# Official Journal C 290/29 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 290 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6529 July 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 290

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6529 July 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| | European Economic and Social Committee |
| | 568th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee – Interactio, 23.3.2022–24.3.2022 |
| 2022/C 290/01 | Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on the war in Ukraine and its economic, social and environmental impact | 1 |
| | OPINIONS |
| | European Economic and Social Committee |
| | 568th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee – Interactio, 23.3.2022–24.3.2022 |
| 2022/C 290/02 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the EU action for the post-COVID-19 period: recovering better through sport (own-initiative opinion) | 6 |
| 2022/C 290/03 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on a new framework for free trade agreements, economic partnership agreements and investment agreements that guarantees the real involvement of civil society organisations and the social partners and ensures public awareness (own-initiative opinion) | 11 |
| 2022/C 290/04 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: What conditions are needed for the energy and low-carbon transition to be socially acceptable? (Exploratory opinion requested by the French Presidency of the Council of the EU) | 22 |
| 2022/C 290/05 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on consolidating the EU Civil Protection Mechanism in order to improve the EU’s capacity to react in the face of extreme events, including those occurring outside its territory (Exploratory opinion at the request of the French presidency) | 30 |

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

European Economic and Social Committee

568th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee – Interactio, 23.3.2022–24.3.2022

2022/C 290/01

Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on the war in Ukraine and its economic, social and environmental impact

1

OPINIONS

European Economic and Social Committee

568th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee – Interactio, 23.3.2022–24.3.2022

2022/C 290/02

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the EU action for the post-COVID-19 period: recovering better through sport (own-initiative opinion)

6

2022/C 290/03

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on a new framework for free trade agreements, economic partnership agreements and investment agreements that guarantees the real involvement of civil society organisations and the social partners and ensures public awareness (own-initiative opinion)

11

2022/C 290/04

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: What conditions are needed for the energy and low-carbon transition to be socially acceptable? (Exploratory opinion requested by the French Presidency of the Council of the EU)

(Exploratory opinion requested by the French Presidency of the Council of the EU)

22

2022/C 290/05

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on consolidating the EU Civil Protection Mechanism in order to improve the EU’s capacity to react in the face of extreme events, including those occurring outside its territory (Exploratory opinion at the request of the French presidency)

(Exploratory opinion at the request of the French presidency)

30

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | European Economic and Social Committee |
| | 568th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee – Interactio, 23.3.2022–24.3.2022 |
| 2022/C 290/06 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — 2021 Strategic Foresight Report — The EU’s capacity and freedom to act (COM(2021) 750 final) | 35 |
| 2022/C 290/07 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment risk, operational risk, market risk and the output floor (COM(2021) 664 final — 2021/0342 (COD)) | 40 |
| 2022/C 290/08 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive laying down rules to prevent the misuse of shell entities for tax purposes and amending Directive 2011/16/EU (COM(2021) 565 final — 2021/0434 (CNS)) | 45 |
| 2022/C 290/09 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union (COM(2021) 823 final — 2021/0433 (CNS)) | 52 |
| 2022/C 290/10 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European single access point providing centralised access to publicly available information of relevance to financial services, capital markets and sustainability (COM(2021) 723 final — 2021/0378 (COD)) and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Directives as regards the establishment and functioning of the European single access point (COM(2021) 724 final — 2021/0379 (COD)) and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Regulations as regards the establishment and functioning of the European single access point (COM(2021) 725 final — 2021/0380 (COD)) | 58 |
| 2022/C 290/11 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/760 as regards the scope of eligible assets and investments, the portfolio composition and diversification requirements, the borrowing of cash and other fund rules and as regards requirements pertaining to the authorisation, investment policies and operating conditions of European long-term investment funds (COM(2021) 722 final — 2021/0377 (COD)) | 64 |
| 2022/C 290/12 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 as regards enhancing market data transparency, removing obstacles to the emergence of a consolidated tape, optimising the trading obligations and prohibiting receiving payments for forwarding client orders (COM(2021) 727 final — 2021/0385 (COD)) | 68 |
| 2022/C 290/13 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: EU Strategy on Combatting Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021–2030) (COM(2021) 615 final) | 73 |
| 2022/C 290/14 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application of Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (COM(2021) 592 final) | 81 |
| 2022/C 290/15 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A renewed EU action plan against migrant smuggling (2021-2025) (COM(2021) 591 final) | 90 |
| 2022/C 290/16 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Better working conditions for a stronger social Europe: harnessing the full benefits of digitalisation for the future of work (COM(2021) 761 final) and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving working conditions in platform work (COM(2021) 762 final) | 95 |
| 2022/C 290/17 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for universities (COM(2022) 16 final) and the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation (COM(2022) 17 final) | 109 |
| 2022/C 290/18 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings (recast) (COM(2021) 802 final — 2021/0426 (COD)) | 114 |
| 2022/C 290/19 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 (COM(2021) 812 final — 2021/0420 (COD)) | 120 |
| 2022/C 290/20 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2010/40/EU on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (COM(2021) 813 final — 2021/0419 (COD)) | 126 |
| 2022/C 290/21 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on EU Soil Strategy for 2030 — Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate (COM(2021) 699 final) | 131 |
| 2022/C 290/22 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: Long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas (COM(2021) 345 final) | 137 |
| 2022/C 290/23 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC (COM(2021) 851 final — 2021/0422 (COD)) | 143 |
| 2022/C 290/24 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/833 laying down conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (COM(2022) 51 final — 2022/0035 (COD)) | 149 |
| 2022/C 290/25 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the extension of the application period of the optional reverse charge mechanism in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud and of the Quick Reaction Mechanism against VAT fraud (COM(2022) 39 final — 2022/0027 (CNS)) | 151 |
| 2022/C 290/26 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC as regards its period of application and as regards the equivalence of field inspections carried out in Bolivia on cereal seed-producing crops and oil and fibre plant seed-producing crops and on the equivalence of cereal seed and oil and fibre plant seed produced in Bolivia (COM(2022) 26 final — 2021/0016 (COD)) | 152 |
| 2022/C 290/27 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down transitional rules for the packaging and labelling of veterinary medicinal products authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (COM(2022) 76 final — 2022/0053 (COD)) | 153 |
| 2022/C 290/28 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 as regards Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE) (COM(2022) 109 final — 2022/0075 (COD)) | 154 |

III   Preparatory acts

European Economic and Social Committee

568th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee – Interactio, 23.3.2022–24.3.2022

2022/C 290/06

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — 2021 Strategic Foresight Report — The EU’s capacity and freedom to act (COM(2021) 750 final)

(COM(2021) 750 final)

35

2022/C 290/07

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment risk, operational risk, market risk and the output floor (COM(2021) 664 final — 2021/0342 (COD))

(COM(2021) 664 final — 2021/0342 (COD))

40

2022/C 290/08

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive laying down rules to prevent the misuse of shell entities for tax purposes and amending Directive 2011/16/EU (COM(2021) 565 final — 2021/0434 (CNS))

(COM(2021) 565 final — 2021/0434 (CNS))

45

2022/C 290/09

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union (COM(2021) 823 final — 2021/0433 (CNS))

(COM(2021) 823 final — 2021/0433 (CNS))

52

2022/C 290/10

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European single access point providing centralised access to publicly available information of relevance to financial services, capital markets and sustainability (COM(2021) 723 final — 2021/0378 (COD)) and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Directives as regards the establishment and functioning of the European single access point (COM(2021) 724 final — 2021/0379 (COD)) and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Regulations as regards the establishment and functioning of the European single access point (COM(2021) 725 final — 2021/0380 (COD))

(COM(2021) 723 final — 2021/0378 (COD))

(COM(2021) 724 final — 2021/0379 (COD))

(COM(2021) 725 final — 2021/0380 (COD))

58

2022/C 290/11

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/760 as regards the scope of eligible assets and investments, the portfolio composition and diversification requirements, the borrowing of cash and other fund rules and as regards requirements pertaining to the authorisation, investment policies and operating conditions of European long-term investment funds (COM(2021) 722 final — 2021/0377 (COD))

(COM(2021) 722 final — 2021/0377 (COD))

64

2022/C 290/12

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 as regards enhancing market data transparency, removing obstacles to the emergence of a consolidated tape, optimising the trading obligations and prohibiting receiving payments for forwarding client orders (COM(2021) 727 final — 2021/0385 (COD))

(COM(2021) 727 final — 2021/0385 (COD))

68

2022/C 290/13

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: EU Strategy on Combatting Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021–2030) (COM(2021) 615 final)

(COM(2021) 615 final)

73

2022/C 290/14

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application of Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (COM(2021) 592 final)

(COM(2021) 592 final)

81

2022/C 290/15

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A renewed EU action plan against migrant smuggling (2021-2025) (COM(2021) 591 final)

(COM(2021) 591 final)

90

2022/C 290/16

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Better working conditions for a stronger social Europe: harnessing the full benefits of digitalisation for the future of work (COM(2021) 761 final) and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving working conditions in platform work (COM(2021) 762 final)

(COM(2021) 761 final)

(COM(2021) 762 final)

95

2022/C 290/17

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for universities (COM(2022) 16 final) and the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation (COM(2022) 17 final)

(COM(2022) 16 final)

(COM(2022) 17 final)

109

2022/C 290/18

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings (recast) (COM(2021) 802 final — 2021/0426 (COD))

(COM(2021) 802 final — 2021/0426 (COD))

114

2022/C 290/19

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 (COM(2021) 812 final — 2021/0420 (COD))

(COM(2021) 812 final — 2021/0420 (COD))

120

2022/C 290/20

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2010/40/EU on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (COM(2021) 813 final — 2021/0419 (COD))

(COM(2021) 813 final — 2021/0419 (COD))

126

2022/C 290/21

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on EU Soil Strategy for 2030 — Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate (COM(2021) 699 final)

(COM(2021) 699 final)

131

2022/C 290/22

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: Long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas (COM(2021) 345 final)

(COM(2021) 345 final)

137

2022/C 290/23

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC (COM(2021) 851 final — 2021/0422 (COD))

(COM(2021) 851 final — 2021/0422 (COD))

143

2022/C 290/24

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/833 laying down conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (COM(2022) 51 final — 2022/0035 (COD))

(COM(2022) 51 final — 2022/0035 (COD))

149

2022/C 290/25

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the extension of the application period of the optional reverse charge mechanism in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud and of the Quick Reaction Mechanism against VAT fraud (COM(2022) 39 final — 2022/0027 (CNS))

(COM(2022) 39 final — 2022/0027 (CNS))

151

2022/C 290/26

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC as regards its period of application and as regards the equivalence of field inspections carried out in Bolivia on cereal seed-producing crops and oil and fibre plant seed-producing crops and on the equivalence of cereal seed and oil and fibre plant seed produced in Bolivia (COM(2022) 26 final — 2021/0016 (COD))

(COM(2022) 26 final — 2021/0016 (COD))

152

2022/C 290/27

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down transitional rules for the packaging and labelling of veterinary medicinal products authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (COM(2022) 76 final — 2022/0053 (COD))

(COM(2022) 76 final — 2022/0053 (COD))

153

2022/C 290/28

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 as regards Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE) (COM(2022) 109 final — 2022/0075 (COD))

(COM(2022) 109 final — 2022/0075 (COD))

154

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

European Economic and Social Committee

568th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee – Interactio, 23.3.2022–24.3.2022

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/1

---

Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on the war in Ukraine and its economic, social and environmental impact

(2022/C 290/01)

| Legal basis | Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure |
| --- | --- |
| | Resolution |
| Adopted at plenary | 24.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 176/1/1 |

Legal basis

Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure

Resolution

Adopted at plenary

24.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

176/1/1

THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE (EESC),

| 1. | strongly condemns the unilateral aggression against Ukraine ordered by the President of the Russian Federation and the involvement of the Belarusian regime; stresses that the invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces violates international rules and agreements in force and threatens European and global security; the invasion also directly violates the EU’s primary aim ‘to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its people’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | urges that the EU provide full support to ensure that all war crimes and crimes against humanity are recorded and processed through the International Criminal Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | pays tribute to the tremendous courage shown by the people of Ukraine who are defending Ukraine against the Russian invaders; calls on the free world to support their struggle for peace and freedom with all means at its disposal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | calls on the EU and its like-minded international partners to remain united, to continue to show full solidarity in responding to this unjustified and unprovoked war and to identify a diplomatic path to cease hostilities; stresses the need for diplomatic action of an immediate ceasefire and construction of a real peace process with an active role of the EU Institutions. These actors should also step up pressure on the Russian regime by promptly imposing further sanctions and to use all other tools at their disposal to immediately stop military action by Russia on Ukrainian territory, completely withdraw Russian forces, and to restore peace, security and stability in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood and to support societies who share our values; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | believes it is of the utmost importance to the EU and the international community that no borders be changed through military means, and that no benefits be gained by the aggressor. The rule of law must be upheld, not the rights of the strongest, and full reparations paid to Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | supports and endorses key messages of the Resolution of the European Parliament of 1 March on Russian aggression against Ukraine including measures proposed there to immediately support Ukraine and its citizens in their fight for independence and freedom; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | welcomes the actions of those European companies that have decided to withdraw from the Russian market and encourages other companies to also favour humanity and solidarity above short-term economic interests; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | reiterates its unequivocal support for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, other Eastern Partnership countries, namely Moldova and Georgia, as well as all EU Member States, within their internationally recognised borders; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | expresses its profound grief for all the victims of the aggression, children, women and men, for the destruction of cities and infrastructure, incalculable human suffering and environmental damage; regrets that millions of people have been forced to leave their houses and to seek shelter in safer places within Ukraine or in neighbouring countries; insists that aggressors are held accountable for their crimes; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | urges to step up actions to strengthen Ukraine’s position and sovereignty, as well as humanitarian actions that can support the Ukrainian people in granting access to essential items, in particular water, food, medicine and electricity; calls on all governments to do everything in their power to ensure food supply and food safety by providing food and clean water in war zones; urges Russia to ensure humanitarian access to the population of Ukraine; warns that many workers will not be receiving their salaries and people will not have access to their savings; in this regard calls for an adequate economic measures designed to prevent economic collapse; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | welcomes the active approach of all EU governments, especially those of Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia, as well as the government of Moldova in keeping their borders open and providing means of evacuation, shelter, emergency assistance, medical assistance and asylum to people fleeing the war in Ukraine, including both Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian nationals; calls on the Council and the Commission to provide extra funding for these countries as they are the primary points of entry of Ukrainian refugees to the EU; They will also remain prime countries of residence of Ukrainian refugees in the months to come; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | calls once again for an immigration policy that ensures that no country carries a disproportionate burden and that such burden is shared equally amongst Member States; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | supports EU’s commitment to assist refugees from Ukraine as outlined in the Commission’s communication ‘European solidarity with refugees and those fleeing war in Ukraine’ (1) and stresses that the funds available through Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe and REACT (2) should be flexible and promptly available; welcomes the fact that the EU has already activated the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and created logistical hubs in neighbouring countries to channel aid to Ukraine; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | welcomes the heartening solidarity shown by EU and neighbouring civil society organisations and their unceasing actions since the very first day of the Russian aggression and stresses the need to allocate EU financial support both to governments and civil society organisations acting on the ground; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | Calls to fully implement the Temporary Protection Directive (which was activated for the first time ever by the European Council on 4 March 2022 upon the European Commission’s proposal) through solidarity and shared responsibility between EU Member States, by guaranteeing the full range of rights provided by the Directive, which include access to the labour market, housing, health care, education and welfare support, for all those who are entitled to this protection and that the needs of vulnerable groups, especially children, women, the elderly and people with disabilities, are addressed adequately; encourages hosting countries to welcome the creation and respect of same humanitarian corridors for all refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine regardless of their nationality; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | acknowledges the difficulties that hosting countries might find in swiftly integrating refugees in their labour markets; underlines that the EU economies have the capacity to absorb the influx of people from Ukraine provided that the resettlement is managed properly; calls on inclusion mechanisms to be gender- and age-responsive; calls the European Labour Authority to monitor in line with its mandate refugees’ labour market integration and to provide regular reports about it; reminds to this end the potential of social and solidarity economy, within the framework of welfare state services, to maintain and increase jobs even in times of crisis, and encourages the Member States to find solutions for better integration of the Ukrainian refugees to their labour market, recognises the specific situation of women and children in conflict zones and upon arrival in host countries, including the risks of exploitation and gender-based violence, in particular sexual violence and human trafficking; notes that the situation of Ukrainian citizens that were granted temporary protection in the European Union, or entitled to ask for such a status, will continue to be monitored and taken into consideration by the European Migration Forum; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | demands enhanced support for the Ukrainian civil society, both in and outside of Ukraine; believes that the EU should consider involving Ukrainian civil society in all Ukraine-related discussions; Ukrainian civil society will be directly involved in alleviating the impact of war and in rebuilding the socioeconomic fabric of the country; in this context, the EESC calls for consolidating and enhancing existing funding schemes designed to support civil society in Ukraine; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | following recent statements by the President of the EC, calls on the EU Institutions and all Member States to cooperate fully with Ukraine and to open all relevant EU funds and programmes to Ukraine; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | calls on the EU Institutions to open a concrete dialogue with Ukraine regarding the accession process of the country to the European Union as soon as possible in line with Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union and on the basis of merit, and to provide immediate financial aid to secure humanitarian support to Ukraine, and urges to open the same dialogue with the other countries that have associated themselves with the EU like Georgia and Moldova in order to guarantee stability and equal treatment to these countries. This should happen without detriment to the ongoing accession process of the Western Balkans; In the meantime, calls to continue to work towards integration of Ukraine into the EU single market along the lines of the Association Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | expresses deep concern about the massive use of propaganda and disinformation by the Russian government to justify and obscure its aggression against Ukraine; in this regard, underlines the necessity to enhance EU’s resilience to cyberattacks and to design a global strategy to counter disinformation; the EU must take the global lead in this regard; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | stresses the need to support independent Russian and Belarusian civil society and journalists and keep communication channels open with them; strongly condemns the wave of repressions in Russia as well as arrests of peaceful protesters, gagging of the media, and shutting down of the voice of civil society; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | calls for joint solidarity actions to boycott products and services from Russia; stresses the need to break off cooperation with Russian companies and organisations that support Putin’s policies; condemns circumventing collective boycott actions in an attempt to acquire any kind of advantage; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | acknowledges that the war and all related measures, namely sanctions, will have a socioeconomic impact on the Member States and the neighbouring countries, which the EU must be ready to assume; points out that the crisis shows the need to strengthen the internal market and its functioning; underlines the importance to offset losses incurred by European enterprises affected by sanctions and emphasises the need to run a thorough impact analysis of the sanctions, in order to be prepared to mitigate their economic and social consequences; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | stresses that several industry sectors will be severely impacted; points out that besides energy, Russia and Ukraine have a significant weight in EU imports of metals, such as nickel, copper and iron and essential raw materials such as neon, palladium, titanium and platinum, which are critical for several strategic industries including defence and microchip production; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | emphasizes the need to accelerate the development of a strategic and technological autonomy for Europe and calls on EU leaders to confirm their unity and determination to make the European Union a more independent and sovereign power by improving our defence capabilities and limiting our dependencies in energy, critical raw materials and food; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | underlines the importance of reducing the EU’s energy dependency on third parties, in particular on Russia; calls for a viable plan to diversify the energy sources within the Member States’ energy mix and welcomes the proposals made thereof by the Versailles Declaration (3); acknowledges that security and sustainability of energy supply can be fully achieved in the long term only by boosting the usage of low-carbon or carbon-free energy sources, with greater use of local and renewable energy sources; advocates for accelerating research investments to develop new clean technologies in order to ensure a resilient and sustainable future of the EU energy system; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | underlines the need for a differentiation of fiscal strategies across Member States, with a view to preserving debt sustainability, particularly in Member States with high public debt. Member States with low and medium debt levels should prioritize expansion of public investment; stresses the importance of prioritising expansion of public investment to enhance the resilience of the EU economy; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | expresses concerns as regards the emergency situation of significant parts of the transport sector and urges the Commission to pay due attention to the crisis of the transport sector caused by extremely high fuel and electricity costs when conceiving the Temporary Crisis Framework mentioned in the communication REPower EU: Joint European Action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy (4) and calls for caution when relaxing regulatory procedures to ensure it does not weaken social and environmental standards; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | stresses that the conflict will inevitably carry severe consequences for the EU’s agri-food sector, which will require additional support; to this end; underlines that the EU must reinforce its commitment to deliver on sustainable food systems while guaranteeing the affordability of quality food for everyone; in particular, the EU must improve its food security by reducing dependencies on key imported agricultural products and inputs; moreover, consumers in all EU Member States will be faced with significant increases in food and energy prices which could increase levels of poverty within the EU; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | stresses that Ukraine and Russia are significant exporters of several agricultural products, such as grain and oilseeds; notes that the disruption of exports from these countries has already led to huge global increases in the prices of agricultural commodities and that the consequences are felt especially in the world’s poorest countries and the poorest people are the ones who will suffer the most; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | stresses that the impacts of the war should not come to the detriment of climate action and sustainability, as provided for in the UN Agenda 2030 on sustainable development which is, first and foremost, an agenda of peace, security and poverty reduction; underlines the need to progress towards implementation of the UN Agenda 2030 and a just transition, through the European Green Deal, emphasising that exceptional derogations only can be granted for a limited time; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | considers that the environmental impacts caused by the conflict, as a consequence of bombings, oil/gas leaks, incidents in chemical factories, or nuclear plants, are of major concern, for both the Ukrainian and EU population; stresses that the EU must help to protect and restore environmental damage caused by the war and sanction environmental crimes, as they will inevitably have long lasting consequences; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | stresses the need to maintain solidarity and further develop common European responses to share the burden of the economic impact and suggests designing a flexible European instrument; notes that, in the case of the most affected countries, the processing and revision of the national Recovery and Resilience Plans might be necessary, particularly in light of the concerning stagflation risk; recognizes that all EU Member States and their citizens will be directly affected by the invasion of Ukraine and that the human cost and repercussions for Ukrainians will be incalculable, hence, the necessity for intra-EU solidarity and for long-term EU solidarity with Ukraine; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | welcomes the commitment expressed in the Versailles Declaration (5) to increase the use of the European Peace Facility instrument; stresses that the EU should move towards a stronger political integration, which could support a common foreign policy and calls on the Member States to immediately start working on implementing a genuinely common and effective defence system that would significantly strengthen Europe’s ability to defend itself; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | acknowledges that the occupation of the nuclear power stations is raising concerns about nuclear safety for the local population and Europe as a whole and calls for full cooperation with all involved actors and with the International Agency for Atomic Energy to monitor the situation and pre-empt any possible escape of radioactivity; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | stresses the need for political leaders to be clear in their communication with EU citizens and explain the cost of war; emphasises that peace has a price and we all have to pay that price which must be shared across Member States; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | calls for the EU and its Member States to prepare an adequate assistance and recovery plan for Ukraine to support the Ukrainian economy and the reconstruction of its destroyed infrastructure; emphasises that the Russian Federation must bear the responsibility for the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure, including civilian and residential buildings, as well as the significant economic losses, and will be required to compensate the damage caused by its aggressive actions; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | commits to monitoring the situation closely, by encouraging exchanges of information on the support of European CSOs on the ground, by encouraging a genuine dialogue with Ukrainian CSOs, including employers’ organisations and trade unions, through their permanent dialogue mechanisms; commits to monitoring the situation of the refugees on the ground as well as in the neighbouring countries, giving full support to the Ukrainian people. |
| --- | --- |

38.

