Sittings · Document

Draft report (2024/2106(INI)) 2025-03-28

Possibilities for simplification of cohesion funds

Committee on Regional Development

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX

Amendment 1

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Citation 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the proposal for a Regulation (EU) 2018/0198 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2024 on a Mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context,

Or. en

Amendment 2

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Citation 9 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– – having regard to the Regulation (EU) 2025/XXXX of the European Parliament and of the Council of [INSERT DATE] on the Border Regions’ Instrument for Development and Growth in the EU (BRIDGEforEU) [INSERT FOOTNOTE ONCE PUBLISHED IN OJ]

Or. en

Amendment 3

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Citation 11 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 26 February 2025 entitled 'Strengthening the results orientation of post-2027 cohesion policy – challenges, risks and opportunities',

Or. en

Amendment 4

Matthias Ecke, Klára Dobrev, Sabrina Repp

Motion for a resolution

Citation 11 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the communication of the European Commission of 11 February 2025 entitled ‘The road to the next multiannual financial framework’

Or. en

Amendment 5

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Citation 11 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 5 December 2024 entitled 'Revision of the Territorial Agenda 2030 - Towards a more integrated and civic approach with stronger links with the cohesion policy',

Or. en

Amendment 6

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Citation 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– -Having regards the European Court of Auditors Annual Report 2024

Or. en

Amendment 7

Klara Dostalova, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
A. whereas cohesion policy is the EU’s most important investment tool to reduce social, territorial and economic disparities, and its long-term character should not be jeopardised by emergency measures and amendments aimed at re-purposing cohesion funds for other priorities;	A. whereas cohesion policy is the EU’s most important investment tool to reduce social, territorial and economic disparities, and whereas the responsibility for designing, implementing, and evaluating these investments should be increasingly transferred to Member States and regional authorities to better reflect their unique economic and social needs and its long-term character should not be jeopardised by emergency measures and amendments aimed at re-purposing cohesion funds for other priorities;

Or. en

Amendment 8

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
A. whereas cohesion policy is the EU’s most important investment tool to reduce social, territorial and economic disparities, and its long-term character should not be jeopardised by emergency measures and amendments aimed at re-purposing cohesion funds for other priorities;	A. whereas cohesion policy is the EU’s most important investment tool to reduce social, territorial and economic disparities, and its long-term character must not be jeopardised by emergency measures and amendments aimed at re-purposing cohesion funds for other priorities; whereas cohesion policy and its funds must remain reserved for its primary objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 9

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
A. whereas cohesion policy is the EU’s most important investment tool to reduce social, territorial and economic disparities, and its long-term character should not be jeopardised by emergency measures and amendments aimed at re-purposing cohesion funds for other priorities;	A. whereas cohesion policy is the EU’s most important investment tool to reduce social, territorial and economic disparities and particular attention must be paid to the Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs), which face specific structural challenges requiring targeted adaptations;

Or. fr

Amendment 10

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
A. whereas cohesion policy is the EU’s most important investment tool to reduce social, territorial and economic disparities, and its long-term character should not be jeopardised by emergency measures and amendments aimed at re-purposing cohesion funds for other priorities;	A. whereas cohesion policy is the EU’s most important investment tool to reduce economic, social and territorial disparities, and its long-term character should not be jeopardised by emergency measures and amendments aimed at re-purposing cohesion funds for other priorities;

Or. en

Amendment 11

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Recital A a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Aa. whereas cohesion policy accounts for approximately 30 % of the total budget of the European Union and is a key pillar in supporting European regions, and it should not be pooled with other funds in the future Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) so that it continues to be put to its intended use and retains its effectiveness in reducing territorial disparities;

Or. ro

Amendment 12

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital A a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	A a. whereas the main objective of cohesion policy was (and remains) economic convergence, and other EU policy objectives – including the green transition – should not, under any circumstances, interfere with the achievement of its main objective;

Or. en

Amendment 13

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Recital A a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	A a. whereas cohesion policy is of pivotal importance to deliver on the European Pillar of Social Rights, its action plan and the headline targets to tackle poverty, increase the employment rate and stimulate life-long learning;

Or. en

Amendment 14

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Ľubica Karvašová, Ciaran Mullooly

Motion for a resolution

Recital A a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	A a. Whereas a simplified cohesion policy is key to ensuring European resilience, a just sustainable transition, a right to stay for all European citizens and to promote the competitiveness of the EU;

Or. en

Amendment 15

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Recital A b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	A b. whereas cohesion policy is based on core EU values; whereas a strong rule of law conditionality in the distribution of funds, as well as for social and human rights standards are indispensable and must not fall victim to simplification; whereas cohesion policy must also be conditional on Member States providing for and protecting all people in their regions, regardless of their gender, age, nationality, health status, social class, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity;

Or. en

Amendment 16

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Recital A b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Ab. whereas cohesion policy can play a strategic role in the development of key dual-use infrastructure that meets both civilian needs in peacetime and contributes to territorial resilience and crisis response, including in the context of armed conflicts or other security threats;

Or. ro

Amendment 17

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Recital A c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	A c. whereas cohesion policy has been consistently able to absorb and effectively invest largely all EU funds allocated to it; whereas the gradual increase of payments towards the latter part of the planning period is a natural tenet of multi-annual programmes; whereas - despite the challenges posed by the economic and social consequences of the COVID crisis, as well as the parallel implementation of the RRF instrument - a similar positive outcome can realistically be expected by the end of the current programming period;

Or. en

Amendment 18

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
B. whereas local and regional authorities (LRAs) are key partners in delivering the EU’s political agenda because they are responsible for 54 to 58 % of the total volume of public investments carried out by governments;	B. whereas national, regional and local authorities are key partners in delivering the EU’s cohesion policy;

Or. en

Amendment 19

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Ľubica Karvašová, Ciaran Mullooly

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
B. whereas local and regional authorities (LRAs) are key partners in delivering the EU’s political agenda because they are responsible for 54 to 58 % of the total volume of public investments carried out by governments;	B. whereas local and regional authorities (LRAs) are best equipped to identify local challenges and opportunities and are key partners in delivering the EU’s political agenda because they are responsible for 54 to 58 % of the total volume of public investments carried out by governments;

Or. en

Amendment 20

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital C

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
C. whereas the current 2021-2027 programming period has a reduced list of policy objectives, and a clearer intervention logic through indicators, lighter reporting requirements and a single audit arrangement;	C. whereas the current 2021-2027 programming period, which builds on the previous initiatives with further expansions of simplified cost options (SCOs), has a reduced list of policy objectives, and a clearer intervention logic through indicators, lighter reporting requirements and a single audit arrangement;

Or. en

Amendment 21

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital C

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
C. whereas the current 2021-2027 programming period has a reduced list of policy objectives, and a clearer intervention logic through indicators, lighter reporting requirements and a single audit arrangement;	C. whereas the current 2021-2027 programming period has a list of policy objectives to be implemented within the framework of cohesion policy, including the ecological transformation towards a zero-carbon economy;

Or. en

Amendment 22

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital C a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	C a. whereas the principle "do not harm cohesion" should be adopted for the future, which means, among others, not setting additional objectives for cohesion policy that would limit its effectiveness;

Or. en

Amendment 23

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová, Ciaran Mullooly

Motion for a resolution

Recital C a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	C a. Whereas the cohesion policy remains one of the most visible and tangible symbols of European solidarity;

Or. en

Amendment 24

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital D

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
D. whereas, however, managing authorities, intermediary bodies, beneficiaries and citizens still face significant administrative burdens and challenges that not only affect the implementation rate of the projects but also undermine the credibility, visibility and perception of cohesion policy as a whole;	D. whereas managing authorities, intermediary bodies, beneficiaries and citizens face significant administrative burdens and challenges, partly resulting from imposing too many objectives on cohesion policy, especially in the area of green transition, that not only affect the implementation rate of the projects but also undermine the credibility, visibility and perception of cohesion policy as a whole;

Or. en

Amendment 25

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová, Ciaran Mullooly

Motion for a resolution

Recital D

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
D. whereas, however, managing authorities, intermediary bodies, beneficiaries and citizens still face significant administrative burdens and challenges that not only affect the implementation rate of the projects but also undermine the credibility, visibility and perception of cohesion policy as a whole;	D. whereas, however, managing authorities, intermediary bodies, beneficiaries and citizens still face significant administrative burdens and challenges that not only affect the implementation rate of the projects but also undermine the effectiveness, credibility, visibility and perception of cohesion policy as a whole;

