natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
· създаване на политическа връзка между реформата на приходите и прегледа на разходите, както това вече е правилно включено в Междуинституционалното споразумение;
· establishment of a political link between a reform of revenue and a review of expenditure as it is already correctly included in the Interinstitutional Agreement;
Равнопоставеност на държавите-членки
Equality between Member States
Опростено представяне
Simplicity of presentation
Солидарност и равно достойнство на държавите-членки
Solidarity and equal dignity between Member States
Виж ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕТО към резолюцията. ;
See ANNEX to the resolution. ;
16. изразява убеждение, че политическата връзка между реформата на приходите и разходите е неизбежна и абсолютно разумна, при положение, че логиката на финансиране на политиките на Общността чрез приходи от националните бюджети все още е водещият принцип на Съюза;
Is convinced that the political link between a reform of revenue and a review of expenditure is inevitable and perfectly reasonable, especially as long as the logic of financing Community policies through revenue stemming from national budgets is still the Union’s guiding principle;
Временен и преходен характер на системата
Provisional and transitional character of the system
Препоръки за подобрена система на национални вноски
Recommendations for an improved system of national contributions
18. припомня, че вече са правени предложения за подобрение на действащата система на финансиране, например представените от члена на Комисията Michaele Schreyer през юли 2004 г.
Recalls that proposals for improving the current system of financing have already been made, for instance, those submitted by Commissioner Michaele Schreyer in July 2004
Доклад „Schreyer”: COM(2004)505 и COM(2004)501 от 14 юли 2004 г. , според които:
"Schreyer report": COM(2004)505 and COM(2004)501 of 14 July 2004. according to which:
· всяка държава-членка, независимо от благосъстоянието си, има право на отстъпка, която се задейства, когато вноската й в бюджета на ЕС достигне прага от 0,35% от БНД,
· every Member State, regardless of its wealth, is entitled to a rebate which is triggered when its contribution to the EU budget reaches a threshold of 0,35% of GNI,
· възстановяването на средства би било под формата на намаление на нетната вноска на държавата-членка с 66%, и
· the refund would be in form of a 66% abatement of the Member State's net contribution, and
19. признава, че някои аспекти на предложенията „Schreyer” водеха в правилната посока, доколкото щяха да направят системата малко по-прозрачна, най-малко чрез премахване на принципа „отстъпка върху отстъпката” или да ограничат компенсациите и корекциите - като основният положителен елемент бе, че системата бе замислена като преходна до 2014 г.;
Admits that some aspects of the Schreyer proposals were going in the right direction insofar as they would have made the system slightly more transparent by at least abolishing the "rebate on the rebate" principle or as they would have limited compensations and corrections - with the major positive point being that it was only conceived as a transitional system until 2014;
Въпрос на разходи за структурни и кохезионни мерки
Question of structural and cohesion expenditure
Втора фаза на реформата: нова система на собствени ресурси
Second phase of the reform: a new system of own resources
· Пълно зачитане на принципа на фискалния суверенитет на държавите-членки;
· Full respect for the principle of fiscal sovereignty of the Member States
· Фискална неутралност;
· Fiscal neutrality
· Мащабът на бюджета на ЕС остава непроменен;
· No changes to the order of magnitude of the EU budget
· Постепенно въвеждане на новата система;
· Progressive phasing-in of the new system
· Установяване на ясна политическа връзка между реформата на приходите и реформата на разходите;
· Establishment of a clear political link between a reform of revenue and a reform of expenditure;
Пълно зачитане на фискалния суверенитет на държавите-членки
Full respect for the fiscal sovereignty of the Member States
Счита, че, както е постановено в договорите и в проекта за Конституция, фискалният суверенитет ще остане само в държавите-членки, които, въпреки това, биха могли за определен срок да дадат на Съюза разрешение, отменимо по всяко време, да се ползва пряко от определена част от даден данък, какъвто е случаят в повечето държави-членки с регионално или местно управление;
Considers that, as stated in the Treaties and in the draft Constitution, fiscal sovereignty will remain with the Member States who might, however, authorise the Union, for a limited period to be revoked at any time, to benefit directly from a certain share of a tax as is the case in most Member States with regional or local authorities;
