# C_2017209EN.01004901.xml

| 30.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/49

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (Eurofound), and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1365/75’

(COM(2016) 531 final — 2016/256 (COD))

on the

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of the Council’

(COM(2016) 532 final — 2016/257 (COD))

and on the

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94’

(COM(2016) 528 final — 2016/254 (COD))

(2017/C 209/08)

| Rapporteur: | Christa SCHWENG (AT/I) |
| --- | --- |
| Co-rapporteur: | Giulia BARBUCCI (IT/II) |

Rapporteur:

Christa SCHWENG (AT/I)

Christa SCHWENG (AT/I)

Co-rapporteur:

Giulia BARBUCCI (IT/II)

Giulia BARBUCCI (IT/II)

| Consultation | Council of the European Union, 8.9.2016 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 173(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 7.3.2017 |
| Adopted at plenary | 30.3.2017 |
| Plenary session No | 524 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 168/0/0 |

Consultation

Council of the European Union, 8.9.2016

Legal basis

Article 173(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

7.3.2017

Adopted at plenary

30.3.2017

Plenary session No

524

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

168/0/0

1.   Conclusions

Conclusions

| 1.1. | The EESC takes note of the proposal for revision of the founding regulations for the three agencies Cedefop, EUROFOUND and EU-OSHA. The Committee warmly welcomes the fact that the balanced, tripartite structure of the management board — contrary to the proposals in the common approach — is to be maintained. Tripartism is the expression of an inclusive approach, which respects the importance of the role of the social partners in seeking joint solutions. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

The EESC takes note of the proposal for revision of the founding regulations for the three agencies Cedefop, EUROFOUND and EU-OSHA. The Committee warmly welcomes the fact that the balanced, tripartite structure of the management board — contrary to the proposals in the common approach — is to be maintained. Tripartism is the expression of an inclusive approach, which respects the importance of the role of the social partners in seeking joint solutions.

| 1.2. | The overall objectives of the three agencies should be uniformly and more comprehensively defined as to ‘support the needs of all EU institutions and bodies, Member States and Social Partners’. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

The overall objectives of the three agencies should be uniformly and more comprehensively defined as to ‘support the needs of all EU institutions and bodies, Member States and Social Partners’.

| 1.3. | The EESC advocates that the powers relating to staff appointments and to alter the internal structures of the respective agency should stay with the director. Only in exceptional circumstances, when the director is not able to carry out the functions of the appointing authority, the board should decide that this competence is shifted to another senior staff member. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

The EESC advocates that the powers relating to staff appointments and to alter the internal structures of the respective agency should stay with the director. Only in exceptional circumstances, when the director is not able to carry out the functions of the appointing authority, the board should decide that this competence is shifted to another senior staff member.

| 1.4. | The EESC is against the reduction of the number of members of the executive board as this will disadvantage the interest group who currently holds the post of chair, as they will have no other spokesperson in the executive board. In addition, a broader representation in the executive board facilitates more informed discussions. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

The EESC is against the reduction of the number of members of the executive board as this will disadvantage the interest group who currently holds the post of chair, as they will have no other spokesperson in the executive board. In addition, a broader representation in the executive board facilitates more informed discussions.

| 1.5. | The EESC welcomes the standardised approach to the nomination of the executive director, which is along the same lines as that of the EU-OSHA. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

The EESC welcomes the standardised approach to the nomination of the executive director, which is along the same lines as that of the EU-OSHA.

| 1.6. | The EESC is convinced that the post of a deputy director has proven to be useful and should be retained where it exists. Given that the different existing practices work well, the Committee requires a certain flexibility for the three agencies. The final decision about the post of deputy director should be left to the management board. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

The EESC is convinced that the post of a deputy director has proven to be useful and should be retained where it exists. Given that the different existing practices work well, the Committee requires a certain flexibility for the three agencies. The final decision about the post of deputy director should be left to the management board.

| 1.7. | The EESC is of the opinion that establishing contacts and cooperation with third countries and international organisations should only require approval by the Management Board, in which the Commission is represented. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

The EESC is of the opinion that establishing contacts and cooperation with third countries and international organisations should only require approval by the Management Board, in which the Commission is represented.

