natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Nõukogu määruse ettepanek, millega nähakse ette üldsätted Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondi, Euroopa Sotsiaalfondi ja Ühtekuuluvusfondi kohta
on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
EELARVEKOMISJONI ARVAMUS.......................................................................................14
OPINION of the Committee on Budgets .................................................................14
EELARVEKONTROLLIKOMISJONI ARVAMUS.................................................................19
OPINION of the Committee on Budgetary Control ........................................19
TÖÖHÕIVE- JA SOTSIAALKOMISJONI ARVAMUS.........................................................24
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS..............23
KESKKONNA-, RAHVATERVISE- JA TOIDUOHUTUSE KOMISJONI ARVAMUS ........42
OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety 41
KALANDUSKOMISJONI ARVAMUS...................................................................................46
OPINION of the Committee on Fisheries ................................................................45
TRANSPORDI- JA TURISMIKOMISJONI ARVAMUS........................................................51
OPINION of the Committee on Transport and Tourism ................................50
NAISTE ÕIGUSTE JA SOOLISE VÕRDÕIGUSLIKKUSE KOMISJONI ARVAMUS.........56
OPINION of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality ...55
nõukogu määruse ettepaneku kohta, millega nähakse ette üldsätted Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondi, Euroopa Sotsiaalfondi ja Ühtekuuluvusfondi kohta
on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
– võttes arvesse nõukogu määruse ettepanekut, millega nähakse ette üldsätted Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondi, Euroopa Sotsiaalfondi ja Ühtekuuluvusfondi kohta ( KOM(2004)0492 – 2004/0163(AVC) );
– having regard to the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund ( COM(2004)0492 – 2004/0163(AVC) ),
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artiklit 161;
– having regard to Article 161 of the EC Treaty,
– võttes arvesse 22. aprilli 2004. aasta resolutsiooni majandusliku ja sotsiaalse ühtekuuluvuse kolmanda aruande kohta
– having regard to its resolution of 22 April 2004 on the third report on economic and social cohesion
– võttes arvesse kodukorra artikli 75 lõiget 3;
– having regard to Rule 75(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
1. leiab, et määruse eelnõu on üldiselt kooskõlas 22. aprilli 2004. aasta resolutsiooniga, seega ei toeta enam otseselt komisjoni ettepanekuid, vaid viidates arutelule nõukogus, kutsub komisjoni ja nõukogu üles arvestama järgnevate soovitustega;
Considers the draft regulation to be in overall accordance with it resolution of 22 April 2004 and makes no further direct endorsement, therefore, of the Commission proposals, but calls nevertheless, with particular reference to the debate in Council, on the Commission and the Council to take account of the following specific recommendations;
5. nõuab, et nn naturaalse mõju piirkondade toetuskõlblikkuse pikendus kehtiks ka lähenemise eesmärgi meetmete puhul, ilma et suurendataks nendele piirkondadele eraldatud ühenduse vahendeid (artikli 6 lõige 2);
Calls for the extension of eligibility of the natural effect regions also to apply to ‘convergence’ objective actions, without any corresponding increase in Community funds intended for these regions (Article 6, paragraph 2);
7. usub, et Euroopa territoriaalse koostöö eesmärgi üldeelarve peab säilima, ning tervitab asjaolu, et komisjoni ettepanekule piiriülese koostöö kohta omistati sedavõrd suur tähtsus;
Believes that the overall budget for the European territorial cooperation Objective should be maintained and welcomes, in this context, the emphasis that was given in the Commission proposal on cross border co-operation;
9. on vastu partnerluspõhimõtte nõrgestamisele, nagu oli ette nähtud algupärases ettepanekus, eriti programmide strateegilise planeerimise ja kontrolli osas; nõuab eriti asjakohaste asutuste nimekirja pidamist (artikli 10 lõike 1 taane c);
Rejects any weakening of the principle of partnership as envisaged in the original proposal, especially in terms of strategic planning and monitoring of the programmes; calls particularly for the maintenance of the list of appropriate bodies (Article 10, paragraph 1, indent c);