Фискална неутралност
Fiscal neutrality
Мащабът на бюджета на ЕС остава непроменен
No changes to the order of magnitude of the EU budget
Не вижда необходимост в момента от промяна на горната граница от 1,24% от БНД, която вече позволява значителна свобода на действие; припомня, че никой бюджет досега не е доближавал тази горна граница, договорена от самите държави-членки през 1992 г. в рамките на британското председателство, като бюджетните кредити за плащания са били на най-високото си равнище през 1993 г. - 1,18% от БНП; подчертава, че макар финансовата рамка да предвижда процент от 1,045% от БНД за периода 2007-2013 г., първият бюджет, приет за посочения период, е при ставка от 0,99% от БНД;
Sees no need at the moment to alter the ceiling of 1,24% of GNI which already allows for a sizeable margin of manoeuvre; recalls that no budget has ever come close to this ceiling, agreed by the Member States themselves in 1992 under British presidency, with payment appropriations reaching their maximum level in 1993 at 1,18% of GNP; underlines that, although the financial framework foresees a percentage of 1,045% of GNI for the years 2007 – 2013, the first budget of this period was adopted at a level as low as 0,99% of GNI;
Постепенно въвеждане на новата система
Progressive phasing-in of the new system
Установяване на ясна политическа връзка между реформата на приходите и реформата на разходите
Establishment of a clear political link between a reform of revenue and a reform of expenditure
Отбелязва, че система на собствени ресурси, която автоматично осигурява достатъчен годишен прираст на бюджетните приходи на ЕС, ще внесе подобрение в политическия климат при вземане на решения в бюджетната сфера, като позволи на лицата, отговорни за вземането на решения, да се концентрират върху ключовите приоритети от особено значение за ЕС, вместо да водят преговори относно нивата на разходите;
Notes that an own resources system which ensures sufficient automatic EU annual budget revenue growth will improve the political climate of budgetary decision-making, enabling decision-makers to concentrate on key priorities with EU added value instead of bargaining on expenditure levels;
Приветства инициативата, представена по време на съвместната среща на Европейския парламент и парламентите на държавите-членки, насочена към създаване на специална работна група по собствените ресурси; счита, че диалогът с парламентите на държавите-членки е от съществено значение за постигане на какъвто и да е напредък в реформата на собствените ресурси;
Welcomes the initiative launched at the joint meetings of the European Parliament and the Member States' parliaments for the purpose of bringing together a special working party on own resources; considers dialogue with the Member States' parliaments to be essential if any progress is to be made in the reform of own resources;
Възможности за бъдещето
Possible options for the future
39. припомня, че примерните данъци, изцяло или частично взети предвид за тази цел по време на обмена на информация с националните парламенти или в докладите на Комисията относно реформата на системата на собствени ресурси са следните:
Recalls that the candidate taxes in whole or in part which were taken into consideration for this purpose during the exchanges with the national parliaments or in the Commission's reports on the reform of the own resources system include the following:
· акцизи върху моторно гориво за транспорт и други енергийни данъци;
· excise duties on motor fuel for transport and other energy taxes
· акцизи върху тютюна и алкохола;
· excise duties on tobacco and alcohol
· данъци върху корпоративната печалба;
· taxes on corporate profits;
Посочва, че по време на дискусиите в Европейския парламент бяха разгледани и други възможности, например:
Notes that in the discussions in the European Parliament other possible avenues were also explored such as:
· данъци върху сделките с ценни книжа;
· taxes on dealings in securities
· данъци върху транспортните или телекомуникационните услуги;
· taxes on transport or telecommunications services
· подоходен данък;
· income tax
· данък при източника върху лихвата;
· withholding tax on interest
· приходи на ЕЦБ (сеньораж);
· ECB profits (seigniorage)
· данък върху валутните операции;
· taxes on currency transactions
· данък върху спестяванията;
· taxes on savings
· данък върху финансовите операции (данък Тобин).
· taxes on financial transactions (Tobin tax);
· Достатъчност: дали приходите биха били достатъчни да покрият разходите на ЕС в дългосрочен план?
· Sufficiency: Would the revenues be sufficient to cover the expenditures of the EU in the long run?
· Стабилност: дали системата би донесла стабилни приходи в бюджета на ЕС?
· Stability : Would the system bring about stable revenues for the EU budget?