Brussels, 24 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  COM(2022) 107 final — European solidarity with refugees and those fleeing war in Ukraine.

1

(2)  COM(2022) 109 final — Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE).

2

(3)  Versailles Declaration, adopted at the informal meeting of Heads of State and Government on 10 and 11 March 2022 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/54773/20220311-versailles-declaration-en.pdf

3

(4)  COM(2022) 108 final — REPowerEU: Joint European Action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy.

4

(5)  Versailles Declaration, adopted at the informal meeting of Heads of State and Government on 10 and 11 March 2022 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/54773/20220311-versailles-declaration-en.pdf

5

---

OPINIONS

European Economic and Social Committee

568th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee – Interactio, 23.3.2022–24.3.2022

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/6

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the EU action for the post-COVID-19 period: recovering better through sport

(own-initiative opinion)

(2022/C 290/02)

| Rapporteur: | Pietro Vittorio BARBIERI |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Pietro Vittorio BARBIERI

| Plenary Assembly decision | 23.3.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure |
| | Own-initiative opinion |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 7.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 24.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 148/0/0 |

Plenary Assembly decision

23.3.2021

Legal basis

Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure

Own-initiative opinion

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

7.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

24.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

148/0/0

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | After the long period of pandemic, which has hit the sports sector as a whole and local sports clubs in particular hard, with many facilities having to close, a strategic approach is necessary to boost and promote the role of sport and physical activity in building a more resilient and sustainable society, as part of the wider process of economic and social recovery. Such a choice should be seen as part of the wider economic and social recovery process, in an attempt to identify targets to make the sport sector more responsive to crises that are increasingly affecting us. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | Sport and physical activity will need to be mainstreamed into economic and social development strategies, and broader cross-sectoral links forged, in particular with public health, education and social inclusion. Sport is a driver for social, economic and environmental sustainability that fosters recovery by creating new employment and business opportunities based on it. It will also be important to foster social dialogue on the issue of well-being and physical activity in the workplace, involving the social partners. The EESC therefore calls for studies showing the link between sport and people’s general well-being. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | At school and during the various stages of education, just as people are taught to perform a task, to learn and to grow, it is necessary to teach girls and boys all about body literacy. Revitalising physical education at school from a perspective of play, recreation and multidisciplinarity means creating an unparalleled tool for delivering results, serenity, the ability to live with other people and, above all, achieving educational success and promoting healthy lifestyles. This means recognising the value of sport and physical activity in the same way as other subjects, particularly in training paths for the younger generations, focussing in particular on inland areas and those disadvantaged due to their geographical characteristics. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The Lisbon Treaty outlined the European dimension of the social and economic value of sport. In the aftermath of the health emergency, it is necessary to make the values that sport and physical activity represent in European policy more visible, while affording them full dignity in the same way as other European policies. Therefore, not just cohesion policies are needed, but a real process of empowerment — a genuine sports transition that attaches significant value to the impact generated on people’s wellbeing and quality of life. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | It is therefore important to: |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.5.1. | include the sport deprivation rate — or the rate of exclusion from benefiting from a necessary good: the right to practice sports — in the Eurostat list of indices to measure material deprivation; |
| --- | --- |

1.5.1.

| 1.5.2. | make all EU funding for the period 2021-2027 — whether under direct or indirect management — available to the sports sector, considering sport and physical activity to be an investment in the individual and collective well-being of communities; |
| --- | --- |

1.5.2.

| 1.5.3. | provide for a greater share of the total amount of funding allocated to sport and cross-sectoral cooperation, including sport, in the Erasmus+ programme. Funding should come not just from cohesion funds but also from the resources for the various strands of the recovery fund, as funding is severely reduced for sport. In addition, greater redistribution of resources between high-performance and social sport; |
| --- | --- |

1.5.3.

| 1.5.4. | develop plans to assist sport in the event of (economic, social and health) crises and emergencies, including preparedness plans, with the forms of administrative simplification needed to deal with heavy bureaucracy, especially for local sports clubs. It is therefore a priority to provide support especially for local sport, as it is that level which plays a role of including people with disabilities or in fragile or vulnerable situations, as well as providing significant intercultural interaction; |
| --- | --- |

1.5.4.

| 1.5.5. | encourage support for active citizenship networks in achieving these objectives at local level, through partnerships and co-design between public policies and networks, in order to kick-start forms of social innovation, building on experiences of shared administration and circular subsidiarity. Encourage the participation of the social partners and organisations. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.5.

2.   General comments

| 2.1. | Against the backdrop of a pandemic that continues to put us to the test, and as we battle to protect lives and livelihoods, we must not lose sight of the fact that the choices we face will determine the future of the EU’s socioeconomic systems and the lives of Europe’s citizens. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The health emergency has shown that, because of the multifaceted nature of the problems besetting us, it is impossible to achieve levels of resilience that would provide total security to the EU’s socioeconomic systems. Action is needed to adapt our society to crises and change by advancing resilience models grounded in the ability to anticipate crises and tackle them with the right ‘tools’. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The coronavirus pandemic has changed the economic, social and health outlook for the years ahead and with this has come a change in the approach towards development and cohesion strategies. We need to choose whether to keep on doing what we have always done, or to change and adapt the paradigm that underpins development and cohesion policies given the problems brought to light and the experience gained as a result of the COVID-19 emergency. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The world of sport in its entirety has been badly hit by the COVID-19 crisis across Europe, but we need to emphasise that grassroots sport has faced the worst problems and challenges. The impact of the crisis in sport has affected young people in particular by constraining their ‘right’ to engage in sport and physical activity. The whole branch of sports associations and the sports industry has likewise been affected by the health crisis, with consequences that will bear on its recovery even in the medium term. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

3.   The role of sport in development and cohesion processes

| 3.1. | Sport enables civil society to channel its capacities constructively, enriching its positive values in a unique and multidimensional approach that contributes to physical and mental wellbeing; it also mitigates social problems through its ability to bring together culturally diverse communities. Sport is a vehicle for social, economic and environmental sustainability — under the conditions described in this opinion — increases the regeneration and attractiveness of regions and localities and furthers recovery by making it possible to create new employment and business opportunities based around it. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | In economic terms, sport can stimulate the emergence of new lines of business or the consolidation of existing ones, by nurturing social and technological innovation; it can create new job opportunities, including through formal and non-formal training for young people; it is an implement with which to improve and consolidate workers’ health and skills and, since it relies mainly on human involvement, it is an effective lever with which to generate local employment. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | In social terms, sport is characterised by its ability to interact with a wide range of social groups, bridge differences, bring local communities together and get ‘fragile’ and vulnerable social groups involved in the life of the community. Sport projects can also help prompt social regeneration in disadvantaged areas such as urban suburbs and rural and inland areas in Europe’s regions. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | On the environmental front, sport is a strategic tool for attaining the goals set to meet the challenges posed by the fight against climate change. Sport is an instrument for nurturing sustainable mobility and the green regeneration of urban areas as part of adapting to climate change. If transformed into Nearly Zero-Energy Sports Facilities (1), sports infrastructure will help — together with the holding of low-carbon events — to achieve the environmental sustainability goals. Finally, sports events are a formidable vehicle for disseminating and getting across positive environmental messages. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | Although all the major international strategies (2030 Agenda; cohesion policy 2021-2027; WHO Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018-2030) have identified sport as a priority instrument for achieving development, sustainability and cohesion goals, this approach has regrettably not yet been fully implemented in many Member States, with sport and the playing of sport still often relegated to a leisure and recreational role. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | Where sport is concerned, the COVID-19 emergency means that the crisis will likely reduce the playing of sport or make it impossible. In the absence of specific and ‘innovative’ measures that can effectively address problems and find solutions, the chain of events that characterises the social and economic dimension of this critical situation will have a disastrous impact, restricting some activities that are essential to ensure people’s quality of life, wellbeing and health. This situation will not only endanger the ‘survival’ of many bodies, associations and businesses operating in the field of sport, but will also lead to a social problem involving people’s quality of life and an economic one involving the lack of a source of income for those who derive their livelihood from such work. Similarly, the economic hardship brought about by the crisis will make it impossible for many people to pay for their children, or themselves, to do sport, thus adversely affecting physical wellbeing and health. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | For vulnerable population groups, such as those with disabilities, the risks of sport deprivation will exacerbate already critical situations that in some Member States amount to systemic limitations. Specifically in the field of mental health, the pandemic has greatly reduced the active take-up by users, family members, operators, individuals and sports clubs of dedicated services and departments, depriving people with mental health conditions of sport as a means of building and maintaining supportive relationships that counter the isolation and marginalisation that arise from these illnesses. Collective wellbeing is a fact that affects everyone, not just those providing or receiving treatment. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | Given the severe limitation of social opportunities which has significantly affected children and young people, opportunities for sport and physical activity, education and training should be boosted, with a focus on the safety of the places where they take place, to protect children and adolescents. Sport is an area where huge numbers of children and their teachers, technicians and coaches meet daily. This is one of the most sensitive environments for the physical and mental development of those practising sport, and it requires specific policies to be adopted to enable them to reap all the benefits that the activity can bring within a protected environment. Sport for all should not mean sport at all costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | Regular physical activity also contributes to active ageing and can play a key role in improving older people’s functional capabilities and quality of life. Moreover, the effects of physical exercise are amplified if older people are involved in social and productive activities at the same time. Sport therefore plays a preventive role, so that workers are healthy and fit when they reach retirement. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | Developing physical activity for as many individuals as possible also requires social and societal innovation, which organised civil society and the social partners should pioneer. The everyday dimension, reflection on workers’, students’ and pupils’ rhythms, and the ability to design areas where parents can carry out physical activity at the same time as their children, are crucial. The pandemic has helped us rediscover outdoor exercise, which can promote innovative trends such as urban and rural sport, to regenerate spaces and share space flexibility. The need for social innovation is huge and should be promoted and encouraged to help counter the fact that most people do not have time to engage in sport, even when they would like to. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The role of local private facilities (sports centres), which have all the capacity needed to work with businesses and other facilities (centres for people with disabilities, for example) of civil society organisations, should be emphasised in the development of collective programmes to benefit workers and people in general. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | In this connection, the contribution of civil society and all the social partners is key. By encouraging civic engagement and launching social dialogue they can promote strategies for quality of life in the workplace, including as part of collective agreements, mount campaigns encouraging workers to join gyms and/or sports clubs, encourage sports workers to protect their own interests, and introduce pauses in work for people to stop and move around. The role of health professionals and teachers working with young children in raising awareness and promoting sport should be emphasised and strengthened in order to build a new culture and encourage employers to provide incentives to engage in sport. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

| 3.13. | As regards the gender dimension, the European Charter of Women’s Rights in Sports (2) is certainly a work programme for continuing to educate people about differences and experiment with new activities, continuing the dialogue and collaboration between different stakeholders, particularly on the subject of communication, where there has for some time been a closer relationship between women and the media, to promote respectful and attentive journalistic language, enabling sport to combat all forms of violence, discrimination and economic inequality, and an increasingly welcoming and inclusive sport and mobility culture. |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

4.   Sport in the 2030 Agenda

| 4.1. | Sport is a universal language that unites people, peoples and cultures; its values are values of universality and harmony. Sport is a key tool with which to assist action to transform our societies into more thoughtful, sustainability-minded ‘environments’. It is helping to achieve the 2030 Agenda goals by affirming the principles of respect, understanding, inclusion and dialogue, so contributing to the development and fulfilment of individuals regardless of age, sex, origins, beliefs and opinions. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | Despite the obvious cross-cutting nature of sport as a means of supporting the implementation of the principles enshrined in the 2030 Agenda, it is clearly more likely to benefit some of the Agenda’s 17 goals more than others. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | Sport is an area in which the EU’s remit is relatively new, having been introduced only with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU is responsible for the development of evidence-based policy, as well as for fostering cooperation and managing initiatives in support of physical activity and sport across Europe. In the 2014-2020 period, a dedicated budget line was made available for the first time under the Erasmus+ (3) programme to support projects and networks in the area of sport. EU action in support of sport will be maintained and upgraded in the period 2021-2027. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

5.   Sport and cohesion policy

| 5.1. | The EU is striving to achieve greater fairness and openness in sporting competitions and greater protection of the moral and physical integrity of those engaged in sport, while bearing in mind its particular characteristics. Specifically, the EU covers three areas of activity in the field of sport: 1) its social role; 2) its economic dimension, and 3) the political and legal framework of the sector. For these areas, in addition to measures supported by directly managed financial instruments, the EU promotes the use and complementarity of the opportunities afforded by cohesion policy. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | Sport and physical activity have demonstrated their ability to interact with a wide range of social groups, bridge differences, bring together local communities and get excluded social groups involved in the life of the community. Sports projects can also help towards a raft of political goals: nurturing innovation, promoting urban regeneration, sustaining rural development and contributing to domestic investment in Europe’s regions. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

6.   Sport and the WHO Global Physical Activity Action Plan 2018-2030

| 6.1. | The Global Physical Activity Action Plan 2018-2030 (4) sets out the strategic objectives to be achieved through policy measures to reduce the general lack of physical activity in adults and adolescents by 15 % by 2030. It underscores the need for a cross-sectoral, holistic approach and the importance of investing in social, cultural, economic, environmental, educational, etc. policies to promote physical activity and contribute to the achievement of many of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030. The strategies for implementing the plan should incorporate all the decisive factors that influence lifestyle and seek to put into practice effective health promotion measures from a cross-sectoral perspective and using a holistic approach. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.2. | Promoting physical activity is a complex matter that requires strong leadership and policy measures from the health sector, which is crucial at national level, but also a great deal of interaction with other sectors, such as education, culture, transport, urban planning and the economic sector. In order to increase physical activity and discourage sedentary behaviour, it is essential to address the environmental, social and individual problems of physical inactivity and to implement effective and sustainable measures through collaboration between different sectors at national, regional and local level. This must be done following the cross-sectoral approach that enables measures to be taken to change unhealthy behaviours, both by acting on individual lifestyles and by creating environmental and social conditions that can encourage behavioural change. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

7.   From strategies to practice

| 7.1. | Despite the clear contribution that sport and physical activity can make to achieving the goals of development, sustainability and cohesion, making European funds eligible and accessible for initiatives aimed at promoting and enhancing sport is still very difficult. The main reason for this situation is the absence of sport as a clear area of investment in the regulations underlying cohesion policy in 2021-2027. A clear reference to sport in cohesion policy implementation programmes would not only provide a clear pathway for these funding streams to reach sport, but would also simplify the work of the managing authorities of the funds in approving ‘sport and physical activity’ projects. |
| --- | --- |

7.1.

| 7.2. | In order to highlight the strategic nature of sport in the implementation of development and cohesion strategies, an analysis is appended below of the consistency between the goals of the 2030 Agenda and those of cohesion policy 2021-2027 and the possible measures to be implemented through sport. |
| --- | --- |

7.2.

Brussels, 24 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  Proposal for a Council Recommendation on education for environmental sustainability.

1

(2)  European Charter of Women's Rights in Sports.

2

(3)  Erasmus+ — Performance.

3

(4)  Global action plan on physical activity 2018-2030.

4

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/11

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on a new framework for free trade agreements, economic partnership agreements and investment agreements that guarantees the real involvement of civil society organisations and the social partners and ensures public awareness

(own-initiative opinion)

(2022/C 290/03)

| Rapporteur: | Stefano PALMIERI |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Stefano PALMIERI

| Plenary Assembly decision | 25.3.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure |
| | Own-initiative opinion |
| Section responsible | External Relations |
| Adopted in section | 9.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 215/1/7 |

Plenary Assembly decision

25.3.2021

Legal basis

Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure

Own-initiative opinion

Section responsible

External Relations

Adopted in section

9.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

215/1/7

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC endorses the new open, sustainable and assertive European trade policy, and considers that it is paramount that this strategy promote the competitiveness of European industry and economic players (large, medium-sized and small enterprises) and help promote European values and principles, with particular reference to democracy, human, social and gender rights, and labour and environmental law. This will make it possible to ensure that the European Union (EU) has the tools it needs to safeguard workers and businesses from unfair trade practices and consumers from harmful, unsustainable products, thus serving in tandem the interests of businesses, individuals/consumers and workers. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC considers that there are a number of prerequisites for the implementation of the ambitious new EU trade strategy:






  — | an innovative trade negotiation strategy (trade agreements, economic partnership agreements, investment agreements) which gives civil society organisations and the social partners a seat at the table and thus ensures that the benefits of trade are genuinely distributed across all participants, both in the EU and in the partner countries; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.2.

—

an innovative trade negotiation strategy (trade agreements, economic partnership agreements, investment agreements) which gives civil society organisations and the social partners a seat at the table and thus ensures that the benefits of trade are genuinely distributed across all participants, both in the EU and in the partner countries;

| — | the mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and implementing agreements — the domestic advisory groups (DAGs) — must be reformed. |
| --- | --- |

—

the mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and implementing agreements — the domestic advisory groups (DAGs) — must be reformed.

| 1.3. | The EESC considers that this dual reform process — of both the negotiation tools and the DAGs — will generate real support and thus public awareness of the value of the signed trade, partnership, and investment agreements among all those affected by them (businesses, workers, consumers, etc.) and for both of the contracting parties (EU and partner countries). |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

2.   General comments

| 2.1. | In February 2021, the European Commission laid out a new open, sustainable and assertive trade policy (1), intended to deliver on the following three EU objectives:






  (i) | supporting economic recovery and the green and digital transition; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.1.

(i)

supporting economic recovery and the green and digital transition;

| (ii) | shaping global rules for more sustainable and fairer globalisation; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

shaping global rules for more sustainable and fairer globalisation;

| (iii) | increasing the EU’s capacity to pursue its interests and enforce its rights. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

increasing the EU’s capacity to pursue its interests and enforce its rights.

| 2.1.1. | This new trade strategy has been framed for several reasons. First and foremost is the COVID-19 crisis, which has triggered serious consideration about the new strategies on health and food security, the supply of raw materials and strategic goods and more generally about global supply chains. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.1.

| 2.1.2. | There are a number of other factors which caused the Commission to propose a new trade strategy, related to: (i) the crisis dogging the World Trade Organization (WTO); (ii) the problematic relations with various countries and trade blocs, specifically China, Russia and the US; iii) the far from smooth negotiations with the United Kingdom; iv) and the fact that several trade agreements have stalled (such as the EU-Mercosur agreement, the Central Africa-EU EPA or the East African Community-EU EPA). |
| --- | --- |

2.1.2.

| 2.1.3. | The Commission proposal mentions several times that the new European trade strategy must do more than just promote the competitiveness of European industry: it must also help promote European values and principles, with particular reference to democracy, human, social and gender rights, and labour and environmental law. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.3.

| 2.1.4. | The European Parliament has welcomed the Commission’s proposal and asked it to ensure that the Trade and Sustainable Development chapters (TSD chapters) in the agreements being negotiated contribute to ensuring that the benefits of trade are distributed to all (2). |
| --- | --- |

2.1.4.

| 2.1.5. | In its recent opinions, the EESC has set out its own views on EU trade policy and expressed strong support for the Commission proposal, pointing out that it is important, relevant and timely. The EESC has also clearly outlined its expectations and consequent recommendations for an ambitious review of trade and sustainable development (TSD) (3). |
| --- | --- |

2.1.5.

| 2.1.6. | Since the new strategy proposed by the Commission is quite rightly ambitious, we feel that there are a number of prerequisites for its implementation:






  — | an innovative trade negotiation strategy (trade agreements, economic partnership agreements, investment agreements) which gives civil society organisations and the social partners a seat at the table and thus ensures that the benefits of trade are genuinely distributed across all participants, both in the EU and in the partner countries; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.1.6.

—

an innovative trade negotiation strategy (trade agreements, economic partnership agreements, investment agreements) which gives civil society organisations and the social partners a seat at the table and thus ensures that the benefits of trade are genuinely distributed across all participants, both in the EU and in the partner countries;

| — | the mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and implementing agreements — the domestic advisory groups (DAGs) — must be reformed. |
| --- | --- |

—

the mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and implementing agreements — the domestic advisory groups (DAGs) — must be reformed.

| 2.1.6.1. | This dual reform process — of both the negotiation tools and the DAGs — will generate real support and thus public awareness of the value of the signed (trade, economic partnership, and investment) agreements among all those affected by them (businesses, workers, consumers, etc.) and for both of the contracting parties (EU and partner countries). |
| --- | --- |

2.1.6.1.