Or. en

Amendment 26

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital D

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
D. whereas, however, managing authorities, intermediary bodies, beneficiaries and citizens still face significant administrative burdens and challenges that not only affect the implementation rate of the projects but also undermine the credibility, visibility and perception of cohesion policy as a whole;	D. whereas, however, managing authorities, intermediary bodies, beneficiaries and citizens still face significant administrative burdens and challenges that not only affect the implementation rate of the projects but also undermine the credibility, impact, visibility and perception of cohesion policy as a whole;

Or. en

Amendment 27

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital D a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	D a. whereas the administrative burden and time consuming nature of the application process for EU cohesion funds means that sometimes the cost-benefit calculation in developed regions is weighted towards simply not applying

Or. en

Amendment 28

Matthias Ecke, Klára Dobrev, Sabrina Repp

Motion for a resolution

Recital D a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	D a. whereas previous funding periods for cohesion policy have repeatedly started too late, especially the current funding period 2021-2027, which leads to enormous backlog pressure and a slow outflow of the cohesion funds;

Or. en

Amendment 29

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital E

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
E. whereas the evolving and complex regulatory environment has played a decisive role in the current low implementation rate of cohesion policy in all Member States;	E. whereas a series of factors, including delays in finalising the legislative package and the Partnership Agreements and Programmes, the simultaneous implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the evolving and complex regulatory environment has played a decisive role in the current low implementation rate of cohesion policy in all Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 30

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital E

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
E. whereas the evolving and complex regulatory environment has played a decisive role in the current low implementation rate of cohesion policy in all Member States;	E. whereas the evolving and complex regulatory environment, related primarily to the huge increase in legislation at EU level, has played a decisive role in the current low implementation rate of cohesion policy in the EU;

Or. en

Amendment 31

Sabrina Repp, Klára Dobrev, Matthias Ecke, Sofie Eriksson

Motion for a resolution

Recital E

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
E. whereas the evolving and complex regulatory environment has played a decisive role in the current low implementation rate of cohesion policy in all Member States;	E. whereas the evolving and complex regulatory environment has made access to cohesion policy funding particularly challenging for smaller municipalities, SMEs and civil society organisations across all member states;

Or. en

Amendment 32

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Recital E

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
E. whereas the evolving and complex regulatory environment has played a decisive role in the current low implementation rate of cohesion policy in all Member States;	E. whereas the evolving and complex regulatory environment has seriously hampered the timely, efficient and effective implementation of cohesion policy in all Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 33

Matthias Ecke, Klára Dobrev, Sabrina Repp

Motion for a resolution

Recital E a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	E a. whereas the administrative burden on beneficiaries to apply for and implement a project supported by cohesion funds has risen with each funding period and has an increasingly deterrent effect on potential beneficiaries;

Or. en

Amendment 34

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital E a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	E a. whereas simplification must also encompasss measures which remove complicating factors and avoid their introduction

Or. en

Amendment 35

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Motion for a resolution

Recital ΣΤ

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
F. whereas simplification measures should entail a balance between the need for better accessibility to funds and the protection of the EU budget and should take into due consideration concerns and inputs from institutional and non-institutional stakeholders;	F. whereas simplification measures should entail a balance between the need for better accessibility to funds and the protection of the EU budget and should take into due consideration concerns and inputs from institutional and non-institutional stakeholders; whereas simplification must also take account of the specific challenges faced by the southern and eastern European Member States with regard to guarding borders, managing migration flows, protecting cultural and religious heritage and responding to natural disasters;

Or. el

Amendment 36

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital F

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
F. whereas simplification measures should entail a balance between the need for better accessibility to funds and the protection of the EU budget and should take into due consideration concerns and inputs from institutional and non-institutional stakeholders;	F. whereas simplification measures should entail a balance between the need for better accessibility to funds and the protection of the EU budget and should take into due consideration concerns and inputs from institutional and non-institutional stakeholders and that once in place should not be undermined by the reintroduction of complexity under the banner of national audit requirements

Or. en

Amendment 37

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Recital F

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
F. whereas simplification measures should entail a balance between the need for better accessibility to funds and the protection of the EU budget and should take into due consideration concerns and inputs from institutional and non-institutional stakeholders;	F. whereas simplification measures should entail a balance between the need for better accessibility to funds in order to secure lasting results and the protection of the EU budget and should take into appropriate consideration concerns and inputs from institutional and non-institutional stakeholders;

Or. ro

Amendment 38

Matthias Ecke, Klára Dobrev, Sabrina Repp

Motion for a resolution

Recital F a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	F a. whereas any attempt to simplify cohesion policy on the part of the Commission must take into account that changes to existing implementation practices are at first always an additional burden for administrative authorities and beneficiaries;

Or. en

Amendment 39

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital F a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	F a. whereas any effective simplification measure requires the adoption of the "do not harm cohesion" principle and the elimination of any side objectives from cohesion policy if they hinder or delay the achievement of economic convergence within the EU;

Or. en

Amendment 40

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital F a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	F a. whereas the revised allocation key called the ‘Berlin formula’, in its current formulation in annex XXVI in CPR, which adds other interesting elements to the GDP, is not adequate yet to reflect the divergences on the ground;

Or. en

Amendment 41

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Recital G a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	G a. Whereas the shared management model has proven to be a fundamental pillar of cohesion policy, ensuring that EU funds are tailored to the specific needs of regions and local areas while fostering ownership and accountability at all levels of governance; whereas the multi-governance framework strengthens cooperation between the EU, national, regional, and local authorities, ensuring that policies are effectively designed and implemented in a way that reflects territorial diversity and maximizes impact on the ground.

Or. en

Amendment 42

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital G a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	G a. whereas public procurement and state aid rules are one of the major sources of administrative costs and burdens that derive both from gold plating in all Member States, namely extra requirements imposed on beneficiaries by national and sub-national authorities beyond those deriving from EU law provisions, and from the difficult interpretation and application of GBER in different territorial contexts;

Or. en

Amendment 43

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Recital H a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	H a. Whereas the concerns raised by the European Court of Auditors about Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) must be addressed—particularly the disproportionate administrative costs compared to Local Action Group budgets—which could be mitigated by adopting simpler financial models, such as those used in Horizon Europe for rural and territorial development;

Or. en

Amendment 44

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Recital H a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	H a. Whereas the simplification of cohesion should be complimentary to other instruments to ensure further harmonization and integration;

Or. en

Amendment 45

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Recital I

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
I. whereas the principle of a single audit should be strengthened, and measures should be implemented to reduce duplicate controls and audits that overlap with national oversight for the same project and beneficiary;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 46

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Recital I

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
I. whereas the principle of a single audit should be strengthened, and measures should be implemented to reduce duplicate controls and audits that overlap with national oversight for the same project and beneficiary;	I. whereas the principle of a single audit should be strengthened, and measures should be implemented to reduce duplicate controls and audits across regional, national, and EU levels for the same project and beneficiary, ensuring consistent interpretation of regulations and minimizing administrative burdens on managing authorities and beneficiaries;

Or. en

Amendment 47

Gabriella Gerzsenyi

Motion for a resolution

Recital I

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
I. whereas the principle of a single audit should be strengthened, and measures should be implemented to reduce duplicate controls and audits that overlap with national oversight for the same project and beneficiary;	I. whereas the principle of a single audit should be maintained alongside regular European Commission audits without duplicating controls and audits;

Or. en

Amendment 48

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Motion for a resolution

Recital Θ a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Ia. whereas geopolitical instability and continued territorial claims at the Union’s external borders, especially in the Mediterranean and south-eastern European regions, pose additional challenges for Member States that are tasked with protecting not only their national borders but also the borders of the European Union as a whole; whereas cohesion policy must contribute to strengthening the resilience and security of these regions by defending the Member States' sovereignty and territorial integrity, which are fundamental values of the Union;

Or. el

Amendment 49

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Recital I a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	I a. wheras cohesion policy must remain resilient to fraud, corruption and any attempts to misdirect its funding away from its original mission and agreed programme priorities towards investments that favour particular, party political or private interests; whereas for this, conditionalities as well as built-in tools are needed to prevent, detect and correct irregularities, including fraud, need to be strengthened, and the correct application of the partnership principle, transparency requirements and anti-fraud policies;

Or. en

Amendment 50

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Recital I a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	I a. Whereas ensuring robust audit mechanisms is essential to maintaining accountability, trazability and effectiveness in the use of EU funds; helping preventing fraud, mismanagement, and inconsistencies in national oversight systems."

