Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-01-Speech-4-012"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2007-02-01"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Statutul societăţii private europene (dezbatere)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070201.3.4-012"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-02-01-Speech-4-013⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Sharon Bowles⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2005-05-26--2007-03-13)²³ substitute; JURI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)²³ member; ECON (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)²³ unknown; Liberal Democrat Party (2005-05-12--2009-07-13)²³ member; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-01-19--2007-06-19)²³ member; ALDE (2005-05-12--2009-07-13)²³
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@cs¹ "Fru formand! Jeg vil også gerne som det første ønske Dem tillykke med valget og forsædet for Deres første forhandling. Jeg må også starte med en undskyldning til ordføreren, fordi, selv om jeg deltog i høringen om dette emne, kunne jeg ikke deltage i forhandlingen i udvalget, og jeg ved, at det så er lidt irriterende, når nogen så pludselig dukker op på plenum. Jeg glæder mig over størstedelen af de bagvedliggende principper for forslaget, men jeg har nogle bekymringer, som jeg håber, at Kommissionen vil undersøge nærmere i det fortsatte arbejde med spørgsmålet. Hr. Lehne, i Deres begrundelse til betænkningen siger De - og kommissæren har også sagt det netop nu, og jeg er enig - at statutten skal være fokuseret på SMV'ernes behov. Men det dækker naturligvis stort set alle virksomheder bortset fra de multinationale. For mig er det klart, at hvis vi følge alle henstillingerne i bilaget, vil det være de mellemstore snarere end de mindre virksomheder, der vil have fordel af dette eller vælge denne mulighed. Det vil helt sikkert ikke være nystartede virksomheder. De foreslåede kapitalkrav sikrer, at det bliver sådan. Jeg ønsker ikke, at folk skal sige "her står De som en brite, der ikke ønsker nogen kapitalkrav". Jeg erkender, at kapitalen ikke nødvendigvis skal være indbetalt, og jeg glæder mig over forsøgene på at finde et kompromis om dette, men det vil stadig få konsekvenser, navnlig for små virksomheder. Mindre virksomheder, hvad enten de er nystartede eller forsøger at udvide, har udgifter og problemer nok med at give bankerne både livrem og seler som garanti og har ikke brug for, at der tilføjes endnu et lag af økonomiske forventninger. Og tag ikke fejl, det forhold, at aktionærerne potentielt kan miste 10.000 euro, selv om de ikke er indbetalt fra starten, tilføjer et ekstra lag af økonomiske forventninger. Det betyder måske slet ikke noget, fordi det er frivilligt, og hvis man ikke bryder sig om statutten, behøver man ikke bruge den, men jeg foretrækker, at når man foreslår noget, kan alle virksomheder lide det og benytte sig af det. Selv om jeg har sagt, at der i nogle kredse måske vil være et begrænset incitament til at vælge dette, er det ikke nødvendigvis, fordi små virksomheder ikke driver forretning på tværs af grænserne eller ikke ønsker at gøre det. Mange helt små virksomheder giver sig af med betydelige grænseoverskridende aktiviteter, og i EF-Domstolens afgørelser slås det fast, at de har ret til det. Men fordi det er valgfrit, er det måske ikke vigtigt. Eller forholder det sig virkelig sådan? Jeg ønsker ikke en situation, hvor der gennem den nye statut indføres en diskriminerende faktor, hvor forbrugerne bliver bekymrede for, at hvis man ikke er stor nok til at anse det for at være umagen værd at blive et europæisk privat selskab, er man ikke stor nok til at drive forretning i Europa. Det ville være i fuldkommen modstrid med princippet for det indre marked og den gensidige betydning af at fostre og pleje små virksomheder på dette marked. På det indre marked må størrelsen ikke være afgørende."