12. nõuab, et fondide hindamisel lisataks näitajad meeste ja naiste võrdsuse, sotsiaalse kaasatuse ning diskrimineerimise kõikide vormide vastu võitlemise edendamisel saavutatud edusammude kohta;
Calls for the evaluation of the funds also to include indications of the progress achieved in promoting equality between men and women and social inclusion, as well as in the fight against all forms of discrimination;
15. nõuab eraldi kompensatsioonimehhanismide loomist nendele piirkondadele või liikmesriikidele, mida tabavad olulised rahalised kaotused finantsvahendite jagamist käsitleva komisjoni ettepaneku elluviimise tõttu;
Calls for special compensation mechanisms to be established for those regions or Member States that face substantial financial losses, due to the disparities caused by the implementation of the Commission proposal regarding the allocation of financial resources;
19. nõuab, et artikli 23 lõikesse 3 lisataks otsused üleeuroopalise transpordivõrgu (TEN-T) kohta (otsus nr 884/2004/EÜ ning otsus nr 1692/96/EÜ);
Calls for the inclusion of the Decisions on the trans-European transport network (‘TEN-T’) (Decision No 884/2004/EC and Decision No 1692/96/EC), at Article 23(3);
24. nõuab, et säilitataks riiklik strateegiline raamistik, mis on ette valmistatud tihedas koostöös artiklis 10 osutatud partneritega ja mille kohta komisjon langetab otsuse partnerluse raames peetavatel läbirääkimistel (artikkel 26);
Calls for the maintenance of a national strategic reference framework which is prepared in close cooperation with the partners referred to in Article 10 and which must remain the subject of a Commission decision negotiated in the framework of the partnership (Article 26);
29. nõuab, et kolm fondi võtaksid arvesse väike- ja mikroettevõtete, eriti aga käsitööettevõtete prioriteete, kuna nad on tähtsad ühtekuuluvuse ja regionaalarengu ning majanduskasvule ja tööhõivele kaasaaitamise seisukohast, ning toetaksid Feira Euroopa Ülemkogul 2000. aastal vastu võetud väikeettevõtete harta põhimõtete ja tegevussuundade elluviimist;
Calls for the three Funds to take account of the priorities of small and micro enterprises, particularly craft enterprises, given their importance for cohesion and regional development and their contribution to growth and employment, and to support the implementation of the principles and action lines of the European Charter for Small Enterprises adopted by the Feira European Council in 2000;
31. nõuab ühtset lähenemist ja struktuurifondide menetluste säilitamist, kui praegused naabrusprogrammid muudetakse programmideks, mis toimivad liidu välispiiride uute koostöövahendite najal (ENPI ja IPA);
Calls for a coherent approach and the maintenance of Structural Funds procedures when the current neighbourhood programmes are transformed into programmes under the new cooperation instruments for the external borders of the Union (ENPI and IPA);
33. nõuab, et strateegiliste suuniste ja nendega sätestatud hindamismenetluse puhul nõutaks selgesõnaliselt ja tunnustataks puudega inimestele juurdepääsetavuse põhimõtet ja selle rakendamist praktikas;
Calls for an explicit requirement and recognition of the principle and practice of accessibility for disabled persons in the strategic guidelines and in the evaluation process required by the strategic guidelines;
37. arvab, et komisjoni ettepanek kehtestada finantskorrektsioon oma tegevuse ümber paigutanud ettevõtetele on vältimatu meede, et vältida majandusliku, sotsiaalse ja territoriaalse ühtekuuluvuse ohtu sattumist asjaomastes piirkondades; teeb ettepaneku kontrollisüsteemide loomiseks, et määratleda mistahes ümberpaigutamise majanduslikud ja sotsiaalsed kulud ning määrata kohased karistused; nõuab samaaegselt kõikide vajalike õigusaktide vastuvõtmist, mis tagaks, et ühenduse toetust saavad ettevõtted ei tee ümberpaigutamisi pika ja eelnevalt kindlaks määratud perioodi vältel;
Considers that the Commission proposal to impose financial corrections on firms that relocate their activities is an indispensable measure, in order not to put in jeopardy the consolidation of economic, social and territorial cohesion in the affected regions; proposes the establishment of monitoring systems in order to quantify the economic and social costs of any relocation so that appropriate penalties may be set accordingly; calls, at the same time, for the adoption of all necessary legal measures to ensure that firms which receive Community funding do not relocate for a long and predetermined period;
