The activity of the S&D Group's on the European Parliament Plenary Session of May was focused on Relaunching the European project ensuring the youth guarantee which the S&D Group has fought so hard for. The S&D Group is demanding a strong position against both tax evasion and avoidance.
Asset recovery to Arab Spring countries in transition
Wednesday 22 May 2013
The Parliament's resolution should underline the fact that the return of misappropriated assets stolen by former dictators and their regimes goes beyond its economic significance. The return of such assets is a moral imperative and a highly political issue due to its symbolism as a matter of restoring justice and accountability, in the spirit of democracy and the rule of law.
This issue represents an essential part of the Union's support for democratic transition and economic recovery in the countries concerned and can strengthen mutual confidence between both sides in the spirit of partnership with societies, a cornerstone of the reviewed European Neighbourhood Policy.
Therefore, the resolution should call for the establishment - without delay - of an EU mechanism composed of a team of investigators, prosecutors, lawyers and other experts from member states, other European countries and the United States, with the aim of providing legal and technical advice and assistance to Arab Spring countries in the process of asset recovery. And moreover, request that this mechanism be duly financed by the relevant financial instrument within the field of the Union's external relations.
Implementation of the audiovisual media services directive
Wednesday 22 May 2013
This own-initiative report is in response to the first report of the Commission to the European Parliament on the application of the Directive 2010/13/EU on Audiovisual Media Services, the cornerstone of media regulation in the EU, and aims to evaluate its effectiveness and the progress made in its transposition.
The audiovisual media services directive's (AVMS) full implementation in all member states and coordination between regulatory authorities, service providers and the Commission are vital in order to reach wider audiences in the EU and beyond.
Moreover, the Commission's timely and accurate monitoring and analyses of the implementation and functioning of the Directive are also necessary in order to identify difficulties and uncertainties so they can be resolved and the regulatory aims of the Directive achieved more effectively.
Adequate, safe and sustainable pensions
Wednesday 22 May 2013
This own-initiative report is a response to the European Parliament to the Commission White Paper on Pensions.
Public pension systems (alone or in combination with occupational pension systems) have to ensure a decent living standard for all pensioners. Instead of linking the statutory pension age to changes in life expectancy, the contribution bases should be enlarged within the given systems. Better working and employment conditions as well as active labour market policies are crucial in this context, to reduce the economic dependency ratio (number of economically active people vs. number of inactive people). Existing occupational insurance schemes should not be jeopardized by EU legislation.
Regional strategies for industrial areas in the European Union
Wednesday 22 May 2013
The S&D Rapporteur focuses on the main challenges of structural transformation processes in old industrialised regions in the European Union and on the role EU Cohesion policy can play in this context.
This initiative report identifies three main objectives:
a) to identify where regional funding is most needed in old industrialised regions
b) to determine which successful regional strategies exist for undertaking structural change and
c) to define how the Cohesion policy funds can be further used to support industrial regeneration.
The report presents some ideas on how specific challenges and obstacles can be overcome by developing well-structured regional strategies. It also highlights the role that European public funding could play in possible future attempts to reconvert old industrialised regions.
Specific tasks for the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudent supervision of credit institutions
Tuesday 21 May 2013
This report on the European Central Bank (ECB) is one of two Reports comprising the Single Supervisory Mechanism package - the other being the Giegold Report on the European Banking Authority (EBA). The deal represents a significant achievement for our Group, as we retained all the important elements in the ECON text after the negotiations in Trilogue.
The Single Supervisory Mechanism is a first and vital step towards a fully fledged banking union and one which has the potential to break the vicious circle between private and sovereign debt. But it should now be complemented by a resolution framework including a European Single Resolution Fund and a deposit guarantee schemes mechanism.
The agreement will ensure better accountability and transparency than did the original proposal from the Commission. The European Parliament will now be able to approve the appointment of the heads of supervision and will have greater access to documents. This is a major achievement for our Group.
This own-initiative report is a response to the Commission's Action Plan on tax fraud and tax evasion and its two recommendations to member states on aggressive tax planning and promotion of good governance in tax matters.
S&D Rapporteur highlights that an estimated trillion euro of public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU, and proposes concrete actions to counter this damaging development and to halve this tax gap by 2020.
The S&D Group calls for the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal on a clear definition and common set of criteria to identify tax havens, together with a public European black list of tax havens by 31 December 2014.
We also call on the Commission to propose that the competent authorities suspend or revoke the banking licences of financial institutions and financial advisers if they assist in tax fraud.
The Commission should furthermore refrain from granting EU funding and member states should refrain from giving access to state aid or to public procurement to these companies.
Nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia
Monday 20 May 2013
In the context of the negotiations for accession to the European Union, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia made the decision to close and subsequently decommission their reactors by a commonly agreed date. This early closure represents an exceptional financial burden for member states which was not commensurate with the economic strength of the countries concerned. In recognition of this fact and as an act of solidarity, the European Union committed itself to continue to provide additional financial assistance for the decommissioning of these reactors.
The current proposal for a Council Regulation foresees an extension of financial support from the Union with the general objective of reaching an irreversible state within the decommissioning process, while retaining the highest level of safety.
Reinstatement of Myanmar/Burma's access to generalized tariff preferences
Monday 20 May 2013
Under the EU Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) the EU grants non-reciprocal trade preferences to developing countries. This means that exporters from these countries pay lower duties on some or all of what they sell to the EU, giving them vital access to EU markets and contributing to the growth of their economies.
The GSP regulation states that these preferential arrangements may be withdrawn temporarily given the serious and systematic violation of principles laid down in international conventions. These conventions cover core labour rights, such as ILO Convention 29 on forced labour. Myanmar/Burma's access to the GSP tariff preferences was temporarily withdrawn in 1997 primarily due to routine and widespread practice of forced labour.
Since 2011, Myanmar/Burma has undertaken serious efforts towards openness and reform, which has resulted in the Council lifting sanctions and, in this proposal, reinstating the country's access to GSP, based on ILO conclusions. Our group can therefore support this proposal.
Establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the EU is party
Monday 20 May 2013
The EU is negotiating investment protection agreements with third countries, including with Canada, the US, Japan, India and China. These investment agreements will most likely have an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism which allows companies to launch claims against the EU in the event of a violation of some key provisions of the agreement. This regulation is aimed at establishing a framework for the situation in which an investor sues the EU.
Who has to defend itself - the EU or the member state? Who has to pay?
Essentially, this dossier represents a conflict battle between member states and the Commission over competence in terms of investment policy. Several member states, particularly Germany, Finland and the Netherlands would like to keep as much power as possible in the hands of the member states. Our Group has clearly taken the "community line", in expressing support for a strong role for the Commission in the defending the Union in investment-arbitration cases.
This oral question (OQ) was tabled at the initiative of our Group and it has received the support of the EPP, ALDE, Greens and GUE.
Three years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, a legislative framework for the EU's new exclusive competence on foreign direct investment (which is now an integral part of the EU's trade policy) is slowly being established.
However, there are a number of potential incompatibilities between EU law and international investment treaties which still need to be addressed.
This OQ deals with three issues:
1. the existence of 190 bilateral investment treaties between EU member states
2. the inclusion of clauses in bilateral investment treaties which do not restrict the movement of capital
3. the fact that investment treaties might grant greater rights to foreign investors than to European investors.