5. Welcomes the Commission's move to provide further clarifications on the distinction between non-economic and economic activities in the context of SGEI, in order to create greater overall legal certainty, and to avoid cases being brought before the European Court of Justice and infringement proceedings opened by the Commission; calls on the Commission to provide further clarification regarding the fourth criterion which the European Court of Justice stated in the Altmark judgment and to ensure that the method of calculation of reasonable profit is clear enough and appropriate to the diversity of SGEI; calls on the Commission, therefore, to avoid a closed list; suggests that, in doing so, the Commission should not confine itself to rei ...[+++]terating the case law of the European Court of Justice but should provide determining criteria to help understand and apply the concepts used; asks the Commission to elaborate its understanding of a genuine SGEI;

1. Where the commitment approach is used for the calculation of global exposure, Member States shall require management companies to apply this approach to all financial derivative instrument positions including embedded derivatives as referred to in the fourth subparagraph of Article 51(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC, whether used as part of the UCITS general investment policy, for purposes of risk reduction or for the purposes of efficient portfolio management as referred to in Article 51(2) of that Directive.

28) in Article 51, the following paragraphs shall be added:"The principles of good manufacturing practice as regards the manufacturing of active substances for use as starting materials as referred to in Article 50(f) shall be adopted in the form of detailed guidelines.

The fourth protocol proposes that, upon expiry of the protocol, under-utilised fishing possibilities might be used up by countries other than those that derive direct benefit from the agreement in accordance with the principle of relative stability.

Therefore, I would urge all Members to support the amendments tabled by myself and my colleagues, in particular, Amendments Nos 92 to 101, which put in place firstly, the requirement for a judicial review or a right to appeal against the warrant at both the executing and issuing stage, secondly, a common list of positive offences, which must be drawn up and not used as a stumbling block, thirdly, no interference with the double jeopardy rule, fourthly, that there must be prima facie evidence presented before the warrant can be enforced, and finally, to ensure that there is a quick trial process where a warrant is issued.

Therefore, I would urge all Members to support the amendments tabled by myself and my colleagues, in particular, Amendments Nos 92 to 101, which put in place firstly, the requirement for a judicial review or a right to appeal against the warrant at both the executing and issuing stage, secondly, a common list of positive offences, which must be drawn up and not used as a stumbling block, thirdly, no interference with the double jeopardy rule, fourthly, that there must be prima facie evidence presented before the warrant can be enforced, and finally, to ensure that there is a quick trial process where a warrant is issued.