2.   Background

Background

| 2.1. | The founding regulations of the three agencies — Eurofound, Cedefop and the EU-OSHA — will, through these proposed regulations, be aligned on the common approach on decentralised agencies. This approach was adopted by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission in 2012 and is to serve as the basis for a certain amount of standardisation in the consistency, efficiency, accountability and transparency of the European agencies. According to the common approach, the agencies ‘contribute to the implementation of important Union policies, thus helping all the institutions, in particular the Commission, to concentrate on core policy-making tasks. Agencies also have a role in supporting the decision-making process by pooling the technical or specialist expertise available at European and national level and thereby help enhance the cooperation between Member States and the EU in important policy areas.’ Unlike the other EU agencies, the three agencies in question here share a tradition of tripartite governance, whereby representatives of governments, workers and employers from each Member State are institutionally included in the governance of the agencies. By anchoring the work of the agencies so firmly in the realities of the Member States, the topical and political relevance of their work is ensured. The current task of aligning the founding regulations of the three agencies offers an opportunity to identify and underscore the specific tripartite governance mechanisms which have evolved over time in each agency, and to ensure the continuation of established good practice. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

The founding regulations of the three agencies — Eurofound, Cedefop and the EU-OSHA — will, through these proposed regulations, be aligned on the common approach on decentralised agencies. This approach was adopted by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission in 2012 and is to serve as the basis for a certain amount of standardisation in the consistency, efficiency, accountability and transparency of the European agencies. According to the common approach, the agencies ‘contribute to the implementation of important Union policies, thus helping all the institutions, in particular the Commission, to concentrate on core policy-making tasks. Agencies also have a role in supporting the decision-making process by pooling the technical or specialist expertise available at European and national level and thereby help enhance the cooperation between Member States and the EU in important policy areas.’ Unlike the other EU agencies, the three agencies in question here share a tradition of tripartite governance, whereby representatives of governments, workers and employers from each Member State are institutionally included in the governance of the agencies. By anchoring the work of the agencies so firmly in the realities of the Member States, the topical and political relevance of their work is ensured. The current task of aligning the founding regulations of the three agencies offers an opportunity to identify and underscore the specific tripartite governance mechanisms which have evolved over time in each agency, and to ensure the continuation of established good practice.

| 2.2. | An evaluation of all the European agencies preceded publication of this common approach. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

An evaluation of all the European agencies preceded publication of this common approach.

3.   Gist of the draft proposals

Gist of the draft proposals

| 3.1. | TEEC Article 235 (now TFEU Article 352) was the legal basis for all three agencies, which needed updating because of an ECJ ruling. Eurofound and the EU-OSHA were based on TFEU Article 153(2)(a) and Cedefop on TFEU Articles 166(4), 165(4) and 149. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

TEEC Article 235 (now TFEU Article 352) was the legal basis for all three agencies, which needed updating because of an ECJ ruling. Eurofound and the EU-OSHA were based on TFEU Article 153(2)(a) and Cedefop on TFEU Articles 166(4), 165(4) and 149.

| 3.2. | None of the three agencies have received new tasks through the change to the regulations, but the tasks of all of them have been adjusted to current circumstances and outdated concepts have been brought up to date. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

None of the three agencies have received new tasks through the change to the regulations, but the tasks of all of them have been adjusted to current circumstances and outdated concepts have been brought up to date.

3.3.   
  Horizontal provisions

Horizontal provisions

| 3.3.1. | Common to the three agencies is the fact that the management board not only includes representatives of all the Member States and the European Commission, but also 28 representatives of national employers’ and employees’ organisations. Tripartism is the expression of an inclusive approach, which respects the importance of the role of the social partners in seeking joint solutions. The common approach stipulated that the number of representatives from employers’ and employees’ organisations be drastically reduced. This gave rise to misgivings on the part of European and national social partner organisations and the original structure was maintained. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1.

Common to the three agencies is the fact that the management board not only includes representatives of all the Member States and the European Commission, but also 28 representatives of national employers’ and employees’ organisations. Tripartism is the expression of an inclusive approach, which respects the importance of the role of the social partners in seeking joint solutions. The common approach stipulated that the number of representatives from employers’ and employees’ organisations be drastically reduced. This gave rise to misgivings on the part of European and national social partner organisations and the original structure was maintained.

| 3.3.2. | Members of the management board are appointed by the Council for four years. Alongside expertise in the agencies’ respective areas of work, the members are also to have relevant abilities in the areas of management, administration and the budget. The employers’ and employees’ representatives are appointed by the Council on the basis of proposals from the peak European employers’ and employees’ organisations. An additional criterion for the EU-OSHA has — hitherto — been that they be members of or representatives on the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.2.