42. nõuab, et säilitataks proportsionaalseks kontrollikorraks soovitatud piirmäärad (kaasfinantseerimine 33% ja kulud 250 miljonit eurot), mille mittetäitmisel komisjon korrapäraseid kontrolle ei teosta; nõuab siiski, et arvesse võetaks erinevate fondide eriomadused (artikkel 73);
Calls for the spirit of the proposed limits in respect of proportional control arrangements (33% cofinancing and EUR 250m cost) below which no systematic controls are undertaken by the Commission to be maintained; calls nevertheless for the specific characteristics of the different funds to be taken into account (Article 73);
45. nõuab suuremat paindlikkust, et pikendada kahekuulist perioodi, mille jooksul liikmesriigid võivad vaidlustada komisjoni tehtud finantskorrektsioone; nõuab, et vastamise tähtaeg sõltuks probleemi tõsidusest (artikkel 100);
Calls for greater flexibility to be introduced so as to extend the proposed two month deadline for Member States to challenge financial corrections by the Commission; calls for this time-limit to be varied in accordance with the seriousness of the problem at issue (Article 100);
48. teeb presidendile ülesandeks paluda täiendavat arutelu nõukoguga vastavalt kodukorra artikli 75 lõikele 3;
Instructs its President to request further discussion with the Council pursuant to Rule 75(3) of its Rules of Procedure;
This interim report follows on from the report and resolution adopted by the European Parliament on the Commission’s third report on economic and social cohesion
This interim report follows on from the report and resolution adopted by the European Parliament on the Commission’s third report on economic and social cohesion
Report on the Third report on economic and social cohesion (COM(2004) 107 – C5 ‑0092/2004 – 2004/2005(INI) )Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and from the working document prepared by your rapporteur in December 2004.
Report on the Third report on economic and social cohesion (COM(2004) 107 – C5 ‑0092/2004 – 2004/2005(INI) )Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism Rapporteur: Konstantinos Hatzidakis Text adopted, P5_TA-PROV(2004)0368 and from the working document prepared by your rapporteur in December 2004.
Working Document on a proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund replacing Regulation 1260/1999 (COM (2004) 492final) Committee on Regional Development, Rapporteur: Konstantinos Hatzidakis 16 December 2004
Working Document on a proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund replacing Regulation 1260/1999 (COM (2004) 492final) Committee on Regional Development, Rapporteur: Konstantinos Hatzidakis 16 December 2004
Its aim is to not to restate the arguments laid out in the previous two documents, but rather to advance, as concisely as possible, Parliament’s priorities for the reform of the European structural funds.
Its aim is to not to restate the arguments laid out in the previous two documents, but rather to advance, as concisely as possible, Parliament’s priorities for the reform of the European structural funds.
Thus, the resolution is intentionally limited to concrete “recommendations” for inclusion in the general regulation.
Thus, the resolution is intentionally limited to concrete “recommendations” for inclusion in the general regulation.
No recitals or broad statements of principle have been included, only calls for action.
No recitals or broad statements of principle have been included, only calls for action.
These relate both directly to the Commission’s proposal and to the information received by the rapporteur as to the ‘state of play’ within the Council of Ministers.
These relate both directly to the Commission’s proposal and to the information received by the rapporteur as to the ‘state of play’ within the Council of Ministers.
With regard to the Commission proposal, there is clearly a high degree of conformity between it and the positions already adopted by the European Parliament.
With regard to the Commission proposal, there is clearly a high degree of conformity between it and the positions already adopted by the European Parliament.
Nevertheless, a number of calls for change or addition have been made.
