Amendments by the committee responsible - separate vote
11
committee
sep
-
36
committee
sep
-
39
committee
RCV
+
346, 313, 3
41
committee
split
1
+
2/EV
-
302, 354, 3
53
committee
+
Article 3, § 1, point 7
62
S&D, Verts/ALE
RCV
-
316, 345, 1
Article 4, § 2
21
committee
RCV
+
371, 258, 33
63
S&D, Verts/ALE
↓
Article 4, § 3
22D
committee
RCV
+
385, 274, 4
64
S&D, Verts/ALE
↓
Article 5
58
PPE
split
1
+
2
+
Article 6, § 2
29D
committee
+
65
S&D, Verts/ALE
↓
Article 6, § 7
31
committee
EV
+
372, 274, 16
66
S&D, Verts/ALE
↓
Article 11, after § 3
67
S&D, Verts/ALE
RCV
-
291, 362, 8
After article 11
68
S&D, Verts/ALE
split
1/RCV
-
316, 345, 3
2/RCV
-
305, 353, 4
3/RCV
-
317, 335, 8
Article 12, § 1, introductory part
69
S&D, Verts/ALE
-
Article 12, § 1, point c
70
S&D, Verts/ALE
-
After article 15 Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 Article 5, § 2, point o
71
S&D, Verts/ALE
RCV
-
311, 352, 2
Article 17, § 2
72
S&D, Verts/ALE
-
43
committee
EV
+
365, 287, 9
Annex I, part A, table
74
S&D, Verts/ALE
-
46
committee
+
Annex I, part B, point 2, table
75
S&D, Verts/ALE
RCV
-
294, 353, 18
49
committee
+
Annex IV, § 1, after point g
73
S&D, Verts/ALE
RCV
-
313, 333, 17
Recital 21
59
S&D, Verts/ALE
-
After recital 30
60
S&D, Verts/ALE
RCV
-
302, 341, 21
13
committee
split
1
+
2
-
61
S&D, Verts/ALE
RCV
↓
Vote: Commission proposal
RCV
+
369, 273, 23
Requests for roll-call votes
S&D:
amendments 61, 62, 67, 68, 73
Verts/ALE:
amendments 21, 22, 39, 60, 71, 75
Requests for separate votes
PPE:
amendments 11, 36
Verts/ALE:
amendments 21, 22, 29, 31, 53
Requests for split votes
PPE:
amendment 13
First part
‘Data on mileage and abrasion of tyres, once a suitable testing method is available, will be a beneficial tool informing consumers about the durability, lifetime and the unintended release of microplastics of their purchased tyre. Mileage information would also enable consumers to make an informed choice with regard to tyres with a longer lifetime, which would help protect the environment, and at the same time allow them to estimate the operating costs of the tyres over a longer period. Therefore, mileage and abrasion performance data should be added to the label when a relevant, meaningful and reproducible testing method becomes available for the application of this Regulation. Research and development of new technologies in that field should continue.’
Second part
‘An indication of mileage and tyre abrasion would be a fundamental change to the label and should therefore be made in the next revision of this Regulation.’
Verts/ALE:
amendment 41
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘shall assess the requirements to introduce new tyre classes, a new label format or new tyre parameters, in particular for mileage and abrasion, provided suitable testing methods are available, and’
Second part
those words
amendment 58
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘with the exception of the measured technical parameters of the model’ (both in § 1 and 2)
Second part
those words
amendment 68
First part
‘1. The Commission shall adopt, by 1 June 2023, delegated acts in accordance with Article 12 in order to supplement this Regulation by introducing parameters and information requirements for the abrasion of tyres.’
Second part
‘2. The Commission shall adopt, by 1 January 2025, delegated acts in accordance with Article 12 in order to supplement this Regulation by introducing parameters and information requirements for the mileage of tyres.’
Third part
‘3. The Commission shall request the standardisation organisations to develop harmonised test methods for the measurement of tyre abrasion and of tyre mileage, and investigate consumer understanding of these parameters.’