@da² ". Frau Präsidentin! Zunächst möchte auch ich Ihnen zu Ihrer Wahl und zu der ersten von Ihnen geführten Aussprache gratulieren. Zudem muss ich mich auch gleich beim Berichterstatter entschuldigen, denn bei der Anhörung zu diesem Thema war ich zwar zugegen, aber an der Aussprache im Ausschuss konnte ich nicht teilnehmen, und ich weiß, es ist etwas irritierend, wenn jemand dann plötzlich im Plenum auftaucht. Grundsätzlich begrüße ich den Gedanken, der diesem Vorschlag zugrunde liegt, aber ich habe einige Einwände, mit denen sich die Kommission im Verlauf ihrer weiteren Arbeit zu diesem Thema hoffentlich näher befassen wird. Herr Lehne, in Ihrer Begründung zum Bericht haben Sie darauf hingewiesen, dass sich das Statut auf die Bedürfnisse der KMU konzentrieren muss. Dies hat auch der Kommissar soeben gesagt, und ich stimme zu. Das betrifft jedoch nahezu alle Unternehmen mit Ausnahme multinationaler Konzerne. Wenn wir allen Empfehlungen im Anhang folgen wollen, dann liegt für mich auf der Hand, dass vor allem die mittleren und weniger die kleinen Unternehmen diese Möglichkeit wählen und von ihr profitieren werden. Neugründungen würden sicher nicht dazugehören. Dafür sorgen die vorgeschlagenen Eigenkapitalanforderungen. Ich will nicht, dass man sagt „Sie stellen sich hier als Britin hin und wollen keine Kapitalanforderungen“. Mir ist klar, dass das Kapital nicht unbedingt eingezahlt werden muss, und ich begrüße Bestrebungen, in dieser Frage einen Kompromiss zu erzielen, aber es wird dennoch Folgen haben, vor allem für kleine Unternehmen. Kleinere Unternehmen, ob sie gerade neu gegründet wurden oder sich auf Expansionskurs befinden, haben auch ohne diese zusätzlichen finanziellen Anforderungen schon mit genügend Kosten und Schwierigkeiten zu kämpfen, um Banken mit doppelten und dreifachen Garantien zu versorgen. Und täuschen Sie sich nicht: Wenn Aktionäre potenziell 10 000 Euro verlieren könnten, auch wenn diese nicht zu Beginn eingezahlt wurden, dann stellt das schon zusätzliche finanzielle Anforderung dar. Das mag zwar nicht von Bedeutung sein, weil es freiwillig ist, und wenn einem das Statut nicht gefällt, muss man es auch nicht nutzen, aber ich würde vorziehen, wenn etwas vorgeschlagen wird, das dann allen Unternehmen zusagt, von allen genutzt werden kann und für alle zugänglich ist. Auch wenn ich gesagt habe, dass in einigen Kreisen kaum Veranlassung bestehen wird, sich hierfür zu entscheiden, dann bedeutet das nicht, dass kleine Unternehmen keiner grenzüberschreitenden Geschäftstätigkeit nachgehen oder das nicht anstreben würden. Viele Kleinunternehmen sind in bedeutendem Umfang grenzüberschreitend tätig, was ihnen gemäß der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs auch eindeutig erlaubt ist. Doch angesichts der Wahlfreiheit ist das vielleicht auch kein Problem. Oder doch? Es soll nicht so weit kommen, dass das neue Statut diskriminierend wirkt, wenn Verbraucher sich Gedanken machen, dass man, wenn man nicht groß genug ist, um sich als Europäische Privatgesellschaft sehen zu wollen, auch nicht groß genug ist, um in Europa unternehmerisch tätig zu sein. Dies würde völlig dem Konzept des Binnenmarkts und der gleichzeitigen Bedeutung der Förderung und Entwicklung von Kleinunternehmen in diesem Markt widersprechen. In einem Binnenmarkt darf Größe keine Rolle spielen."@de^9,9 "Κυρία Πρόεδρε, καταρχάς επιτρέψτε μου να σας συγχαρώ και εγώ για την εκλογή σας και για τη διεύθυνση της πρώτης σας συζήτησης. Πρέπει επίσης να ξεκινήσω με μια συγγνώμη προς τον εισηγητή επειδή, αν και παρακολούθησα την ακρόαση επί του θέματος, δεν κατάφερα να συμμετάσχω στη συζήτηση στην επιτροπή και γνωρίζω ότι είναι κάπως ενοχλητικό όταν κάποιος «πετάγεται» μετά στην Ολομέλεια. Χαιρετίζω θερμά την ιδέα στην οποία βασίζεται η έκθεση, αλλά έχω ορισμένες ανησυχίες που ελπίζω ότι η Επιτροπή θα διερευνήσει περαιτέρω κατά τη διάρκεια των μελλοντικών εργασιών επί αυτού του θέματος. Κύριε Lehne, είπατε στην αιτιολογική σας έκθεση –και μάλιστα το επανέλαβε μόλις τώρα και ο Επίτροπος και συμφωνώ– ότι το καταστατικό θα πρέπει να εστιάσει στις ανάγκες των ΜΜΕ. Αλλά αυτό φυσικά καλύπτει σχεδόν όλες τις εταιρείες εκτός από τις πολυεθνικές. Για μένα είναι σαφές ότι αν ακολουθήσουμε όλες τις συστάσεις του παραρτήματος, εκείνοι που ενδέχεται να ωφεληθούν ή να επιλέξουν αυτήν τη λύση πλησιάζουν περισσότερο προς το μεσαίο παρά προς το μικρό άκρο του φάσματος των εταιριών. Σίγουρα δεν θα είναι νέες εταιρείες. Οι προτεινόμενες απαιτήσεις κεφαλαίων διασφαλίζουν ότι αυτό θα συμβεί. Δεν θέλω να ειπωθεί ότι «εδώ μιλάς σαν Βρετανίδα που δεν θέλει καμία απαίτηση κεφαλαίων». Αναγνωρίζω ότι το κεφάλαιο δεν χρειάζεται να καταβληθεί υποχρεωτικά και χαιρετίζω τις προσπάθειες εξεύρεσης συμβιβασμού ως προς το θέμα αυτό, αλλά θα εξακολουθεί να έχει επιπτώσεις, ιδιαίτερα στις μικρές επιχειρήσεις. Οι μικρότερες επιχειρήσεις, είτε είναι νέες είτε