3.   A critical assessment of current trade agreements

| 3.1. | While stressing its belief that multilateralism is fundamental for trade and that the WTO — once significantly reformed — must once again uphold that multilateralism, the EESC understands that, in this specific context, trade agreements can be pivotal. This is true for both the EU’s bilateral trade relationships (which after all make up over 30 % of the Union’s trade in goods and services) and, most importantly, for the promotion of a model of development that is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable for the EU and its partners. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | Over the last few years, various negotiation tools used by the EU (trade agreements, economic partnership agreements, investment agreements) have been the subject of particularly critical assessments by the EESC (4). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC believes that these assessments must be taken as a starting point for considering whether the current negotiating tools need to be reformed in order to achieve the objectives of the new trade strategy proposed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.3.1. | One issue is the limited transparency during negotiations on trade agreements. While it is clear that confidentiality must be upheld when negotiating high-level agreements, the EESC believes that, within the framework of this confidentiality, trade negotiations must nonetheless be carried out transparently by providing a constant flow of information to the general public and stakeholders affected by the negotiations. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1.

| 3.3.1.1. | The Commission has always been vehemently opposed to making negotiations fully transparent, drawing on existing legislation (5) and various Court of Justice rulings (6), and arguing that disseminating information in the course of the negotiations would undermine the EU’s interests. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1.1.

| 3.3.1.2. | The EESC acknowledges that in recent years the Commission has demonstrated significant and encouraging openness, increasing the level of transparency by providing information on the various trade agreements regarding briefings on the various negotiating rounds, the negotiating mandate conferred upon it and the proposals, and by arranging meetings in the form of dialogue with civil society and the expert group on EU trade agreements. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1.2.

| 3.3.1.3. | Despite these improvements, the negotiating mandate conferred by the Council needs to be more ambitious and to give the Commission more options for involving civil society and the social partners, ensuring that they are genuinely involved in the negotiation process. The EESC has also called for the renewal of the expert group, which is no longer active (7). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1.3.

| 3.3.1.4. | The EESC understands that there is a trade-off between transparency and confidentiality during negotiations, but points out that transparency is the key point of friction for stakeholders, civil society organisations and the social partners. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1.4.

| 3.4. | Another aspect which comes in for considerable criticism is the fact that the impact assessments on the sustainability of the agreements are limited in scope, published late when the negotiations have already been concluded, or sometimes completely absent in the partner countries concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.4.1. | A number of non-governmental organisations indeed lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman (8) on the grounds that the Sustainability impact assessment (SIA) for the EU-Mercosur agreement was published late. In March 2021, the European Ombudsman criticised the European Commission as follows: ‘The European Commission failed to ensure the finalisation of the sustainability impact assessment in good time, notably before the end of the EU-Mercosur trade negotiations. This constitutes maladministration’ (9). |
| --- | --- |

3.4.1.

| 3.4.2. | The EESC points out that impact assessments of the agreements’ economic, social and environmental sustainability must be published in good time — at the start of the negotiations — and updated throughout the negotiations, as well as contributing on a regular basis to the ex post assessment of the agreements while they are being monitored. These assessments must focus on both parties to the negotiations: the European Union and its Member States, and the partner countries (10). |
| --- | --- |

3.4.2.

| 3.5. | Another criticism levelled against the trade agreements has focused on their inability to effectively enforce human rights, social rights, the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization or environmental and safety standards. The agreements also fail to guarantee a level playing field for all market players (particularly as regards small and medium-sized enterprises and certain industrial sectors) (11). |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | In addition to these problems, the trade agreements sometimes fail to allow for features specific to developing countries or asymmetries between the EU and the partner countries, with the result that disparities may not be resolved and can on occasion even be exacerbated (such as equal access to life-saving medication or vaccines). They also fail to account for the fact that multinationals can become very powerful once the trade agreements have been signed. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | To ensure an effective and broad involvement of the organised civil society a widespread implementation of DAGs is not only necessary in all future trade negotiations, but especially in the current EPAs in Africa, where DAGs are completely missing. Ongoing and upcoming revision processes and the implementation of the new EU-OEACP agreement can offer an effective opportunity in the introduction of DAGs into existing trade agreements lacking this instrument (e.g. the revision of the EPA between the European Union and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) EPA Group). |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | Civil society and social partner involvement in the negotiations on and monitoring of agreements signed by the EU has evolved to some extent from what it was initially. The EESC acknowledges the efforts made in this respect, and indeed in many cases the Committee was part of the process. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The EESC notes the findings of the recent Study Reviewing the DG Trade Civil Society Dialogue (12) assessing dialogue with civil society at European and national level. Although it endorses some of its findings, the EESC considers that a quantum leap is needed in terms of genuine civil society and social partner involvement in EU trade policy. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | The EESC has on a number of occasions called for genuine and stronger involvement by civil society and the social partners throughout the negotiations on trade agreements, on both sides of the table (the Commission and the partner countries) (13). |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The EESC therefore believes that the time has come to devise a new, more effective negotiating strategy, with new standards and procedures for ensuring that civil society organisations and the social partners are truly, effectively involved. This would help deliver on the objectives of the EU’s new trade strategy, ensuring that the trade agreements concluded will contribute to a form of development that is sustainable in economic, social and environmental terms for both of the parties to the negotiations: the EU and the partner countries. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

4.   A new framework for negotiating trade agreements

| 4.1. | The EESC considers that the EU’s new trade policy opens the door to assessing and improving the rules, procedures and criteria for making organised civil society and social partner involvement much more effective, transparent and inclusive, both during the negotiations and subsequently, during the monitoring, evaluation and delivery of the agreements. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The EESC considers that a new negotiating methodology is needed, one able to establish a new roadmap which will ensure that civil society organisations and the social partners are genuinely involved throughout negotiations. This methodology must be used by both the EU and the countries comprising the other party to the negotiations. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The first step on the negotiating roadmap should be the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the negotiating parties (which is to say, the Commission and the countries comprising the other party to the negotiations) which will guarantee that both parties undertake to:






  (i) | comply with the various stages of the negotiations, and to |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.3.

(i)

comply with the various stages of the negotiations, and to

| (ii) | involve civil society organisations and the social partners throughout the negotiations as observers, meeting in a special ‘joint consultative committee of stakeholders’ (JCCS). |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

involve civil society organisations and the social partners throughout the negotiations as observers, meeting in a special ‘joint consultative committee of stakeholders’ (JCCS).

| 4.3.1. | The stages of the negotiations laid down in the memorandum of understanding will apply both to the main round of negotiations and to any technical negotiating rounds which might be set up. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.1.

| 4.3.2. | Joint consultative committees of stakeholders should be set up following the partnership principle approach which applies to cohesion policy. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.2.

| 4.3.2.1. | Under this partnership, each cohesion policy programme takes shape in a collective process involving European, regional and local authorities, the social partners and civil society organisations. This partnership applies to every stage of the planning process: design, management, implementation, monitoring and assessment. This approach helps ensure that the measures are suited to the local and regional needs and priorities of all stakeholders. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.2.1.

| 4.3.3. | The fundamental criterion of representativeness, independence and equal distribution between stakeholders must govern the choice of observers from among representatives of civil society organisations and the social partners. As regards representativeness and independence, the social partners should abide by the criteria adopted by the workers’ group and employers’ group within the ILO, while the other civil society organisations should keep to the rules set by international bodies. Observers appointed to the joint consultative committee of stakeholders must undertake to abide by a specific code of conduct. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.3.

| 4.3.4. | Along with civil society organisations and the social partners, relevant international institutions should also be appointed to the joint consultative committee of stakeholders as external observers. Relevant international institutions include the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Multilateral Environmental Agreements Secretariat of the United Nations Environment Programme. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.4.

| 4.3.4.1. | The code of conduct should set out:






  (i) | the rights and duties of observers appointed to the joint consultative committee of stakeholders and participating in the negotiations on behalf of civil society and the social partners. Provision must be made within the code of conduct for an appropriate confidentiality protocol stipulating compliance with the confidentiality principle, whereby those involved may not divulge information disclosed during the ‘confidential’ or ‘early warning’ stages of negotiations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.3.4.1.

(i)

the rights and duties of observers appointed to the joint consultative committee of stakeholders and participating in the negotiations on behalf of civil society and the social partners. Provision must be made within the code of conduct for an appropriate confidentiality protocol stipulating compliance with the confidentiality principle, whereby those involved may not divulge information disclosed during the ‘confidential’ or ‘early warning’ stages of negotiations;

| (ii) | the principles governing the appointment of observers to the joint consultative committee of stakeholders: the appointment procedure must be transparent and ensure that they are genuinely independent, as well as representative of and equally distributed across civil society and the social partners (see paragraph 4.3.3); |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the principles governing the appointment of observers to the joint consultative committee of stakeholders: the appointment procedure must be transparent and ensure that they are genuinely independent, as well as representative of and equally distributed across civil society and the social partners (see paragraph 4.3.3);

| (iii) | the rules and procedures for the various stages of negotiation set out in the roadmap for negotiations. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

the rules and procedures for the various stages of negotiation set out in the roadmap for negotiations.

The code of conduct must be signed by all those participating in the negotiations in the capacity of observers appointed to the joint consultative committee.

| 4.4. | The roadmap for negotiations must comprise the subsequent stages through which the talks will cycle until the end of the negotiations. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.4.1. | The confidential stage of negotiations. This involves both the parties to the negotiations (the Commission and the countries in the region which is party to the negotiations) and the representatives of civil society and the social partners in their capacity as observers who, by signing the confidentiality protocol attached to the code of conduct, undertake to keep any information to which they may have access during this stage strictly confidential. During this stage, the ILO should submit a pre-negotiation report on the state of play of ratification and implementation of the fundamental conventions in the third country, to be made available to all the parties around the negotiating table (negotiating parties and observers). This report would not be binding but would help demonstrate whether the countries that are party to the agreement uphold social standards. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.1.

| 4.4.2. | The early warning stage with the joint consultative committee. This is when the observers identify sensitive issues arising during the negotiations, on which the negotiations are not finding solutions which civil society and the social partners would deem satisfactory. This stage is also private, and observers must keep all information strictly confidential. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.2.

| 4.4.3. | The open communication stage. Both the Commission and the countries in the region which is party to the negotiations submit a public, joint briefing on the state of play of negotiations on a regular basis. During this stage, the observers may voice their assessment in line with the Chatham House Rule (14), setting out the sensitive issues identified during the preceding early warning stage with the consultative committee. This stage is public, and sets out the preliminary results of the negotiations. It increases public awareness of the state of play. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.3.

| 4.4.4. | The stage for the presentation of the preliminary independent report assessing the impact of the trade agreement. During this stage, both parties (the Commission and the countries in the region which is party to the negotiations) present the preliminary independent assessment of the impact of the agreement. This is when civil society organisations and the social partners give their views of the economic, social and environmental impact of the agreement, using their own analysis. The external observers make a key contribution in the form of a report to be made available to all the parties and publicly disclosed. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.4.

| 4.4.5. | Once the stage for the presentation of the preliminary impact report is complete, the negotiation cycles round to the confidential negotiating stage, followed by the early warning stage with the consultative committee, followed by the open communication stage and lastly the stage for the presentation of the final report assessing the impact of the trade agreement. The negotiating cycle will continue until it is concluded when the agreement is or is not signed by the representatives of the Commission and the countries in the region which is party to the negotiations. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.5.

| 4.4.6. | If the agreement is signed by both parties, they, together with the civil society and social partner observers in the consultative committee, will prepare a specific protocol establishing the Domestic Advisory Groups (DAGs) (for the EU and for the partner countries) and laying down the rules governing their working methods (see paragraph 5.5.2). |
| --- | --- |

4.4.6.

| 4.4.7. | The EESC considers that the proposed framework for negotiations would be a challenge for all those involved in the negotiations: every single stakeholder (the Commission, civil society organisations, the social partners, external observers) would need to be fully aware of its role and a very high level of professional behaviour and preparation would have to be guaranteed for all of them. The EESC considers that the European Parliament’s role should be bolstered: it should play a stronger role during the negotiating and monitoring stages. The EESC is quite convinced that this is the only way to ensure that everyone, including civil society and the social partners, is genuinely involved in trade negotiations, and thus supports the resulting agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.7.

5.   A proposal to reform the domestic advisory groups responsible for monitoring, evaluating and implementing the agreements

| 5.1. | The EU is currently faced with increasing demand from civil society and the social partners for inclusive and democratic dialogue, both while trade agreements are being devised and when they are being implemented (15). The EESC appreciates the Commission’s efforts to open up forums for dialogue and participation, but feels that it is crucial to improve the procedures for monitoring, evaluating and implementing these agreements. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | The EESC considers that the consultative mechanisms — the domestic advisory groups (DAGs) — set up to monitor the implementation and enforcement of the commitments set out in the TSD chapters of the trade agreements, and, in future, the trade agreements in their entirety, do not really correspond to the objectives set. The DAGs have a number of shortcomings in terms of both the criteria for establishing them and the lack of clear rules governing how they function. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | Following the policy recommendations set out in the non-paper of the EU DAGs (16) and the recent analysis carried out on EU and partner country DAGs (17), DAGs can be evaluated using four levels of success based on their ability to:






  1. | function; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.3.

1.

function;

| 2. | share information; |
| --- | --- |

2.

share information;

| 3. | monitor the agreements; |
| --- | --- |

3.

monitor the agreements;

| 4. | deliver political impact. |
| --- | --- |

4.

deliver political impact.

| 5.3.1. | As regards their ability to function, the EESC provides the secretariat for the DAGs and so they are set up on the EU side, but they are in place in only some of the partner countries (18). In the partner countries where they are in place, the DAGs have clear organisational problems due to insufficient funding (19) as well as problems in terms of representativeness, equal distribution of stakeholders, and independence of the member organisations (20). |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.

| 5.3.2. | As regards the ability of DAG stakeholders to share information, here too there seems to be a clear difference between EU and partner country DAGs. Other than a few disagreements, EU DAGs generally exchange information effectively between those involved in the dialogue, whereas in partner country DAGs there are tensions between business and non-business members. On both sides, the relationship between the governments and their DAGs (vertical dialogue) is certainly not ideal. There is a call for more structured and in depth cross-border dialogue between EU and partner country DAGs, particularly during the annual cross-border civil society meeting and by setting up specific meetings between the DAGs within the framework of the agreement in question. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.2.

| 5.3.3. | As regards monitoring the agreements, although this is the main purpose of the DAGs, it must be acknowledged that in practice it is no easy task. The inability to monitor the implementation and enforcement of the TSD chapter is primarily the result of a lack of specific resources which can be used for monitoring and a lack of willingness and accountability on the part of the governments. Praise is therefore due for the Commission and the EU DAGs which have brought pressure to bear on partner country governments to persuade them to be more open during the monitoring stage (21). A non-binding information report submitted to the DAGs by the ILO and the OECD would constitute a trustworthy basis for assessing the trade agreement. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.3.

| 5.3.4. | There can be no doubt that to date, the political impact delivered by the DAGs — which is to say influence exerted on the implementation of the TSD chapter — has been utterly insufficient. The Commission should establish more ambitious criteria aimed at ensuring that governments take account of the DAGs’ recommendations; moreover, although the DAGs’ obligations are binding, there is a lack of effective enforceability and permanent involvement of the DAGs in the dispute process (22). |
| --- | --- |

5.3.4.

| 5.4. | In view of the above, the EESC feels that the DAGs need to be thoroughly reformed in order to correct the shortcomings listed (in paragraphs 5.3.1 to 5.3.4) . |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | The EESC would point out that no time must be lost in establishing, for every type of agreement negotiated, a single body through which civil society and the social partners can be involved. This reformed domestic advisory group would be able to monitor the implementation and enforcement of the agreements and evaluate their results (23). |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

| 5.5.1. | This body must be common to both parties to the agreement (EU and partner countries) and function perfectly. It must also cover all aspects of the agreement, prioritising all elements of the agreement that have an impact on the implementation of the TSD chapter. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.1.

| 5.5.2. | The EESC believes that every agreement signed must comprise a protocol on the functioning of the domestic advisory groups establishing a sound institutional framework for the rules governing the DAGs which apply to both parties to the agreement (EU and partner countries). Specifically, this protocol would:






  (a) | lay down the criteria for selecting DAG members, with a view to ensuring that they are both representative, equally distributed among stakeholders and independent (see paragraph 4.3.3); |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2.

(a)

lay down the criteria for selecting DAG members, with a view to ensuring that they are both representative, equally distributed among stakeholders and independent (see paragraph 4.3.3);

| (b) | stipulate the requirement to give a seat as external observers on the DAGs to both the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Giving the ILO a seat would enable it to monitor the enactment of ILO conventions in free trade agreements, using the internal supervisory mechanism and providing the parties to the negotiations with a specific report focusing on any problems in the implementation of the social standards of the TSD Chapter. The OECD’s involvement would enable it, through the National Contact Points and the relevant governments, to monitor the implementation of the guidelines for multinationals, particularly downstream of the supply chain. The assessments drawn up by these bodies would not be binding upon the DAGs; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

stipulate the requirement to give a seat as external observers on the DAGs to both the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Giving the ILO a seat would enable it to monitor the enactment of ILO conventions in free trade agreements, using the internal supervisory mechanism and providing the parties to the negotiations with a specific report focusing on any problems in the implementation of the social standards of the TSD Chapter. The OECD’s involvement would enable it, through the National Contact Points and the relevant governments, to monitor the implementation of the guidelines for multinationals, particularly downstream of the supply chain. The assessments drawn up by these bodies would not be binding upon the DAGs;

| (c) | give the DAG a proactive role in triggering dispute settlement proceedings relating to all areas of the agreement and brought by the DAGs to the Chief Trade Enforcement Officer (CTEO); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

give the DAG a proactive role in triggering dispute settlement proceedings relating to all areas of the agreement and brought by the DAGs to the Chief Trade Enforcement Officer (CTEO);

| (d) | establish a timeframe for devising binding roadmaps for the commitments set out in the agreement, setting clear deadlines for ratifying them; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

establish a timeframe for devising binding roadmaps for the commitments set out in the agreement, setting clear deadlines for ratifying them;

| (e) | update the guide for implementing the commitments set out in the agreement, establishing a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators for monitoring the agreement on an in itinere and ex post basis; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

update the guide for implementing the commitments set out in the agreement, establishing a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators for monitoring the agreement on an in itinere and ex post basis;

| (f) | set the date for submission of the independent ex post impact assessment of the agreement by each of the parties to the agreement (EU and partner countries) if the parties deem it appropriate to bring forward the five-year deadline; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

set the date for submission of the independent ex post impact assessment of the agreement by each of the parties to the agreement (EU and partner countries) if the parties deem it appropriate to bring forward the five-year deadline;

| (g) | establish the number of meetings to be held by each DAG during the year for each of the parties to the agreement (EU and partner countries); |
| --- | --- |

(g)

establish the number of meetings to be held by each DAG during the year for each of the parties to the agreement (EU and partner countries);

| (h) | stipulate the requirement to hold an annual meeting between the EU and partner country DAGs; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

stipulate the requirement to hold an annual meeting between the EU and partner country DAGs;

| (i) | stipulate the requirement to hold an annual meeting between the EU and partner country DAGs in Brussels with the active participation of all DAG members; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

stipulate the requirement to hold an annual meeting between the EU and partner country DAGs in Brussels with the active participation of all DAG members;

| (j) | stipulate the requirement to set up an online platform where DAG participants can grasp the importance of learning from each other; exchange all necessary information, for example on specific topics (labour rights, human rights, trade impact of organic farming rules, etc.); share possible best practices; and set up dedicated online training courses for DAG participants; |
| --- | --- |

(j)

stipulate the requirement to set up an online platform where DAG participants can grasp the importance of learning from each other; exchange all necessary information, for example on specific topics (labour rights, human rights, trade impact of organic farming rules, etc.); share possible best practices; and set up dedicated online training courses for DAG participants;

| (k) | establish a meetings schedule which will enable the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to take stock of the state of play of the DAG’s proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

(k)

establish a meetings schedule which will enable the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to take stock of the state of play of the DAG’s proceedings;

| (l) | ascertain the financial resources needed for the DAGs to function; |
| --- | --- |

(l)

ascertain the financial resources needed for the DAGs to function;

| (m) | stipulate the requirement to draw up an annual report on the activities of each DAG. In this report, the DAGs will be able to establish their priorities and recommendations for the implementation of the TSD Chapter and the European Commission will be required to incorporate these priorities and recommendations into the EU priorities for the implementation of the TSD Chapter, or explain why they are not being taken on board; |
| --- | --- |

(m)

stipulate the requirement to draw up an annual report on the activities of each DAG. In this report, the DAGs will be able to establish their priorities and recommendations for the implementation of the TSD Chapter and the European Commission will be required to incorporate these priorities and recommendations into the EU priorities for the implementation of the TSD Chapter, or explain why they are not being taken on board;

| (n) | stipulate the requirement that the EESC be entrusted with organising the EU’s DAG and providing technical assistance for the cross-border meeting of the EU and partner countries DAGs. The EESC secretariat will provide technical assistance with identifying counterparts in the partner countries (on the basis of the criteria set out in paragraph 4.3.3), and assist the DAG chairs in establishing the agenda, managing the meetings, drafting meeting reports, presenting reports to the EU institutions and civil society and taking responsibility for providing the necessary information. |
| --- | --- |

(n)

stipulate the requirement that the EESC be entrusted with organising the EU’s DAG and providing technical assistance for the cross-border meeting of the EU and partner countries DAGs. The EESC secretariat will provide technical assistance with identifying counterparts in the partner countries (on the basis of the criteria set out in paragraph 4.3.3), and assist the DAG chairs in establishing the agenda, managing the meetings, drafting meeting reports, presenting reports to the EU institutions and civil society and taking responsibility for providing the necessary information.

| 5.5.3. | The in itinere monitoring indicators will be pivotal: they will ensure that the parties abide by the commitments set out in the agreement and focus on economic/trade, social, environmental and health security issues. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.3.

| 5.5.4. | The EESC considers that the reform of the DAGs will give the EESC a key role, requiring appropriate additional human and financial resources. The EESC therefore asks the budgetary authorities, once the DAGs have been reformed, to provide additional funding in line with the expenditure anticipated by the Commission, in order to help the domestic advisory groups to perform all the activities planned to the standards required. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.4.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  COM(2021) 66 final.