‘Points out that some countries have recently adopted unilateral countermeasures against harmful tax practices (such as the UK’s Diverted Profits Tax and the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) provisions of the US tax reform) to ensure that the foreign income of MNEs is duly taxed at a minimum effective tax rate in the parent’s country of residence; calls for an EU assessment of these measures; notes that, in contrast to these unilateral measures, the EU generally promotes multilateral and consensual solutions to deal with a fair allocation of taxing rights; stresses that, for example, the EU prioritises a global solution for taxing the digital sector,’
Second part
‘but is nevertheless proposing an EU Digital Services Tax (DST) as global discussions have been progressing slowly’
§ 64
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘‘creating a non level playing field and putting traditional companies at a disadvantage’’ and ‘notes that digital businesses models in the EU face a lower effective average tax burden than traditional business models’
Second part
‘creating a non level playing field and putting traditional companies at a disadvantage’
Third part
‘notes that digital businesses models in the EU face a lower effective average tax burden than traditional business models’
§ 65
First part
‘Points out, in this context, the gradual shift from tangible production to intangible assets in the value chains of MNEs, as reflected in the relative rates of growth over the last five years of royalties and licensing fee receipts (almost 5 %annually) compared with trade in goods and foreign direct investment (FDI) (less than 1 % annually);’
Second part
‘deplores the fact that digital businesses pay almost no taxes in some Member States despite their significant digital presence and large revenues in those Member States;’
§ 68
First part
‘Notes the leading role played by the Commission and some Member States in the global debate on the taxation of the digitalised economy; encourages the Member States to continue their proactive work at OECD and UN level, especially via the process introduced by the Inclusive Framework on BEPS in its Policy Note;’
Second part
‘recalls, however, that the EU should not wait for a global solution and must act immediately;’
§ 72
First part
‘Understands that the so-called interim solution is not optimal;’
Second part
‘believes that it will help speed up the search for a better solution at global level, while levelling the playing field in local markets to some extent; calls on the EU Member States to discuss, adopt and implement the long-term solution concerning the taxation of the digital economy (on significant digital presence) as soon as possible in order for the EU to remain a trendsetter at global level; stresses that the long-term solution proposed by the Commission should serve as a basis for further work at international level;’
§ 75
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘which translates into minimum effective taxation’
Second part
those words
§ 77
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘notes that traditional sectors pay on average an effective corporate tax rate of 23 %, while the digital sector pays about 9.5 %’
Second part
those words
PPE:
§ 52
First part
‘Calls for these new tax indicators for the European Semester to be given the same status as the indicators relating to expenditure control;’
Second part
‘underlines the benefit of providing the European Semester with this tax dimension, as it will make it possible to tackle certain harmful tax practices that had not thus far been tackled through the ATAD Directive and other existing European regulations;’
§ 123
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘that’ and ‘can only to a limited extent be explained by real economic activities taking place in these Member States’
Second part
‘that’ and ‘can only to a limited extent be explained by real economic activities taking place in these Member States’
§ 263
First part
‘Underscores the problem of money laundering through investment in real estate in European cities through foreign shell companies; recalls that the Commission should assess the necessity and proportionality of harmonising the information in the land and real estate registers and assess the need for the interconnection of those registers; calls on the Commission to accompany the report with a legislative proposal, if appropriate;’
Second part
‘takes the view that Member States should have publicly accessible information in place on the ultimate beneficial ownership of land and real estate;’
§ 312
First part
‘Recalls that the Commission has criticised seven Member States – Belgium, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands – for shortcomings in their tax systems that facilitate aggressive tax planning, arguing that they undermine the integrity of the European single market;’
Second part
‘takes the view that these jurisdictions can also be regarded as facilitating aggressive tax planning globally;’
S&D:
amendment 77
First part
‘Notes the Council’s recent addition of 10 jurisdictions (Aruba, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Dominica, Fiji, the Marshall Islands, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Vanuatu) to the five jurisdictions that were already listed as non-cooperative for tax purposes (American Samoa, Guam, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, and the US Virgin Islands);’
Second part
‘notes the addition of two other jurisdictions to the grey list (Australia and Costa Rica);’
amendment 29
First part
‘Believes that the global coordination on the tax base as a result of the OECD/BEPS project should be accompanied by better coordination on tax rates in an effort to achieve improved efficiency;’