προσπαθούν να επεκταθούν, αντιμετωπίζουν αρκετές δαπάνες και δυσκολίες στην προσπάθεια να παράσχουν διπλές εγγυήσεις στις τράπεζες χωρίς να υπάρχει και το πρόσθετο βάρος των οικονομικών προσδοκιών. Και, μην γελιέστε, το γεγονός ότι οι μέτοχοι θα μπορούσαν δυνητικά να χάσουν 10 000 ευρώ ακόμα και αν δεν τα πλήρωσαν στην αρχή, προσθέτει ένα επιπλέον βάρος οικονομικών προσδοκιών. Τώρα, αυτό μπορεί να μην έχει καμία σημασία καθώς είναι προαιρετικό και αν σε κάποιον δεν αρέσει το καταστατικό δεν χρειάζεται να το χρησιμοποιήσει, αλλά θα προτιμούσα όταν προτείνετε κάτι, αυτό να είναι αρεστό, να χρησιμοποιείται και να είναι προσβάσιμο από όλες τις εταιρείες. Αν και είπα ότι μπορεί να μην υπάρχει επαρκές κίνητρο σε ορισμένους κύκλους για να το επιλέξουν κάποιοι, αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι αυτό οφείλεται στο ότι οι μικρές εταιρείες δεν διεξάγουν διασυνοριακές δραστηριότητες ή δεν φιλοδοξούν να το κάνουν. Πολλές αρκετά μικρές εταιρείες εμπλέκονται σε σημαντικές διασυνοριακές επιχειρήσεις και οι αποφάσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου καθιστούν σαφές ότι μπορούν να το κάνουν. Αλλά, επειδή είναι προαιρετικό, ίσως δεν έχει σημασία. Ή μήπως δεν συμβαίνει αυτό; Δεν θα ήθελα να δω μια κατάσταση στην οποία το νέο καταστατικό θα εισάγει έναν παράγοντα διάκρισης βάσει του οποίου οι καταναλωτές θα ανησυχούν ότι αν μια εταιρεία δεν είναι αρκετά μεγάλη ώστε να θεωρεί ότι αξίζει τον κόπο να γίνει ευρωπαϊκή ιδιωτική εταιρεία, τότε δεν είναι αρκετά μεγάλη και για να δραστηριοποιείται στην Ευρώπη. Αυτό θα ήταν τελείως αντίθετο στην έννοια της ενιαίας αγοράς και στην αμοιβαία σημασία της ενίσχυσης και της ανάπτυξης των μικρών επιχειρήσεων στο εσωτερικό αυτής της αγοράς. Σε μια ενιαία αγορά, το μέγεθος δεν πρέπει να μετρά."@el¹⁰ ". Señora Presidenta, en primer lugar, permítame felicitarle por su nombramiento ahora que preside por primera vez un debate. También debo empezar con una disculpa al ponente porque, aunque estuve presente en la audiencia sobre este tema, no pude participar en el debate en comisión y sé que es un poco molesto que después alguien aparezca de pronto en el Pleno. Acojo con satisfacción la idea fundamental de la propuesta, pero tengo algunas reservas y espero que la Comisión las estudie más a fondo durante su ulterior dedicación a esta cuestión. Señor Lehne, usted ha dicho en la exposición de motivos del informe –y, en efecto, el Comisario también lo acaba de decir, y estoy de acuerdo– que el estatuto tiene que centrarse en las necesidades de las PYME. Pero eso incluye, por supuesto, a casi todas las empresas, excepto a las multinacionales. Para mí está claro que si seguimos todas las recomendaciones del anexo, las empresas que tal vez se beneficien o elijan esta opción sean las medianas empresas, no las pequeñas. Sin duda no serán empresas de nueva creación. Los requisitos de capital que se proponen se encargarán de ello. No quiero que la gente diga «ahí está, el típico británico que no quiere que se exija un capital mínimo». Ya sé que no se exige que el capital esté desembolsado y acojo con satisfacción los intentos de llegar a un acuerdo al respecto, pero seguirá teniendo repercusiones, en especial en las pequeñas empresas. Las pequeñas empresas, tanto las de nueva creación como las que intentan expandirse, ya tienen bastantes dificultades para tratar de dar todas las garantías posibles a los bancos como para añadir otro requisito financiero. Y no nos equivoquemos, el hecho de que los accionistas puedan perder 10 000 euros, aunque no los desembolsen al comienzo, supone una exigencia financiera añadida. Puede que esto no importe en absoluto porque es opcional, y si no nos gusta el estatuto no tenemos que usarlo, pero preferiría que si se propone algo, sea aceptado, usado y accesible a todas las empresas. Aunque he dicho que quizás algunos círculos no se vean muy motivados por esta opción, esto no significa que las pequeñas empresas no desarrollan actividades transfronterizas o no aspiran a hacerlo. Muchas empresas bastante pequeñas emprenden actividades transfronterizas significativas y las decisiones del Tribunal Europeo de Justicia dejan claro que pueden hacerlo. Pero, como es opcional, quizá no importe. ¿O sí? No me gustaría que el nuevo Estatuto introdujese un factor de discriminación en el que los consumidores se preocupasen de que si no eres lo bastante grande para creer que merece la pena ser una empresa privada europea, entonces no eres lo bastante grande para hacer negocios en Europa. Esto es totalmente contrario a la noción de mercado único y a la importancia de fomentar y cuidar a las pequeñas empresas dentro de ese mercado. En un mercado único, el tamaño no debe importar."