Members of the management board are appointed by the Council for four years. Alongside expertise in the agencies’ respective areas of work, the members are also to have relevant abilities in the areas of management, administration and the budget. The employers’ and employees’ representatives are appointed by the Council on the basis of proposals from the peak European employers’ and employees’ organisations. An additional criterion for the EU-OSHA has — hitherto — been that they be members of or representatives on the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work.

| 3.3.3. | The tasks of the management board include: adoption of the programming document, budget, annual activity report, financial rules, anti-fraud strategy, rules on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest, rules of procedure, the communication and dissemination plans, powers relating to staff appointments, appointment of the executive director and the accounting officer, follow-up to OLAF reports and evaluations, decisions relating to the respective agency’s internal structure and working arrangements with third countries and international organisations. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.3.

The tasks of the management board include: adoption of the programming document, budget, annual activity report, financial rules, anti-fraud strategy, rules on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest, rules of procedure, the communication and dissemination plans, powers relating to staff appointments, appointment of the executive director and the accounting officer, follow-up to OLAF reports and evaluations, decisions relating to the respective agency’s internal structure and working arrangements with third countries and international organisations.

| 3.3.4. | The time periods for the adoption and transmission of annual and multi-annual programming documents are being harmonised. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.4.

The time periods for the adoption and transmission of annual and multi-annual programming documents are being harmonised.

| 3.3.5. | The chairperson of the management board and the three vice-chairpersons are appointed from amongst the representatives of the government, employer and worker interest groups and the Commission; they are elected by a 2/3 majority for a period of 2 years (hitherto at the EU-OSHA for 1 year). The management board meets once a year and decides by simple majority. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.5.

The chairperson of the management board and the three vice-chairpersons are appointed from amongst the representatives of the government, employer and worker interest groups and the Commission; they are elected by a 2/3 majority for a period of 2 years (hitherto at the EU-OSHA for 1 year). The management board meets once a year and decides by simple majority.

| 3.3.6. | The executive board (previously the bureau) comprises the chairperson of the management board, the three vice-chairpersons, the group coordinators and one representative of the Commission. For Eurofound and the EU-OSHA, this means a reduction in size; hitherto, it has been possible for the board to comprise 11 people. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.6.

The executive board (previously the bureau) comprises the chairperson of the management board, the three vice-chairpersons, the group coordinators and one representative of the Commission. For Eurofound and the EU-OSHA, this means a reduction in size; hitherto, it has been possible for the board to comprise 11 people.

| 3.3.7. | To date the executive board has had the task of monitoring implementation of the management board’s decisions, but with the new regulation it will receive more comprehensive powers: preparing decisions to be adopted by the management board and monitoring OLAF follow-up together with the management board, as well as advising and supporting the director in implementing management board decisions. In urgent situations, the executive boards of the three agencies may take provisional decisions on behalf of the management board in management matters, including appointing authority and budgetary matters. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.7.

To date the executive board has had the task of monitoring implementation of the management board’s decisions, but with the new regulation it will receive more comprehensive powers: preparing decisions to be adopted by the management board and monitoring OLAF follow-up together with the management board, as well as advising and supporting the director in implementing management board decisions. In urgent situations, the executive boards of the three agencies may take provisional decisions on behalf of the management board in management matters, including appointing authority and budgetary matters.

| 3.3.8. | The directors’ tasks have been set out much more precisely in the proposed regulation than in the previous regulations. Also new is the decision as to whether to establish one or more local offices in one or more Member States so as to ensure an agency’s tasks are carried out more efficiently. That requires the prior approval of the Commission, the management board and the Member State concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.8.

The directors’ tasks have been set out much more precisely in the proposed regulation than in the previous regulations. Also new is the decision as to whether to establish one or more local offices in one or more Member States so as to ensure an agency’s tasks are carried out more efficiently. That requires the prior approval of the Commission, the management board and the Member State concerned.

| 3.3.9. | The director is appointed for 5 years by the management board, from a list of candidates proposed by the Commission, by a 2/3 majority. The director’s term of office may be renewed once, based on an assessment of his or her performance. This appointment procedure is in keeping with the procedure applying at the EU-OSHA. Cedefop and Eurofound have deputy directors. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.9.