· Видимост и простота: дали би била видима за гражданите на ЕС и дали би била разбрана от тях?
· Visibility and simplicity: Would it be visible to EU citizens and would it be understood by them?
· Ниски оперативни разходи: дали системата би била лесна за администриране и свързана с ниски разходи по спазването й?
· Low operating costs: Would it be simple to administer and involve low compliance costs?
· Ефикасно разпределение на ресурсите: дали системата би довела до ефикасно разпределение на ресурсите в ЕС?
· Efficient allocation of resources: Would it lead to an efficient allocation of resources in the EU?
· Вертикална справедливост: дали би предизвикала преразпределение на доходи?
· Vertical equity: Would it involve income redistribution?
· Хоризонтална справедливост: дали би имала еднакво въздействие върху равнопоставени данъкоплатци в целия ЕС?
· Horizontal equity: Would it have an equal impact on equivalent taxpayers across the EU?
· Справедливи вноски: дали този източник на ресурси би носил приходи от държавите-членки в съответствие с тяхната икономическа мощ?
· Fair contributions: Would this resource raise revenues from the Member States in line with their economic strength?
Exceptions introduced by the European Council in December 2005 on the expenditure and income side of the budget, namely:
Exceptions introduced by the European Council in December 2005 on the expenditure and income side of the budget, namely:
Earmarked for Projects:
Earmarked for Projects:
· EUR 865 Mio. for the nuclear power plant Ignalina (LIT) and 375 Mio. for the nuclear power plant Bohunice (SLK)
· EUR 865 Mio. for the nuclear power plant Ignalina (LIT) and 375 Mio. for the nuclear power plant Bohunice (SLK)
· 200 Mio. for the peace process in Northern Ireland (UK)
· 200 Mio. for the peace process in Northern Ireland (UK)
Earmarked for Regions
Earmarked for Regions
· 879 Mio. for five Polish Objective 2 regions (EUR 107 per citizen)
· 879 Mio. for five Polish Objective 2 regions (EUR 107 per citizen)
· 140 Mio. for a Hungarian region (Közép-Magyarország)
· 140 Mio. for a Hungarian region (Közép-Magyarország)
· 200 Mio. for Prague
· 200 Mio. for Prague
· "phasing-out" support for a Finnish Region and Madeira, which were originally "phasing-in" regions
· "phasing-out" support for a Finnish Region and Madeira, which were originally "phasing-in" regions
· 100 Mio. for the Canary Islands
· 100 Mio. for the Canary Islands
· 150 Mio. for Austrian border regions
· 150 Mio. for Austrian border regions
· 75 Mio. for Bavaria
· 75 Mio. for Bavaria
· 50 Mio. for Ceuta and Melilla (ES)
· 50 Mio. for Ceuta and Melilla (ES)
· 225 Mio. for eastern German Länder
· 225 Mio. for eastern German Länder
· 136 Mio. for the most remote regions (EUR 35 per citizen)
· 136 Mio. for the most remote regions (EUR 35 per citizen)
· 150 Mio. for the Swedish regions in Objective "Competitiveness and Employment"
· 150 Mio. for the Swedish regions in Objective "Competitiveness and Employment"
Special Funds for Member States
Special Funds for Member States
· absorption rate for Poland raised by 4%
· absorption rate for Poland raised by 4%
· "phasing-in" support for Cyprus, despite never being Objective 1 region
· "phasing-in" support for Cyprus, despite never being Objective 1 region
· 2 000 Mio. for Spain, to be distributed freely among Structural Fund Objectives
· 2 000 Mio. for Spain, to be distributed freely among Structural Fund Objectives
· 1 400 Mio. for Italy (predefined distribution)
· 1 400 Mio. for Italy (predefined distribution)
· 100 Mio. for France (Objective: "Regional Competitiveness and Employment")
· 100 Mio. for France (Objective: "Regional Competitiveness and Employment")
· 47 Mio. for Estonia (EUR 35 per citizen)
· 47 Mio. for Estonia (EUR 35 per citizen)
· 81 Mio. for Lithuania (EUR 35 per citizen)
· 81 Mio. for Lithuania (EUR 35 per citizen)
· additional payments from rural development:
· additional payments from rural development:
o 1 350 Mio. for Austria
o 1 350 Mio. for Austria
o 20 Mio. for Luxemburg
o 20 Mio. for Luxemburg
o 460 Mio. for Finland
o 460 Mio. for Finland
o 100 Mio. for France
o 100 Mio. for France
o 500 Mio. for Ireland
o 500 Mio. for Ireland
o 820 Mio. for Sweden
o 820 Mio. for Sweden
o 500 Mio. for Italy
o 500 Mio. for Italy
o 320 Mio. for Portugal
o 320 Mio. for Portugal
Special Conditions
Special Conditions