1

(2)  European Parliament resolution of 26 November 2020 on the EU Trade Policy Review (2020/2761(RSP)).

2

(3)  OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 148; OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 40; OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 53; OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 160; OJ C 159, 10.5.2019, p. 28.

3

(4)  OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 148; OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 40; REX/530, Evaluation of the role of civil society in the participation structures under the EU/Colombia/Peru/Ecuador Agreement, rapporteur: G. Iuliano; OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 160; OJ C 47, 11.2.2020, p. 38; REX/503 Towards an EU-Mercosur Association Agreement, rapporteur: J. Puxeu Rocamora, co-rapporteur: M. Soares.

4

Evaluation of the role of civil society in the participation structures under the EU/Colombia/Peru/Ecuador Agreement

Towards an EU-Mercosur Association Agreement

(5)  Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

5

(6)  Letter in which the Commission refuses to grant Friends of the Earth access to a document. 2019 [b]. https://www.asktheeu.org/fr/request/7049/response/23196/attach/3/Signed%20letter.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 Access: 30.7.2020 p. 2

6

(7)  OJ C 374, 16.9.2021, p. 73 Op. cit.

7

(8)  ClientEarth, Fern, Veblen Institute, La Fondation Nicolas Hulot pour la Nature et l’Homme and the International Federation for Human Rights.

8

La Fondation Nicolas Hulot pour la Nature et l’Homme

(9)  Decision in case 1026/2020/MAS concerning the failure by the European Commission to finalise an updated ‘sustainability impact assessment’ before concluding the EU-Mercosur trade negotiations.

9

(10)  OJ C 47, 11.2.2020, p. 38 Op. cit.

10

(11)  OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 148 Op. cit.; REX/532; OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 160 Op. cit.

11

(12)  March 2021, European Union, Study Reviewing DG Trade Civil Society Dialogue. Tetra Tech — Deloitte.

12

Study Reviewing DG Trade Civil Society Dialogue

(13)  OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 40; OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 148; OJ C 159, 10.5.2019, p. 28.

13

(14)  Whereby ‘When a meeting, or part of it, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity or affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant may be disclosed’.

14

(15)  Non-paper from the Netherlands and France on trade, social economic effects and sustainable development

15

(16)  Non-paper: Strengthening and Improving the Functioning of EU Trade Domestic Advisory Groups

16

(17)  Martens, D., Potjomkina, D., Orbie, J., 2020, Domestic Advisory Groups in EU trade agreements — Stuck at the Bottom or Moving up the Ladder? Friederich Ebert Stiftung — Ghent University

17

Domestic Advisory Groups in EU trade agreements — Stuck at the Bottom or Moving up the Ladder?

(18)  For instance Peru: since the government did not choose to establish a suitable DAG, civil society organisations set up a ‘shadow’ DAG which unfortunately is not recognised by the EU. Martens et al., 2020 Op. cit.

18

(19)  ‘The EESC provides the secretariat of all EU DAGs. Some 78 per cent (36/46) of EU DAG respondents consider that DAG meetings are well prepared by the secretariat. Most non-EU DAGs, however, do not have similar support to help them organise and prepare their work. The bulk of their work is often carried out by their president (and sometimes vice-presidents), who are limited in their capacity to dedicate a lot of time to these activities’. Martens, D., et al. Op. cit. p. 16.

19

(20)  For instance the South Korea DAG: it has made considerable progress but still has shortcomings in terms of representativeness and independence. Martens, D., et al., 2020 Op. cit.

20

(21)  In the EU-Korea Agreement, political pressure led to an official complaint and the panel of experts concluded that the country did not abide by ILO conventions.

21

(22)  OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 40.

22

(23)  OJ C 159, 10.5.2019, p. 28.

23

---

Figure 1

The various stages of negotiations (the roadmap)

Image 1C2902022EN1110120220323EN0003.0001201212Figure 1The various stages of negotiations (the roadmap)Figure 2The various stages of negotiations (the roadmap)

Figure 2

The various stages of negotiations (the roadmap)

Image 2C2902022EN1110120220323EN0003.0001201212Figure 1The various stages of negotiations (the roadmap)Figure 2The various stages of negotiations (the roadmap)

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/22

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: What conditions are needed for the energy and low-carbon transition to be socially acceptable?

(Exploratory opinion requested by the French Presidency of the Council of the EU)

(2022/C 290/04)

| Rapporteur: | Arnaud SCHWARTZ |
| --- | --- |
| Co-rapporteur: | Pierre Jean COULON |

Rapporteur:

Arnaud SCHWARTZ

Co-rapporteur:

Pierre Jean COULON

| Referral | French Presidency of the Council, 20.9.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted in section | 10.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 224/6/5 |

Referral

French Presidency of the Council, 20.9.2021

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted in section

10.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

224/6/5

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | To make the energy transition socially acceptable, taking into account feedback from the planning and implementation stages, the EESC calls on all stakeholders to improve the following: independence of the process, quality and accessibility of information, freedom and diversity of participation, clarity of participation arrangements, accountability and inclusion in decision-making, transparency, monitoring of a plan or project from cradle to grave, and also the need for the transition to be affordable and work well (with available solutions, e.g. charging points for well-located electric vehicles in sufficient numbers). |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC calls on the EU to do much more to promote fair distribution and ‘prosumption’ by means of financial incentives, as this is the factor with the greatest impact on local acceptance of the energy transition. Information on these incentives should be accessible and their processes should be simple. The objective of the Energy Union — to put the citizens at the heart of the policy and to make sure that they can easily become energy producers and benefit from new technologies — needs to be achieved much faster. The EESC also stresses that it is important that the benefits, as much as the perceived costs of a project be fairly distributed within a community. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC proposes that the EU identify and remove any obstacles responsible for poor public participation and support. As a rule, giving the communities and civil society organisations concerned the opportunity to participate in project development and planning decisions increases social acceptance. The lack of time, citizenship education, accountability of the authorities concerned and other factors should therefore be addressed by an action plan to develop participation. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC would like to see consultation and even joint development with the public, particularly the social partners and civil society organisations, from the planning stage onwards, more extensive than at present, and careful coordination between objectives and planning at all levels, right up to local deployment of the transition. This is essential if we are to make progress towards greater social acceptability and achieve our energy transition objectives at a good pace. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC stresses that improving acceptability by the population and stakeholders affected by the transition and its technical changes also warrants special attention and measures such as lifelong learning, reskilling and upskilling of the workforce, business support, and information campaigns targeting the different groups affected by the transition. The information must highlight the key message that the energy transition is needed because it is individually and collectively fairer and cleaner, and that in the long term it is cheaper for the citizens. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | However, the EESC reiterates that the energy transition will require individual and collective changes on the part of private individuals, businesses, municipalities, etc. In the short term, because energy policy has so far overlooked the negative externalities of fossil fuels, decarbonising entails higher costs for producers and higher prices for consumers. Greater transparency is needed here. Current energy prices make it very difficult for consumers to accept higher prices of their own free will. It is important to be aware of this. In addition, therefore, it is also important to inform people about ‘just transition’ successes. However, in the current debate, we all too often hear about where things go wrong. A key issue for the transition to be socially acceptable and successful is preserving the competitiveness of EU companies on the world market in order to avoid undue strain on the economy and unemployment. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC warns that old fossil-fuel taxes and new green taxes are levies that proportionally affect the budgets of low-income households more than those of more well-off households. Environmentally-harmful subsidies and taxes need to be phased out — and fast — as politicians often promise. Revenue from these new green taxes should therefore be used, in particular, to secure social innovation and to subsidise the energy transition of vulnerable households and preserve their purchasing power. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC also points out that the transition to a low-carbon society must place the concept of just transition at the centre of reflection and action. The just transition must be more than a set of policy objectives, as it is the basis for social acceptance of the energy transition. At European level, a legal framework for a just transition, including, for example, tangible proposals made in this opinion which can be translated into national energy and climate plans, should supplement the Fit for 55 package. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC calls for a reassessment of the ‘Fit for 55’ package to improve the capacity to deal with energy price volatility and problems following from emergencies, including war and the introduction of appropriate provisions to deal with such situations in a way that avoids negative effects on end users. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

2.   Scope and elements

| 2.1. | Humankind is struggling with the finite nature of land resources (1), the collapse of biodiversity and global warming. The energy transition to a carbon-neutral economy entails a transformation of our societies, not only in practical terms (in particular, through a change of habits (both individual and collective)) but also in terms of our civilisation as a whole. It must enable us to reduce our material and energy needs whilst ensuring everyone’s well-being (2) in a democratic and fair fashion, all the while respecting ecosystems (3). |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.1.1. | For environmental, supply and social reasons, continuing to extract fossil fuels in the coming decades as we are doing today is not an option. This means that the transition to a carbon-neutral society is urgently needed. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.1.

| 2.1.2. | However, in the context of green growth (4), the low energy return on investment from alternative energy sources is threatening our economies with systemic collapse, without forgetting the potentially devastating environmental impact of mining. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.2.

| 2.1.3. | To ensure greater coherence and social acceptance, we will need to:






  — | reduce demand for raw minerals by improving the recycling thereof; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.1.3.

—

reduce demand for raw minerals by improving the recycling thereof;

| — | carry out impact assessments to bring about a transition that will be better able to avoid, reduce or compensate for the use of such raw materials; |
| --- | --- |

—

carry out impact assessments to bring about a transition that will be better able to avoid, reduce or compensate for the use of such raw materials;

| — | ensure there is a circular economy in the renewable energy sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure there is a circular economy in the renewable energy sector;

| — | stimulate energy efficiency and significantly reduce the overall demand for energy; |
| --- | --- |

—

stimulate energy efficiency and significantly reduce the overall demand for energy;

| — | reassess the proposals in the ‘Fit for 55 package’ to improve the capacity to deal with energy price volatility and problems following from emergencies, including war. |
| --- | --- |

—

reassess the proposals in the ‘Fit for 55 package’ to improve the capacity to deal with energy price volatility and problems following from emergencies, including war.

| 2.1.4. | Knowing the limits of scenarios linked to technological risk, the failure of carbon sinks and energy efficiency, it will be necessary not only to create some room for manoeuvre with systemic energy sobriety by rethinking our lifestyles, but also to increase acceptance of climate change adaptation measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.4.

| 2.2. | The conditions needed for such a transition to be socially acceptable have been studied by science in recent years. The EESC takes stock of the situation in this opinion, aiming, among other things, to improve practices within the EU institutions and Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The social acceptability of a project which can facilitate the energy transition is highly complex. It combines considerations relating to the understanding of the technologies being proposed, of associated risks (social, health, economic, etc.) and of possible alternatives, as well as an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed options, and the attitude of the host locality. For the transition to be socially acceptable, such projects need to be discussed with local populations and all stakeholders, and broader questions need to be raised about local development and the lifestyles people want. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | According to the studies (5) and the EESC, the main drivers of social acceptance are:






  — | trust in governance and fair procedures; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.4.

—

trust in governance and fair procedures;

| — | the just and affordable nature of the transition; |
| --- | --- |

—

the just and affordable nature of the transition;

| — | concerns relating to location and planning; |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns relating to location and planning;

| — | the effect of socio-demographic factors; |
| --- | --- |

—

the effect of socio-demographic factors;

| — | socio-technical feasibility. |
| --- | --- |

—

socio-technical feasibility.

| 2.5. | We now propose to take a look at what these terms mean and which ideas we could use as a means of effecting the transition towards a low-carbon economy. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

3.   Conditions for implementation

3.1.   Trust in governance and fair procedures

| 3.1.1. | Many studies have demonstrated that trust is crucial in determining levels of social acceptance. There is a correlation between fair procedures, trust and the rate of acceptance of the transition. A transparent decision-making process and the dissemination of information improve levels of mutual trust between project developers and communities. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.1.

| 3.1.2. | The EESC therefore reiterates that the rule of law should be the focus of attention, for example with regard to the use made of the various EU funds. Similarly, the Committee is of the opinion that the Commission should publish its proposals in all official languages quickly and readably in order to ensure wide accessibility and participation. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.2.

| 3.1.3. | Moreover, studies have shown that public participation helps to address community concerns and raise levels of mutual trust. The dissemination of information is crucial for correcting any misconceptions about the transition and the measures or tools to be deployed to make it happen. Therefore, it is important to consult the public on topics relating, for example, to location, costs and possible negative environmental, economic, health and social effects of energy transition projects, but also to address the benefits thereof. This, moreover, contributes to acceptance by the general public of the construction of new facilities in the neighbourhood. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.3.

| 3.1.4. | The EESC therefore considers that engaging in dialogue with local populations and stakeholders concerned and building mutual trust through open communication and opportunities for participation as early as possible in the development of energy transition-related measures and projects (6), at all appropriate levels from local to EU level, are essential for securing a community’s acceptance. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.4.

| 3.1.5. | Having local support, particularly from civil society organisations who publicly support the transition, basing this support on science, is important to promote participation and build trust (7). This local network can spread information in the public sphere in a more natural way and counterbalance any false ideas that might circulate. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.5.

| 3.1.6. | Participatory democracy is nowadays a key element in the model of European citizenship. The Lisbon Treaty ensures complementarity between representative and participatory democracy. From an international perspective, access to information and public participation in planning and development are two of the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention. Their implementation is still to be improved upon, as is the case for the third pillar, which is access to justice (8). |
| --- | --- |

3.1.6.

| 3.1.7. | One way of participating to be encouraged is a public debate. It must be organised by an independent committee of experts on public participation with a proven track record (9). This supplies the credibility essential for the whole debate, involving the general public in devising major measures that affect the area where they live. Such a debate provides full and transparent information on a given plan, a programme or a project at the design stage for all stakeholders, giving them the opportunity to express their views, both as individuals and as organised groups, on the merits of the measures presented. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.7.

| 3.1.8. | For some years, the digitalisation of public participation, with no accountability or debate involving third party mediators to ensure a consistent approach, has been gradually undermining public confidence. However, in addition to information, a combination of online consultation and physical meetings is necessary (10) to involve the public at all stages and to decide together on the choices to be made. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.8.

| 3.1.9. | In order to improve dialogue between all the stakeholders involved, following public participation, these decision-making authorities or elected representatives should, for example, set out in writing what they have done with the various contributions that have been gathered and specify the improvement that will be achieved for the citizens. Such accountability would improve public understanding of the reasons for their decisions and increase trust in democracy. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.9.

3.2.   A just and affordable transition

| 3.2.1. | With the Fit for 55 package and the 2050 carbon neutrality objective, the challenge is significant. According to the European Commission, meeting our 2030 targets will require EUR 350 billion of additional investment per year in energy production systems alone. The big question for the EESC, and of course for society as a whole, is who will pay for it, who will invest in it, who will benefit from it, and whether the funds will be sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.1.

| 3.2.2. | Fair distribution, with a view to achieving a just and affordable transition, ensures that the benefits — not just the costs — of a project are distributed in an equitable fashion. It is a key deciding factor for social acceptance. Financial incentives, without administrative or technical complications, even turn out to be the most important motivating factor for acceptance of a transition-related project. In this way, individuals, farmers, SMEs, energy communities, etc. will be ready to become part of the new system with their investments and their engagement, to bring about out the necessary transformation. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.2.

| 3.2.3. | It stands to reason that a fundamental prerequisite for a socially acceptable and successful transition to a carbon neutral economy is that European companies remain competitive on the world market, in order to avoid undue strain on the economy and unemployment. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.3.

| 3.2.4. | Financial incentives in one form or another (e.g. lower energy prices or income opportunities, support for the local economy, lifelong learning or vocational retraining) is a powerful factor for local acceptance and support for projects. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.4.

| 3.2.5. | Perception of benefits can also help increase local acceptance. For example, the creation of local jobs, particularly in the event of an energy transition in a given employment area, is perceived as a community benefit that can encourage the acceptance of a project. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.5.

| 3.2.6. | Wind- and solar-powered electricity, in particular, is emerging as the most cost-effective and most sustainably sourced electricity in many places. Having whole local populations producing and benefiting from the more affordable electricity is a possibility: by becoming producers as well, their role changes from one of consumers to one of prosumers. Their rights need to be strengthened and safeguarded. This approach is even more important as the transport and heating sectors are increasingly becoming electrified. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.6.

| 3.2.7. | For the climate, in theory, it is irrelevant who constructs or operates a photovoltaic or wind system, but for local acceptance and the regional economy, this is an issue of crucial importance. In practice, special efforts therefore have to be made to make this kind of participation possible. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.7.

| 3.2.8. | The EESC believes that the number of prosumers and the social acceptability of the transition could increase rapidly with the following measures:






  (a) | community self-sufficiency: if consumers operate systems collectively and if the electricity thus produced is consumed locally, then it should be treated as electricity of individual origin; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.2.8.

(a)

community self-sufficiency: if consumers operate systems collectively and if the electricity thus produced is consumed locally, then it should be treated as electricity of individual origin;

| (b) | energy-sharing: within renewable energy communities a reduced grid charge should apply to electricity that is energy shared for use by producers; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

energy-sharing: within renewable energy communities a reduced grid charge should apply to electricity that is energy shared for use by producers;

| (c) | virtual net metering: this will give people who do not live in the immediate vicinity of a renewable energy system the opportunity to participate in and directly use the electricity produced. To do this, virtual net metering needs to be a new, legally prescribed option, where every kilowatt hour of electricity consumed from the system in which the consumer is involved is to be compensated for by a kilowatt hour that the consumer uses from another source at a different point in time. Virtual net metering already exists in Greece, Poland and Lithuania, for example. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

virtual net metering: this will give people who do not live in the immediate vicinity of a renewable energy system the opportunity to participate in and directly use the electricity produced. To do this, virtual net metering needs to be a new, legally prescribed option, where every kilowatt hour of electricity consumed from the system in which the consumer is involved is to be compensated for by a kilowatt hour that the consumer uses from another source at a different point in time. Virtual net metering already exists in Greece, Poland and Lithuania, for example.

| 3.2.9. | Local ‘prosumption’ is also attractive, linked to smart meters that handle market price signals and allow network-friendly consumption and flexibility, which can thus be rewarded. This combination can help lighten the load on networks and can thus reduce the need for network expansion. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.9.

| 3.2.10. | The issues of rising energy costs and the ability of Member States to mitigate them must be at the centre of future policy measures. The EESC not only supports emergency measures to avoid drastic social consequences, but is also strongly in favour of market evaluations, which test the behaviour of actors on the energy market. At the same time, the EESC points to the Union’s shared values regarding services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as set out in Protocol No 26 on services of general interest annexed to the TFEU. It could lead to greater efficiency and the elimination of market failures. More effective market control by authorities is needed. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.10.

| 3.2.11. | The EESC calls for a reassessment of the ‘Fit for 55’ package to improve the capacity to deal with energy price volatility and problems following from emergencies, including war, in a way that avoids negative effects on end users for instance by introducing appropriate mechanisms to avoid excessive pricing, such as temporary non-application of the ETS system. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.11.

| 3.2.12. | At the same time, social justice will have to be ensured and the increasing energy poverty of Europeans addressed (11). According to the European Commission, the fight against climate change entails tangible risks of worsening inequalities, and specific public policies need to be put in place to address them. In particular, this involves stepping up vocational training and retraining and keeping price increases for some things under control for households suffering from energy poverty (12). An energy transition that creates jobs and is able to preserve the purchasing power of low-income households is socially more acceptable (13). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.12.

| 3.2.13. | In addition, in order to facilitate acceptance of the transition, different scenarios giving more resources to small households were considered, such as in the simulations of the Locomotion consortium. Nevertheless, the EESC reiterates that it is essential to extend and enlarge the EU Social Climate Fund and Just Transition Fund (14) to genuinely ensure that no one is left behind, incorporating all aspects of exclusion and marginalisation. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.13.

| 3.2.14. | To help the most vulnerable in particular to make the energy transition a reality, it would also be useful to develop and improve redistributive policies and, to this end, to trial innovative measures (15) such as a universal basic income, tax credits, shorter working weeks, job sharing, job guarantee schemes and more of a place for workers in corporate governance. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.14.

| 3.2.15. | These measures, and others mentioned above, are likely to increase the acceptability of the transition. They could benefit from the immediate redirection of subsidies, funding and tax benefits that are still being allocated to fossil fuels. It is important to create sources of funding for sustainable investments. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.15.

| 3.2.16. | Thus, as has long been promised, the abolition of environmentally-unfriendly taxes should now be planned very quickly, along with the development of green taxes in line with a taxation approach (16) that earmarks sources of financing for boosting the transition. This will help everyone to understand and accept public action in this domain. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.16.

| 3.2.17. | In fact, the social acceptability of green taxation requires compensation that takes into account household income and energy poverty (lack of public transport, poor insulation of housing, and inefficient heating systems and types of vehicle owned, etc.) to help people (17) benefit from any savings that can be achieved in the long term by using less energy-intensive equipment. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.17.

| 3.2.18. | Similarly, carbon mapping (18), which consists of allocating non-transferable individual emission allowances, should be tested in order to work out not only whether its educational potential can result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions and an enhanced energy transition in practice, but also whether, by using this egalitarian tool, the acceptability of this transition is likely to be enhanced. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.18.

| 3.2.19. | How good the example is that is given by public players (in addition to practices and measures to promote energy sobriety and renewable energies, participatory democracy, social dialogue and financing for civic facilities and lifelong transition education measures) will depend on their ability to put the issue of funding on the table and ensure it is sustainable. One example would be a multi-annual programme to finance energy renovation that contains an obligation to achieve results. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.19.

| 3.2.20. | New subsidies and fiscal measures will need to be usefully complemented by standards that are binding on everybody, since, like the action that needs to be carried out to allow the development of mirror interactions conducive to the transition, these measures will also make it possible to bring about a world in which we can and want to live. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.20.