Nevertheless, a number of calls for change or addition have been made.
In the case of the Council, Parliament may recommend a similar course of action, where the debate appears to be moving in the right direction.
In the case of the Council, Parliament may recommend a similar course of action, where the debate appears to be moving in the right direction.
However, where that is not the case Parliament may, in the first instance, seek to deter unwelcome developments by indicating its rejection of them, but might ultimately have to refuse its assent were the Council’s position to be considered politically unacceptable.
However, where that is not the case Parliament may, in the first instance, seek to deter unwelcome developments by indicating its rejection of them, but might ultimately have to refuse its assent were the Council’s position to be considered politically unacceptable.
What therefore is the bottom line?
What therefore is the bottom line?
Political Priorities
Political Priorities
The European Parliament has on numerous occasions stressed the need for a minimum credible budget in order to implement the future cohesion policy.
The European Parliament has on numerous occasions stressed the need for a minimum credible budget in order to implement the future cohesion policy.
It thus rejects any notion that Europe’s regional policy can be considered as a variable that can simply be adjusted during the adoption of the 2007-2013 financial perspectives.
It thus rejects any notion that Europe’s regional policy can be considered as a variable that can simply be adjusted during the adoption of the 2007-2013 financial perspectives.
The financial stability proposed by the draft regulation at 0.41% of Community GNI (0.46% including EAFRD and EFF) must be considered as acceptable, given the huge increase in the population eligible for the Convergence objective, following an enlargement process without precedent.
The financial stability proposed by the draft regulation at 0.41% of Community GNI (0.46% including EAFRD and EFF) must be considered as acceptable, given the huge increase in the population eligible for the Convergence objective, following an enlargement process without precedent.
It must therefore be considered as constituting the minimum necessary for putting into place the proposed architecture.
It must therefore be considered as constituting the minimum necessary for putting into place the proposed architecture.
Moreover, in order to make a true political and economic success of enlargement it will be crucial to guarantee an equitable balance between the needs of regions from the new Member States eligible for the Convergence objective, the poorest regions of the old Member States, the statistical effect regions and those regions subject to phasing-in.
Moreover, in order to make a true political and economic success of enlargement it will be crucial to guarantee an equitable balance between the needs of regions from the new Member States eligible for the Convergence objective, the poorest regions of the old Member States, the statistical effect regions and those regions subject to phasing-in.
Many proposals have been presented to increase or decrease all part of the financial envelope.
Many proposals have been presented to increase or decrease all part of the financial envelope.
The rapporteur makes two specific proposals regarding cohesion policy funding.
The rapporteur makes two specific proposals regarding cohesion policy funding.
The first concerning the possible recycling of funds lost as a result of the strict implementation of the N+2 rule.
The first concerning the possible recycling of funds lost as a result of the strict implementation of the N+2 rule.
He proposes that these appropriations be re-entered in the budgets of the wealthier Member States as is now the case but that they be kept in the cohesion budget for allocation to those regions able to use them.
He proposes that these appropriations be re-entered in the budgets of the wealthier Member States as is now the case but that they be kept in the cohesion budget for allocation to those regions able to use them.
The second proposal concerns the need for compensatory arrangements for those regions and Member States which lose out heavily in financial terms following the allocation of Community funds in accordance with Commission recommendations.
The second proposal concerns the need for compensatory arrangements for those regions and Member States which lose out heavily in financial terms following the allocation of Community funds in accordance with Commission recommendations.
With regard to the Convergence objective, your rapporteur considers, in principle, that the full eligibility for the regions affected by the statistical effect might be seen as a relatively inexpensive means of achieving a sustainable and harmonious equilibrium.
With regard to the Convergence objective, your rapporteur considers, in principle, that the full eligibility for the regions affected by the statistical effect might be seen as a relatively inexpensive means of achieving a sustainable and harmonious equilibrium.
However, the full eligibility of these regions will in practice mean an increase in the 0.41% of Community GNI proposed by the draft regulation.
However, the full eligibility of these regions will in practice mean an increase in the 0.41% of Community GNI proposed by the draft regulation.