Or. en

Amendment 51

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital I a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	I a. whereas the principle of subsidiarity could be better applied in cohesion funding by , for example, introducing threshold values under which certain obligations and requirements could be waived as is the case for other EU funds

Or. en

Amendment 52

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Recital I a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	I a. Whereas overlapping priorities between the RRF and Cohesion Policy—especially in green and digital projects—expose fragmentation in EU funding and underline the need for a simplified, unified approach;

Or. en

Amendment 53

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital I a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	I a. whereas article 20 of the Common Provisions Regulation already allows to activate temporary measures due to exceptional or unusual circumstances;

Or. en

Amendment 54

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Recital I b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	I b. Whereas the principle of sound financial management requires independent and multi-tiered auditing procedures to ensure compliance with EU rules; warns that relying excessively on national oversight alone may lead to discrepancies in enforcement and monitoring, undermining the uniform application of financial control across all Member States and ultimately the protection of the financial interests of the union.

Or. en

Amendment 55

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Recital I b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	I b. Whereas key strategic frameworks—such as Partnership Agreements, CAP Strategic Plans, National Climate and Energy Plans, Just Transition Plans, and National Reform Programmes—are currently developed in isolation, often overlapping and excluding the competent local and regional authorities (LRAs);

Or. en

Amendment 56

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities;	1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has always played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and socio-economic challenges over the last five years, which has resulted in constant changes in the regulatory framework and eroded its strategic focus, and stresses the need to keep high ambitions towards its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities, focusing on growth, job creation and social services; highlights in this regard the need to create a permanent emergency fund in order to ensure that cohesion policy can be used for its primary objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 57

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities;	1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities but recognises that within an overall thematic approach a more flexible approach to amending programmes is advisable including by, among other things, increasing the level at which amendments to programmes are considered "not substantial" and can therefore avoid the need for a Commission decision

Or. en

Amendment 58

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities;	1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities; underlines that cohesion policy must also respond to the particular challenges faced by Mediterranean countries in relation to strengthening the resilience of coastal and island communities, while ensuring national sovereignty in territorial waters;

Or. el

Amendment 59

Klara Dostalova, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities;	1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities; further emphasizes that Member States and regional authorities should have greater autonomy in adapting investment priorities to reflect their unique economic and social needs, without excessive EU-level intervention.

Or. en

Amendment 60

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities;	1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the importance of ensuring that all EU policies, including those funded outside cohesion, comply with the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle;

Or. en

Amendment 61

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities;	1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and stresses the importance of ensuring that all EU policies, including those funded outside cohesion, comply with the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle;

Or. en

Amendment 62

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls the fundamental role cohesion policy has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities;	1. Recalls the flexible nature of cohesion policy and the fundamental role it has played in addressing multi-dimensional emergencies and challenges over the last five years and stresses the need to keep its long-term investment and place-based rationale and priorities;

Or. ro

Amendment 63

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	1 a. Emphasizes the crucial role of cohesion policy to strengthen the EU’s economic, territorial and social cohesion and solidarity among its Member States; is convinced that boosting economic, territorial and social cohesion is indispensable in order to face challenges linked to imbalances among the Union’s regions, improvement of quality of life, just green and digital transition, creation of quality jobs, eradication of poverty, with focus to child poverty, and the housing crisis;

Or. en

Amendment 64

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	1 a. Warns against systematically diverting cohesion funds to respond to crises, as this undermines their primary objective of reducing regional disparities and fostering sustainable development as the funding is limited for that purpose. Calls instead for the establishment of a reinforced and dedicated emergency instrument within the EU budget, ensuring a swift and coordinated response to future crises without compromising the structural integrity of cohesion policy

Or. en

Amendment 65

Matthias Ecke, Klára Dobrev, Sabrina Repp

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	1 a. Stresses that shared management, the partnership principle, multi-level governance, subsidiarity and a place-based approach should remain the cornerstone of any reform and simplification of cohesion policy; recalls that moving away from these principles will not result in simplification but in the centralization of an instrument that must be place-based in nature in order to be impactful;

Or. en

Amendment 66

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	1 a. Recognises that a strengthened and simplified cohesion policy is key to bring and keep the EU together facing growing geopolitical division.

Or. en

Amendment 67

Isabelle Le Callennec

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	1a. Emphasises the need to set up separate cohesion policy emergency funds.

Or. fr

Amendment 68

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	1 b. Calls for a modernised, decentralised and reinforced cohesion policy by putting people at the centre, anchored in increased multilevel governance and a place-based approach, with shared management and respect for the partnership principle, fully involving local and regional authorities and social partners at all levels; insists on the binding application of the partnership principle as outlined in Article 8 of the Common Provisions Regulation;

Or. en

Amendment 69

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification;	2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, and in particular the enhanced digital tools for e-cohesion, a broader harmonisation of rules across multiple funds, an increased flexibility in programme management, and a streamlining of the eligibility rules; but considers that several factors, including workloads deriving from delays in programming 2021-27, frequent changes to regulations during the programming period, complex multi-layered regulations on audit and controls, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification;

Or. en

Amendment 70

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification;	2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification; highlights that this complexity places a particular burden on Member States with island regions and regions with geographical particularities, where infrastructure, administrative capacity and access to cohesion funds are already limited;

Or. el

Amendment 71

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification;	2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification; emphasises the need for a more ambitious reduction of red tape, in particular by eliminating unnecessary duplicate checks and making audit procedures easier for small projects;

Or. fr

Amendment 72

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification;	2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification; stresses that in recent years there has been an overlap between 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming periods with the Resilience and Recovery Facility (RRF) funds;

Or. en

Amendment 73

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification;	2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, in particular the additional cohesion policy objectives under the Green Agenda, as well as frequent regulatory changes and gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification;

Or. en

Amendment 74

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification;	2. While acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, where burdens that go beyond EU requirements are imposed on beneficiaries, have partially weakened this simplification;

Or. en

Amendment 75

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have partially weakened this simplification;	2. Acknowledges the important simplification measures already introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period, but considers that several factors, including frequent changes to regulations, as well as gold-plating, have obstructed this simplification;

Or. ro

Amendment 76

Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Considers that simplification must be an essential principle on which cohesion policy is built; emphasizes that avoiding excessive administrative requirements should not come at the expense of sound financial management;

Or. en

Amendment 77

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Stresses that simplified regulation of the cohesion policy is key to ensuring improved implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 78

Matthias Ecke, Klára Dobrev, Sabrina Repp

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 a. Stresses that the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) and the respective funding programmes must be published in due time before the start of a funding period so that the regional programmes can be approved promptly after the start of a new funding period; recommends to examine whether certain technical regulations and requirements could be removed from the CPR and incorporated into a set of guidelines/handbook in order to create certainty and routine on the part of the managing authorities and beneficiaries; recalls that the lack of certainty regarding the implementation of funding instruments often leads administrative authorities, in line with the principle of prudence, to tend towards a more restrictive interpretation of unclear provisions;

Or. en

Amendment 79

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 a. Calls on the Commission to make credible proposals for the reinforcement and modernisation of cohesion policy, without uprooting or eliminating it, so that it can continue delivering its unique, irreplaceable contribution to fundamental Union objectives such as equity, inter-territorial solidarity, enhancing competitiveness, the creation of quality jobs, the eradication of poverty, access to affordable housing and access to quality public services for all;

Or. en

Amendment 80

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 a. Considers that contriving to associate cohesion policy with the Semester process and the hijacking of cohesion policy for other policy areas such as defence have, and will further, cause complications, delays and frustrations for beneficiaries; calls therefore for a move back to a core cohesion policy of tackling territorial, economic and social inequalities in order to bring about actual, concrete simplification.

Or. en

Amendment 81

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 a. Expresses concern over the persistent fragmentation of EU funding, with over 50 multiannual programmes in 2021–2027 and a growing share - currently 40% - being centrally managed under the current MFF;

Or. en

Amendment 82

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 a. Believes that the late adoption of the sectoral legislation and the lengthy process to adopt programming documents has led to delays in implementation in previous programming periods;

Or. en

Amendment 83

Isabelle Le Callennec

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2a. Calls for expenditure control procedures to be simplified and for greater use to be made of simplified cost options.

Or. fr

Amendment 84

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 b. Notes that State Aid rules can add a layer of complexity and that, in general, the spirit of the "de minimis" rules should be applied and that measures like the enabling conditions currently in place (Article 15, CPR) can be used to a greater degree

Or. en

Amendment 85

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 b. Insists that cohesion policy can only evolve and deliver with a substantially increased budget, in view of the investment needs ahead; stresses that the effective and complementary mobilisation of both EU and Member States funding will be required;

Or. en

Amendment 86

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 b. Strongly urges Member States to avoid gold-plating by adding unnecessary national rules to EU requirements, and calls for a new framework of trust and cooperation between all levels of government in the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 87

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs, civil society organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises;	3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs, civil society organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises; with a particular focus on empowering Member States and regional authorities to manage funds according to their unique economic and social priorities including reducing unnecessary EU-level intervention in low-risk projects and granting Member States greater flexibility in fund allocation.

