Traduction de «Couverture-plafond à flux et support différenciés » (Français → Anglais) :

17. Recalls the position of the European Council, which has instructed the Commission to ensure that the particular situation of regions bordering convergence regions is accommodated for; highlights, therefore, the importance of a balanced approach to the designation of so-called ‘a’ and ‘c’ areas with a view to minimising the disparities in aid intensity between regions from different Member States sharing the same border; asks the Commission to ensure that regions ineligible for State aid that border on “a”‘’ areas of another country are granted a specific allocation in terms of ‘c’ coverage; considers that this allocation should, by way of derogation from the overall coverage ceiling, be assigned to the Member States in addition to th ...[+++]e allocation of predefined and non-predefined ‘c’ areas; insists that the difference in aid intensity between all categories of region and all sizes of company should be limited to a maximum of 15 %;

On its own initiative, a Member State may decide to establish a reserve of national population coverage consisting of the difference between the population coverage ceiling for that Member State, as allocated by the Commission (77), and the coverage used for the ‘a’ and ‘c’ areas designated in its regional aid map.

Some Members, however, insist on wanting to consider immigration to be a non-Community problem; they imagine that the individual Member States should bear the exorbitant costs that these waves of migration involve.

Proportionality: The planned intensity of 30 % of the real costs (defined as the difference between the costs incurred and the revenue received by the beneficiary in providing the service in question) would not have guaranteed compliance with the usual (3) maximum aid ceiling of 30 % of the eligible costs.