@es²¹ "Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, haluan aluksi onnitella teitä nimityksenne johdosta ja kiittää teitä tavasta, jolla olette johtanut ensimmäistä keskusteluanne. Pyydän aivan aluksi esittelijältä anteeksi: vaikka osallistuinkin aiheesta järjestettyyn kuulemiseen, en voinut osallistua valiokunnassa käytyyn keskusteluun, ja tiedän olevan jokseenkin ärsyttävää, kun joku esittää näkemyksensä vasta täysistunnossa. Pidän ehdotuksen perimmäistä ajatusta erittäin myönteisenä, mutta olen huolissani muutamasta seikasta. Toivon komission tutkivan niitä tarkemmin, kun se työskentelee asian parissa. Jäsen Lehne, totesitte mietintönne perusteluissa – kuten komission jäsenkin juuri totesi ja mistä olen samaa mieltä – että säännöissä on keskityttävä pk-yritysten tarpeisiin. Ne kattavat kuitenkin lähes kaikki muut paitsi ylikansalliset yhtiöt. Minusta on ilmeistä, että jos noudatamme liitteen kaikkia suosituksia, on todennäköistä, että tästä vaihtoehdosta hyötyvät tai sen valitsevat pikemminkin keskisuuret kuin pienet yritykset. Toimintansa käynnistävät yritykset eivät ainakaan hyötyisi tästä vaihtoehdosta tai valitsisi sitä etenkään pääomavaatimuksia koskevien vaatimusten vuoksi. En halua ihmisten puhuvan minusta Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan edustajana, joka ei halunnut mitään pääomavaatimuksia. Olen pannut merkille, ettei pääomaa olisi pakko tallettaa, ja suhtaudun myönteisenä yrityksiin saavuttaa asiassa sovitteluratkaisu, mutta pääomavaatimus on silti merkityksellinen erityisesti pienyritysten kannalta. Sekä perustamisvaiheessa olevilla että toimintaansa laajentavilla pienyrityksillä on aivan riittävästi muitakin menoja ja vaikeuksia kattavien takausten esittämisessä pankeille ilman ylimääräisiä taloudellisia rasitteitakin. Voitte olla aivan varmoja, että se mahdollisuus, että osakkaat voivat menettää 10 000 euroa, merkitsee ylimääräistä taloudellista rasitetta, vaikkei summaa talletettaisikaan alkuvaiheessa. Asialla ei ole välttämättä lainkaan merkitystä, koska yhtiömuoto on valinnainen, ja jos sitä ei pidä hyvänä, sitä ei tarvitse käyttää. Mielestäni olisi kuitenkin parempi, että jos jotakin ehdotetaan, ehdotettaisiin hyvää vaihtoehtoa, joka olisi käyttökelpoinen ja jota kaikki yritykset voisivat käyttää. Vaikka olenkin sanonut, että joidenkin yritysten ei ole kovin houkuttelevaa valita tätä yhtiömuotoa, en tarkoittanut sen johtuvan siitä, etteivätkö pienyritykset harjoittaisi tai haluaisi harjoittaa rajat ylittävää liiketoimintaa. Monet melko pienet yhtiöt harjoittavat merkittävää rajat ylittävää liiketoimintaa, ja Euroopan yhteisöjen tuomioistuin on tehnyt tuomioissaan selväksi, että ne voivat harjoittaa sitä. Ehkä mitään ongelmaa ei ole, koska yhtiömuoto on valinnainen. Vai onko sittenkin? En haluaisi törmätä tilanteeseen, jossa uusi yhtiömuoto johtaisi syrjivään käyttäytymiseen kuluttajien ajatellessa, että ellei yhtiö ole riittävän suuri voidakseen olla yksityinen eurooppayhtiö, se ei ole riittävän suuri harjoittaakseen liiketoimintaa EU:ssa. Tämä selkeästi vastoin ajatusta yhtenäismarkkinoista ja siitä, että pienyrityksiä on tuettava ja kannustettava EU:n markkinoilla. Koko ei saa olla ratkaiseva tekijä yhtenäismarkkinoilla."@fi⁷ ". Madame la Présidente, permettez-moi tout d’abord de vous féliciter à mon tour pour votre désignation et pour la conduite de votre premier débat. Je me dois également de commencer par présenter mes excuses au rapporteur, car bien qu’ayant assisté à l’audition consacrée à ce sujet, je n’ai pu participer au débat en commission. Or, je sais qu’il est quelque peu irritant de voir quelqu’un faire subitement son entrée en plénière. Je salue globalement le principe fondamental de la proposition. Toutefois, je nourris quelques craintes et j’espère que la Commission les examinera plus avant dans le cadre de ses futurs travaux sur la question. M. Lehne, vous affirmez dans votre note explicative jointe au rapport - le commissaire vient également de le déclarer et je me range à son avis - que le statut devra se concentrer sur les besoins des PME. Or, dans les faits, cela concerne presque toutes les entreprises, à