The rapporteur will accordingly submit a proposal along these lines, having first discussed the matter with this colleagues.
The rapporteur will accordingly submit a proposal along these lines, having first discussed the matter with this colleagues.
Concerning the ‘natural effect’ regions eligible for transitional funding under the ‘regional competitivity and employment’ objective, the rapporteur takes the view that they should be eligible for ‘convergence’ measures, since they may prove more effective for completion of the as yet unfinished convergence process in these regions.
Concerning the ‘natural effect’ regions eligible for transitional funding under the ‘regional competitivity and employment’ objective, the rapporteur takes the view that they should be eligible for ‘convergence’ measures, since they may prove more effective for completion of the as yet unfinished convergence process in these regions.
For example, while such regions may be looking to tourism for their development, the measures taken relate only to the ‘convergence’ and not the ‘regional competitivity and employment’ objective.
For example, while such regions may be looking to tourism for their development, the measures taken relate only to the ‘convergence’ and not the ‘regional competitivity and employment’ objective.
The rapporteur is in no way insinuating that Community funding for these regions should be increased.
The rapporteur is in no way insinuating that Community funding for these regions should be increased.
With regard to the rest of the Community’s territory, Parliament has consistently supported a balanced Europe-wide polycentric model for sustainable development which will drive forward the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies.
With regard to the rest of the Community’s territory, Parliament has consistently supported a balanced Europe-wide polycentric model for sustainable development which will drive forward the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies.
It rejects, therefore, any notion of a renationalisation of cohesion policy and in particular of the regional competitiveness and employment objective as is still, even now, being suggested by certain Member States.
It rejects, therefore, any notion of a renationalisation of cohesion policy and in particular of the regional competitiveness and employment objective as is still, even now, being suggested by certain Member States.
In this context, your rapporteur considers that there must be a strict respect of the Commission's proposals for the phasing-in regions and for those with natural or geographical handicaps.
In this context, your rapporteur considers that there must be a strict respect of the Commission's proposals for the phasing-in regions and for those with natural or geographical handicaps.
In the latter case, he believes that the 5% extra co financing envisaged, should be doubled where a region suffers from the cumulative effects of more than one such handicap.
In the latter case, he believes that the 5% extra co financing envisaged, should be doubled where a region suffers from the cumulative effects of more than one such handicap.
With regard to the future Objective 3 on cooperation, there should be greater flexibility, particularly with regard to maritime boundaries and due account must be taken of the need to provide for the connectivity of peripheral areas.
With regard to the future Objective 3 on cooperation, there should be greater flexibility, particularly with regard to maritime boundaries and due account must be taken of the need to provide for the connectivity of peripheral areas.
Concerning the governance of the future regional policy, the Parliament has always insisted that a balance must be struck between the urgent need for simplification on the one hand and the effective use of funds on the other, taking account of the particular nature of the structural funds (partnership arrangements, EU co-funding of programmes etc).
Concerning the governance of the future regional policy, the Parliament has always insisted that a balance must be struck between the urgent need for simplification on the one hand and the effective use of funds on the other, taking account of the particular nature of the structural funds (partnership arrangements, EU co-funding of programmes etc).
Cohesion policy should not be transformed into 25 or 27 ‘blank cheques’, but must rather form part of a coherent approach to the achievement of Europe’s major strategic objectives: solidarity, competitiveness and sustainable development.
Cohesion policy should not be transformed into 25 or 27 ‘blank cheques’, but must rather form part of a coherent approach to the achievement of Europe’s major strategic objectives: solidarity, competitiveness and sustainable development.
This can only occur through a close cooperation between strategy at Community, national and regional level.
This can only occur through a close cooperation between strategy at Community, national and regional level.
Hence, importance is attached to the maintenance of the Community strategic guidelines, the national strategic reference frameworks and the principles of partnership and non-discrimination.
Hence, importance is attached to the maintenance of the Community strategic guidelines, the national strategic reference frameworks and the principles of partnership and non-discrimination.