The director is appointed for 5 years by the management board, from a list of candidates proposed by the Commission, by a 2/3 majority. The director’s term of office may be renewed once, based on an assessment of his or her performance. This appointment procedure is in keeping with the procedure applying at the EU-OSHA. Cedefop and Eurofound have deputy directors.

| 3.3.10. | The proposed regulations also align the financial provisions, programming provisions and existing reporting provisions on the Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013, on the framework financial regulation for agencies. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.10.

The proposed regulations also align the financial provisions, programming provisions and existing reporting provisions on the Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013, on the framework financial regulation for agencies.

| 3.3.11. | Each proposal for a regulation also has new standard provisions on legal status, a headquarters agreement, language arrangements, transparency, combating fraud, security rules on classified information, liability, evaluation and cooperation with third countries and international organisations. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.11.

Each proposal for a regulation also has new standard provisions on legal status, a headquarters agreement, language arrangements, transparency, combating fraud, security rules on classified information, liability, evaluation and cooperation with third countries and international organisations.

4.   General comments

General comments

| 4.1. | The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) advocates that common standards for all three tripartite agencies shall be attained by taking into account existing best practice as it has evolved. The rules and governance characteristics should be as similar as possible, yet the specific nature of each agency must be respected. The key features of the tripartite governance structure should be the same for all three agencies, and the modalities for implementing it should be as similar as possible. Issues such as the specific objectives, tasks, and supporting/advisory structures should be specifically defined for each agency. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) advocates that common standards for all three tripartite agencies shall be attained by taking into account existing best practice as it has evolved. The rules and governance characteristics should be as similar as possible, yet the specific nature of each agency must be respected. The key features of the tripartite governance structure should be the same for all three agencies, and the modalities for implementing it should be as similar as possible. Issues such as the specific objectives, tasks, and supporting/advisory structures should be specifically defined for each agency.

| 4.2. | The overall objectives of the three agencies should be uniformly and more comprehensively defined as to ‘support the needs of all EU institutions and bodies, Member States and Social Partners’. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

The overall objectives of the three agencies should be uniformly and more comprehensively defined as to ‘support the needs of all EU institutions and bodies, Member States and Social Partners’.

| 4.3. | The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) warmly welcomes the fact that the balanced, tripartite structure of the management board — contrary to the proposals in the original proposals for the common approach — is to be maintained. All three agencies have their own responsibilities in areas which are closely linked to the world of work. For this reason, the expertise of employer and employee representatives is indispensable, also to ensure that the work of the agencies adequately reflects the realities for employers and employees, as well as the great variety of experience in the Member States of the Union. The direct involvement of these groups in the management board ensures better cooperation and a sense of ownership. It also makes sure that account is taken of employers’ and employees’ needs in annual and multi-annual programme planning and that the agencies take these on board when carrying out their tasks. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) warmly welcomes the fact that the balanced, tripartite structure of the management board — contrary to the proposals in the original proposals for the common approach — is to be maintained. All three agencies have their own responsibilities in areas which are closely linked to the world of work. For this reason, the expertise of employer and employee representatives is indispensable, also to ensure that the work of the agencies adequately reflects the realities for employers and employees, as well as the great variety of experience in the Member States of the Union. The direct involvement of these groups in the management board ensures better cooperation and a sense of ownership. It also makes sure that account is taken of employers’ and employees’ needs in annual and multi-annual programme planning and that the agencies take these on board when carrying out their tasks.

| 4.4. | Alongside expertise in the agencies’ respective areas of work, designation of management board members also has to take into account relevant abilities in the areas of management, administration and the budget. From the EESC’s point of view, the key criterion for appointing management board members should still be that they have relevant knowledge in the specific area of the agency’s work. Even if certain basic knowledge in the areas of management, administration and the budget makes entire sense, strict interpretation of this condition should not mean that experts in the area covered by the agency not be allowed to participate in the management board’s work. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

