the transfer of unused allocation for the year 2014 shall be adopted before 1 May 2015. Adjustments related to excessive government deficit: the wording of this article, which lays down rules for the adjustments related to excessive government deficit, has not been changed compared to the March 2010 proposal. Thus, in the case of the lifting of a suspension of budgetary commitments concerning the Cohesion Fund in the context of an excessive government deficit procedure, the Council, in accordance with the Treaty and in compliance with the relevant basic act, shall decide on a transfer of suspended commitments to the following years. Suspended commitments of year n may not be re-budgeted beyond year n+2. Revision of the financial framework: the wording of this Article corresponds to the Points 21 to 23 of the current IIA and Article 8 of the March 2010 proposal. A few changes have been introduced: i) the general rule concerning the timing of a proposal for a revision has been dropped as it did not correspond to current practice given the need to deal with unforeseen circumstances when they arise; ii) the possibility to adapt the financial framework by qualified majority as proposed in March 2010 has been withdrawn (given the proposed widening of flexibility instruments, including the introduction of the Contingency Margin); and iii) a new paragraph 5 was introduced which specifies which of the adjustments to the financial framework provided for in other articles are also to be considered as a revision of the financial framework. Adjustment of the financial framework in the case of enlargement: the wording of this Article reproduces the text of Point 29 of the current IIA and Article 11 of the March 2010 proposal. A new paragraph is introduced with particular reference to a possible comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem during the period covered by the financial framework. Interinstitutional cooperation in budgetary procedure: the general rules of the cooperation in budgetary procedure are included in the MFF Regulation, whilst the draft IIA and its annex contain more detailed provisions. Financing of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP): the provision of the March 2010 proposal is maintained with an exception of establishing the minimum amount for CFSP. Contribution to the financing of large scale projects: specific provisions are needed for major technological development programmes based on large scale infrastructure projects, notably the European satellite navigation programmes EGNOS and Galileo. Such provisions are warranted by the specific features of those projects, i.e. a duration largely exceeding the multiannual financial framework, project risks liable to produce substantial cost-overruns, limited or no participation of private capital, and no or only a modest ability to generate revenues from commercial exploitation in the short to medium term. Consequently, the proposed provision foresees a 'ring-fencing' of the amount available for the European satellite navigation programmes EGNOS and Galileo under the 2014-2020 financial framework. Mid-term assessment of implementation of the financial framework: a new provision establishes the timing for a mid-term assessment of the functioning of the financial framework (2016). Transition towards the next financial framework: this article lays down the obligation for the Commission to present a new financial framework before 1 January 2018, i.e. three years before the end of the financial framework. Provision is also made in case no new financial framework is agreed by the end of the financial framework covered by the Regulation. Entry into force: the final Article of the MFF regulation sets the date of entry into force of the Regulation. The IIA should enter into force on the same day as the two legal texts complement each other.

  • DG {u'url': u'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/', u'title': u'Budget'}, LEWANDOWSKI Janusz

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2011)0398
• Committee of the Regions: opinion: CDR0283/2011
• Supplementary legislative basic document: COM(2012)0388
• Committee draft report: PE496.558
• Amendments tabled in committee: PE496.663
• Committee of the Regions: opinion: CDR1777/2012
• Committee interim report tabled for plenary: A7-0313/2012
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0360/2012
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament

Votes

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 47

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 47

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 39

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 39

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 40

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 40

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 41

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 41

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 42

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 42

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 43

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 43

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 5S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 5S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 44

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 44

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 6S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 6S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 7S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 7S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 8S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 8S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 9S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 9S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 45

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 45

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 10

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 10

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 11S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 11S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 12

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 12

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 13S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 13S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 14S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 14S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 15S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 15S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 16S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 16S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 17S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 17S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 18S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 18S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 19S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 19S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 20S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 20S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 21

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 21

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 22S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 22S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 23S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 23S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 24

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 24

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 25S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 25S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 26S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 26S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 46

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 46

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - § 50

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - § 50

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 27S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 27S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 28S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 28S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 29S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 29S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 30S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 30S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 31S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 31S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 32S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 32S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 33S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 33S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 34S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 34S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 35S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 35S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 36S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 36S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 37S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 37S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 38S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 38S

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 4

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Am 4

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge et Ivailo Kalfin - Résolution

A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin - Resolution