· 50% increased support for the former exterior borders to ROM and BLG, compared to regular support for border regions
· 50% increased support for the former exterior borders to ROM and BLG, compared to regular support for border regions
· private Co-Financing can be counted in for Structural Fund supported projects in new Member States (per capita GDP <85% of EU average) and eastern German Länder
· private Co-Financing can be counted in for Structural Fund supported projects in new Member States (per capita GDP <85% of EU average) and eastern German Länder
· in the new Member States (<85%), VAT can be considered eligible cost for Structural Fund projects
· in the new Member States (<85%), VAT can be considered eligible cost for Structural Fund projects
Special Conditions in Legal Bases
Special Conditions in Legal Bases
· departing from "n+2" rule for new Member States (<85%) in 2007-2010
· departing from "n+2" rule for new Member States (<85%) in 2007-2010
· building projects are eligible for support in the new Member States (EU10 + ROM, BLG)
· building projects are eligible for support in the new Member States (EU10 + ROM, BLG)
· 20% of funds from the first pillar (Agriculture) can be used by each country for rural development, disregarding general rules such as co-financing
· 20% of funds from the first pillar (Agriculture) can be used by each country for rural development, disregarding general rules such as co-financing
· special funds for rural development in Portugal (320 Mio.), without co-financing
· special funds for rural development in Portugal (320 Mio.), without co-financing
Special Conditions for Financing the Budget
Special Conditions for Financing the Budget
· rate-of-call for VAT own resources contribution is reduced by 25% for Austria
· rate-of-call for VAT own resources contribution is reduced by 25% for Austria
· rate-of-call for VAT own resources contribution is reduced by 50% for Germany
· rate-of-call for VAT own resources contribution is reduced by 50% for Germany
· rate-of-call for VAT own resources contribution is reduced by 66% for Sweden and the Netherlands
· rate-of-call for VAT own resources contribution is reduced by 66% for Sweden and the Netherlands
· Netherlands gets 4 230 Mio.
· Netherlands gets 4 230 Mio.
· Sweden gets 1 050 Mio.
· Sweden gets 1 050 Mio.
(GNI 'own resources')
(GNI 'own resources')
· the rebate for the UK is kept, reduced by certain phased-in payments for the new Member States.
· the rebate for the UK is kept, reduced by certain phased-in payments for the new Member States.
The current own initiative report on the future of the European Union's own resources has to be seen in the context of preparing for the "full and wide-ranging review of all areas of EU expenditure and revenue, including the British rebate", which the Commission has been invited to undertake by the Brussels European Council of last December, with a view to reporting in 2008 / 2009.
The current own initiative report on the future of the European Union's own resources has to be seen in the context of preparing for the "full and wide-ranging review of all areas of EU expenditure and revenue, including the British rebate", which the Commission has been invited to undertake by the Brussels European Council of last December, with a view to reporting in 2008 / 2009.
Your rapporteur, in his report on the latest own resources proposal presented by the Commission in early 2006 aiming at implementing the relevant decisions taken by the Brussels European Council, has already stated that the flaws of the current own resources system are fundamental.
Your rapporteur, in his report on the latest own resources proposal presented by the Commission in early 2006 aiming at implementing the relevant decisions taken by the Brussels European Council, has already stated that the flaws of the current own resources system are fundamental.
This is why your rapporteur in 2006 did not even start trying to amend the provisions of that Commission proposal which just make the current system even more intransparent, complicated, unfair and anti-European.
This is why your rapporteur in 2006 did not even start trying to amend the provisions of that Commission proposal which just make the current system even more intransparent, complicated, unfair and anti-European.
The contents of the own initiative report are very much based on the meetings your rapporteur has had with national parliamentarians since the beginning of 1996.
