Konstantinos HATZIDAKIS (EPP-ED, EL)
Report on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004)0492 - 2004/0163(AVC))
Doc.: A6-0177/2005
Procedure : Assent
Debate : 05.07.2006
Vote : 06.07.2005 In adopting a report with 574 votes in favour 45 against and 44 abstentions in response to the Commission proposal laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund, MEPs key positions are: that 0.41% of Community GDP should be earmarked for cohesion policy; a rejection of any significant modification to the overall architecture of the Commission proposals, including attempts to renationalise all or part of EU regional policy; cohesion policy to be ring-fenced from negotiations on the financial perspective or attempts to make drastic cuts in EU spending. Specifically on financing, Parliament adopted a paragraph which calls for "a political solution providing for special compensation to be established for those regions or Member States that face substantial financial losses, due to the disparities caused by the implementation of the Commission proposal regarding the allocation of financial resources." Parliament believes that the uncertainty surrounding the financing of structural policies might further undermine citizens' confidence in the European project. The House urges the European Council to take a decision on the financial perspective as early as possible, and in any event before the end of 2005, in order to ensure that an adequate period is allowed to European regions and Member States for the preparation of the new operational programmes. Eligibility criteria - support for convergence regions Of interest to some Member States is the inclusion of housing costs as eligible for financing. MEPs are broadly opposed to any attempt to classify expenditure not related to investment, such as housing costs, as eligible for Community co-financing. However, they believe that the costs of renovating social housing aimed at saving energy and protecting the environment should be eligible. Parliament also takes a clear stance on the potential penalties for company relocations, expressing strong support for the Commission proposal to impose financial penalties on firms which have received EU funding but then decide to relocate. Parliament advocates monitoring systems to quantify the economic and social costs of any relocation so that penalties may be set accordingly. It calls for legal measures to ensure that firms receiving Community funding do not relocate for a "long and predetermined" period. MEPs oppose any reduction in the ceilings for state aid to convergence regions, including those which are victims of the "statistical effect" (whereby EU average GDP has decreased following enlargement, causing some countries and regions to drop below the eligibility threshold for Objective 1 financing for the EU's poorest regions). Parliament calls for statistical effect regions to have a funding level of 85% of the resources provided to the full convergence regions at the beginning of the funding period, which will reduce to 60% by 2013. As to transparency and the fight against corruption, MEPs note that the Commission and the Member States have joint responsibility for the Structural Funds. It calls on the Member States to make annual declarations of assurance that EU taxpayers' money has been spent in a regular, legal and transparent manner. MEPs want these declarations to be signed by the finance minister of each Member State. The Commission, should, say MEPs clearly define what it means by "irregularity for reporting purposes by Member States. Other issues raised by the Parliament include support for the outermost regions (Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Reunion, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands), special mention of Malta and Cyprus and the abolition of the Commission's arbitrary 150 km limit for defining maritime regions eligible for cross-border co-operation programmes. Parliament only has the power of assent (i.e. the power to approve or reject the entire Commission proposal without amendment). However, rapporteur Konstantinos HATZIDAKIS (EPP-ED, GR) used Rule 75 (3) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure which allows Parliament to draw up an interim report setting out the House's priorities before a final decision on assent is taken by the Parliament. Press enquiries:
Richard Freedman
(Strasbourg) tel.(33-3) 881 73785
(Brussels) tel.(32-2) 28 41448
e-mail : region-press@europarl.eu.int
Archivo:European-parliament-strasbourg-inside.jpg|thumb|El salón de conferencias del Parlamento Europeo en Estrasburgo.
El Parlamento Europeo ha rechazado la directiva sobre patentes de software apoyada por ''lobbies'' de grandes compañías de software como Microsoft, Siemens, Nokia y Alcatel, agrupadas bajo el nombre de European Information & Communications Technology Industry Association ( EICTA).

648 de los de 680 MEP rechazaron el texto, 18 votaron a favor y 14 se abstuvieron.

Se esperaba un rechazo a la directiva cuando la European People's Party, inicialmente a favor de la directiva, decidió oponerse.

Los Verdes Europeos y el Partido europeo por las libertades, demócratas y reformadores también votaron en contra del texto, alegando que podría abrir el camino a posibilidades no restringidas sobre las patentes de software. Michel Rocard, autor de numerosas enmiendas a la directiva original, dijo que la adopción de la mayoría de las modificaciones parecía poco probable. ''"Es mejor no tener ningún texto que uno malo"'', añadió.
 
Antes del voto, el reportero Michel Rocard había dejado entrever la irritación del Parlamento hacia la Comisión: ''"Hay una cólera colectiva en el parlamento debido a la forma en que la directiva fue tratada por la Comisión y el Consejo"''.

Durante el debate del martes, el Comisario Joaquín Almunia dijo a los MEP: ''"Si ustedes deciden rechazar la posición común, la Comisión no presentará una nueva propuesta."''.

El rechazo ha sido bienvenido por pequeñas y medianas compañías de software, así como por los defensores del software libre. La directiva estaba siendo seguida por una intesa campaña en Internet por los partidarios del Software libre y el Código abierto, que culminó con manifestaciones en los días previos a la votación.

No obstante, como ya han expresado múltiples grupos, el rechazo de la directiva, deja la puerta abierta a que cada país se autoregule con normas al respecto, mientras que con una aprobación de la directiva junto a las 21 enmiendas presentadas, habría impedido en toda la UE la aprobación de legislación a favor de las patentes de software pues habría contrariado una aprobada a nivel de la UE. Es más, la propuesta ha sido rechazada con su forma actual, de modo que sería posible volver a presentar otra propuesta de directiva de otro modo y aprovechando cualquier otra reunión como hicieron en las de Agricultura.