3.3.   Location and planning

| 3.3.1. | Many problems relating to the location of projects that would benefit the energy transition are rooted in the particular physical features thereof. Further efforts are needed to tackle such concerns, in particular by disseminating knowledge to counter false information and by implementing best practices to deal with these issues. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1.

| 3.3.2. | It is, in particular, a matter of becoming aware of the cultural and urban legacy of the past (entrances to cities disfigured by commercial and industrial zones, car parks built on fertile land, buildings in residential areas and suburbs creating a reliance on cars, etc.). Today, the advantages of the energy transition outweigh the impact on the ‘landscape’. To ensure that it happens in a sustainable way, we need to avoid as much as possible, if not reduce and offset, the negative effects associated with its needs in terms of land. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.2.

| 3.3.3. | This must be achieved by locating infrastructure in places where it is not in competition with agriculture or respect for nature and cultural heritage. Incorporating facilities into existing urban or industrial areas or placing them on marginal land with negligible productive or natural value is one solution. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.3.

| 3.3.4. | Where the installation of such facilities on productive land is unavoidable, it should, as far as possible, be incorporated into the agricultural system instead of involving clearing and/or net land take. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.4.

| 3.3.5. | Moreover, in order to keep the general public properly informed and win public confidence, rigorous environmental impact assessments should be carried out systematically for installations and for all national and European energy-related objectives and plans. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.5.

| 3.3.6. | Ex post evaluations are also essential to keep our society in a process of constant improvement. In addition, bridges for dialogue between all levels of government should be put in place, along with good policy monitoring and implementation tools to avoid land take as much as possible, as well as to prevent ‘environmental problem shifting’, as recommended in particular by the European Environment Agency (EEA) (19). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.6.

| 3.3.7. | In the ex post evaluation of measures and projects relating to the energy transition, the quantification of local economic benefits is a factor likely to generate social acceptability. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.7.

| 3.3.8. | A complementary solution to the problem of finding places to produce energy in Europe would be to import green electricity produced in neighbouring countries in liquid form, using hydrogen as a carrier. In terms of social acceptability, this initiative must be understood as a joint development dimension for these regions (20). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.8.

3.4.   Socio-demographic factors

| 3.4.1. | In addition to these reasons, demographics in general also play a role in public perceptions. Preliminary demographic studies would help formulate a better strategy for project acceptance, by identifying the size and composition of the target public most likely to be opposed. These studies should be accessible to all stakeholders. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.1.

| 3.4.2. | Higher levels of acceptance are correlated with higher levels of education and a younger age. Hence the importance of developing lifelong learning (including in companies and vocational training centres) on ‘energy sobriety’, civic participation and investment in collective measures to support the transition. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.2.

| 3.4.3. | The EESC proposes that campaigns to raise awareness about the transition draw on the BIMBY (Build In My Backyard) movement, which echoes the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) attitude, highlighting examples that generate virtuous trends in social imitation and benefits for the population, a series of positive narratives through testimonies and tangible success stories from different regions and countries, with which people could identify. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.3.

| 3.4.4. | All this could generate acceptance and create a desire to move forward together towards this new way of living, which is required by the present-day need to replace fossil fuels. Resources should be dedicated to awareness-raising activities which could be judiciously promoted by various stakeholders. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.4.

| 3.4.5. | There is no consensus on the direct effect of specific socio-demographic factors, as the impact thereof varies from country to country and according to the political context. However, they certainly do have an effect on local acceptance of plans and projects enabling the transition to take place. The EESC therefore believes it is necessary to support initial and continuous training measures for the energy transition, in liaison with the social partners and civil society organisations. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.5.

| 3.4.6. | However, thinking in terms of social acceptability sometimes means giving the target public responsibility for adopting or not adopting the technologies concerned. This means considering that only the social dimension plays a role in realising the potential of technologies. However, reluctance to acquire or use new tools can be more complex (21). |
| --- | --- |

3.4.6.

3.5.   Socio-technical feasibility (22)

| 3.5.1. | Barriers to the adoption of some types of equipment can also be technical. In particular, they are part of the difficulty of sharing a less energy-intensive culture in a society that, paradoxically, pushes people towards ever greater consumption, which generates considerable dissonance with messages aimed at saving energy. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.1.

| 3.5.2. | Social acceptability refers to a complex situation of coexistence accepted between technology and users. However, acceptability does not mean adoption. (See, for example, the case of smart meters, which are accepted in theory but not adopted, with the result that people refuse to have them installed). Adoption requires there to be a sort of widespread take-up of the technology. The technology concerned is no longer being discussed; it has proved its worth; it is one of a number of technological alternatives, but nevertheless this does not mean that it is accepted. Accepting it presupposes ownership, in the sense of incorporating it into a way of life, considering it to be indispensable and essential. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.2.

| 3.5.3. | The constraints linked to the widespread uptake of transition technologies also point to the fact that they are most often designed on the basis that users will be able to make use of them in accordance with the purposes for which they were intended. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.3.

| 3.5.4. | These users are supposed to subscribe to the energy projects facilitated by these technologies before they can operate the technologies at full potential. However, numerous surveys have shown that even everyday technical objects are largely underused because of a lack of proper understanding of their real capabilities and how to make use of them. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.4.

| 3.5.5. | Socio-technical feasibility can be viewed as a process of social inclusion and dissemination along a timeline that entails a certain number of phases. The first is fundamental, as it concerns the time for research and development and controversy (23) — i.e. anticipation of changes due to the introduction of a new technology. The second phase involves initial lessons learned. It is here that the rationale behind the project design is compared with the intended use and the ability to incorporate social aspects into technologies. The last phase is where the technology becomes commonplace over the longer term. At this stage it becomes clear whether a project is being rejected or adopted, whether and how the public take ownership of it and how society takes it on board. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.5.

| 3.5.6. | It is here that local involvement comes into play: these regions attempt — or not — to use these technologies to deal with a number of challenges. The process of society taking such technologies on board therefore corresponds to the macro-social changes that their adoption engenders. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.6.

| 3.5.7. | Use of a technology can profoundly change people’s attitude to the world, relationships and social images. This is only possible if the technology is not imposed as it stands, but allows for adjustments, which thus make it easier to accept and use. In this respect, the EESC believes that technological neutrality based on scientific research, fair competition and the possibility of testing and discussing the appropriateness of different technologies can help to improve social acceptability. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.7.

| 3.5.8. | Thus, when analysed in detail, the debate on the energy transition is moving away from its techno-centred approach and towards a more socio-centred approach. This implies introducing nuances in the concept of social acceptability when it tends to place responsibility for our energy-intensive lifestyles on consumers only, and including it in the wider sphere of socio-technical feasibility, which obliges us to question the sense of certain techniques as well as our energy-policy choices. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.8.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/

1

(2)  https://doughnuteconomics.org/about-doughnut-economics

2

(3)  https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/07/IPBES_IPCC_WR_12_2020.pdf

3

(4)  https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/ https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/growth-without-economic-growth

4

(5)  Trends in Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Across Europe — A Literature Review, 8.12.2020.

5

(6)  This is what France Nature Environnement recommends in its ‘scopes’ (publications on methanisation, wind power, etc.).

6

France Nature Environnement

scopes

(7)  https://www.fondation-nicolas-hulot.org/sondage-science-et-transition-ecologique-en-qui-les-francais-ont-il-confiance/ (in French only).

7

(8)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2021, p. 66.

8

(9)  Such as the Commission nationale du débat public (National Committee for Public Debate) in France.

9

Commission nationale du débat public

(10)  Cf. Conseil d’État, Public Report 2011 Consulter autrement, participer effectivement [French Council of State Public Report 2011 Consult differently, participate effectively] La Documentation française 2011.

10

Consulter autrement, participer effectivement

Consult differently, participate effectively

(11)  Information Report of the European Economic and Social Committee Evaluating the European Energy Union — The social and societal dimension of the energy transition.

11

Evaluating the European Energy Union — The social and societal dimension of the energy transition

(12)  This poverty leads to problems such as theft (using cables to tap into other people’s networks), due to lack of financial resources or civil disobedience against the way electricity is sold.

12

(13)  OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 158.

13

(14)  OJ C 311, 18.9.2020, p. 55.

14

(15)  https://eeb.org/library/escaping-the-growth-and-jobs-treadmill/.

15

(16)  OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 8.

16

(17)  Eurofound, 2015, Access to social benefits: reducing non-take-up Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. EEA Eurofound policy brief ‘Exploring the social challenges of low-carbon energy policies in Europe’, ef22004en.pdf

17

(18)  https://www.socialter.fr/article/carte-carbone-plutot-qu-une-taxe-un-quota-pour-chaque-citoyen-1 (in French only).

18

(19)  https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/energy/renewable-energy/eu-renewable-electricity-has-reduced

19

(20)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2021, p. 30.

20

(21)  For example, acquiring an electric car involves changing the way a person drives, moving from a gear stick to an automatic gear box, which can be a deterrent.

21

(22)  https://www.larevuedelenergie.com/les-energies-renouvelables-en-transition-de-leur-acceptabilite-sociale-a-leur-faisabilite-sociotechnique/ (in French only).

22

(23)  (See, for example — in an area other than the energy transition — smartphones, which are widely accepted and adopted).

23

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/30

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on consolidating the EU Civil Protection Mechanism in order to improve the EU’s capacity to react in the face of extreme events, including those occurring outside its territory

(Exploratory opinion at the request of the French presidency)

(2022/C 290/05)

| Rapporteur: | Christophe QUAREZ |
| --- | --- |
| Co-rapporteur: | Violeta JELIĆ |

Rapporteur:

Christophe QUAREZ

Co-rapporteur:

Violeta JELIĆ

| Referral | French Presidency of the Council of the European Union, 21.9.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | External Relations |
| Adopted in section | 9.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 24.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 211/0/2 |

Referral

French Presidency of the Council of the European Union, 21.9.2021

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

External Relations

Adopted in section

9.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

24.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

211/0/2

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM or ‘the Mechanism’) is no longer sufficiently capable nor wide enough to respond to disasters linked to climate change and multiple risks in terms of prevention, preparedness, warning, planning and operational capabilities, occurring inside and outside the Union’s territory. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | Beyond its well established activity as regards natural disasters, the UCPM is called upon tackle other risks such as pandemics, assistance to people in war zones, major industrial risks, large-scale maritime pollution, consequences of cyber-attacks on electricity or drinking water networks and all essential infrastructures, or management of humanitarian crises linked to immigration. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The link between civil protection (short-term operations) and humanitarian aid (long-term management) needs to be better addressed and coordinated. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC considers that post-disaster action of the EU for events outside its territory needs to be further identified and developed. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC underlines the utmost importance of evolving operational cooperation through harmonisation of training, compatibility of material and equipment, clarity and efficiency of command chains. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC considers that the need to set up a European agency for civil protection and humanitarian aid should be examined, as a practical mechanism of stronger foreign policy actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC draws attention to the necessary progress to be made with regard to the intervention decision-making process, outside the EU territory. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC considers that the diplomatic dimension of European civil protection is not sufficiently developed. As regards external relations and reaction of the EU in the face of extreme events, the EESC underlines the importance of:






  — | Focusing on prevention, preparedness and recovery procedures in a more resilient way; working with the UN on Disaster Risk Reduction strategies and the implementation of the ‘build back better’ priority of UN-Sendai Framework of Action to strengthen resilience inside and outside the EU, as a sustainable approach adjusted with the SDGs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.8.

—

Focusing on prevention, preparedness and recovery procedures in a more resilient way; working with the UN on Disaster Risk Reduction strategies and the implementation of the ‘build back better’ priority of UN-Sendai Framework of Action to strengthen resilience inside and outside the EU, as a sustainable approach adjusted with the SDGs.

| — | Enhancing knowledge sharing, expertise and exchange of lessons learnt, common training and exercises worldwide, including the civil society on the local level. |
| --- | --- |

—

Enhancing knowledge sharing, expertise and exchange of lessons learnt, common training and exercises worldwide, including the civil society on the local level.

| — | Highlighting links between civil protection and humanitarian aid, especially in isolated areas of the world when a disaster strikes. |
| --- | --- |

—

Highlighting links between civil protection and humanitarian aid, especially in isolated areas of the world when a disaster strikes.

| — | Including cultural awareness as a key issue of civil protection training to enhance the effectiveness of the UCPM activity (aid deployment) at the area of the disaster, worldwide. |
| --- | --- |

—

Including cultural awareness as a key issue of civil protection training to enhance the effectiveness of the UCPM activity (aid deployment) at the area of the disaster, worldwide.

| 1.9. | The EESC questions the definition of the geographical scope of the UCPM and the selection criteria of participating countries. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | Appropriate communication must be encouraged in the international public opinion in order to enhance the UCPM’s action. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | The EESC would support the idea of developing joint disaster management first response transnational teams with own resources, joint training and standardisation of resources and equipment. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | The EESC encourages a proposal for a legislative amendment to authorise automatic and immediate response under the Mechanism in the event of a mankind disaster inside and outside the EU territory, without requiring a prior request from the Member State concerned, the Member State retaining the right to refuse such assistance. This resource in a form of a task force may contribute to strengthening of the external dimension of EU relations through civil protection. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

| 1.13. | The EESC supports strengthening of voluntarism for civil protection, recommending the development of standards for volunteering programmes with provisions that guarantee volunteers human and labour rights and the creation of common certification system for voluntary civil protection teams. |
| --- | --- |

1.13.

| 1.14. | The EESC notes the lack of a rapid response flexible financial instrument for providing direct funding to affected populations for compensation, upon request. |
| --- | --- |

1.14.

| 1.15. | The EESC supports strengthening of public information actions concerning UCPM’s activity through modern ways of communication (e.g. social media), and an active role of organised volunteer organisations. |
| --- | --- |

1.15.

| 1.16. | The EESC notes the need for further strengthening of cooperation of the Union’s operational response with the humanitarian organizations and the civil society for better deployment of the aid on the ground. |
| --- | --- |

1.16.

| 1.17. | The EESC highlights the need of further consideration of ensuring continuity of SMEs in the aftermath of a disaster. |
| --- | --- |

1.17.

| 1.18. | The EESC recommends a stronger involvement of the scientific community in the alert and prevention process of the UCPM, taking advantage of the EU Civil Protection Knowledge Network and the reinforcement of the DRM Knowledge Centre. |
| --- | --- |

1.18.

2.   Background

| 2.1. | The Union Civil Protection Mechanism, at the heart of the European cooperation on disaster risk management, provides a network of mutual assistance and solidarity inside and beyond the borders of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The Mechanism brings together 33 states; 27 EU Member States and 6 Participating States: Iceland, Norway, Serbia, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey. It is used in prevention, planning and operational responses, and enables coordinated aid to disasters and humanitarian crisis situations. Any country in the world confronted with a major disaster can seek assistance through the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC), as a foreign policy mechanism of EU. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | Already reinforced in 2019 through the establishment of a reserve of additional capacities and through the European Civil Protection Knowledge Network, the UCPM’s policy framework has been further strengthened through new legislation published on 20 May 2021. The revised UCPM now includes a cross-sectoral and cross-border approach to risk and disaster management, based on ‘disaster resilience objectives’, and planning at EU level. On a proposal from the European Parliament, it also incorporates the concepts of climate change and biodiversity. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | However, major natural disasters in recent years (mass fires in southern Europe in 2017 and 2021, floods in central and northern Europe in 2014 and 2021, earthquakes in Haiti in 2010 and 2021, etc.), and the increase in their frequency and intensity, undermine existing response mechanisms such as the UCPM, which is also simultaneously confronted with other complex crises (migratory, health, humanitarian). The recent events in Ukraine demonstrate the need to reinforce the mechanism and render more coherent the links between civil protection and humanitarian aid. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | For this reason, the French authorities have asked the EESC to work on Europe’s response to climate change through three main areas of study: (i) early warning and public information; (ii) forecasting and planning, and (iii) capability response. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | From an operational point of view, the UCPM has been strengthened by several complementary instruments such as the rescEU reserve of resources, the Copernicus satellite service (a satellite risk mapping system), the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP) and the EU Civil Protection Knowledge Network (KN). |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | Set up in 2019, rescEU established a new additional reserve of resources (the rescEU reserve) which includes a fleet of firefighting planes and helicopters, rescue equipment, medical evacuation planes, emergency medical teams, and a stockpile of medical equipment and field hospitals that can respond to health emergencies and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents. RescEU complements the UCPM in missions such as firefighting, medical assistance and research. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) is at the heart of the functioning of the UCPM. It centralises and coordinates the different aid sent by countries and is responsible for the rapid deployment of emergency aid to areas affected by disaster. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | Countries announce the means they are able to provide to the requesting country using the Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS). The platform enables online records to be kept, where the ERCC can detail the needs of the requesting countries, and where the assisting countries can specify the means they intend to make available. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | In addition, participants may commit national resources for emergency response to the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP). This pool allows better planning and coordination of response activities at European and national level, which provides a faster and more reliable EU response to disasters. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | Supporting prevention and preparedness activities, the EU also increased financial support for capacities registered in the ECPP. The financial support can be used to adapt and repair capacities, as well as to cover operational costs (inside the EU) and transport costs (outside the EU) when deployed under the UCPM. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | The Mechanism was triggered several times as part of the EU’s crisis management framework during the COVID-19 pandemic. The experience demonstrated that the EU needs to be better prepared to respond to large-scale emergencies, and that the existing legal framework on health and civil protection should be reinforced. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | Financially, the Mechanism receives, in addition to contributions from participating countries, a financial envelope from the EU’s multiannual budget 2021-2027. More specifically, the financial envelope for the implementation of the Mechanism for the 2021-2027 period will be EUR 1 263 000 000. Furthermore, external assigned revenue from the European Union Recovery Instrument of up to EUR 2 056 480 000 will also be allocated for the implementation of the Mechanism for the same period. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The EU Civil Protection Knowledge Network (KN), a new platform for sharing knowledge, best practices and lessons learned by civil protection experts and emergency management personnel, is an instrument by which the EU intends to strengthen its European Disaster Risk Management. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | The KN aims to foster stronger synergies among practitioners, policy-makers and scientists through the pillars capacity development and science, where activities are initiated, planned, designed and implemented. KN’s actions include common exercises, bilateral and multilateral exchanges, cooperation and common projects. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | As concerns civil protection outside the EU framework, it is important to mention NATO’s Euro-Atlantic Disaster Relief Coordination Centre (EADRCC), which offers assistance mainly in cases of natural and man-made disasters, and the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC), which offers assistance during the first phase of a sudden-onset emergency. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | Within Europe, the Union for the Mediterranean platform (UfM), a multilateral partnership focused on increasing the potential for regional integration and cohesion among Euro-Mediterranean countries, including Turkey, endorsed an action plan concerning preparations for efficient mutual assistance in the Euro-Mediterranean area. Among the actions proposed were rapid responses. Key factors include the reinforcement of public emergency service actions through volunteers, and citizens’ involvement in saving lives. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

| 3.13. | The UCPM was activated 382 times between 2007 and 2020. In 2020 it was activated 102 times — 82 more activations than the previous year. Of the 102 activations, 36 were inside the EU, and 66 were outside the EU, with 85 of the total activations related to COVID-19. |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

4.   Specific remarks

| 4.1. | The UCPM is no longer sufficiently sized to respond to natural disasters linked to climate change in terms of prevention, warning, planning, forecasting and operational capacity. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | Sectors such as maritime pollution, industrial risks and disasters on electricity and drinking water networks should be better addressed by the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The EESC considers that the diplomatic dimension of European civil protection is not sufficiently developed towards the EU’s immediate neighbourhood (notably the Balkans), or towards North Africa and African countries in addition to the EU’s development policy. This diplomatic dimension of the UCPM should be exploited in several ways, by (i) strengthening the pre-accession process of candidate countries to the EU, while respecting all accession criteria; (ii) reducing the influence of China and Russia in some countries and geographical areas (Africa, Georgia, Ukraine); (iii) facilitating diplomatic relations with certain hostile countries (e.g. aid in fighting forest fires in Russia or Turkey); (iv) completing the European Union’s development aid policy; and (v) engaging with countries directly under Russian influence, such as Kazakhstan, Europe’s energy partner, and which are large and are at great risk (of forest fires, for example). |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The EESC questions the definition of the geographical scope of the UCPM and the selection criteria for the Member States. For example, accession candidate countries, Switzerland and Moldova should join the UCPM to acquire a truly continental dimension. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | With regard to external operations coordinated by the European Commission, when third countries request assistance, it is necessary to specify the conditions and the decision-making process for initiating such operations, paying special attention to transparency. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | The EESC also recommends that a civil protection correspondent be appointed in each Permanent Representation of the EU in order to systematically inform third countries of possible EU assistance in the event of a serious disaster, to ensure the necessary coordination with the country’s own civil protection forces. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | The EESC draws the Commission’s attention to the wide disparities that exist today between the different civil protection structures, and stresses the need to harmonise the way in which these forces are organised, in particular in terms of training staff, procedures, and equipment (e.g. the diameters of fire lances differ from one country to another). This disparity can be overcome by organising and standardising standard modules in each EU country. These standard modules are already in place, however increasing their numbers and improving their standardisation must be actively encouraged. For example, forest fire modules in one country may be equipped with road vehicles, and in another country with off-road vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | Moreover, close cooperation between national civil protection authorities, universities and researchers should be strengthened. The implementation of the EU Civil Protection Knowledge Network through the pillars capacity development and science, and the reinforcement of the DRM Knowledge Centre, provide the space and means to strengthen this cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | Regarding resource capacity, the urgent and long-distance deployment of resources over thousands or even tens of thousands of kilometres is another priority. Emergencies often require the use of air assets. If personnel are transported by airliners, then suitable, large-capacity transport aircrafts would be required to transport equipment. |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

| 4.10. | The issue of securing transport capacity could possibly be solved through the use of military, national or NATO aircrafts. However, their use requires due process and involves planning, which is not compatible with emergency situations. Another more suitable option would be to consider a dedicated fleet of large Airbus A330 carriers or punctual rental with specialised companies. An aerial unit of three aircrafts would seem to meet expert expectations. These units are versatile, and the ability to convert them is technically viable, for example for use in situations such as dropping fire retardant to subdue forest fires, and transporting rolling stock. |
| --- | --- |

4.10.

| 4.11. | The acquisition and management of these aerial projection assets could be studied within the rescEU framework. |
| --- | --- |

4.11.

| 4.12. | As regards governance, the EESC calls for the creation of a European civil protection and humanitarian aid agency. Over time, they are often called upon to take action in the same places, with regard to the same populations. Civil protection usually takes place over a short time, days or weeks, while humanitarian aid could take place over months or longer. |
| --- | --- |

4.12.