Or. en

Amendment 88

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs, civil society organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises;	3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy and to stop pushing for a top-down and centralist approach;

Or. en

Amendment 89

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs, civil society organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises;	3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs, civil society organisations, the social economy actors and small and medium-sized enterprises;

Or. en

Amendment 90

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs, civil society organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises;	3. Calls on the Commission to enhance a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs, social partners at all levels, civil society organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises;

Or. en

Amendment 91

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs, civil society organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises;	3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs and of small and medium-sized enterprises;

Or. ro

Amendment 92

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs, civil society organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises;	3. Calls on the Commission to promote a bottom-up approach in the upcoming proposals for simplifying the design of the new cohesion policy, ensuring the mandatory consultation and involvement of LRAs, civil society organisations and the business world;

Or. ro

Amendment 93

Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Points out that digitalisation has an important role to play in simplifying administrative requirements therefore its potential should not be left untapped;

Or. en

Amendment 94

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3 a. Opposes the idea of a single national programme as it is far removed from the realities on the ground, would endanger, or even eliminate the ability of cohesion policy to take account of differing needs of sectoral policies, macro-regional, national, regional or local instruments objectives and specificities;

Or. en

Amendment 95

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3 b. Insists that the use of place-based programmes managed from the NUTS 2 regional level has been key to addressing actual needs on the ground and the effective reduction or regional differences in the past, and must therefore continue to be the backbone of cohesion policy in future, complemented by instruments designed to transcend administrative boundaries - such as macro-regional programmes, Interreg and ITI - as well as local initiatives via CLLD;

Or. en

Amendment 96

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Considers that fewer different funds, a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework;	4. Considers that the consolidation of overlapping funds into a single multifunctional cohesion instrument, with a unified regulatory framework, would reduce fragmentation and increase the impact and usability of cohesion resources as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries linked to the instruments already in use in the Member States could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework;

Or. en

Amendment 97

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Considers that fewer different funds, a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework;	4. Considers that fewer different funds, a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework; further calls for increased flexibility for Member States to reallocate funds in response to economic shocks, demographic changes, or urgent regional challenges;

Or. en

Amendment 98

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Considers that fewer different funds, a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework;	4. Considers that better coordination between funds, clearer and more harmonized implementation rules, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries could contribute to a more efficient and flexible policy. However, emphasizes that flexibility should not come at the expense of long-term strategic planning and the stability of cohesion investments. Calls for ensuring that any adjustments to funding priorities during the programming period remain aligned with regional development objectives and economic cohesion goals

Or. en

Amendment 99

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Considers that fewer different funds, a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework;	4. Considers that a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, as well as the compulsory use by all Member States of integrated IT interfaces for beneficiaries covering all stages of the programme cycle, and all exchanges of data, and documents, with automated reporting tools, could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework;

Or. en

Amendment 100

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Considers that fewer different funds, a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework;	4. Considers that fewer different funds, a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different Cohesion policy-related priorities during the programming period in line with the long-term agreed objectives without the need for changes to the regulatory framework

Or. en

Amendment 101

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Considers that fewer different funds, a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework;	4. Considers that a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework; considers that an asessment as to whether a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries would be of use is also worthwhile.

Or. en

Amendment 102

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Considers that fewer different funds, a single set of rules for implementation, monitoring and control, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework;	4. Considers that a more coherent regulatory framework for the different cohesion funds, as well as a single integrated IT interface for beneficiaries, linked to the instruments already in use in the Member States, could pave the way for a more flexible policy and could enhance the possibility to shift funds to different priorities during the programming period without the need for changes to the regulatory framework;

Or. en

Amendment 103

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Considers that a more flexible policy should not lead to financial uncertainty and increased complexity for end beneficiaries.

Or. en

Amendment 104

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 a. Urges the Commission to develop a unified digital platform to simplify the entire lifecycle of cohesion policy projects — from applications to audits; this platform should feature automated error detection, step-by-step guidance for applicants, and real-time tracking of project progress; additionally, the platform should integrate and support national digital tools developed by Member States to allow greater flexibility in administrative processes and ensure tailored approaches for regional needs; it should also provide regular public updates on project outcomes, financial allocations, and measurable social impact indicators, ensuring citizens can monitor the progress and impact of EU-funded projects in their regions.

Or. en

Amendment 105

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4a. Stresses the need to pay particular attention to the southern and south-eastern European Member States, which are facing increased migration flows, as these place a disproportionate burden on local infrastructure and economies; calls for increased flexibility in the use of cohesion funds to address challenges linked to external border management and demographic pressures, while ensuring territorial cohesion and the protection of the cultural heritage of border regions;

Or. el

Amendment 106

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 a. Reiterates its support for the new BRIDGEforEU regulation and stresses the need to step up simplification measures especially in the cross-border programmes, with tailor-made solutions that take into account the specific economic, social and geopolitical challenges that cross-border regions face;

Or. en

Amendment 107

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 a. Stresses that simplification efforts must, above all, focus on reducing the burden on beneficiaries, facilitating their access to the funds, and reducing administrative work, eliminating the unnecessary duplication of processes, prohibiting and effectively impeding goldplating by national authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 108

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4a. Stresses that Member States must be given more flexibility in the distribution of cohesion funds, allowing them to reallocate funding according to their national and regional priorities, without requiring prior approval by the European Commission;

Or. fr

Amendment 109

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 a. Considers that data collection requirements can be excessive and notes that a sense of data "requirements creep" exists among some beneficiaries and that a rationalisation of such requirements is necessary

Or. en

Amendment 110

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 a. Considers that the creation of new, small separate funds should be avoided where possible and recognizes that larger funds are more effective in implementing solutions to strategic challenges of the EU;

Or. en

Amendment 111

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 b. Insists that the Commission’s proposals for the regulatory framework of cohesion policy under the next MFF must be accompanied by a thorough and detailed assessment of each regulatory change on the level of the administrative burden; urges the Commission to regularly assess Member States’ legal and management frameworks, identifying and promoting best practices, as well as actively taking action against solutions by national and programme authorities which unnecessarily increase the administrative burden;

Or. en

Amendment 112

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 b. Calls on the Commission to establish a fast-track procedure for small-scale, low-risk projects under the cohesion policy framework to reduce administrative complexity and accelerate fund disbursement. This process should include simplified application and reporting requirements, with a particular focus on supporting rural municipalities and community initiatives that are disproportionately burdened by bureaucracy.

Or. en

Amendment 113

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 b. Considers that gender mainstreaming and the integration of a gender perspective should be taken into account and promoted throughout the preparation, implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of programmes also in the next Cohesion Policy framework1a; calls, though, for a more consistent integration of the gender budgeting tracking tool by all the Member States;
	_________________
	1a art. 9 of the current CPR on the horizontal principles

Or. en

Amendment 114

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 b. Considers that the current definition of 'undertaking in difficulty' poses an unreasonable burden for organizations and poses an unnecessary complexity for innovation, competitiveness and for potential end beneficiaries of cohesion funds, and should therefore be revised;

Or. en

Amendment 115

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 c. Underlines that the quality of project selection is key to ensuring that EU funds are always used in line with the agreed programming framework, as well as from the point of view of the overall effectiveness of the policy; calls on the Commission to make it a priority to strictly enforce the application of the partnership principle, ensuring that Member States recruit genuinely qualified and representative organisations as partners during programming, as well as members of monitoring committees; urges the Commission to regularly control how Member States select experts tasked with the assessment and selection of project applications so that the necessary level of expertise is ensured and that fraud is prevented;

Or. en

Amendment 116

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 c. Recommends the introduction of "smart conditionality" for cohesion funding, which would allow Member States to flexibly reallocate resources in response to economic, social, or environmental crises without compromising long-term strategic objectives.

Or. en

Amendment 117

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 c. Considers that simplification measures should not get in the way of gender mainstreaming;

Or. en

Amendment 118

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 d. Considers that existing simplified cost options should be further developed, and introduced as obligatory, rather than optional measure in a wide range of programmes already under the current programming period, especially for the benefit of NGOs, SMEs and promoters of small local projects;

Or. en

Amendment 119

Klara Dostalova, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4 d. Calls for greater flexibility for Member States in reallocating cohesion policy funds during programming periods to better respond to emerging challenges such as economic crises, demographic changes, or environmental emergencies.