Second part
‘calls on the Member States to work with the Commission in order to determine a fair level of minimum effective taxation at EU level and to promote such a standard at global level; believes that this level of taxation should not be set below 18 % of corporate net profits;’
amendment 96
First part
‘Recalls that the Commission has criticised seven Member States151 – Belgium, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands – for shortcomings in their tax systems that facilitate aggressive tax planning, arguing that they undermine the integrity of the European single market; takes the view that these jurisdictions can also be regarded as facilitating aggressive tax planning globally; highlights that the Commission has acknowledged that some of the aforementioned Member States have taken measures to improve their tax systems to address the Commission’s criticism’
Second part
‘notes that a recent research study has identified five EU Member States as corporate tax havens: Cyprus, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands; stresses that the criteria and methodology used to select those Member States included a comprehensive assessment of their harmful tax practices, measures that facilitate aggressive tax planning and distortion of economic flows based on Eurostat data, which included a combination of high inward and outward foreign direct investment, royalties, interests and dividend flows; calls on the Commission to currently regard at least these five Member States as EU tax havens until substantial tax reforms are implemented;’
GUE/NGL:
§ 106
First part
‘Recalls that public CBCR is one of the key measures to create greater transparency on tax information of companies; stresses that the proposal for public CBCR by certain undertakings and branches was submitted to the co-legislators just after the Panama Papers scandal on 12 April 2016, and that Parliament adopted its position on it on 4 July 2017; recalls that it called for an enlargement of the scope of reporting’
Second part
‘and protection of commercially sensitive information with due regard to the competitiveness of EU enterprises;’
§ 209
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘, inspired by the US Global Magnitsky Act’
Second part
those words
§ 326
First part
‘Believes that supporting developing countries in combating tax evasion and aggressive tax planning, as well as corruption and secrecy that facilitate illicit financial flows, is of the utmost importance for strengthening policy coherence for development in the EU and improving developing countries’ tax capacities and ability to mobilise their own resources for sustainable economic development;’
Second part
‘stresses the need to increase the share of financial and technical assistance to the tax administrations of developing countries, so as to create stable and modern legal taxation frameworks;’
§ 333
First part
‘Recalls that public development aid targeting poverty reduction should be directed to a greater extent towards the implementation of an appropriate regulatory framework and the bolstering of tax administrations and institutions responsible for fighting illicit financial flows;’
Second part
‘calls for this aid to be provided in the form of technical expertise in relation to resource management, financial information and anti-corruption rules; calls for this aid to also favour regional cooperation against tax fraud, tax evasion, ATP and money laundering; stresses that this aid should include support to civil society and media in developing countries to ensure public scrutiny over domestic tax policies;’
ECR, S&D, GUE/NGL:
§ 35
First part
‘Recalls that taxes must be paid in the jurisdictions where the actual substantive and genuine economic activity and value creation take place or, in the case of indirect taxation, where consumption takes place;’
Second part
‘highlights that this can be achieved by adopting the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in the EU with an appropriate and fair distribution,’
Third part
‘incorporating among other things all tangible and intangible assets;’ without ‘and intangible’
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘expresses regret at the disproportionate one-sided ‘flanking measures’ of Switzerland, which have been in force since 2004; invites Switzerland, which considers that the flanking measures are important, to seek a solution which is fully compatible with the relevant EU instruments;’
Second part
those words
22. Discharge 2017: EU general budget - Commission and executive agencies
‘Stresses that DG CLIMA and DG BUDG monitor the 20 % climate mainstreaming target in the Multiannual Financial Framework, and that DG CLIMA supports other DGs in integrating climate in their activities; regrets that in 2017, only 19,3 % of the Union budget was spent on climate-related activities, and that it is estimated that the average for the period 2014-2020 will only be 18,8 %; notes with concern that expenditure has failed to comply with the parameter requiring 20% to be allocated to climate action and calls for a strong commitment by the Commission to support environmental and climate action,’
Second part
‘especially in the agricultural sector;’
amendment 11
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘performed by an independent party’
Second part
those words
§ 120
First part
Text as a whole excluding the word: ‘promptly’
Second part
this word
Miscellaneous
The vote on the decision on the discharge covered the closure of accounts (see Annex IV, Article 5(1) of the Rules of Procedure).
The vote on the decision on the discharge covered both the Commission and the executive agencies (Regulation (EC) No 58/2003, Article 14(3) and Regulation (EC) No 1653/2004, Article 66(2)).