Brussels, 24 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

III Preparatory acts

European Economic and Social Committee

568th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee – Interactio, 23.3.2022–24.3.2022

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/35

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — 2021 Strategic Foresight Report — The EU’s capacity and freedom to act

(COM(2021) 750 final)

(2022/C 290/06)

| Rapporteur: | Sandra PARTHIE |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Sandra PARTHIE

| Referral | Commission, 1.3.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Single Market, Production and Consumption |
| Adopted in section | 4.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 199/3/0 |

Referral

Commission, 1.3.2022

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Single Market, Production and Consumption

Adopted in section

4.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

199/3/0

1.   Preamble

| 1.1. | The EC report and Opinion were drafted before the Russian aggression, the war in Ukraine and the resulting humanitarian crisis, their effects are thus not reflected in the Opinion. The EESC underlines that these tragic events obviously severely impact on our way of life and thus urges that the ongoing strategic foresight activities by the JRC and the European Commission take the geopolitical effects of these strategic shifts much more prominently into focus for the upcoming strategic foresight report than previously planned; ranging i.a. from raising energy prices, higher spending for security and defence, new migration flows and insecurity of supplies not only in Europe but also beyond. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

2.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 2.1. | The EESC continues to very much welcome the inclusion of the foresight methodology into the EU’s policy-making process. Strategic Foresight being a participatory process, the EESC still expects synergies as well as the structural involvement of all EU institutions, including the EESC, to prosper on this basis. In this context the EESC highlights European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS) as a good example of EU inter-institutional collaboration. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The EESC believes that the four key global trends are relevant to the fundamental question of the EU’s capacity and freedom to act. They represent the central overarching megatrends of our time, which will continue to be of crucial importance for shaping European policy. However, their development remains broad-based and touches upon various aspects while lacking ‘deep dives’ into individual sub-topics. The EESC specifically deplores the fact that the social dimension has not been sufficiently taken into account, and the lack of consideration of youth and intergenerational justice issues, despite these issues being developed in the underlying Joint Research Centre (JRC) report Shaping & securing the EU’s open strategic autonomy by 2040 and beyond (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The EESC agrees that the topic chosen for the 2021 Strategic Foresight Report is of high political relevance and capable of creating the right framework conditions for well-managed interdependence and open strategic autonomy based on shared values, cohesion, strong multilateral governance, and rules-based cooperation. However, we urge that proper use be made of the methods of the foresight process to determine future topics. It is crucial to assess developments over time, i.e. the current R & D investments or numbers of patents must not only be compared with those of China or the US but also with regard to previous levels in order to get a clear view of whether we are moving in the right direction. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | While the approach of using Strategic Foresight and the topical focus of the report are not being questioned, it remains unclear what distinguishes the 2021 Strategic Foresight Report as a true foresight resource. A clear link between the selection of trends, the future(s) considered and the logical conclusions for the focal question of the report are lacking. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

Besides the lack of an apparent foresight methodology, the Commission’s second Strategic Foresight Report, for 2021, falls short in providing a logical, coherent, and action-oriented framework for EU policy-making and thus enabling policy-makers to set strategic priorities and to act.

| 2.5. | A very relevant topic for a deep dive is the role of non-state actors in today’s governing systems — particularly multinational corporations. Strategic autonomy should, in our opinion, be increased as a minimum with regard to actors that have a de-facto rule- and norm-setting status, such as large tech companies, globally active banks and financial actors as well as civil society organisations. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | The foresight dimension of the report will only fully realise its potential to EU policy-makers if it is fundamentally designed as an open and pluralistic as well as diverse, cross-disciplinary exercise, involving organised social partners and civil society, in particular the EESC, at all stages of the foresight process leading up to (future) Strategic Foresight Reports. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | In this context, the EESC calls specifically on the JRC to involve the Committee fully in its foresight cycle and support it in screening existing foresight activities carried out by civil society organisations, trade unions and business associations. The EESC also proposes supporting EU civil society organisations in developing foresight expertise and in conducting foresight activities as part of a structured process, together with the JRC, e.g. in the form of a pilot project with EESC members and civil society organisations. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | So, while the aspiration is fully welcomed, there is still room for improvement for the next foresight reports with regard to the following:






  — | the report needs to better tie together the megatrends and strategic cornerstones from the point of view of coherence, probability and relevance; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.8.

—

the report needs to better tie together the megatrends and strategic cornerstones from the point of view of coherence, probability and relevance;

| — | the foresight process leading up to the next report should provide concrete opportunities to the EESC as well as other relevant actors to learn from, contribute to and enhance its quality; |
| --- | --- |

—

the foresight process leading up to the next report should provide concrete opportunities to the EESC as well as other relevant actors to learn from, contribute to and enhance its quality;

| — | the EESC in particular has already developed a number of opinions with regard to the upcoming 2022 foresight report, i.e. on the twin green and digital transitions; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

the EESC in particular has already developed a number of opinions with regard to the upcoming 2022 foresight report, i.e. on the twin green and digital transitions; (2)

| — | in this regard, the EESC would suggest that the Commission, in cooperation with the JRC, develop an annual consultation cycle to contribute to preparing the annual foresight report. The Commission should involve the EESC and the Committee of the Regions, as well as other EU institutions, for example by offering regular, dedicated workshops and by involving EESC members in the underlying foresight activities by DG JRC and the Secretariat-General; |
| --- | --- |

—

in this regard, the EESC would suggest that the Commission, in cooperation with the JRC, develop an annual consultation cycle to contribute to preparing the annual foresight report. The Commission should involve the EESC and the Committee of the Regions, as well as other EU institutions, for example by offering regular, dedicated workshops and by involving EESC members in the underlying foresight activities by DG JRC and the Secretariat-General;

| — | a focus group with social partners/civil society actors should be set up to discuss how this target group can benefit from the Commission’s Strategic Foresight Reports and how future reports could be shaped to offer the most value to them; |
| --- | --- |

—

a focus group with social partners/civil society actors should be set up to discuss how this target group can benefit from the Commission’s Strategic Foresight Reports and how future reports could be shaped to offer the most value to them;

| — | Commission-led demand for the ministerial network to involve social partners and civil society representatives in the network’s foresight-related activities. |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission-led demand for the ministerial network to involve social partners and civil society representatives in the network’s foresight-related activities.

| 2.9. | The EESC suggests reshaping the Committee’s own working processes with regard to the annual foresight reports so as to provide insight, expertise and specific proposals ex ante, i.e. during the drafting process of the respective reports instead of just commenting ex post. We believe this will improve the intelligence gathered for annual foresight reports because EESC members have strong and deep connections to their respective branches of society and economy and are better able to detect crucial so-called ‘weak signals’ in relation to relevant developments. In addition, the EESC can relay and disseminate foresight results and insights, thereby helping national civil society actors to better understand political decisions made by the EU. |
| --- | --- |

2.9.

| 2.10. | Finally, the EESC encourages the Commission to continue developing the EU’s Strategic Foresight agenda. The EESC is convinced that further integration of foresight into EU decision-making is the way forward and reiterates its offer to help the Commission and other EU institutions in this objective. |
| --- | --- |

2.10.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The EESC fully supports the report highlighting the importance of an open, competitive, and fully functioning single market to enable businesses to grow to the scale needed to compete globally. This also extends to the report’s recommendation to fully implement the Capital Markets Union and Banking Union, which the EESC believes to be directly contributing towards the EU’s resilience against financial crises, the protection of depositors and a robust and stable economic recovery (3). |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC welcomes the publication of the revised Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox which focuses on defining how strategic foresight should be used in impact assessments and evaluations. In order to ensure its successful application, it is key that the Commission provides adequate training and resources to its staff conducting impact assessment and evaluations. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | As part of its responses to a more challenging landscape for governance, the report highlights the need for participatory and inclusive governance to enhance trust and legitimacy at all levels, raising the importance of platforms such as the EESC. We believe that, now more than ever, providing an EU-wide voice to civil society is key in enabling effective governance in the 21st century and reaching broad-based and sustainable solutions, rather than easy ones. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC acknowledges the follow-up (4) by the European Commission to the EESC opinion on 2020 Strategic Foresight Report— Charting the course towards a more resilient Europe (5) and feels compelled to respond to aspects it still considers relevant, given that they have not been sufficiently addressed in the 2021 Strategic Foresight Report:






  — | The follow-up document argues that foresight had been included in the 2020 Strategic Foresight Report. From an EESC point of view though, there is a lack of transparency in how foresight principles and methodologies have been used to arrive at the report’s conclusions and how external actors were included in foresight activities. For example, no clear path for engagement has been offered to the EESC; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.4.

—

The follow-up document argues that foresight had been included in the 2020 Strategic Foresight Report. From an EESC point of view though, there is a lack of transparency in how foresight principles and methodologies have been used to arrive at the report’s conclusions and how external actors were included in foresight activities. For example, no clear path for engagement has been offered to the EESC;

| — | The follow-up document points out that individual issues need to be further developed and specified, as requested by the EEESC, and should be incorporated into policy proposals and that the Foresight Report only offers a starting point of reflection. In the EESC’s opinion, the current format of the report is neither suitable for deriving policy proposals nor does it offer concrete starting points of reflection; |
| --- | --- |

—

The follow-up document points out that individual issues need to be further developed and specified, as requested by the EEESC, and should be incorporated into policy proposals and that the Foresight Report only offers a starting point of reflection. In the EESC’s opinion, the current format of the report is neither suitable for deriving policy proposals nor does it offer concrete starting points of reflection;

| — | The follow-up document also emphasises the importance of describing the present situation and status quo in a foresight analysis. The EESC agrees that, traditionally, this is the very first step in a foresight analysis. However, other than its current use in Strategic Foresight Reports, it should form but a starting point towards a future-oriented analysis, which would be a more relevant way for EESC members to derive recommendations for action. |
| --- | --- |

—

The follow-up document also emphasises the importance of describing the present situation and status quo in a foresight analysis. The EESC agrees that, traditionally, this is the very first step in a foresight analysis. However, other than its current use in Strategic Foresight Reports, it should form but a starting point towards a future-oriented analysis, which would be a more relevant way for EESC members to derive recommendations for action.

| 3.5. | As for the ten areas in which the EU could strengthen its open strategic autonomy and global leadership, while they are generally relevant, from the EESC’s point of view, they are not presented as logical strategic conclusions derived from a framework covering trends and uncertainties. Hence, it cannot be assumed that they present holistic and accurate strategic cornerstones from a foresight perspective. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC believes that there is no actual shortage of foresight or strategic planning on the part of the Commission. In the EESC’s view, the real issue is the lack of political will by EU decision-makers to turn foresight into far-reaching proposals. If the political will is not there, even foresight will not lead to the desired steps being taken. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | Highlighting the shortcomings of a closed-off foresight process with limited consultation, the EESC notes the failure to mention the issue of rising inflation as well as increasing energy prices, both of which the EESC considers crucial elements of the issue of strategic autonomy. Within its consultative role, the EESC is already preparing forward-looking opinions (6) to contribute to EU capacity to better integrate foresight into the decision-making process. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | Furthermore, the role of social security systems, including welfare state development, receives no mention in the report. In general, social aspects of the issue appear to be neglected in favour of technological and economic aspects. EU citizens expect a high level of social security and welfare to be provided by the state. Hence, in the light of strategic autonomy, an unanswered question remains how social security systems will be financed in the future. We would very much welcome a more in-depth analysis on this topic using foresight tools. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The 2021 Strategic Foresight Report draws up a comprehensive list of challenges. However, it does not provide clear guidance on priorities and priority actions or proposals on how companies or workers can or should prepare to meet these challenges. Many trends may affect citizens and companies simultaneously. This is a lost opportunity, which the EESC could help remedy given its relevance in addressing high-level challenges and translating proposed solutions into everyday lives, particularly those of employers and employees. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | The report does not currently live up to its title as a foresight document, as described in the former EPSC’s ‘Foresight Primer’, for example (7). A good practice example for methodologically transparent foresight reports can be found in Tackling Obesities: Future Choices (8), as commissioned by the UK Government’s Foresight service. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The report refers specifically to the EU Foresight Network of Ministers for the Future, and the related development of foresight capacities at national level. We urge the Commission to ensure also in this network that actors such as the EESC be actively considered when implementing foresight exercises rather than presented with their results. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | The EESC encourages the Commission to continue developing the EU’s Strategic Foresight agenda. As the opinion has indicated, several changes need to be made. However, the EESC is convinced that further integration of foresight into EU decision-making is the way forward and reiterates its offer to help and cooperate with the Commission and other EU institutions in this objective. Foresight will only achieve its stated objectives if it is an open and pluralistic as well as a diverse, cross-disciplinary exercise, involving organised social partners and civil society, in particular the EESC, at all stages of the foresight process. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC125994/open_strategic_autonomy_2040_online_1.pdf

1

(2)  EESC Opinions: OJ C 311, 18.9.2020, p. 36; OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 143; OJ C 440, 18.12.2020, p. 99; OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 268; OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 51; OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 66; OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 187; OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 259; OJ C 374, 16.9.2021, p. 84.

2

(3)  https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/policies/policy-areas/financial-services-and-capital-markets

3

(4)  Pages 187-200 https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/04_eesc_follow-up_report_april_2021_gri.pdf

4

(5)  OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 67.

5

(6)  See recent examples of forward-looking EESC opinions:

6

| — | OJ C 374, 16.9.2021, p. 73; |
| --- | --- |

—

OJ C 374, 16.9.2021, p. 73;

| — | OJ C 129, 11.4.2018, p. 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

OJ C 129, 11.4.2018, p. 36;

| — | CCMI/184– Anticipation of structural and sectoral change and reshaping industrial cultures — up to new borders of recovery and resilience in the different parts of Europe; |
| --- | --- |

—

CCMI/184– Anticipation of structural and sectoral change and reshaping industrial cultures — up to new borders of recovery and resilience in the different parts of Europe;

| — | OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 118; |
| --- | --- |

—

OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 118;

| — | OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 1:
  The EESC also organises activities promoting forward-looking debates, such as for example: |
| --- | --- |

—

OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 1:

The EESC also organises activities promoting forward-looking debates, such as for example:

| — | ECO conference on Economic aspects of Strategic Foresight and EU decision-making (June 2021); |
| --- | --- |

—

ECO conference on Economic aspects of Strategic Foresight and EU decision-making (June 2021);

Economic aspects of Strategic Foresight and EU decision-making

| — | REX conference on The Geopolitics of the European Green Deal (EGD), a crosscutting insight into the geopolitical implications of the EGD (December 2021); |
| --- | --- |

—

REX conference on The Geopolitics of the European Green Deal (EGD), a crosscutting insight into the geopolitical implications of the EGD (December 2021);

The Geopolitics of the European Green Deal (EGD), a crosscutting insight into the geopolitical implications of the EGD

| — | REX debate at Section meeting: Strategic foresight — a vision for the future of Europe (February 2022). |
| --- | --- |

—

REX debate at Section meeting: Strategic foresight — a vision for the future of Europe (February 2022).

(7)  ‘What strategic foresight is not? Not a report — a carefully designed and purposeful intervention. Strategic foresight is a learning process that offers a decision-maker new and refreshing perspectives on the present situation — which is often puzzling, socially messy and uncertain. It engages with uncertainty as a friend rather than as a foe. It is not a report but a means to some other end. The carefully designed and purposeful intervention focusses the social learning process on the needs of a specific set of users and their needs (i.e. their uses foresight).’, European Commission, European Political Strategy Centre, Wilkinson, A., Strategic Foresight Primer, Publications Office, 2017, Retrieved January 16, 2022 from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2872/71492

7

Strategic Foresight Primer

(8)  Tackling obesities: Future choices— project report. Retrieved January 14, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287937/07-1184x-tackling-obesities-future-choices-report.pdf

8

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/40

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment risk, operational risk, market risk and the output floor

(COM(2021) 664 final — 2021/0342 (COD))

(2022/C 290/07)

| Rapporteur: | Bogdan PREDA |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Bogdan PREDA

| Referrals | European Parliament, 17.1.2022
  Council of the European Union, 20.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
| Adopted in section | 3.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 154/0/1 |

Referrals

European Parliament, 17.1.2022

Council of the European Union, 20.1.2022

Legal basis

Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Adopted in section

3.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

154/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1 | The EESC advocates a sound, balanced and forward-looking capital policy with risk weightings based on actual stability risks, while also considering the need to boost the competitiveness of EU banks and to increase the financing of sustainable growth. Thus, the EESC calls on the Commission to further evaluate the extent to which the proposals respond to the abovementioned challenges. |
| --- | --- |

1.1

| 1.2 | The EESC welcomes the implementation of the remaining elements of the international standards agreed by the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (‘Basel III standards’) (1), from the perspective of both timing and substance, as they are meant to enhance the stability of the financial market in the EU, and thus not to expose European citizens to increased financial market risks. |
| --- | --- |

1.2

| 1.3 | The EESC stresses that financial market stability is a crucial prerequisite for overall economic stability, whereas the sound regulation and surveillance of the banking sector is essential in order to prevent the threat of turbulences and crisis. The prudential capital requirements are instrumental in reaching the abovementioned prerequisites, whereas the EESC calls on legislators to make sure that the proposals envisage a proper balance between two complementary objectives, namely (i) ensuring that EU banks become more resilient and (ii) the need to ensure financial soundness and competitiveness in the sector, including from the perspective of a balanced capital requirements framework, to support the role of banks in financing the real economy. |
| --- | --- |

1.3

| 1.4 | The EESC calls on the Commission to perform periodical assessments of the actual impact of the proposals, in order to evaluate whether their implementation contributes to more financial market stability and resilience in the banking sector, while also taking into account the competitiveness of EU banks. The EESC also acknowledges that sound and balanced capital ratios contribute to competitiveness. |
| --- | --- |

1.4

| 1.5. | The EESC highly appreciates the endeavours of the Commission to transform the EU’s economy into a greener and more resilient one, including through the revision and permanent evaluation of the current tools envisaged to increase the sustainable finance uptake. The financial sector could become instrumental in building a net-zero carbon economy. Therefore, the EESC welcomes the Commission’s approach of strengthening the focus on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) risks in the prudential framework (in-line with international workstreams, namely in Basel III), including by better accounting for financial market risks related to climate changes. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC also welcomes the ESG (2) disclosure work from the European Banking Authority (EBA) aimed at properly assessing banks’ environmental risks and their finance strategy for the transition to a net-zero carbon economy. The EESC also calls on the EBA to speed up its scrutinising work on the pillar one framework to determine whether it sufficiently captures the unique features of climate risks. Macro-prudential policies regulation, including capital-based ones, can play an important role to better account for financial market risks related to climate change. In addition, the EESC calls on the EBA to strengthen its endeavours to address the shortcomings in the current ESG disclosures at EU level, including on fossil fuels-related assets and assets subject to chronic and acute climate change events, so as to encourage a substantial increase in the sustainable finance strategies of banks. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

2.   Introduction

| 2.1 | The subject of this opinion is the European Commission’s proposal for a (i) regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) on prudential requirements for credit institutions as regards requirements for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment risk, operational risk, market risk and the output floor (CRR Proposal) and (ii) a directive amending Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) as regards supervisory powers, sanctions, third-country branches, and environmental, social and governance risks, and amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (CRD Proposal). |
| --- | --- |

2.1

| 2.2 | As set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, the two normative acts are justified by the need to implement Basel III standards, while also addressing several matters of importance for the financial stability and steady financing of the economy in the context of the recovery after the COVID-19 crisis. These include strengthening the risk-based capital framework, enhancing the focus on ESG risks in the prudential framework and further harmonising the supervisory powers and tools. |
| --- | --- |

2.2

3.   General comments

| 3.1 | The EESC stresses that financial market stability is a crucial prerequisite for overall economic stability and is, therefore, in the common public interest. Sound regulation and surveillance of the banking sector to prevent the threat of turbulence and crisis is essential, while prudential capital requirements are instrumental in avoiding the use of public funds for rescuing banks in distress. |
| --- | --- |