Or. en

Amendment 120

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Points out that the active and obligatory involvement of LRAs in the preparation, programming, implementation, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of projects in the areas they administer is a fundamental pre-condition for successful and tailored simplification;	5. Points out that the active involvement of national, regional and local authorities in the preparation, programming, implementation, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of projects in the areas they administer is a fundamental pre-condition for successful and tailored simplification;

Or. en

Amendment 121

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Points out that the active and obligatory involvement of LRAs in the preparation, programming, implementation, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of projects in the areas they administer is a fundamental pre-condition for successful and tailored simplification;	5. Points out that the active and obligatory involvement of LRAs in the preparation, programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects in the areas they administer is a fundamental pre-condition for successful and tailored simplification;

Or. ro

Amendment 122

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	5a. Points out that, in the absence of a strong partnership with the local and regional level and without strengthening its administrative capacity, cohesion policy risks becoming an overly-centralised process with little impact on the balanced development of European regions;

Or. ro

Amendment 123

Fredis Beleris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	deleted

Or. el

Amendment 124

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 125

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	6. Calls on the Commission to explore the reform of the European Semester so that it becomes a participatory process involving the Member States and to maintain GDP in the distribution key as the main criterion for establishing financial allocations, with any injection of flexibility into the criteria having to take into consideration relevant factors for attaining the basic objectives of cohesion policy, as in the case of the social cohesion dimension; in line with its position adopted at national level, Romania considers that regional GDP per capita must continue to be the main criterion for establishing financial allocations among Member States; any injection of flexibility into the criteria must take into account relevant factors for attaining the fundamental objectives of cohesion policy, such as the social cohesion dimension, including with reference to the needs of marginalised communities, which are those most affected by poverty;

Or. ro

Amendment 126

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most; underlines that these indicators should include criteria such as the costs of guarding the external borders, exposure to natural disasters, geostrategic location, insularity and maritime transport costs, as well as depopulation in border regions;

Or. el

Amendment 127

Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester;

Or. en

Amendment 128

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	6. Calls on the Commission to explore a reform of the European Semester to better align with multi-level governance including the consultation of subnational governments in the validation of Country Specific Recommendations, the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester, and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;

Or. en

Amendment 129

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	6. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding and to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester;

Or. en

Amendment 130

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial impact assessment in proposals that could affect cohesion policy, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;

Or. en

Amendment 131

Gabriella Gerzsenyi

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	6. Calls on the Commission to explore the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;

Or. en

Amendment 132

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing social and territorial disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;

Or. en

Amendment 133

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Calls on the Commission to explore the inclusion of a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and the proposal of a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;	6. Calls on the Commission to include a territorial and governance impact assessment in the European Semester and to develop and include a broader set of well-being indices and indicators that could complement GDP in the distribution key, with the aim of further reducing disparities, including at intra-regional level, and of enabling better targeted investments where they are needed most;

Or. en

Amendment 134

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	6 a. Emphasises the need to revise the EU State aid rules to provide Member States with greater flexibility to support strategic investments in key sectors such as housing, infrastructure, and environmental sustainability. This revision should ensure that state-supported initiatives, especially in disadvantaged regions, are not hindered by outdated regulations and are better aligned with EU cohesion policy objectives and allow greater flexibility for Member States to support strategic investments

Or. en

Amendment 135

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	6 a. Believes that National Contact Points (NCPs) from direct management programmes should be integrated into the national and regional programming of cohesion and rural development funds to foster synergies and strengthen capacity building across centrally and jointly managed programmes operating in the same territories and policy areas;

Or. en

Amendment 136

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	6a. Calls on the Commission to introduce a simplified regulatory framework ensuring that any new administrative requirements are offset by the removal of an existing requirement, in order to avoid burdensome procedures for beneficiaries;

Or. fr

Amendment 137

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	6 a. Considers that any proposal for an increase in flexibility of thematic concentration requirements should not jeopardize the long-term objectives of the policy and should not alter its strategic orientation;

Or. en

Amendment 138

Sabrina Repp, Klára Dobrev, Matthias Ecke, Sofie Eriksson

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	6 a. insists that cohesion funding should continue to address all areas of the European Union by supporting place-based challenges and transformative processes;

Or. en

Amendment 139

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	6b. Recommends introducing a specific programme within the cohesion funds dedicated to the ORs and OCTs, incorporating greater flexibility in the eligibility criteria and a maximum European co-financing rate to compensate for the additional costs associated with their remoteness and insularity;

Or. fr

Amendment 140

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;	deleted

Or. ro

Amendment 141

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;	7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI; further proposes prioritizing investments that contribute to economic resilience, infrastructure development, and energy independence to ensure long-term strategic benefits for the Member States and the EU.

Or. en

Amendment 142

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;	7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI, with the selection of projects delegated to the local and regional level to ensure that programmes can effectively address actual needs;

Or. en

Amendment 143

Fredis Beleris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;	7. Suggests exploring proposals for problem-solving and technical assistance for the implementation of strategies and completion of studies, with a view to the allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;

Or. el

Amendment 144

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;	7. Encourages the use of integrated regional development tools such as ITI and CLLD and suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;

Or. en

Amendment 145

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;	7. Suggests exploring different options for allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI, especially in rural and remote areas and in the eastern border regions of the EU;

Or. en

Amendment 146

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;	7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI, especially in rural and remote areas;

Or. en

Amendment 147

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;	7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI or other territorial tools;

Or. en

Amendment 148

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Suggests exploring different options for the mandatary allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;	7. Suggests exploring different options for the allocation of a certain share of the cohesion policy budget to both CLLD and ITI;

Or. en

Amendment 149

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7 a. Calls for the creation in the next revision post-2027 of a single European platform that allows beneficiaries, in particular small beneficiaries, to have a swift access to the different European funds; believes that the Commission and the Member States should provide beneficiaries all the necessary information to access to European funds through this platform; considers that the reduction of bureaucratic processes is essential to ease the accessibility of European funds and that a single platform could help in this regard;

Or. en

Amendment 150

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7 a. Believes that the growing number of integrated territorial development initiatives—within and beyond cohesion and rural development policy—often lack concrete links to Structural Funds; Considers this disconnect, seen in initiatives like the Harnessing Talent, the Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities and Mission Cities, limits their ability to move beyond pilot projects and deliver lasting impact;

Or. en

Amendment 151

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7 a. Suggests the standardisation of simplified cost options as one of the most important simplification measures to reduce administrative costs and burdens and to reduce the error rate;

Or. en

Amendment 152

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;	8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy and reiterates that multi-level governance, subsidiarity, shared management and place-based approach should remain its underlying guiding principles; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, in particular the green investment standards and the more stringent DNSH, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding1a, proper involvement of LRAs and civil society, or delays and risks of non-completion of measures; expresses concern about the potential impact on cross
	_________________
	1a ECA Special Report 07/2023: Design of the Commission’s control system for the RRF; ECA Special Report 13/2024: Absorption of funds from the Recovery and Resilience Facility, paragraphs 53 - 56

Or. en

Amendment 153

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;	8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding; condemns any attempt aimed at decreasing the national sovereignty of Member States through centralised management mechanisms and calls for the specific defence needs and security issues of EU regions, especially those with external borders, to be taken into account when allocating cohesion policy funds;

Or. el

Amendment 154

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;	8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that this model is not suitable for cohesion policy;

Or. ro

Amendment 155

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;	8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of cohesion policy; notes that, while the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) was designed to provide a rapid response to economic challenges, its implementation has faced significant difficulties, including low absorption rates, delays in fund disbursement, and lack of transparency in the allocation process. Highlights that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein. Stresses that the centralised model has exposed several critical weaknesses, particularly in relation to the traceability, efficiency, and long-term impact of EU funding. ;

Or. en

Amendment 156

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;	8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy that undermines multilevel governance, stressing instead the importance of inclusive co-design involving LRAs; stresses that the centralised model used within the RRF has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;

Or. en

Amendment 157

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;	8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy and calls for Member States to have the right to adapt the rules on the allocation of funds to better meet local and sectoral needs; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;

Or. fr

Amendment 158

Rosa Serrano Sierra, Klára Dobrev

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;	8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding; highlights that the multi-level governance facilitates the design of tailor-made solutions for regions and rural areas;

Or. en

Amendment 159

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;	8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy that undermines multilevel governance, stressing instead the importance of inclusive co-design involving LRAs; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;

Or. en

Amendment 160

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;	8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation or renationalisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;