23. Discharge 2017: Court of Auditors' special reports in the context of the 2017 Commission discharge
vote on decision; amendments 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21
Verts/ALE:
amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
GUE/NGL:
amendments 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 46
PPE:
§§ 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 109
S&D:
amendments 30, 32, 33, 44, 46
Requests for separate votes
PPE:
§§ 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 56, 85, 86, 87, 88
S&D:
§§ 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117
Requests for split votes
Verts/ALE:
amendment 6
First part
‘– a 5% sample checks of the GEA spending by the European Parliament's internal auditing; the final results and the findings should be part of the annual internal audit report published by the European Parliament;’
Second part
‘– the need for Members to publish, on an annual basis, an overview of their expenditures by category (communication costs, office rental, office supplies, etc.);’
Third part
‘– the admission of an independent auditor in charge of the annual check of the accounts and the publication of an auditor’s opinion;’
amendment 14
First part
‘Deplores the fact that Parliament's final appropriations for 2017 totalled EUR 1 909 590 000, or 19,25 % of heading V of the Multiannual Financial Framework9 set aside for the 2017 administrative expenditure of the Union institutions as a whole, representing an increase of no less than 3.9% over the 2016 budget (EUR 1 838 613 983); deplores the fact that Parliament's budget has increased steadily year on year during the current parliamentary term, reaching a total of no less than EUR 1 999 144 000 for the financial year 2019;’
Second part
‘calls, therefore, for Parliament to set as the main objective for its own budget that of curbing its own costs as much as possible and seeking significant savings, in order to send out a message of solidarity with EU citizens;’
amendment 16
First part
‘Still strongly regrets that, despite repeated calls from the Parliament to establish a single seat, and the fact that citizens of the Union do not understand why the Parliament should divide its activities over two seats, so far the European Council has not even begun a discussion on how to meet Parliament´s requests in this respect; recalls the Court’s 2014 analysis which estimated annual savings of EUR 114 million were Parliament to centralise its operations; recalls the Parliament’s 2013 resolution10 which estimated the costs of the geographic dispersion of the Parliament to range from EUR 156 million to EUR 204 million per year; deplores the fact that over a single parliamentary term the costs generated by Parliament's geographic dispersion can amount to as much as EUR 1 billion and voices opposition to the multiannual building projects intended to increase the office space available to Members in both Strasbourg and Brussels; calls, therefore, for practical steps to be taken quickly to establish a single seat for Parliament,’
Second part
‘in order to prevent any further waste of public money;’
PPE:
§ 36
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘with appreciation’
Second part
those words
§ 91
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘notes that the building is due to be completed over six years late and EUR 115 million over budget’
Second part
those words
§ 109
First part
‘Recalls that, in a note to the Bureau dated 8 March 2018, the Parliament’s Secretary-General accepted that the pension fund linked to the Members’ voluntary pension scheme “will exhaust its capital well before the end of the pension obligations and possibly already by 2024”; calls therefore upon the Secretary-General and the Bureau, while respecting fully the Statute for Members, to urgently establish a clear plan for the Parliament assuming and taking over its obligations and responsibilities for its Member’s voluntary pension scheme’
Second part
‘immediately after the 2019 elections;’
S&D:
amendment 24
First part
‘Regrets that documents relating to the tender procedure of the House of European History in January 2019 were not made available; expresses its deep concerns regarding the requirements for the new tender; calls on the Secretary-General to inform the Budgetary Control Committee on the outcome of the tender; stresses that irrespective of the outcome of the tender the EXPO crew members must be treated better in the following areas: their working hours must be predictable, there must be a decent leave arrangement, proper attire must be provided;’
Second part
‘furthermore, calls on the Bureau to continue the dialogue with the local authorities to see how the latter can contribute to the financing of the House of European History;’
§ 80
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘regrets that in certain cities, such as Paris, locations were selected on the most expensive streets without proper justification’
Second part
those words
§ 107
First part
Text as a whole excluding the words: ‘regrets, however, that the only decision taken by the Bureau relates to a non-exhaustive list of eligible expenses;’ ‘calls for Members to be fully accountable for their spending under this allowance;’ and ‘(which requires, inter alia, an exhaustive list of eligible expenses)’
Second part
‘regrets, however, that the only decision taken by the Bureau relates to a non-exhaustive list of eligible expenses;’
Third part
‘calls for Members to be fully accountable for their spending under this allowance;’
Fourth part
‘(which requires, inter alia, an exhaustive list of eligible expenses)’
Miscellaneous
Amendment 9 had been withdrawn.