Alongside expertise in the agencies’ respective areas of work, designation of management board members also has to take into account relevant abilities in the areas of management, administration and the budget. From the EESC’s point of view, the key criterion for appointing management board members should still be that they have relevant knowledge in the specific area of the agency’s work. Even if certain basic knowledge in the areas of management, administration and the budget makes entire sense, strict interpretation of this condition should not mean that experts in the area covered by the agency not be allowed to participate in the management board’s work.

| 4.5. | In the new regulation, the tasks of the management board are to go beyond the traditional supervisory functions relating to the budget and planning, in that the board will also be able to exercise powers relating to staff appointments and alter the internal structures of the agency concerned. The EESC feels that this is traditionally a task for the director, and not in keeping with a supervisory function. It suggests that these powers be removed. However, the EESC recognises, that if, due to exceptional circumstances, the director is not able to carry out the functions of the appointing authority, this competence needs to shift to another senior staff member. This decision should be taken by the board with a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

In the new regulation, the tasks of the management board are to go beyond the traditional supervisory functions relating to the budget and planning, in that the board will also be able to exercise powers relating to staff appointments and alter the internal structures of the agency concerned. The EESC feels that this is traditionally a task for the director, and not in keeping with a supervisory function. It suggests that these powers be removed. However, the EESC recognises, that if, due to exceptional circumstances, the director is not able to carry out the functions of the appointing authority, this competence needs to shift to another senior staff member. This decision should be taken by the board with a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast.

| 4.6. | The chairmanship of the management board of the Bilbao agency is to be extended to two years; this is already the case for the other two agencies. From the EESC’s point of view, there should be an allusion to the rotation of the chairmanship between the different interest groups practised by all the agencies. There should also be provision for the chair to be able to be occupied several times by the same person. The EESC cautions that, with a two-year chairmanship, not all the interest groups will be given equal weight in one term of office and therefore suggests that the length of the chairmanship of the management board be kept unchanged which reflects the existing practice in the different agencies. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

The chairmanship of the management board of the Bilbao agency is to be extended to two years; this is already the case for the other two agencies. From the EESC’s point of view, there should be an allusion to the rotation of the chairmanship between the different interest groups practised by all the agencies. There should also be provision for the chair to be able to be occupied several times by the same person. The EESC cautions that, with a two-year chairmanship, not all the interest groups will be given equal weight in one term of office and therefore suggests that the length of the chairmanship of the management board be kept unchanged which reflects the existing practice in the different agencies.

| 4.7. | It is proposed that the executive board be reduced in size, but that it receives additional tasks; an exhaustive list of these is given. For practical reasons, and above all because the executive board operates between management board meetings, the EESC suggests inserting the term ‘for example’ before its list of tasks, to point out that the list is indicative. As with the management board, the executive board should not be given powers relating to staff appointments. The EESC views the reduction in size of the executive boards of Eurofound and the EU-OSHA with some scepticism. In particular the interest group which currently holds the post of chair will be disadvantaged, as it will have no other spokesperson in the executive board. The EESC suggests keeping the composition of three members per interest group. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

It is proposed that the executive board be reduced in size, but that it receives additional tasks; an exhaustive list of these is given. For practical reasons, and above all because the executive board operates between management board meetings, the EESC suggests inserting the term ‘for example’ before its list of tasks, to point out that the list is indicative. As with the management board, the executive board should not be given powers relating to staff appointments. The EESC views the reduction in size of the executive boards of Eurofound and the EU-OSHA with some scepticism. In particular the interest group which currently holds the post of chair will be disadvantaged, as it will have no other spokesperson in the executive board. The EESC suggests keeping the composition of three members per interest group.

| 4.8. | The formulation of the paragraph on the timing of the programming document is misleading. The EESC asks to clarify that the draft programming document, which consists of a multi-annual part, annual work programme and budget including human resources is adopted by the board and sent to the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of the European Union no later than 31 January. By 30 November the Management Board shall adopt the final programming document. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

The formulation of the paragraph on the timing of the programming document is misleading. The EESC asks to clarify that the draft programming document, which consists of a multi-annual part, annual work programme and budget including human resources is adopted by the board and sent to the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of the European Union no later than 31 January. By 30 November the Management Board shall adopt the final programming document.

| 4.9. | The EESC welcomes the standardised approach to the nomination of the executive director, which is along the same lines as that of the EU-OSHA. It would nevertheless suggest that when the Commission is drawing up the short list, observers from all the interest groups be present. |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

The EESC welcomes the standardised approach to the nomination of the executive director, which is along the same lines as that of the EU-OSHA. It would nevertheless suggest that when the Commission is drawing up the short list, observers from all the interest groups be present.

| 4.10. | All three agencies have liaison offices in Brussels. From the EESC’s point of view, the way the agencies work does not require any further offices in the Member States. The regulations should therefore make reference to the already existing Brussels offices, but reference to the possibility of setting up other local offices should be removed. |
| --- | --- |

4.10.