Or. en

Amendment 161

Gabriella Gerzsenyi

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of the cohesion policy; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;	8. Opposes any form of top-down centralisation reform of cohesion policy programming; acknowledges, however, some positive elements currently being developed within the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but draws attention to the fact that in programmes under direct management, the disbursement of funds to Member States does not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the milestones and targets included therein; stresses that the centralised model has highlighted several critical issues, including regarding the traceability of EU funding;

Or. en

Amendment 162

Rosa Serrano Sierra, Klára Dobrev

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8 a. Stresses that simplification must not imply minimising the role of regional and local authorities; draws attention to the role of these authorities in the successful implementation of key EU projects, with particular reference to those funded through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund and Interreg programmes; notes that the cohesion policy, through its European Structural and Investment Fund, has significantly contributed to the financing of key transport projects, particularly cross-border and missing links; considers that in the next MFF, structural funds should continue helping EU regions and cities reduce disparities and improve territorial accessibility and sustainable connectivity across the EU, including for the connectivity and accessibility for people living in peripheral, rural, island, mountainous, and outermost regions as well as other disadvantaged geographical areas;

Or. en

Amendment 163

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8 a. Highlights the significant lack of traceability and accountability in the management of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), particularly in terms of auditing, fund allocation, and measurable outcomes. Stresses that the current centralised model has resulted in limited transparency regarding how funds are spent and whether they effectively achieve their intended objectives and reach the ultimately private beneficiaries. Warns that the absence of robust monitoring mechanisms and clear audit requirements risks undermining the credibility and long-term impact of EU financial instruments. Calls for stronger oversight, stricter performance-based evaluations, and greater alignment between disbursements and verified results to ensure that EU funds deliver tangible benefits for citizens and businesses.

Or. en

Amendment 164

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8 b. Stresses that reinforcing the role of local and regional authorities in the management of cohesion policy is essential to ensuring its effectiveness and resilience, even during the programming phase of operational programmes. Highlights that simplification efforts should not come at the expense of the added value provided by local and regional entities, which are best placed to address territorial needs and ensure that EU funds reach beneficiaries efficiently. Calls for a balanced approach that maintains strong multi-level governance while streamlining administrative procedures.

Or. en

Amendment 165

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period, taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors, especially in projects related to research and social issues;	deleted

Or. ro

Amendment 166

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period, taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors, especially in projects related to research and social issues;	9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can contribute to a more results-oriented cohesion policy but warns that their rigid application risks overlooking structural and long-term investment needs, particularly at the regional and local levels. Stresses that these instruments often rely on centralized management structures, which may hinder the ability of regional and local authorities to address specific territorial challenges effectively. Highlights that the imposition of a one-size-fits-all approach in the 2028-2034 programming period could disproportionately affect projects related to research, social policies, and local infrastructure, where measurable short-term outcomes do not always reflect real impact. Calls for greater flexibility in the design of funding mechanisms, ensuring that regional and local authorities retain the necessary autonomy to implement cohesion policy in alignment with their development priorities.

Or. en

Amendment 167

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period, taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors, especially in projects related to research and social issues;	9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period; in this context calls on the European Commission to adopt a flexible approach that combines result-based and traditional cost-based funding taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors and the heterogeneity of the needs of the final beneficiaries, especially in projects related to research and social issues; supports increasing lump-sum payments based on milestones, similarly to the practice with the Creative Europe programme;

Or. en

Amendment 168

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period, taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors, especially in projects related to research and social issues;	9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms may lead to delays in the flow of funds, and thus constitute an obstacle to the achievement of cohesion policy objectives; it may also complicate the control of the regularity of expenditure, including counteracting double financing;

Or. en

Amendment 169

Gabriella Gerzsenyi

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period, taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors, especially in projects related to research and social issues;	9. Acknowledges that performance-based implementation can be instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against reforming the core principles of programming and the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period, taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors, especially in projects related to research and social issues;

Or. en

Amendment 170

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period, taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors, especially in projects related to research and social issues;	9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period, taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors and contexts, especially in projects related to research and social issues;

Or. en

Amendment 171

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms can be instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period, taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors, especially in projects related to research and social issues;	9. Acknowledges that performance-based mechanisms are instrumental in making the cohesion policy more efficient and results-orientated, but cautions against the one-size-fits-all imposition of this model in the context of the new 2028-2034 programming period, taking into due consideration the specificities of different spending sectors, especially in projects related to research and social issues;

Or. en

Amendment 172

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	9 a. Considers it necessary to consider whether applying net financial corrections in all cases where irregularities are detected after such expenditure has been included in a payment claim is justified in cases where there is no suspicion of fraud given this approach can hamper the appetite for innovative measures from Member States; notes that previously such "irregular" expenditure could be replaced by "regular" expenditure

Or. en

Amendment 173

Sabrina Repp, Nora Mebarek, Klára Dobrev, Matthias Ecke

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	9 a. acknowledges specifically that authorities, civil society organizations and SMEs should not suffer from the introduction of performance-based models due to limited financial resources to pre-finance measures or buffer potential losses in the case of failure to reach targets;

Or. en

Amendment 174

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	9 a. Emphasises that the cohesion policy must continue to simplify and promote cross-border, transnational, and interregional cooperation.

Or. en

Amendment 175

Isabelle Le Callennec

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	9a. Calls, if the Commission decides to focus on performance, for targets and milestones to be decentralised;

Or. fr

Amendment 176

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases;	10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases; underlines that these problems are particularly acute in island, mountainous and remote regions, as well as in border regions which bear the burden of guarding external borders and managing migration flows; proposes the introduction of a specific pre-financing mechanism with increased allocations for projects aimed at strengthening border infrastructure, cultural and religious heritage and transport networks in these regions;

Or. el

Amendment 177

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases;	10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases, as well as simplified access to funds via a digital one-stop-shop mechanism that would bring together all administrative procedures into a single platform for beneficiaries;

Or. fr

Amendment 178

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases;	10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases; further proposes that such pre-financing measures prioritize small municipalities and rural areas where administrative capacities are often limited.

Or. en

Amendment 179

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases;	10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities, which suffer in some Member States from a lack of fiscal and budgetary autonomy, from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases;

Or. en

Amendment 180

Isabelle Le Callennec

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases;	10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases and simplification of co-financing rules;

Or. fr

Amendment 181

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases;	10. Acknowledges that liquidity problems deter potential beneficiaries such as municipalities from applying for cohesion policy funded projects and therefore calls for a significant and tailored increase in pre-financing in such cases to support rapid disbursement of Cohesion Policy funds;

Or. en

Amendment 182

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Stresses the need for collaboration and knowledge exchange between LRAs and capacity building by investing in the technical and administrative capacity of LRAs.

Or. en

Amendment 183

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	10 a. Emphasises the need to apply the principle of “Proportionality of Controls,” ensuring that small-scale projects are subject to simplified and proportionate administrative requirements. This approach should minimize unnecessary reporting and control mechanisms for projects with lower financial risk, while ensuring robust oversight for large-scale initiatives.

Or. en

Amendment 184

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	10 a. Emphasises the need to transition from hybrid and paper-based administration to fully digital processes, supporting the implementation of e-cohesion systems to reduce administrative burdens, enhance efficiency, and facilitate electronic communication between managing authorities and beneficiaries.

Or. en

Amendment 185

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Expresses its concern about the regular reports from stakeholders on the lack of application of horizontal principles by Member States in the preparation of partnership agreements; suggests that a revised European Code of Conduct should be integrated directly into the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) to ensure its binding nature;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 186

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Expresses its concern about the regular reports from stakeholders on the lack of application of horizontal principles by Member States in the preparation of partnership agreements; suggests that a revised European Code of Conduct should be integrated directly into the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) to ensure its binding nature;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 187

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Expresses its concern about the regular reports from stakeholders on the lack of application of horizontal principles by Member States in the preparation of partnership agreements; suggests that a revised European Code of Conduct should be integrated directly into the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) to ensure its binding nature;	11. Expresses its concern about the regular reports from stakeholders on the lack of application of horizontal principles by Member States in the preparation of partnership agreements; suggests that a revised European Code of Conduct should be integrated directly into the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) to ensure its binding nature and calls on the Commission to explore measures to enhance Parliament’s oversight and monitoring powers on Partnership Agreement and Programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 188

Fredis Beleris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Expresses its concern about the regular reports from stakeholders on the lack of application of horizontal principles by Member States in the preparation of partnership agreements; suggests that a revised European Code of Conduct should be integrated directly into the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) to ensure its binding nature;	11. Expresses its concern about the regular reports from stakeholders on the lack of application of horizontal principles by Member States in the preparation of partnership agreements;