l’exception des multinationales. Pour moi, il est clair que si nous suivons toutes les recommandations formulées en annexe, les opérateurs susceptibles de bénéficier de cette option ou de la choisir se situeront sur le segment des moyennes entreprises plutôt que sur celui des petites. Il ne s’agirait certainement pas de jeunes pousses. Les critères proposés en matière de capital y veillent. Je ne tiens pas à ce que l’on dise «en tant que Britannique, vous ne voulez aucune règle en matière de capital». Je reconnais que le capital ne doit pas nécessairement être versé et je salue les tentatives visant à trouver un compromis sur ce point. Néanmoins, il aura quand même un impact, sur les petites entreprises en particulier. Les petites entreprises, qu’elles se trouvent en phase de démarrage ou de développement, font face à suffisamment de charges et de difficultés lorsqu’elles doivent donner aux banques des garanties irréprochables. Il n’est pas nécessaire d’ajouter une contrainte supplémentaire relative aux attentes financières. Ne vous y trompez pas: le fait que les actionnaires pourraient potentiellement perdre 10 000 euros, même s’ils ne sont pas versés au début, ajoute une contrainte supplémentaire en matière d’attentes financières. Cela étant dit, son importance peut être parfaitement nulle, puisque cette mesure est facultative et que si le statut ne vous plaît pas, rien ne vous oblige à vous en servir. Néanmoins, je préfèrerais, puisque vous faites une proposition, que celle-ci soit appréciée et employée et qu’elle soit accessible à toutes les entreprises. Si j’ai affirmé que les incitants à faire ce choix sont limités sous certains aspects, ce n’est pas parce que les petites entreprises ne réalisent pas de transactions transfrontalières ou n’aspirent pas à le faire. Beaucoup de très petites entreprises participent à des échanges transfrontaliers importants et les décisions rendues par la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes indiquent qu’elles peuvent le faire. Toutefois, le dispositif étant facultatif, peut-être n’est-ce pas important. Ou peut-être que si? Je ne voudrais pas d’une situation où le nouveau statut introduirait un facteur de discrimination, avec des consommateurs estimant que si vous n’êtes pas suffisamment important pour envisager d’adopter le statut de société privée européenne, c’est que votre taille est insuffisante pour faire des affaires en Europe. Ce serait totalement contraire à la notion de marché unique et à l’importance réciproque de stimuler et de consolider les petites entreprises sur ce marché. Sur un marché unique, la taille ne doit pas être importante."@fr⁸ "Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@hu¹¹ "Signora Presidente, vorrei innanzi tutto congratularmi anch’io con lei per la sua nomina e la gestione della sua prima discussione. Vorrei inoltre iniziare porgendo le mie scuse al relatore poiché, pur avendo partecipato all’audizione sull’argomento, non ho potuto prendere parte al dibattito in sede di commissione e so che può risultare un poco irritante saltare poi fuori in plenaria. Sono ampiamente favorevole all’idea sottesa alla proposta, ma nutro alcune preoccupazioni sulle quali mi auguro la Commissione farà luce durante il futuro lavoro sulla questione. Onorevole Lehne, lei ha dichiarato, nella motivazione contenuta nella relazione – affermazione che peraltro il Commissario ha poc’anzi ripreso, e che io condivido – che lo statuto dovrà concentrarsi sulle esigenze delle PMI. Tale forma giuridica, però, contempla pressoché tutte le imprese fuorché le multinazionali. A mio avviso è evidente che, se seguiremo tutte le raccomandazioni formulate nell’allegato, chi sceglierà questa opzione o ne sarà avvantaggiato apparterrà probabilmente alla categoria delle medie anziché delle piccole imprese; a usufruirne non saranno certo le imprese in fase di avviamento, come confermano i requisiti patrimoniali indicati. Non voglio che si dica: “Ecco qui la classica affermazione di una cittadina britannica che, in quanto tale, è contraria ai requisiti patrimoniali”. Riconosco che il capitale non deve essere necessariamente versato e accolgo con favore i tentativi di giungere a un compromesso in materia, ma gli effetti si faranno sentire ugualmente, soprattutto sulle piccole imprese. Le imprese di minori dimensioni, in fase sia di avviamento sia di espansione, devono già far fronte ad abbastanza spese