All three agencies have liaison offices in Brussels. From the EESC’s point of view, the way the agencies work does not require any further offices in the Member States. The regulations should therefore make reference to the already existing Brussels offices, but reference to the possibility of setting up other local offices should be removed.

| 4.11. | In keeping with the common approach, the post of deputy director in EUROFOUND is being scrapped. The EESC points to the fact that Cedefop has a deputy director as well, although this is not provided for in the regulation. The EESC is convinced that the post of deputy director has proven to be useful. In particular, it allows for a balance between employer and employee interests to be embedded in the direction of the agencies concerned, which supports social partner involvement as part of tripartism. Given that the different existing practices work well, the Committee requires a certain flexibility for the three agencies. It should be left to the management board to decide whether the post of deputy director is necessary. |
| --- | --- |

4.11.

In keeping with the common approach, the post of deputy director in EUROFOUND is being scrapped. The EESC points to the fact that Cedefop has a deputy director as well, although this is not provided for in the regulation. The EESC is convinced that the post of deputy director has proven to be useful. In particular, it allows for a balance between employer and employee interests to be embedded in the direction of the agencies concerned, which supports social partner involvement as part of tripartism. Given that the different existing practices work well, the Committee requires a certain flexibility for the three agencies. It should be left to the management board to decide whether the post of deputy director is necessary.

| 4.12. | The EESC warmly welcomes the fact that agreements on headquarters are to be concluded with the countries where the respective agencies have their headquarters. All three agencies have already signed such headquarters agreements; this provision will therefore reflect what is already the case. |
| --- | --- |

4.12.

The EESC warmly welcomes the fact that agreements on headquarters are to be concluded with the countries where the respective agencies have their headquarters. All three agencies have already signed such headquarters agreements; this provision will therefore reflect what is already the case.

| 4.13. | According to the draft regulations, evaluations, which have to take place every five years, shall be performed by the Commission. The EESC is convinced that the participation of representatives of the management board will help to better address any possible changes after an evaluation. |
| --- | --- |

4.13.

According to the draft regulations, evaluations, which have to take place every five years, shall be performed by the Commission. The EESC is convinced that the participation of representatives of the management board will help to better address any possible changes after an evaluation.

| 4.14. | When Agencies establish contacts and cooperation with third countries and international organisations, this requires prior approval by the Commission and is subsequently included in the programming document. The EESC is of the opinion that the approval by the management board, in which the Commission is represented, is already sufficient and no double approval is necessary. |
| --- | --- |

4.14.

When Agencies establish contacts and cooperation with third countries and international organisations, this requires prior approval by the Commission and is subsequently included in the programming document. The EESC is of the opinion that the approval by the management board, in which the Commission is represented, is already sufficient and no double approval is necessary.

5.   Specific comments

Specific comments

5.1.   
  Eurofound

Eurofound

| 5.1.1. | Compared to the current regulation, the reference to the medium and long-term research has been deleted, which could be interpreted as getting rid of the European surveys. Even though they are cost-intensive, they are the flagships of Eurofound, providing not only EU institutions, Member States and Social Partners, but also a host of academic and policy researchers, with unique pan-European comparable data on an extremely rich and wide range of living and working conditions. The EESC appreciates and supports the European surveys as they contribute directly to the further development of the whole European project. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.1.

Compared to the current regulation, the reference to the medium and long-term research has been deleted, which could be interpreted as getting rid of the European surveys. Even though they are cost-intensive, they are the flagships of Eurofound, providing not only EU institutions, Member States and Social Partners, but also a host of academic and policy researchers, with unique pan-European comparable data on an extremely rich and wide range of living and working conditions. The EESC appreciates and supports the European surveys as they contribute directly to the further development of the whole European project.

| 5.1.2. | The EESC welcomes the fact that the tasks of the advisory committees, which can be set up and dissolved by the management board, are to be described more precisely. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.2.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the tasks of the advisory committees, which can be set up and dissolved by the management board, are to be described more precisely.