Or. el

Amendment 189

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Expresses its concern about the regular reports from stakeholders on the lack of application of horizontal principles by Member States in the preparation of partnership agreements; suggests that a revised European Code of Conduct should be integrated directly into the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) to ensure its binding nature;	11. Expresses its concern about the regular reports from stakeholders on the lack of application of horizontal principles by Member States in the preparation of partnership agreements; suggests that a revised European Code of Conduct should be adopted;

Or. ro

Amendment 190

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Expresses its concern about the regular reports from stakeholders on the lack of application of horizontal principles by Member States in the preparation of partnership agreements; suggests that a revised European Code of Conduct should be integrated directly into the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) to ensure its binding nature;	11. Expresses its concern about the regular reports from stakeholders on the lack of application of horizontal principles by Member States in the preparation of partnership agreements; suggests that a revised European Code of Conduct to ensure its binding nature and cover direct management programmes with territorial impact;

Or. en

Amendment 191

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	11 a. Stresses that simplification should not come at the expense of environmental and social conditionalities, and calls for clear sustainability criteria in project selection and monitoring; stresses the need for a reinforced monitoring framework to assess compliance with these principles;

Or. en

Amendment 192

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	11 a. Recalls the importance of a strict application of the financial rules of the Union in all programmes and on all beneficiaries, in order to avoid all forms of fraud, conflicts of interest, corruption, double funding and money laundering;

Or. en

Amendment 193

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools, and to ensure a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget;	12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools, and to ensure a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget; further calls for the mandatory implementation of the “Single Audit” principle as a core element of cohesion policy oversight; this principle should ensure that projects approved and successfully audited at the regional or national level are not subjected to redundant inspections at the EU level unless serious irregularities are identified; Member States’ national and regional audit authorities should automatically have their audits recognized, provided they comply with EU standards and unless major irregularities are detected;

Or. en

Amendment 194

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools, and to ensure a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget;	12. Calls on the Commission and Member States to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools, and to ensure a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget; recalls that simplification must not undermine the principles of good administration, public procurement and control crucial to ensure the enforcement of social and environmental conditionalities and the rule of law principle;

Or. en

Amendment 195

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools, and to ensure a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget;	12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools or to minimise the data retention obligations of Managing Authorities allowing them instead to rely on national tools or ARACHNE where necessary, while ensuring a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget;

Or. en

Amendment 196

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools, and to ensure a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget;	12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to provide more opportunities for integrated projects, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools, and to ensure a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget;

Or. en

Amendment 197

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, to ensure the interoperability of data-mining tools, and to ensure a balance between simplification and protection of the EU budget;	12. Calls on the Commission to propose further measures to prevent and avoid double funding, while ensuring that the ORs and OCTs benefit from more flexible management of the funds in order to take account of their economic and geographical specificities;

Or. fr

Amendment 198

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Daniel Attard

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	12 a. Urges the Commission in the context of the forthcoming revision of the European Public Procurement Directive to further promote the use of the social clause collective bargaining; calls on the Commission to strengthen the social clause and underlines that contracting authorities must exclude from public tenders economic operators that have engaged in criminal activities or activities to disrupt or weaken collective bargaining or trade union organisations, such as union busting;

Or. en

Amendment 199

Sabrina Repp, Matthias Ecke

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	12 a. insists that cohesion funds that were suspended - either under the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism, or because of non-fulfilment of enabling conditions in the Common Provisions Regulations, or due to any other violation of Union law - must not be reallocated to other programmes, so that the integrity of the suspension decision is preserved, until its objectives achieved and all conditions of access to funding are fulfilled;

Or. en

Amendment 200

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	12 a. Calls on the Commission to establish a mandatory interoperability framework between EU and national databases on beneficiaries, ensuring real-time data exchange on final recipients of funds; emphasizes that such measures will enhance transparency, prevent double funding, and strengthen financial control, including fraud detection;

Or. en

Amendment 201

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	12 a. Believes that eligibility and State aid rules should be consistent across EU programmes targeting the same policy goals in the same territories; Stresses that shared management programmes should benefit from similar exemptions from State aid rules as those under direct management, like Horizon Europe or the Connecting Europe Facility;

Or. en

Amendment 202

Isabelle Le Callennec

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	12a. Calls on the Commission to carry out studies on the synergy between cohesion funds and sectoral programmes, as it has done for Horizon Europe;

Or. fr

Amendment 203

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	12 a. Encourages better data collection and the establishment of common monitoring dashboards across cohesion programmes, allowing for cross-comparability and transparency.

Or. en

Amendment 204

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	12 a. Encourages better data collection and the establishment of common monitoring dashboards across cohesion programmes, allowing for cross-comparability and transparency;

Or. en

Amendment 205

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 206

Gabriella Gerzsenyi

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities, regional authorities, small and medium-sized enterprises and civil society organisations in the next multiannual financial framework and applying a proportionality approach within the conditionality mechanism; insists the Commission to divert sources to directly- and indirectly-managed programmes and to explore additional ways of funding;

Or. en

Amendment 207

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework, with a particular focus on strengthening security infrastructure and cultural heritage, as well as tackling depopulation, and including smart conditionality that respects the sovereignty of Member States;

Or. el

Amendment 208

Matthias Ecke, Klára Dobrev, Sabrina Repp

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for local authorities in the next multiannual financial framework by applying smart conditionality in the event that the Member State does not comply with the horizontal enabling conditions as outlined in the CPR, with the rule of law or the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

Or. en

Amendment 209

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality to ensure regions can continue to contribute to EU strategic goals regardless of national policy;

Or. en

Amendment 210

Elena Nevado del Campo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	13. Calls for enhanced funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework;

Or. en

Amendment 211

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct access to funding for LRAs, cities and other entities such as SMEs and civil society organisations in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;

Or. en

Amendment 212

Sabrina Repp, Klára Dobrev, Sofie Eriksson

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for local and regional authorities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;

Or. en

Amendment 213

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism to ensure direct direct access to cohesion funds for local and regional authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 214

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of promoting funding for smart cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;

Or. ro

Amendment 215

Fredis Beleris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring direct funding for cities in the next multiannual financial framework and including smart conditionality;	13. Recommends the setting up of a simplified and streamlined mechanism with the aim of ensuring funding for cities and urban areas in the next multiannual financial framework;

Or. el

Amendment 216

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13 a. Welcomes tools like the European Rural Toolkit that aim to guide beneficiaries through available programmes; Stresses, however, that the need for such one-stop-shops highlights the excessive complexity of current structures, which remain inaccessible for many beneficiaries, especially small public authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 217

Marko Vešligaj, Klára Dobrev, Hannes Heide

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13 a. Notes that within the direct funding mechanism, special attention must be paid to the needs of rural areas and capacity building efforts should be created and offered to ensure that smaller, rural municipalities and authorities can benefit from this funding so it is not limited only to cities;

Or. en

Amendment 218

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13 a. Recognizes the potential of digitalization to reduce administrative burdens and calls for the establishment of a single EU-wide digital access point for cohesion fund applications and management, integrated with national platforms;

Or. en

Amendment 219

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13a. Calls on the Commission to simplify the mechanisms for the adaptation of programmes by the Member States in order to avoid excessive delays in the implementation of projects and to allow for a quick response to emerging needs;

Or. fr

Amendment 220

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13 a. Stresses that the digitalisation of the management, reporting, monitoring and audit of EU funds is essential to improve access for potential beneficiaries and to make the management of funds more efficient and transparent;

Or. en

Amendment 221

Fredis Beleris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13a. Recognises the importance of allocating cohesion funds through financial instruments to promote competitiveness in all EU regions and leverage both private and public funds;

Or. el

Amendment 222

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;	14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance; calls for the allocation of resources for capacity building for social partners especially trade unions in order to increase their inputs and cooperation the good management and implementation of EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 223

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;	14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity with dedicated financial resources, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governanceand promote results-based management, including measurable indicators and theory-of-change approaches for programme evaluation.