e difficoltà per dare garanzie prudenziali alle banche e, pertanto, non è il caso di imporre loro un ulteriore onere di aspettativa finanziaria. E, statene certi, il fatto che gli azionisti possano potenzialmente perdere 10 000 euro, pur non dovendoli versare al momento dell’iscrizione, costituisce effettivamente un ulteriore onere di aspettativa finanziaria. Ora tutto questo potrebbe non avere alcuna importanza poiché si tratta esclusivamente di un’opzione facoltativa e, di conseguenza, chi non è favorevole allo statuto non è obbligato a utilizzarlo. Tuttavia, preferirei che, quando si avanza una proposta, questa fosse gradita, utilizzata e accessibile da parte di tutte le imprese. Benché io abbia affermato che alcuni potrebbero essere scarsamente incentivati a scegliere questa opportunità, ciò non significa che le piccole imprese non operino a livello transfrontaliero o non aspirino a farlo. Molte piccole imprese si dedicano a importanti attività transfrontaliere e le decisioni della Corte di giustizia indicano chiaramente che sono autorizzate a farlo. Tuttavia, trattandosi di una scelta facoltativa, forse questo non ha importanza, o invece ce l’ha? Non vorrei che il nuovo statuto, introducendo un eventuale fattore di discriminazione, inducesse i consumatori a credere che, se un’azienda non è abbastanza grande da prendere in considerazione la possibilità di essere una società privata europea, non è abbastanza grande per condurre le proprie attività in Europa. Questa ipotesi sarebbe assolutamente in contraddizione con il concetto di mercato unico e con l’importanza reciproca di promuovere e favorire le piccole imprese all’interno di tale mercato. In un mercato unico, le dimensioni non devono avere importanza."@it¹² "Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@lt¹⁴ "Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@lv¹³ "Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@mt¹⁵ "Mevrouw de Voorzitter, ik wil u allereerst graag feliciteren met uw benoeming en met de wijze waarop u uw eerste debat heeft geleid. Ik moet ook eerst mijn excuses aanbieden aan de rapporteur omdat ik weliswaar de hoorzitting over dit onderwerp heb bijgewoond, maar niet in de gelegenheid was om het debat in de parlementaire commissie bij te wonen. Ik weet dat het tot lichte irritaties kan leiden als iemand dan toch plotseling in de plenaire zitting het woord gaat voeren. In het algemeen sta ik positief tegenover de achterliggende gedachte van het voorstel, maar ik heb ook nog enkele twijfels. Ik hoop echter dat de Commissie deze weg kan nemen in het kader van de toekomstige werkzaamheden over deze kwestie. Mijnheer Lehne, in uw toelichting op dit verslag heeft u gezegd dat het statuut met name op de KMO’s gericht moet zijn. De commissaris heeft dat zojuist eveneens gezegd en ik sluit mij daarbij aan. Dat betekent wel dat wij het dan - op de multinationals na - over zo goed als alle bedrijven hebben. Als wij alle aanbevelingen in de bijlage opvolgen, zullen de bedrijven die naar alle waarschijnlijkheid gebruik maken van of voordeel hebben van deze optie, zich eerder in het middelgrote dan in het kleine gedeelte van het bedrijvenspectrum bevinden. Het zullen zeker geen startende bedrijven zijn. Daar zorgen de voorgestelde kapitaalvereisten wel voor. Begrijp mij goed, het is niet de bedoeling dat mensen zeggen . Ik weet dat het minimumkapitaal niet noodzakelijkerwijs gestort hoeft te worden en ik verwelkom initiatieven om hierover tot een compromis te komen, maar die vereisten zullen zonder meer van invloed zijn, zeker op kleine bedrijven. Kleine bedrijven, zowel starters als bedrijven die verder willen groeien, worden nu al met genoeg kosten en problemen geconfronteerd om banken waterdichte garanties te geven, zonder dat er sprake is van nog een extra verplichting of last op financieel gebied. En vergis u niet. Het feit dat aandeelhouders mogelijk 10 000 EUR kunnen verliezen, ook al hoeft dat geld niet bij de start gestort te worden, is wel degelijk een extra last op financieel gebied. Nu zou dat allemaal wel eens niets uit kunnen maken aangezien het om een optie gaat. Als bedrijven het statuut niet zien zitten, hoeven ze het ook niet te gebruiken. Ik zou er echter zelf wel de voorkeur aan geven dat, als al er een voorstel gedaan wordt, dit dan ook door alle bedrijven op prijs gesteld en gebruikt wordt en voor iedereen toegankelijk is. Ik heb weliswaar gezegd