Stresses the lack of resources at SMEs’ disposal to fight breaches of IPR affecting them on third markets; calls for concrete initiatives on the part of the EU to improve the protection of SMEs’ intellectual property rights in these third countries, such as has been achieved with the SME IPR helpdesk in China; observes that this model of helpdesk is currently being extended, in a pilot initiative, to a selection of ASEAN and Sout ...[+++]h America countries; stresses the need to conduct a proper evaluation of existing helpdesks, with a view to optimising the functioning of the model before extending it further; urges the Commission, once lessons have been drawn from this assessment, to adopt similar helpdesks in priority markets where IPR is an important issue; urges the Commission and the Member States to step up customs cooperation in the EU and with third countries on the seizure of counterfeit goods, and to simplify customs procedures;

38. Stresses the lack of resources at SMEs’ disposal to fight breaches of IPR affecting them on third markets; calls for concrete initiatives on the part of the EU to improve the protection of SMEs’ intellectual property rights in these third countries, such as has been achieved with the SME IPR helpdesk in China; observes that this model of helpdesk is currently being extended, in a pilot initiative, to a selection of ASEAN and ...[+++]South America countries; stresses the need to conduct a proper evaluation of existing helpdesks, with a view to optimising the functioning of the model before extending it further; urges the Commission, once lessons have been drawn from this assessment, to adopt similar helpdesks in priority markets where IPR is an important issue; urges the Commission and the Member States to step up customs cooperation in the EU and with third countries on the seizure of counterfeit goods, and to simplify customs procedures;

25. Stresses the lack of resources at SMEs’ disposal to fight breaches of intellectual property rights (IPR) affecting them on third markets; calls for concrete initiatives on the part of the EU to improve the protection of SMEs’ intellectual property rights in these third countries, such as has been achieved with the SME IPR helpdesk in China; observes that this model of helpdesk is currently being extended, in a pilot initiativ ...[+++]e, to a selection of ASEAN and South America countries; stresses the need to conduct a proper evaluation of existing helpdesks, with a view to optimising the functioning of the model before extending it further; urges the Commission, once lessons have been drawn from this assessment, to adopt similar helpdesks in priority markets where IPR is an important issue; urges the Commission and the Member States to step up customs cooperation in the EU and with third countries on the seizure of counterfeit goods, and to simplify customs procedures;

the Council conclusions of 21 May 2014 on cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe (2) that recognised that cultural heritage has a cross-sectorial policy relevance and plays a specific role in achieving the Europe 2020 strategy goals for a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and called on Member States to promote long-term heritage policy ...[+++]models that are evidence-based and society- and citizen-driven;

Welcomes the Commission’s declared intention to draw up guidelines on good practice and the reform of national support arrangements; calls on the Commission to produce the guidelines as soon as possible to ensure that the different national schemes do not distort competition or create barriers to trade and investment within the EU, in order to encourage predictability and cost-effectiveness and avoid excessive subsidies; urges the Commission, in this connection, to ensure that the internal market acquis is fully respected by the Member States; is convinced tha ...[+++]t good practice guidelines are an important step to ensure a functioning single market for energy and believes the guidelines could be supplemented with an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of current national support systems, taking into account the different technologies they cover in order to ensure better comparability and coordination for the gradual and progressive convergence of national support mechanisms; is also convinced that implementation of these guidelines at Member State level will be crucial as they can help to avoid national support schemes being retrospectively amended or cancelled, which would send out disastrous signals to investors, as well as potentially causing severe economic distress to private citizens having invested in RES on the basis of such schemes; stresses that the implementation of these guidelines should be ensured by the Member States, and that special support arrangements for the development of local and regional resources should be allowed;

Expresses its firm conviction that any new fiscal capacity for eurozone Member States aiming at adjustments to country- specific asymmetric shocks and structural reforms and whose fiscal functions are not covered by the MFF must be developed within the Union framework and must be subject to proper democratic accountability through the existing institutions; recalls that, as laid down in the Treaties, any new budgetary capacity must be part of the EU budget, thereby respecting its unity; believes, moreover, that in order to improve visibility and ensure the additionality of such a new budgetary capacity, a special new heading of the MFF should be created; strongly rejects any attempt to reduce the ceilings of the Commission’s proposal on ...[+++]the MFF in order to secure resources for this new capacity;