Or. en

Amendment 224

Fredis Beleris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;	14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity and ensuring the efficient allocation of resources by management bodies at national, regional and local level, especially in LRAs in island and remote regions, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;

Or. el

Amendment 225

Gabriella Gerzsenyi

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;	14. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity and provide technical assistance, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;

Or. en

Amendment 226

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;	14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity with dedicated financial resources, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on an appropriate strategy focused on economic convergence, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;

Or. en

Amendment 227

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;	14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, with a particular focus on supporting Member States in developing their own digital tools and training programs to reduce dependency on complex EU-level systems and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;

Or. en

Amendment 228

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;	14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder and civil society involvement and on good governance;

Or. en

Amendment 229

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building effective administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;	14. Stresses the need to increase investments in building suitable administrative capacity, especially in LRAs, with a view to encouraging effective decentralised management and implementation of EU funds, and highlights that cohesion policy outcomes rely on forward-looking and inclusive strategy, on proper stakeholder involvement and on good governance;

Or. ro

Amendment 230

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14 a. Calls on the Commission to strenghten dedicated technical assistance funding to build administrative capacity in local and regional authorities, particularly in regions with historically low absorption rates; encourages the establishment of a permanent advisory network to assist municipalities in navigating the complexities of cohesion policy implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 231

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14 a. Recommends enhancing technical assistance and capacity-building programs specifically for local and regional authorities to improve their ability to manage and implement cohesion policy projects. This should include specialized training, advisory services, and dedicated support for smaller municipalities with limited administrative resources.

Or. en

Amendment 232

Fredis Beleris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14a. Calls for the reinforcement of technical assistance instruments in the cohesion policy framework, such as those developed in cooperation between the EIB and the Commission to support strategic planning capacities for territorial investments, as well as targeted advisory support for the identification, planning and preparation of projects.

Or. el

Amendment 233

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14 b. Asks the Commission to propose, in the new state aid framework, a further simplification of the application of State aid rules in the case of cohesion-related cross-sectoral funding that combines EU and national funds (such as in multi-funding under the ESF+ and ERDF) with the aim of reducing errors and administrative burden at national and regional level, while enhancing the effectiveness of Cohesion policy investments on the ground and avoiding market distortion; Calls on the Commission to consider projects supported by Cohesion Policy funds as compliant with state aid law, similarly to Horizon Europe and InvestEU.

Or. en

Amendment 234

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14 b. Calls on the Commission to improve public awareness and transparency by requiring regular updates on cohesion policy project outcomes, financial allocations, and measurable social impact indicators. These updates should be made easily accessible through a dedicated online platform to ensure citizens can monitor EU-funded projects in their regions.

Or. en

Amendment 235

Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 236

Maravillas Abadía Jover

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation;	15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls at the start of the budgetary period to detect and mitigate potential errors before they are repeated in subsequent years of implementation. Stresses the importance of aligning these measures with the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) in its Annual Report, particularly in relation to strengthening financial management, improving the efficiency of expenditure, and ensuring that errors identified in previous programming periods are not perpetuated. Calls for a more risk-based audit strategy that balances efficiency and accountability while preserving the necessary oversight to safeguard EU funds.

Or. en

Amendment 237

Klára Dobrev, Nora Mebarek, Matthias Ecke, Sabrina Repp, Sérgio Gonçalves, Rosa Serrano Sierra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation;	15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation; stresses that the programmes run by Member States falling under the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism, or the Article 7 procedure, or which have not joined EPPO, must be placed under tighter scrutiny;

Or. en

Amendment 238

Vladimir Prebilič

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation;	15. Considers that a revised approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation; recommends the introduction of a risk-based audit and control approach to reduce unnecessary duplication while maintaining effective financial oversight and fraud prevention;

Or. en

Amendment 239

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation;	15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, lowering both the error and fraud rate, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 240

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation;	15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy while avoiding a return to complex and lengthy designation procedures that existed prior to 2021; calls for greater alignment of the interpretation of regulations by audit bodies across the EU and across all funds

Or. en

Amendment 241

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Considers that a new approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation;	15. Considers that a new unitary approach to audit and controls should be enshrined in the next cohesion policy, introducing preventive controls executed at the beginning of the budgetary perspective to detect and eliminate the possibility of repeating potential errors in subsequent years of implementation;

Or. ro

Amendment 242

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Encourages moving away from the use of statistical extrapolation for financial corrections, ensuring that single financial penalties are imposed only on projects where actual financial irregularities are identified, to prevent disproportionate financial burdens on managing authorities and beneficiaries;

Or. en

Amendment 243

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 a. Considers that a change in the approach to audits and controls is necessary to clearly distinguish between non-intentional errors (or omissions) and frauds; stresses that non-intentional errors should not automatically result in penalties but should align with the right to make unintentional mistakes;

Or. en

Amendment 244

Klara Dostalova

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 a. Calls for the introduction of preventive control mechanisms at the start of each programming period to identify and address potential errors early in the process. This proactive approach would reduce delays in project implementation and minimize the risk of fund mismanagement.

Or. en

Amendment 245

Kathleen Funchion

on behalf of The Left Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 a. Considers that elements of the existing Simplified Cost-Options (SCOs) and financing-not-linked-to-costs (FNLC) schemes could be extended more broadly by looking at measures which reduce the administrative burden in terms of public procurement, verification and audit thresholds.

Or. en

Amendment 246

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 a. Encourages the broader use of financing not linked to costs (FNLC) and simplified cost options (SCO) in contexts where objectives are verifiable, especially for smaller beneficiaries such as local authorities or local action groups, to reduce bureaucracy and accelerate delivery.

Or. en

Amendment 247

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 a. Highlights the role of SMEs and calls for simplified application and reporting tools adapted to micro-enterprises and social economy actors, particularly in rural and outermost regions;

Or. en

Amendment 248

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 b. Calls on the Commission to introduce simplified reporting and auditing procedures for local authorities with fewer than 100,000 inhabitants and for beneficiaries located in rural areas, including reduced documentation requirements, extended reporting intervals, and the use of standard cost models or lump sums, to facilitate their access to cohesion funds.

Or. en

Amendment 249

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Elsi Katainen, Ľubica Karvašová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 b. considers that the principle of a single audit should be strengthened, and measures should be implemented to reduce duplicate controls and audits across regional, national, and EU levels for the same project and beneficiary, ensuring consistent interpretation of regulations and minimizing administrative burdens on managing authorities and beneficiaries;

Or. en

Amendment 250

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 b. Highlights the role of SMEs and calls for simplified application and reporting tools adapted to micro-enterprises and social economy actors, particularly in rural areas, islands and outermost regions.

Or. en

Amendment 251

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 c. Calls on the Commission to introduce simplified reporting and auditing procedures for local authorities with fewer than 100,000 inhabitants and for beneficiaries located in rural areas, including reduced documentation requirements, extended reporting intervals, and the use of standard cost models or lump sums, to facilitate their access to cohesion funds.

Or. en

Amendment 252

Waldemar Buda

on behalf of the ECR Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Calls on the Commission to explore different options for consolidating funds, including by reintegrating a revised EAFRD into the CPR;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 253

Gabriella Gerzsenyi

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Calls on the Commission to explore different options for consolidating funds, including by reintegrating a revised EAFRD into the CPR;	16. Calls on the Commission to explore different options for consolidating funds, including by reintegrating the community-based and local development interventions of the EAFRD into the CPR;

Or. en

Amendment 254

Daniel Buda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Calls on the Commission to explore different options for consolidating funds, including by reintegrating a revised EAFRD into the CPR;	16. Calls on the Commission to explore different options for optimising investments from European funds, including by reintegrating a revised EAFRD into the CPR;

Or. ro

Amendment 255

Afroditi Latinopoulou

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16a. Highlights the need to strengthen the defence dimension of cohesion funds, as territorial integrity and security are prerequisites for social and economic development; Calls for the creation of a dedicated funding mechanism for border regions, especially island and mountain border regions in the Mediterranean and eastern Europe, that are under geopolitical pressure or subject to violations of their sovereignty, with the aim of strengthening their resilience, protecting critical infrastructure and preserving their economic activity and populations;

Or. el

Amendment 256

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16 a. Advises against creating ad hoc funds or new instruments during a programming period, and instead calls for fully utilising existing Cohesion Policy funds and rules—by, for example, broadening eligibility—rather than establishing parallel structures;

Or. en

Amendment 257

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16 a. Recommends adopting a ‘lead fund’ approach to manage multiple EU funds operating in the same territory, applying one set of rules and one audit trail, to reduce administrative complexity and encourage integrated territorial approaches.

Or. en

Amendment 258

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16 b. Considers, in line with better regulation, that new Commission initiatives should only be proposed when existing programmes cannot be adapted or expanded to meet the same policy goals;

Or. en

Amendment 259

Dan-Ştefan Motreanu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16 c. Believes that the number of programmes, regardless of management type, should be shaped by policy needs and the most effective territorial level—not fixed in advance by arbitrary limits;

Or. en

Amendment 260

Antonella Sberna, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	17 a. Warns against gold-plating and excessive national rules that exceed EU requirements, and calls for the promotion of mutual trust between governance levels to avoid administrative overload.

Or. en