5.2.   
  Cedefop

Cedefop

| 5.2.1. | The EESC does not agree with the objective set for Cedefop, which states that it is to assist the Commission in shaping and implementing vocational education and training, skills and qualifications policies. The Committee feels that Cedefop’s objective should be aligned with those of the other two agencies. The regulation should therefore make it clear that Cedefop’s aim is, alongside EU bodies and institutions, to support Member States and social partners in shaping and implementing policy, by providing information and analyses on vocational training, skills and qualifications. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.1.

The EESC does not agree with the objective set for Cedefop, which states that it is to assist the Commission in shaping and implementing vocational education and training, skills and qualifications policies. The Committee feels that Cedefop’s objective should be aligned with those of the other two agencies. The regulation should therefore make it clear that Cedefop’s aim is, alongside EU bodies and institutions, to support Member States and social partners in shaping and implementing policy, by providing information and analyses on vocational training, skills and qualifications.

| 5.2.2. | The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission’s proposal reflects the fact that Cedefop has taken on new tasks in the past. Cedefop’s current activities go beyond vocational education and training and include work on qualifications, in particular the European Qualifications Framework, on skills analysis and forecasting, and the validation of non-formal and informal learning. The committee, however, emphasises the fact that the focus of Cedefop’s activities should remain with vocational education and training, including apprenticeship and work-based learning for all (young and adults) in order to improve their employability. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.2.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission’s proposal reflects the fact that Cedefop has taken on new tasks in the past. Cedefop’s current activities go beyond vocational education and training and include work on qualifications, in particular the European Qualifications Framework, on skills analysis and forecasting, and the validation of non-formal and informal learning. The committee, however, emphasises the fact that the focus of Cedefop’s activities should remain with vocational education and training, including apprenticeship and work-based learning for all (young and adults) in order to improve their employability.

5.3.   
  EU-OSHA

EU-OSHA

| 5.3.1. | According to the proposal, the aim of the EU-OSHA is, inter alia, to make legal information available on safety and health at work. The EESC deems this provision to be encroaching on the Commission’s sphere of responsibility and is therefore against it. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.

According to the proposal, the aim of the EU-OSHA is, inter alia, to make legal information available on safety and health at work. The EESC deems this provision to be encroaching on the Commission’s sphere of responsibility and is therefore against it.

| 5.3.2. | It warmly welcomes the fact that there is explicit reference in the EU-OSHA regulation to awareness-raising and communication measures, as well as to work protection campaigns. Since the year 2000, the agency has been carrying out two-year information and awareness-raising campaigns on various worker protection themes, thus reaching a wide audience, publicising good, practical solutions. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.2.

It warmly welcomes the fact that there is explicit reference in the EU-OSHA regulation to awareness-raising and communication measures, as well as to work protection campaigns. Since the year 2000, the agency has been carrying out two-year information and awareness-raising campaigns on various worker protection themes, thus reaching a wide audience, publicising good, practical solutions.

| 5.3.3. | The agency’s information network was set up at the same time the agency was established and is a key element in ensuring that the information made available is both factually correct and actually relevant to what happens in practice. Furthermore, these networks also in effect extend the inclusive European tripartite approach to the national level, thereby bringing together representatives of governments and the Social Partners in ways that have proven very constructive and useful. Involvement of national social partners in this network is therefore of key importance and should be guaranteed by the Member States. The EESC does not however deem it to be realistic for the agency to make changes to a national network selected by Member States in keeping with specific criteria. The management board should, however, be allowed to make recommendations as to membership. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.3.

The agency’s information network was set up at the same time the agency was established and is a key element in ensuring that the information made available is both factually correct and actually relevant to what happens in practice. Furthermore, these networks also in effect extend the inclusive European tripartite approach to the national level, thereby bringing together representatives of governments and the Social Partners in ways that have proven very constructive and useful. Involvement of national social partners in this network is therefore of key importance and should be guaranteed by the Member States. The EESC does not however deem it to be realistic for the agency to make changes to a national network selected by Member States in keeping with specific criteria. The management board should, however, be allowed to make recommendations as to membership.

Brussels, 30 March 2017.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS

---