3.1

| 3.2 | A faithful but fair implementation of the Basel III standards is important for European companies and jobs, but equally to foster access to residential ownership and to fuel the EU’s export-oriented economies, which so many businesses rely on for their growth, and so many citizens for their employment. Also, these international standards are implemented in an EU banking model that is inherently more averse to risk and less dependent on capital markets than in other jurisdictions. |
| --- | --- |

3.2

| 3.3 | The EESC welcomes the Commission’s proposals to introduce the remaining elements of the Basel III standards, which are intended to limit the risk of regulatory arbitrage and to create confidence and predictability for investors and regulators. The EESC acknowledges that the EU needs rules to cater for the challenges (i.e. recovery, climate and digital challenges), specific characteristics (bank credit is by far the main financing channel for the EU economy) and the ambitions (Capital Markets Union and Green Deal) of the European Union. On the other hand, it is imperative that European citizens and taxpayers are not exposed to increased risks of a financial market crisis; a proper balance between the abovementioned challenges and the substance and discretions of the Basel III standards thus needs to be achieved. Therefore, the ESSC calls on the Commission to further evaluate the specific features of European banks and the related impact on them and on the EU economy, to ensure that the legislative proposals strike the proper balance between the faithful implementation of the Basel III standards, the exercise of the national discretions provided by the Basel III standards and the need to put forward adjustments to reflect the specificities of both the EU economy and the EU banks. |
| --- | --- |

3.3

| 3.4 | The EESC notes that the implementation of these proposals should safeguard financial market stability, but should not lead to an unjustifiable increase in capital requirements for EU banks, beyond what is envisaged in the Commission’s assessment. Thus, the EESC calls on the Commission to ensure that the impact on capital requirements, including on small cooperative banks and small banks, should not be too burdensome and thus should not impact their competitiveness, while also taking care to ensure financial market stability. |
| --- | --- |

3.4

| 3.5 | The EESC is also fully aware of the fact that the existing capital requirements contributed decisively to make the banking system more resilient during crises, as was also shown in the pandemic context, where the current level of capitalisation has allowed European banks to get through the pandemic in good condition and to continue financing and supporting the European economy to withstand the major economic shock of the COVID-19 pandemic. The EESC also points to the crucial role of the European Central Bank, which has put in place a highly supportive policy, thus having contributed to the resilience of banks in the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

3.5

| 3.6 | The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to ensure that the current proposals enhance the current rules, particularly in the context of capital requirements, to continue to prevent excessive risk-taking, high leverage and speculative behaviours. Given the current economic and social context, there are many significant risks that still need to be properly dealt with, such as climate risks or NPLs, for example. Capital requirements should be high enough to prevent the threat of bankruptcy and financial market turbulence and crisis, but it should not be excessive. At the same time, the EESC acknowledges that EU banks play a pivotal role in financing the real economy and supporting the digital and sustainable transitions, with an indirect impact on jobs and living standards. Regulatory provisions related to capital requirements need to take these aspects into account. |
| --- | --- |

3.6

| 3.7 | As concerns the ESG, the EESC points out that the financial markets can and should support and enhance the transition to a more sustainable and greener economy, but the banking sector, cannot deliver this long-lasting change alone. According to the latest reviews by the European Court of Auditors (ECA), more than half of EU Member States still subsidise fossil fuels more than renewables (5), while ‘the EU support for investments needs to be better aligned with the sustainable finance principles’ (6). In this context, the EESC calls for the industrial policies and the relevant EU and national legal frameworks to become fully consistent towards (i) promoting sustainable investment opportunities to influence the allocation of economic resources in this direction and (ii) removing fossil fuels subsidies and reconciling climate objectives with social needs. Therefore, the EESC welcomes the strengthening of ESG-related provisions in the legislative proposals but calls on the Commission to clarify the applicability of the provisions regarding the powers of supervisors to ‘reduce risks arising from the institutions’ misalignment with relevant policy objectives of the Union and broader transition trends relating to ESG factors’ so as to make it clear how such powers should be exercised. |
| --- | --- |

3.7

| 3.8 | In addition to disclosure and climate stress testing, macro-prudential policies, including capital based measures, can play a role in properly accounting for banks’ ESG-related risks and facilitating a distribution of credit flows across sectors that can support the transition to a net-zero carbon economy. Thus, the EESC recommends that the EBA and ECB accelerate their work:






  (i) | On the pillar one framework, so as to determine the extent to which the current regulatory framework adequately captures the ESG risks and related measures needed, if the case, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.8

(i)

On the pillar one framework, so as to determine the extent to which the current regulatory framework adequately captures the ESG risks and related measures needed, if the case, and

| (ii) | On the proper and timely calibration of stress testing for ESG risks. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

On the proper and timely calibration of stress testing for ESG risks.

| 3.9 | The EESC welcomes the mandates granted to the Commission to monitor the implementation of the standards in other jurisdictions to ensure consistency as concerns the timing and significance of the impact on the relevant stakeholders, including in terms of the increase in capital requirements. The EESC also warns, however, against a downward spiral of regulatory standards or a further delay in standards taking effect, pointing to the poorer implementation of particular rules in some jurisdictions. These could trigger severe global stability risks. |
| --- | --- |

3.9

4.   Specific observations

| 4.1 | The EESC welcomes, in particular, the following proposals in the Commission proposal, but recommends several further technical improvements to be analysed:






  (i) | The application of the Output Floor (OF) at the highest level of consolidation with risk-based redistribution mechanism (to ensure adequate capitalisation of subsidiaries in the EU) for each banking group, as it would not only ensure international consistency, but also avoid the negative effects that application at entity level would have. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.1

(i)

The application of the Output Floor (OF) at the highest level of consolidation with risk-based redistribution mechanism (to ensure adequate capitalisation of subsidiaries in the EU) for each banking group, as it would not only ensure international consistency, but also avoid the negative effects that application at entity level would have.

| (ii) | The specific enhancements regarding the OF in specialised lending (Article 495b) are appreciated, but it should be further evaluated from the perspective of achieving greater consistency with respect to the input floors, considering the specificities of the sub-classes of specialised lending, whereas the parameter floors under the standardised approach do not match the actual risks or reflect the robustness of these types of financing. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

The specific enhancements regarding the OF in specialised lending (Article 495b) are appreciated, but it should be further evaluated from the perspective of achieving greater consistency with respect to the input floors, considering the specificities of the sub-classes of specialised lending, whereas the parameter floors under the standardised approach do not match the actual risks or reflect the robustness of these types of financing.

| (iii) | Keeping the SME and infrastructure supporting factors (ISF) together with the Credit Valuation Adjustments exemptions (Article 501/501a) is highly appreciated, as they are significant tools for banks to continue to support important segments of the European economy, especially in the context of the post-COVID-19 recovery. However, the EESC calls on the Commission to evaluate the opportunity to further clarify and simplify the criteria for the ISF to boost the infrastructure financing, while also taking into account the related risks and safeguarding financial stability; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Keeping the SME and infrastructure supporting factors (ISF) together with the Credit Valuation Adjustments exemptions (Article 501/501a) is highly appreciated, as they are significant tools for banks to continue to support important segments of the European economy, especially in the context of the post-COVID-19 recovery. However, the EESC calls on the Commission to evaluate the opportunity to further clarify and simplify the criteria for the ISF to boost the infrastructure financing, while also taking into account the related risks and safeguarding financial stability;

| (iv) | Streamlining the look-through approach in the treatment of investment funds (CIUs) is, as a principle, well designed, but the EESC considers that further correlation of the related governance rules and limitations is needed (e.g. reliance on data provided by third parties within the calculation of the own funds requirement for market risk against CIUs.); |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

Streamlining the look-through approach in the treatment of investment funds (CIUs) is, as a principle, well designed, but the EESC considers that further correlation of the related governance rules and limitations is needed (e.g. reliance on data provided by third parties within the calculation of the own funds requirement for market risk against CIUs.);

| (v) | Maintaining the 100 % risk weighting for long-term strategic equity investments of banks is needed, but the EESC believes that it is appropriate to apply it fairly to all banks, whether they are under a standardised or internal models approach. |
| --- | --- |

(v)

Maintaining the 100 % risk weighting for long-term strategic equity investments of banks is needed, but the EESC believes that it is appropriate to apply it fairly to all banks, whether they are under a standardised or internal models approach.

| (vi) | The stimuli for banks to shift resources towards a net-zero carbon economy and engagement with customers are key in financing the green transition. In this regard, in order to speed up and enhance such a necessary switch, the EESC believes that it is essential that the EU and the Member States implement a major change in the incentives and disincentives to the underlying economy, as transposed in industrial policies and in the relevant frameworks. The EESC asks the Commission to further evaluate the ESG-related provisions in the CRR and CRD proposal in the light of the above. |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

The stimuli for banks to shift resources towards a net-zero carbon economy and engagement with customers are key in financing the green transition. In this regard, in order to speed up and enhance such a necessary switch, the EESC believes that it is essential that the EU and the Member States implement a major change in the incentives and disincentives to the underlying economy, as transposed in industrial policies and in the relevant frameworks. The EESC asks the Commission to further evaluate the ESG-related provisions in the CRR and CRD proposal in the light of the above.

| 4.2 | Meanwhile, the EESC suggests a number of issues that would need to be reconsidered within the proposals. The EESC stresses in that context that the common public interest to safeguard financial market stability is a top priority and, in this regard, a proper balance with other policy goals needs to be achieved, whereas putting financial stability at risk has to be absolutely avoided. The adoption of Basel III standards in the EU must not undermine the goal of increasing financial market stability in order to be better prepared for economic turbulences and crises in the future. Moreover, the proposed measures should, in any case, ensure that the capitalization of the banks is further strengthened, while also ensuring their competitiveness:






  (i) | To eliminate the conditionality based on uptake of ratings for the transitional solution to reduce the impact of the Output Floor (OF) on unrated corporates (Article 465(3)). This is due to the low coverage of external ratings for the EU market and to avoid over-reliance on external ratings, in line with the Credit Rating Agencies Directive. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.2

(i)

To eliminate the conditionality based on uptake of ratings for the transitional solution to reduce the impact of the Output Floor (OF) on unrated corporates (Article 465(3)). This is due to the low coverage of external ratings for the EU market and to avoid over-reliance on external ratings, in line with the Credit Rating Agencies Directive.

| (ii) | As concerns the transitional arrangement for residential mortgages for the output floor, the EESC calls on the Commission to evaluate the opportunity to revise it from several perspectives (loan-to-value, asymmetry between risk methodologies, risk sensitivity) to avoid unintended consequences on access to residential mortgages. However, any revision in this respect should also consider the need to avoid any risks of real estate bubbles. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

As concerns the transitional arrangement for residential mortgages for the output floor, the EESC calls on the Commission to evaluate the opportunity to revise it from several perspectives (loan-to-value, asymmetry between risk methodologies, risk sensitivity) to avoid unintended consequences on access to residential mortgages. However, any revision in this respect should also consider the need to avoid any risks of real estate bubbles.

| (iii) | Further revision of the provisions regarding the Internal Rating-based approach (IRB) allowing the use of real maturities, instead of fixed maturities in order to reflect the real risk embedded. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Further revision of the provisions regarding the Internal Rating-based approach (IRB) allowing the use of real maturities, instead of fixed maturities in order to reflect the real risk embedded.

| (iv) | To maintain the credit conversion factors (CCF) at 20 % for transaction-related contingent items (e.g. performance bonds, bid bonds, warranties) due to its key role in the EU economy, so as to be consistent with the real default data of the relevant market. |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

To maintain the credit conversion factors (CCF) at 20 % for transaction-related contingent items (e.g. performance bonds, bid bonds, warranties) due to its key role in the EU economy, so as to be consistent with the real default data of the relevant market.

| (v) | The capital-market-related provisions should be further evaluated to avoid the risks of a disproportionate impact on hedging, liquidity and funding costs for sovereigns and corporates, and, therefore, to help boost the ability of EU Corporate Investment Banks to compete on EU and international markets. |
| --- | --- |

(v)

The capital-market-related provisions should be further evaluated to avoid the risks of a disproportionate impact on hedging, liquidity and funding costs for sovereigns and corporates, and, therefore, to help boost the ability of EU Corporate Investment Banks to compete on EU and international markets.

| (vi) | To amend the calculation of the real contributions of minority interests to the consolidated capital, which currently goes against the goals of the Capital Market Union, impairing the appetite for listing companies. |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

To amend the calculation of the real contributions of minority interests to the consolidated capital, which currently goes against the goals of the Capital Market Union, impairing the appetite for listing companies.

| 4.3 | The EESC stresses that climate change results in risks that are already affecting banks and that might have profound financial stability implications for banks, if not properly tackled at both the regulatory and banking levels. In this respect, the EESC appreciates the Basel Committee’s and the European authorities’ work on climate-related financial risks, in identifying potential gaps in the current framework and considering possible measures to address such gaps. In addition, the EESC calls on the Commission to ensure that the double materiality principle is fully observed when further developing the relevant framework for financing the transition to a greener economy. |
| --- | --- |

4.3

| 4.4 | The EESC calls on the Commission to evaluate the applicability of the proportionality principle as concerns banks which, in terms of size, role and exposure to systemic risks, are small (as per the definition of a small and non-complex entity in the Capital Requirement Regulation), but which still have to comply with more onerous requirements, including disclosure and capital requirements, because they are part of a ‘significant’ banking group. However, any evaluation of the proportionality principle has to take into account that smaller banks, which are part of a significant banking group, have more resources available to master disclosure and capital requirements. |
| --- | --- |

4.4

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  https://www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3.htm

1

Basel III is an internationally agreed set of measures developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in response to the financial crisis of 2007–2009. The measures aim to strengthen the regulation, supervision and risk management of banks. Like all Basel Committee standards, Basel III standards are minimum requirements that apply to internationally active banks. Members are committed to implementing and applying standards in their jurisdictions within the timeframe established by the Committee.

(2)  https://www.eba.europa.eu/regulation-and-policy/transparency-and-pillar-3

2

(3)  Known as the Capital Requirements Regulation.

3

(4)  Known as the Capital Requirements Directive.

4

(5)  https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=60760

5

(6)  https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_22/SR_sustainable-finance_EN.pdf

6

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/45

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council

Directive laying down rules to prevent the misuse of shell entities for tax purposes and amending Directive 2011/16/EU

(COM(2021) 565 final — 2021/0434 (CNS))

(2022/C 290/08)

| Rapporteur: | Benjamin RIZZO |
| --- | --- |
| Co-rapporteur: | Javier DOZ ORRIT |

Rapporteur:

Benjamin RIZZO

Co-rapporteur:

Javier DOZ ORRIT

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 10.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
| Adopted in section | 3.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 206/1/6 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 10.2.2022

Legal basis

Article 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Adopted in section

3.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

206/1/6

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC fully supports the Commission proposal on the misuse of shell companies for tax purposes and its objectives. Ensuring an effective, fair taxation across the single market is crucial to favour a real recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC appreciates the wide public consultation launched by the Commission that will be open to all stakeholders, as well as the more targeted consultation of national experts, which were involved based on their specific expertise. These consultations have given stakeholders the opportunity to deliver a meaningful contribution, and they should continue to be included in future discussions. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC supports the choice of a Directive aimed at ensuring a common legal framework among Member States. The nature of the subject matter to be regulated and the objectives pursued means that they cannot, indeed, be handled through single initiatives by Member States in their respective legal systems. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC considers the proposal to be in line with the proportionality principle, since it does not go beyond ensuring the necessary level of protection for the single market, with an apparently reasonable impact on companies. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC considers that, in order to correctly manage the necessary checks and to share the resulting information related to the proposal, the Commission and national tax authorities should have adequate capacity to do so in terms of skills and resources. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC hopes that, once the investigations into shell companies have been undertaken and completed, the outcome will be made transparent to the public, making known the results of the Directive’s implementation. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC believes that adequate checks should be carried out with regard not only to corporate income but also to assets, given that taxes can be levied even if such assets do not generate any income, as for example in the case of wealth taxes. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC underlines the need to establish common and clear rules on the specific content of the declarations required from undertakings. Overreporting going beyond the Directive objectives, and the resulting compliance costs, should be avoided. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC recommends that targeted rules to prevent the activity of ‘professional enablers’ be laid down in a different legislation, thus following the OECD approach to the subject matter. The EESC believes that the cooperation of professional supervisory bodies in combatting malpractice and possible criminal activities carried out by ‘professional enablers’ would be of great value. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The EESC reiterates the need to have a complete and wide-ranging EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions located outside the EU, inter alia so that EU companies can see whether the funds and assets they manage may be connected to shell entities located outside the EU. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | The EESC suggests that the Commission issue appropriate guidelines regarding the substance test set forth by the Directive, with particular regard to the meaning of specific terms such as ‘residence’, ‘resident director’ and ‘premises’. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | The EESC observes that shell companies can also be established and utilised to facilitate undeclared work, as well as to avoid social security contributions. The EESC therefore suggests that the Commission consider the possibility of addressing such issues in European legislation in addition to the proposal at hand, which is purely a tax directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

2.   European Commission background

| 2.1. | The European Commission Communication on Business Taxation for the 21st century, adopted on 18 May 2021, lays down both long-term and short-term objectives to support the recovery from the COVID-19 outbreak and to ensure adequate public revenues in the future. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The proposed Commission Directive on shell entities is one of the short-term specific initiatives announced by the Communication to improve the current tax system, with a particular focus on ensuring fair and effective taxation. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | Legal entities with no minimal substance and economic activity could be used for improper tax purposes, such as tax evasion and tax avoidance or even for money laundering. It is therefore necessary to tackle situations where those expected to pay tax evade or avoid their tax obligations by means of undertakings not performing any actual economic activity. Shell companies could favour an environment of unfair tax burden distribution, as well as unfair fiscal competition among jurisdictions. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The proposal put forward by the Commission applies to all undertakings that are considered tax resident and are eligible to receive a tax residency certificate in an EU Member State. Once adopted as a directive, the new rules should be transposed into Member States’ various national legal systems by the 30 June 2023, coming into full effect on 1 January 2024. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | There is a wealth of European legislation on money laundering, a crime which is often favoured by certain shell companies, that could provide useful context to the Commission proposal. In particular, reference should be made to the Commission's proposed legislative package of July 2021, which consists of three regulations and a directive (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

3.   European Commission proposals

| 3.1. | The Directive refers to schemes used for the purposes of tax avoidance or tax evasion. The scheme targeted by the proposal involves the setting up of undertakings in the EU that are supposedly performing genuine economic activities, but that do not actually conduct such activities. The real reason why some of these types of companies are established is, indeed, enabling certain tax advantages to flow to their beneficial owner or to the group they belong to. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | In order to tackle these schemes, the proposed Directive lays down a test aimed at helping Member States identify undertakings supposedly engaged in a legitimate activity, but that do not have a minimal economic substance and are therefore possibly being misused in order to obtain undue tax advantages. This test is defined as a ‘substance test’. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The first step of the test divides the various types of undertakings between those ‘at risk’ of lacking substance and being misused for tax purposes on the one hand, and those ‘at low risk’ on the other hand. Risk cases are characterised by a number of features usually simultaneously identified in undertakings that lack substance (‘gateway criteria’). By contrast, low-risk cases present none or only some of these criteria and do not pass the gateway. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The relevant criteria consider as ‘at risk’ those undertakings, not specifically exempted by the Directive, engaged with cross-border activities, that are geographically mobile and that, in addition, rely on other undertakings for their own administration (in particular professional third-party service providers). Low-risk cases that do not cross the gateway are irrelevant for the purposes of the Directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The companies first have to self assess themselves and, if they qualify as ‘at risk’, are asked to report on their substance within their tax return. Reporting on substance implies providing specific information to facilitate the assessment of the activity performed by the undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | As for the second step, three elements determine the outcome of the substance test:






  i) | premises available for the exclusive use of the undertaking; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.6.

i)

premises available for the exclusive use of the undertaking;

| ii) | at least one own and active bank account in the EU; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

at least one own and active bank account in the EU;

| iii) | at least one director resident close to the undertaking and dedicated to its activities or, alternatively, a sufficient number of the undertaking’s employees who reside close to the undertaking and are engaged with its core ‘income generating activities’. |
| --- | --- |

iii)

at least one director resident close to the undertaking and dedicated to its activities or, alternatively, a sufficient number of the undertaking’s employees who reside close to the undertaking and are engaged with its core ‘income generating activities’.

| 3.7. | The third step of the test prescribes the appropriate assessment of the information reported by the undertaking in the second step with regard to substance. An undertaking that is a risk case — since it has crossed the gateway — and whose reporting also leads to the finding that it lacks at least one of the relevant elements on substance, should be presumed to be a ‘shell’ under the new Directive and therefore lacking substance and presumably being misused for tax purposes. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | An undertaking that is a ‘risk case’, but whose reporting reveals that it has all relevant elements of substance, should instead be presumed not to be a ‘shell’ for the purposes of the Directive. However, this presumption does not exclude the possibility of a tax administration finding that such undertaking is a shell on grounds outside the scope of the Directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The fourth step involves the right of the undertaking presumed to be a ‘shell’ and being misused for tax avoidance purposes under the Directive to prove otherwise by demonstrating its own substance using concrete evidence (‘rebuttal’). The undertakings in question will therefore have an effective right to make the claim that they are not a ‘shell’ under the Directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | Once an undertaking is considered to be a ‘shell’ for the purposes of the Directive and does not rebut this presumption, tax consequences should be triggered accordingly. These consequences should disallow any tax advantages that have been or could be obtained. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | Since in order to be entitled to the benefits of a tax treaty an undertaking normally needs to provide a certificate of residence for tax purposes, the Member State of tax residence of the ‘shell’ will either not issue the tax residence certificate at all, or will issue a certificate with a warning statement, meaning the inclusion of an explicit statement to prevent its use for the purposes of obtaining the above advantages. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | In the case that tax advantages accorded to the undertaking are disallowed, it should be determined how income flows to and from the undertaking, as well as any assets owned by the undertaking, should actually be taxed. The allocation of taxing rights should take into account all jurisdictions that may be affected by transactions involving the ‘shell’. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

| 3.13. | The rules of the Directive necessarily affect only Member States, as third countries are outside the remit of EU law. In these cases, agreements for the avoidance of double taxation between a Member State and a third country should be duly respected as regards the allocation of taxing rights. In the absence of such agreements, the Member State involved will apply its national law. |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

| 3.14. | All Member States will have access to reporting entities under the Directive, at any time and without the need to specifically file a request for information. To this effect, information will be exchanged among Member States from the first step, when an undertaking is classified as being ‘at risk’ under the Directive. For this purpose, a register or database will be introduced. |
| --- | --- |

3.14.

| 3.15. | The proposed legislation leaves it to the Member States to lay down the penalties applicable for violating the reporting obligations enshrined in the Directive, as transposed into the various national legal systems. The penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. |
| --- | --- |

3.15.

| 3.16. | A minimum level of coordination amongst Member States is expected through the setting of a minimum monetary penalty as per existing provisions in the financial sector. Penalties should include an administrative pecuniary sanction of at least 5 % of the undertaking’s turnover. |
| --- | --- |

3.16.