The contents of the own initiative report are very much based on the meetings your rapporteur has had with national parliamentarians since the beginning of 1996.
While some national parliaments chose to reply in writing to the questionnaire on own resources sent to them in November 2005, others preferred a more personal exchange of views: So far your rapporteur has been invited to the national parliaments of nine Member States.
While some national parliaments chose to reply in writing to the questionnaire on own resources sent to them in November 2005, others preferred a more personal exchange of views: So far your rapporteur has been invited to the national parliaments of nine Member States.
Regardless of whether these meetings were of a more formal (committee meetings) or a more informal nature (working lunches): At this stage, the opinions expressed on these occasions by the interested national parliamentarians have to be considered the personal views of those taking the floor - so far, no national parliament nor any political party has yet established a formal stance on the question of the future of the Union's own resources!
Regardless of whether these meetings were of a more formal (committee meetings) or a more informal nature (working lunches): At this stage, the opinions expressed on these occasions by the interested national parliamentarians have to be considered the personal views of those taking the floor - so far, no national parliament nor any political party has yet established a formal stance on the question of the future of the Union's own resources!
Nevertheless, these personal encounters and the lively discussions taking place at the multilateral meetings (two joint parliamentary meetings in 2006 and the two COBU meetings with the chairs of the national parliaments' budgets committees in 2005 and 2006) have seemed to allow your rapporteur to draw some first conclusions on the do's, the don'ts and the maybe's in connection with any future reform of EU revenue.
Nevertheless, these personal encounters and the lively discussions taking place at the multilateral meetings (two joint parliamentary meetings in 2006 and the two COBU meetings with the chairs of the national parliaments' budgets committees in 2005 and 2006) have seemed to allow your rapporteur to draw some first conclusions on the do's, the don'ts and the maybe's in connection with any future reform of EU revenue.
Some first possible points of consensus have slowly but surely started to arise, like for example a general rejection of the idea of a genuine new European tax or of a transfer of any power of taxation to the European level.
Some first possible points of consensus have slowly but surely started to arise, like for example a general rejection of the idea of a genuine new European tax or of a transfer of any power of taxation to the European level.
On the other hand, a vast majority of those national colleagues who expressed themselves were quite open to discuss the possibility of using a part of an existing tax to finance the European Union, even freely pondering on "suitable" candidate taxes ...
On the other hand, a vast majority of those national colleagues who expressed themselves were quite open to discuss the possibility of using a part of an existing tax to finance the European Union, even freely pondering on "suitable" candidate taxes ...
A lot of work still needs to be done in order to arrive at a final decision on which option would best serve the need for a new, truly European, own resources system, that is equitable, simple and transparent.
A lot of work still needs to be done in order to arrive at a final decision on which option would best serve the need for a new, truly European, own resources system, that is equitable, simple and transparent.
Your rapporteur hopes that in the course of 2007 a common dossier can be established in close cooperation with the national parliaments that could be the basis for the future decisions that need to be taken in order to seize the opportunities of the coming review process.
Your rapporteur hopes that in the course of 2007 a common dossier can be established in close cooperation with the national parliaments that could be the basis for the future decisions that need to be taken in order to seize the opportunities of the coming review process.
ANNEXES TO THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
ANNEXES TO THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
1 ON THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES OWN RESOURCES
1 ON THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES OWN RESOURCES
27 January 2005
27 January 2005
History of the European Community's revenue
History of the European Community's revenue
Under the current system there are four main sources
Under the current system there are four main sources
In addition, there are some small "specific resources" (results of measures taken by the Commission), such as taxes and contributions paid by staff, income from interest and guarantees, and other miscellaneous charges levied. of revenue for the European Community:
In addition, there are some small "specific resources" (results of measures taken by the Commission), such as taxes and contributions paid by staff, income from interest and guarantees, and other miscellaneous charges levied. of revenue for the European Community:
Customs duties are levied at external frontiers on imports under the common customs tariff.
Customs duties are levied at external frontiers on imports under the common customs tariff.
The Treaty of Rome had earmarked customs duties as the principal resource to be assigned to the EEC to finance its expenditure.
The Treaty of Rome had earmarked customs duties as the principal resource to be assigned to the EEC to finance its expenditure.
ECSC customs duties have been included since 1988.
ECSC customs duties have been included since 1988.