Amendments 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45 had been cancelled.
26. Discharge 2017: EU general budget - European Council and Council
‘Welcomes the inter-institutional administrative cooperation with Parliament and the mid-term evaluation results on the implementation of the cooperation agreement between the Committee and the Committee of the Regions, which highlights the successful implementation of several measures; notes that in the context of a redeployment exercise, the Committee has already moved 16 posts from the directorate for translation to its own services and that remaining moves will happen progressively; notes the calculation of the budgetary savings made by the Committee and the Committee of the Regions through this inter-institutional cooperation, such as the savings, inter alia, in infrastructure costs amounting to EUR 12,5 million, in IT costs amounting to EUR 5 million, or in security staff costs amounting to EUR 500 000; calls on the Committee and the Committee of the Regions to continue to improve this inter-institutional cooperation in order to achieve further savings’
Second part
‘and thus reduce the budgets of the respective institutions;’
30. Discharge 2017: EU general budget - Committee of the Regions
‘Calls for the creation of an institute dedicated to the education of future European diplomats’
Second part
‘and suggests to study the possibility by the pertaining authorities of using the facilities of the European Parliament in Strasbourg to house this diplomatic institute;’
32. Discharge 2017: EU general budget - European Ombudsman
‘Emphasizes to take into account the efficiency when (re)locating agencies in Member States;’
Second part
‘expresses its disappointment with the outcome in this respect of the IIWG on decentralised agencies, as no specific proposals were developed to merge or co-locate agencies concentrating on related policy fields; urges the Commission to submit without delay an evaluation of agencies with multiple locations, as recommended by the IIWG, as well as proposals for possible mergers, closures and/or transfers of tasks to the Commission, on the basis of a careful in-depth analysis and using clear and transparent criteria, as was envisaged in the IIWG’s terms of reference but which was never properly examined owing to a lack of proposals to that effect from the Commission;’
amendment 7
First part
‘Emphasises that the IIWG2 also examined the EASA pilot case for fee-financed agencies; states that even if agencies are fully fee-funded, they are still fully accountable to the discharge authority considering the reputational risks involved; emphasises that fee-funding has advantages and disadvantages; stresses that fee-funding could lead to conflicts of interest, an unpredictable flow of income and that there is a need for good quality indicators;’
Second part
‘urges the Commission to examine the advantages and disadvantages of fee-funding as opposed to fees being paid directly to the Commission and the agencies being provided with a regular subsidy from the EU budget in return;’
35. Discharge 2017: Agency for Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)
‘Notes that, although the Centre is not fee financed, it depends on revenue received from its clients, who are represented on the Centre’s management board, and that there is therefore a risk of conflicts of interests regarding the pricing of the Centre’s products’
Second part
‘which could be solved if the Commission collected the fees on behalf of the Centre’s clients and would prompt the Centre to be mainly funded from the Union budget;’
Third part
‘calls on the Centre to report to the discharge authority on measures taken in order to mitigate such a risk;’
Miscellaneous
The vote on the decision on the discharge covered the closure of accounts (see Annex IV, Article 5(1) of the Rules of Procedure).
38. Discharge 2017: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)
‘Notes that the fees paid by industry vary substantially year by year, which complicates budget planning and that fees paid with regard to one regulation can only be used in that section of the Agency’s budget, which can mean surplus in one section and deficit in other sections of its budget; asks the Commission to propose measures ensuring more balanced financing of the activities related to all regulations that the Agency implements;’
Second part
‘recommends that it be considered whether collected fees could be transferred to the Union budget while the Agency would be fully financed by the Union budget through one subsidy amount covering all regulations that the Agency implements;’
Miscellaneous
The vote on the decision on the discharge covered the closure of accounts (see Annex IV, Article 5(1) of the Rules of Procedure).
45. Discharge 2017: European Environment Agency (EEA)