dat er in bepaalde kringen weinig animo zal zijn om van die optie gebruik te maken, maar dat wil niet zeggen dat dit komt doordat kleine bedrijven geen grensoverschrijdende bedrijfsactiviteiten ondernemen of plannen hebben in die richting. Veel echt kleine bedrijven doen wel degelijk en in aanzienlijke mate zaken in het buitenland. Uit de uitspraken van het Europees Hof van Justitie blijkt dat zij dat ook mogen. Maar goed, wellicht dat het allemaal niet uitmaakt, want het gaat om een optie. Is dat eigenlijk wel echt zo? Ik zou namelijk niet graag zien dat er een situatie ontstaat waarin het statuut aanleiding kan zijn voor een discriminerende behandeling en consumenten de indruk krijgen dat als je je eigen bedrijf niet groot genoeg vindt om de status van Europese besloten vennootschap aan te vragen, je ook niet groot genoeg bent om in Europa zaken te doen. Dat is volledig in strijd met het uitgangspunt van de interne markt en het wederzijdse belang om mogelijkheden voor kleine bedrijven op die interne markt te stimuleren en te beschermen. Op een interne markt mag de omvang van een bedrijf geen rol spelen."@nl³ "Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@pl¹⁶ "Senhora Presidente, também eu gostaria de a felicitar pela sua nomeação e por este primeiro debate sob a sua presidência. Queria igualmente começar por apresentar um pedido de desculpas ao relator, pois, embora eu tenha estado presente na audição sobre este assunto, não me foi possível participar no debate em comissão, e sei que é um pouco irritante as pessoas nestas circunstâncias aparecerem depois, a intervir, em sessão plenária. Apoio na sua essência a ideia subjacente à proposta, mas não sem algumas reservas que espero que a Comissão analise mais a fundo no âmbito do trabalho que se propõe desenvolver ulteriormente sobre esta matéria. Senhor Deputado Lehne, sublinha na exposição de motivos do seu relatório – e aliás o Senhor Comissário acaba de o afirmar também, e eu concordo – que o estatuto se deverá centrar nas necessidades das PME. Ora, como é óbvio, isso abarca praticamente todas as empresas à excepção das multinacionais. Para mim, é evidente que, se aderirmos a todas as recomendações contidas no anexo, quem provavelmente irá escolher esta opção ou dela beneficiar são as empresas de média dimensão, não as que se encontram na ponta pequena do espectro de empresas. Não serão, certamente, as empresas em fase de arranque. Os requisitos relativos ao capital social assim o determinam. Não quero que digam "ali está ela, como boa britânica, a não querer exigências em matéria de capital mínimo". Reconheço que o capital não tem necessariamente de ser libertado e saúdo as tentativas para encontrar uma solução de compromisso nesse capítulo, mas a verdade é que tal exigência não deixará de ter um impacto, sobretudo nas pequenas empresas. As empresas de menor dimensão, quer se encontrem em fase de arranque ou a procurar expandir-se, já deparam com suficientes custos e dificuldades para conseguir prestar aos bancos as rigorosas garantias que estes exigem, dificilmente podendo fazer face a mais este elemento de incerteza financeira. E a verdade, não tenhamos ilusões, é que o facto de os accionistas poderem eventualmente perder 10 000 euros, ainda que não pagos em dinheiro à partida, acrescenta efectivamente um elemento adicional de incerteza financeira. Ora, poder-se-á argumentar que isto não importa de todo pois o estatuto é opcional, e que quem dele não gostar não terá de o utilizar, mas, pessoalmente, considero que, a propor um novo instrumento, melhor seria que este fosse apreciado, utilizado e acessível a todas as empresas. Se bem que eu tenha afirmado que, em alguns quadrantes, não haverá grande incentivo para optar pelo estatuto de SPE, tal não significa que as pequenas empresas não operem a nível transfronteiriço ou não aspirem a fazê-lo. Numerosas empresas de relativamente pequena dimensão desenvolvem uma significativa actividade transfronteiriça, e os acórdãos do Tribunal Europeu de Justiça deixam bem claro que esse é um direito que lhes assiste. Todavia, como o estatuto é opcional, tal facto é porventura irrelevante. Mas será que é mesmo? Pessoalmente, não gostaria que se gerasse uma situação em que o novo estatuto introduzisse um factor de discriminação que levasse os consumidores a achar que, se uma empresa, por não ser suficientemente grande, considera não merecer a para aderir ao estatuto de sociedade privada europeia, tal significa que essa empresa não tem dimensão suficiente para desenvolver a sua actividade na Europa. Isso iria completamente contra a ideia de um mercado interno e contra o objectivo fundamental de promover e apoiar as pequenas empresas no seio desse mercado. Num mercado interno, a dimensão não pode contar."@pt¹⁷ "Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@ro¹⁸ "Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@sk¹⁹ "Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate. I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary. I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report – and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree – that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say ‘here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement’. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses. Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation. Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies. While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter."@sl²⁰ "Fru talman! Först vill även jag gratulera er till utnämningen och till att ni leder er första debatt. Jag måste också börja med att be föredraganden om ursäkt, för trots att jag deltog i utfrågningen om detta ämne hade jag inte möjlighet att delta i debatten i utskottet, och jag vet att det är lite irriterande när någon sedan dyker upp i plenum. Jag välkomnar i allmänhet förslagets underliggande idé, men jag har vissa farhågor som jag hoppas att kommissionen ska undersöka närmare under det kommande arbetet med denna fråga. Herr Lehne! I motiveringen till betänkandet uppger ni att stadgan bör inriktas på de små och medelstora företagens behov. Kommissionsledamoten sa just samma sak, och jag håller med. Men stadgan omfattar förstås samtliga företag, förutom de multinationella företagen. För mig är det tydligt att om vi följer alla rekommendationer i bilagan är det snarare de medelstora än de små företagen som sannolikt kommer att gynnas av, eller välja, detta alternativ. Det skulle definitivt inte vara nybildade företag. De föreslagna kapitalkraven garanterar att så blir fallet. Jag vill inte att människor ska säga ”där står du som engelsman och vill inte ha några kapitalkrav”. Jag erkänner att kapitalet inte nödvändigtvis måste betalas in, och jag välkomnar försöken att hitta en kompromiss om detta, men det kommer ändå att få konsekvenser, särskilt för de små företagen. Mindre företag, vare sig de är nybildade eller försöker expandera, har tillräckliga kostnader och svårigheter med att försöka ge garantier med både livrem och hängslen till banker, utan att det läggs på ännu ett lager av ekonomiska förväntningar. Och det faktum att aktieägarna skulle kunna förlora 10 000 euro, även om dessa inte betalas in vid starten, skulle utan tvivel innebära ytterligare ekonomiska förväntningar. Nu kanske detta inte spelar någon som helst roll eftersom det är frivilligt, för om man inte gillar stadgan är man inte tvungen att tillämpa den. Om man emellertid föreslår något skulle jag föredra att det uppskattades, användes och var tillgängligt för samtliga företag. Även om jag har sagt att incitamenten för att välja detta kan vara begränsade på vissa håll beror det inte på att små företag inte skulle driva gränsöverskridande verksamhet eller sträva efter att göra det. Flera jämförelsevis små företag har en omfattande gränsöverskridande verksamhet, och i beslut av EG-domstolen fastslås att de kan göra detta. Men eftersom det är valfritt kanske det inte spelar någon roll. Eller är det verkligen så det förhåller sig? Jag vill inte att den nya stadgan ska vara diskriminerande så att konsumenterna behöver bekymra sig över att ett företag som inte är tillräckligt stort för att anses vara värt att klassas som ett europeiskt privat aktiebolag inte är stort nog att bedriva verksamhet i Europa. Detta skulle strida fullständigt mot föreställningen om en inre marknad och den ömsesidiga betydelsen av att utveckla och driva små företag på denna marknad. På en inre marknad får storleken inte ha någon betydelse."@sv²²
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Sharon Bowles,"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4} "daar heb je weer zo’n Britse die absoluut geen kapitaalverplichtingen wil opleggen"³ "on behalf of the ALDE Group"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4}