4.   EESC general comments

| 4.1. | The EESC fully supports the Commission proposal and its overall objectives. Ensuring effective and fair taxation across the single market is crucial in order to favour a real recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic. Sufficient tax revenues to Member States are indeed a key factor in facilitating public investments aimed at achieving a greener and more digitalised single market. The EESC is slightly concerned that the substance requirements do not recognise the digital side and only emphasise the importance of tangible assets. This could create problems in the future. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The Commission proposal is therefore fully in line with the Communication on Business Taxation for the 21st century, resulting in concrete and consistent action aimed at combatting tax evasion and tax avoidance, thereby ensuring a fair taxation environment across Europe. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The EESC notes that the Commission proposal is consistent with previous legislative initiatives undertaken by the EU institutions, such as the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) and the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC) between tax authorities. It is of paramount importance to pursue consistency among different tax rules between which constant interplay is expected, in order to avoid unintended outcomes. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The Commission proposal is complementary to the recent proposal regarding the global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the EU (known as ‘pillar 2’), notwithstanding the different scopes of application of the two Directives, given that pillar 2 will be applied to companies exceeding a turnover threshold of EUR 750 million, while the Directive on shell companies is not subject to such limitations. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | The EESC appreciates the public consultation launched by the Commission before publishing its proposal. This consultation contained 32 questions aimed, among other things, at delineating the problem and its causes, and identifying the appropriate form of EU action. Stakeholders have therefore been given a significant opportunity to participate in voicing their observations and concerns before the development of the new rules. The EESC regrets that only a few stakeholders (50) have used that opportunity. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | The EESC also supports the additional public consultation of national experts, which have been involved in a targeted way, based on their specific expertise. The combination of a wide consultation addressed to stakeholders and a more detailed one addressed to qualified experts strikes a good balance between ensuring both a participatory and technically advanced legislative process. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | The very same nature of the subject matter to be regulated through the Directive and the objectives set out — tackling cross-border tax avoidance and evasion — require a common framework to be implemented by Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | Indeed, an appropriate and effective common framework could not be achieved through single measures implemented by each Member State with regard to their respective legal systems. In that case, the existing fragmentation would indeed be replicated and possibly even worsened by multiple, uncoordinated actions carried out at the national level. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | Shell companies that have been set up in Member States need to be brought into line with the Directive, and the collaboration of the Member States’ administrations is more imperative than ever to avoid eroding the fiscal capacity of the EU as a whole. In order to correctly manage the checks and to share the information, the Commission should have the adequate capacity and sufficient resources to do so. |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

| 4.10. | The EESC also deems the proposal to be in line with the proportionality principle, since it does not go beyond ensuring the minimum necessary level of protection for the single market, with an apparently reasonable impact on companies. Indeed, the Directive aims at achieving a minimum protection for Member States’ tax systems, ensuring the essential degree of coordination within the EU for the purpose of achieving its objectives. |
| --- | --- |

4.10.

| 4.11. | On the other hand, the impact on companies also seems to be proportionate, striking an appropriate balance among the various objectives and values, including:






  i) | effectiveness in reducing the misuse of shell entities; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.11.

i)

effectiveness in reducing the misuse of shell entities;

| ii) | tax gains for public finances; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

tax gains for public finances;

| iii) | compliance costs for businesses and tax administrations; |
| --- | --- |

iii)

compliance costs for businesses and tax administrations;

| iv) | indirect effects on the single market and on competition among firms. |
| --- | --- |

iv)

indirect effects on the single market and on competition among firms.

| 4.12. | The EESC agrees with the Commission’s approach that an effective and transparent exchange of information between tax authorities is essential in order to combat the inappropriate use of shell companies and, more generally, to ensure a fair and more efficient taxation environment. This point has to be followed very carefully so that there is cooperation between Member States in which a shell company has transactions that involve two Member States. Once the investigation processes into shell companies are completed, the outcome should be made transparent to the public. European and national authorities should make known the results of the Directive's implementation. |
| --- | --- |

4.12.

| 4.13. | Shell companies that fall under this Directive can be used both for tax evasion and tax avoidance and in particular cases even for committing crimes, such as money laundering, with which they are often connected. Therefore, legislative coordination and coordination of the various supervisors responsible for combatting these crimes, both at national and European level, are essential. With UNSHELL tax authorities will have access to further information, which will allow them to cross-check this new array of information with the information provided by Anti-Money Laundering (AML) authorities. The national and European authorities must ensure that the application of this Directive does not cause any problems for any type of company that carries out its activity in accordance with the law. |
| --- | --- |

4.13.

| 4.14. | Knowledge of the beneficial owners of shell companies and their assets and of the real owners of the transactions they carry out is essential in order to unravel the real nature of their activities and to understand the extent of tax evasion or money laundering committed. The hiding of beneficial ownership through chains of shell companies, managed by ‘professional enablers’, is inherent to their criminal purposes. The tools for knowing the beneficial owners are in the anti-money laundering legislation. However, there is no reference to the issue in the proposed Directive under discussion. The EESC considers that this as well as other loopholes in the linking of the two pieces of legislation should be resolved, either by explaining how to do so in this Directive or by urgently promoting a European framework law to address it. |
| --- | --- |

4.14.

| 4.15. | Outside the scope of this Directive, some shell companies are also created and used to facilitate undeclared work and avoid social security contributions. The EESC proposes that the Commission analyse the possibility of addressing this issue in European legislation. |
| --- | --- |

4.15.

5.   Specific comments

| 5.1. | The EESC considers the ‘gateway criterion’ implemented by the Commission proposal in the form of cumulative indicators as reasonable and appropriate. In this respect, the EESC observes that entities holding assets for private use, such as real estate, yachts, jets, artwork or equity alone may have no income for long periods of time, but still give rise to significant tax benefits for their controlling entities. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | The Committee therefore believes that checks should be not solely on income, but also on assets, as taxes can be levied even if they do not generate any income, such as wealth taxes wherever applicable. The EESC believes that, in order to correctly manage these checks and to share the information, the Commission should have the adequate capacity and enough resources to do so. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | The EESC suggests that the Commission issue appropriate guidelines regarding the substance test set forth by the Directive, with particular regard to the meaning of specific terms such as ‘residence’, ‘resident director’ and ‘premises’. Following this approach, national discrepancies and divergent interpretations potentially harmful for the internal market could be reduced or better addressed. In particular, the EESC requires the Commission to duly consider the new digital models of business in this respect. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | The EESC considers that companies’ engagement in cross-border activities should be carefully evaluated with regard to the actual nature of the transactions carried out by such companies on the one hand, and with reference to their properties and assets on the other hand. Companies presenting an adequate level of transparency and not posing a real risk of lacking economic substance for the purpose of tax evasion or tax avoidance should not be covered by the Directive. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | The UNSHELL Directive draws on the existing EU and international standard. The EESC recommends that the Commission ensure compatibility with the relevant international and common EU standard already in place, in particular the concept of ‘substantial economic activity’ developed in the context of preferential tax regimes and extensively discussed within the forum on harmful tax practices. Another important issue to address concerns the establishment of common and clear rules concerning the specific contents of the declarations required of undertakings. Overreporting going beyond the Directive objectives and the resulting compliance costs should be avoided. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

| 5.6. | The EESC urges that specific attention should be paid to the role of so-called ‘professional enablers’, an issue not mentioned in the proposal for a Directive. The EESC recommends that the rules regulating the activity of ‘professional enablers’ be laid down in a different legislation, in line with the criteria set out on the subject by the OECD, who often also play a relevant role in the specific area of shell companies (2). |
| --- | --- |

5.6.

| 5.7. | The OECD, which describes the professional categories, some of whose practitioners manage or collaborate with chains of shell companies, considers it essential to focus on ‘professional enablers’ in order to combat the criminal activity of companies established for unlawful purposes, including tax evasion. Law abiding professionals should indeed be duly distinguished from a small set of practitioners using their skills in the field of tax law and corporate accounting to actively favour practices relating to tax evasion, tax avoidance and money laundering. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.

| 5.8. | The EESC therefore highlights the need to target professional enablers who actively supply opportunities to exploit unlawful practices favouring fiscal and financial crimes. By doing so, it would be possible to disrupt a crucial factor relating to tax abuses. Reducing the opportunities to develop unfair fiscal practices is indeed a fundamental step towards achieving the very same objectives pursued by the Commission proposal. |
| --- | --- |

5.8.

| 5.9. | The EESC believes that the cooperation of professional regulatory or supervisory bodies in combatting malpractice and possible criminal activities of ‘professional enablers’ would be of great value. This would be an interesting line of development of the European social and political pact against fiscal and economic crimes, money laundering and corruption, which the Committee has advocated in various opinions. |
| --- | --- |

5.9.

| 5.10. | The EESC also suggests coordinating the Commission Directive proposal with the existing rules regarding transfer pricing, since the use of shell companies aimed at tax evasion might interplay with such a practice across the EU and should therefore be specifically considered in this respect. Here again, the EESC considers that the possibility of establishing a transfer pricing directive should also be considered. |
| --- | --- |

5.10.

| 5.11. | The Committee believes that the list of companies not subject to reporting (Article 6(2)) must be properly justified and assessed in order to ensure that they do not benefit from an inappropriate tax advantage and that they are not used to circumvent the law. |
| --- | --- |

5.11.

| 5.12. | The EESC also considers that more action should be put in place when a company or entity outside the EU does business with an EU-listed company or entity. One has to understand what action could be made available to EU-listed companies or entities in order to see that the funds or assets being managed are not coming from outside the EU ‘shell’ entity. |
| --- | --- |

5.12.

| 5.13. | In order to be able to take effective action against companies that do business with companies based in non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes, the Committee reiterates the need for the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions to be as effective and comprehensive as possible. |
| --- | --- |

5.13.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  See EESC opinion on the Anti-money laundering legislative package (OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 89).

1

(2)  Ending the Shell Game: Cracking down on the Professionals who enable Tax and White Collar Crimes, OECD, Paris, 2021.

2

Ending the Shell Game: Cracking down on the Professionals who enable Tax and White Collar Crimes

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/52

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council

Directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union

(COM(2021) 823 final — 2021/0433 (CNS))

(2022/C 290/09)

| Rapporteur: | Krister ANDERSSON |
| --- | --- |
| Co-rapporteur: | Petru Sorin DANDEA |

Rapporteur:

Krister ANDERSSON

Co-rapporteur:

Petru Sorin DANDEA

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 10.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
| Adopted in section | 3.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 197/1/5 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 10.2.2022

Legal basis

Article 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Adopted in section

3.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

197/1/5

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The Commission proposal aims at transposing the GloBE Model Rules included in Pillar 2 of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework in the EU. The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission is working fully in line with international discussions and agreements and strongly supports the Commission's objectives. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC agrees with the Commission that ‘the effectiveness and fairness of the global minimum tax reform heavily relies on its worldwide implementation’. The EESC considers it very important that the negotiations are successful and concluded in a timely manner. Common global implementation without gold-plating is essential to make the rules effective and not to distort competition. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC strongly agrees with the Commission that it is ‘imperative to ensure uniform implementation of the OECD Model Rules in the EU’ and that ‘this can only be achieved if legislation is enacted centrally and transposed in a uniform fashion’. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | While it is essential that technical discussions and preparatory work already take place at EU level, the EESC notes that the OECD is still working on drafting further detailed rules and clarifying definitions. Member States should therefore pay attention and include all the recommendations and working results from the ongoing OECD negotiations. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC backs any effort aimed at reducing compliance costs for European companies and tax authorities when devising the new system. The full implementation of Pillar 2 will be complex and is going to require a long time and significant effort, both by companies and tax authorities. In the coming months, the OECD is expected to present important rules concerning safe harbours, simplified administrative filing etc., which could smooth the implementation of the new tax regime for both businesses and tax authorities. These rules should be included in the directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC considers that specific tax provisions enacted by parliaments in Member States as deliberate incentives for investments and employment efforts should not be neutralised by the Model Rules. It is important to promote the achievement of a greener and digitalised economy, and taxes should play a role in this. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC calls for the directive to include a provision making it possible to apply the directive on dispute resolution, at least between Member States, for disputes regarding Pillar 2. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The Committee agrees with imposing penalties for non-compliance and calls on Member States to perform thorough tax inspections to ensure full compliance with the Directive's provisions. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC calls for the revision of the EU list of non-cooperative third countries in relation to the tax package. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The EESC would like to point out that the fair taxation of multinational companies represents a long-standing request from the general public and expects a swift agreement on Pillar 2 in the EU and world-wide. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

2.   Background and Commission proposal

| 2.1. | The Commission Directive proposal on a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union aims at transposing the OECD’s Model Rules for domestic implementation of a global minimum tax (the OECD/Inclusive Framework (Model Rules) in the EU through uniform rules and implementation (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | Century-old national and international taxation rules are no longer fit for some of the new business models used today. Many companies do not have a physical presence in many countries and they do not pay corporate income taxes in those jurisdictions to the same extent as companies that are physically present (2). |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | Public budgets were under pressure in the wake of the 2008-2009 financial crisis. These factors all contributed to a process in the OECD designed to address Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | Following the 2015 OECD BEPS project, the Members of the G20/OECD Inclusive Framework (IF) agreed on a solution to the problem of how to address the increasing tax challenges stemming from the digitalisation of the economy. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The agreed package involves two pillars, with companies in all sectors. Pillar 2 addresses business groups with a group turnover of at least EUR 750 million Pillar 1 imposes a partial re-allocation of the rights to tax excess profits towards market jurisdictions, and Pillar 2 introduces a minimum effective taxation of 15 % (3). The OECD Model Rules consists of 70 pages of highly complex and technical rules, including 10 pages of definitions to enable a ‘common approach’ to global minimum taxation. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | Pillar 2 consists of two domestic rules: i) the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) and ii) its backstop, the Under Taxed Payments Rule (UTPR), which are together known as the Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules, and a treaty-based rule — the Subject to Tax Rule. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | The proposal requires the Ultimate Parent Entity (UPE) to pay the top-up tax, i.e. the shortfall for the entire group in the jurisdiction in which it is resident. The tax revenues will consequently be collected by that jurisdiction, which means that taxation and tax revenues are in another jurisdiction. There is no obligation for countries to increase their tax rate up to the minimum level. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | If the UPE is located in a country that has not enacted a qualifying IIR, the UTPR comes into play, requiring jurisdictions in which that Multinational enterprise (MNE) is active to make an equivalent adjustment according to the Model Rules so that the tax liability of the group companies is adjusted in such a way that the total top-up tax is collected. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

| 2.9. | A jurisdiction’s allocation of total top-up tax is based on the jurisdiction’s share of the group’s total employees and tangible assets in jurisdictions that have enacted the UTPR provisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.9.

| 2.10. | The top-up tax calculation for each jurisdiction includes a substance-based carve-out exclusion that ultimately allows a certain amount of income to be taxed below the minimum effective rate. The excluded income is initially set at the sum of 10 % of local payroll costs and 8 % of the value of tangible assets used locally, being reduced to 5 % of each of the bases over a period of ten years. |
| --- | --- |

2.10.

| 2.11. | The OECD Model Rules use financial accounts as the basis for calculation of the effective tax rates, with complex adjustments. They also provide for an option for a jurisdiction to enact a domestic minimum top-tax calculation, in which case the top-up tax is allocated to and collected by that jurisdiction and therefore no tax revenues are transferred out of the jurisdiction to another jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

2.11.

| 2.12. | The OECD has already promised to deliver the Commentary on the Model Rules during the first quarter of 2022 to clarify interpretation of the rules and to develop further guidance/clarifications on Safe Harbours and Administrative Guidance. Further clarifications could be expected. |
| --- | --- |

2.12.

| 2.13. | A common global interpretation of the rules and implementation that is uniform in content and time are paramount to avoid distortions and to ensure a level playing field and European competitiveness (4). |
| --- | --- |

2.13.

| 2.14. | Building on the Communication from the Commission Business Taxation for the 21st Century, the Commission proposal contains only the GloBE Model Rules included in Pillar 2 of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework. Pillar 1 is not as well developed as Pillar 2. This part of the package may also be subject to an EU Directive (5). |
| --- | --- |

2.14.

| 2.15. | The scope of the Directive is defined by reference to constituent entities located in the Union that are part of MNE groups or large-scale domestic groups with a consolidated group revenue exceeding EUR 750 million in at least two of the four preceding years. |
| --- | --- |

2.15.

| 2.16. | The Directive provides that, in circumstances where the UPE is located outside the EU in a jurisdiction that does not apply a qualifying IIR, all its constituent entities in jurisdictions with an appropriate UTPR framework will be subject to the UTPR. In such a circumstance, constituent entities of the MNE group located in a Member State will be subject to top-up tax in the Member State, which is apportioned on the basis of the two-factor formula, calculated in respect of the low-taxed income of constituent entities of the MNE group. |
| --- | --- |

2.16.

| 2.17. | The Directive includes rules for the determination of the ‘qualifying income’, meaning the adjusted income to be considered for calculating the effective tax rate. In order to calculate this income, it is necessary to refer to the financial accounting net income or loss of the constituent entity for the fiscal year. Defined adjustments for the difference between financial accounting and tax accounting are made and are very complex. The main adjustments relate to requirements when income/costs are to be reported, but, for instance, low tax provisions for patent boxes are not recognised, while accelerated depreciation on fixed assets is. |
| --- | --- |

2.17.

| 2.18. | Rules for the calculation of the ‘adjusted covered taxes’ of a constituent entity for a fiscal year are outlined. The main principle in allocating covered taxes is assigning them to the jurisdiction where underlying profits subject to these taxes were earned. To uphold this principle, the Directive also provides for special rules in respect of cross-border taxes or in the case of a permanent establishment (PE), transparent entity, controlled foreign company, a hybrid entity, or taxes on dividends. |
| --- | --- |

2.18.

| 2.19. | The Directive defines the effective rate as the ratio of the adjusted covered taxes of the group’s constituent entities to the adjusted income earned by those constituent entities of the group in a specific jurisdiction for the fiscal year. In line with the global agreement and to ensure transposition, the Directive sets the minimum effective tax rate for the purposes of the GloBE Model Rules at 15 %. |
| --- | --- |

2.19.

| 2.20. | To reduce compliance costs in low-risk situations, an exclusion applies to minimal amounts, following a ‘de minimis’ approach. This is when profits of the MNE group’s constituent entities in a given jurisdiction do not exceed EUR 1 million and revenues are below EUR 10 million. |
| --- | --- |

2.20.

| 2.21. | Special rules are applicable in the case of mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, and multi-parented MNE groups. It provides for the application of a consolidated revenue threshold to group members involved in a merger or in a demerger. When a constituent entity is acquired or sold by an MNE group within the scope of the rules, such a constituent entity should be treated as part of both groups during the year, with certain adjustments to the values of the attributes used for the operation of the GloBE Model Rules (such as covered taxes, eligible payroll, eligible tangible assets or GloBE deferred tax assets). |
| --- | --- |

2.21.

| 2.22. | The Directive contains rules on tax neutrality arrangements and distribution tax systems. In order to avoid unintended outcomes, such as a disproportionate UTPR top-up tax liability in an MNE Group, the Directive provides for special rules for calculating the income of the ultimate parent entity, where such an entity is a flow-through or subject to a deductible dividend regime (6). |
| --- | --- |

2.22.

| 2.23. | The Directive obliges a constituent entity of an MNE group located in a Member State to file a top-up tax information return, unless the return is filed by the MNE group in another jurisdiction, with which the Member State has a qualified competent authority agreement, which would permit the automatic exchange of the annual tax information return. The required tax return is to be filed within 15 months after the end of the fiscal year to which it relates. |
| --- | --- |

2.23.

3.   General Comments

| 3.1. | The EESC welcomes the Commission Directive proposal aimed at transposing Pillar 2 within the EU legal system and across the internal market. The EESC strongly supports and appreciates the fact that the Commission is aligning its work with international discussions and agreements. The EESC notes that companies below certain thresholds are not affected by the agreement but that the rules are general and will, according to the OECD, apply to hundreds of companies. Each business group within the proposal’s scope may have numerous permanent establishments and subsidiaries. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC notes that four countries out of all those participating in the Inclusive Framework negotiations have not agreed to the package, compared to 137 countries that have signed the global agreement. The EU directive on a minimum tax can provide further defensive measures against harmful BEPS practices and the EESC supports and has always supported the goals of the BEPS project in order to ensure sustainable public finances in the EU. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC agrees with the Commission that ‘the effectiveness and fairness of the global minimum tax reform heavily relies on its worldwide implementation’. The EESC considers it very important that the negotiations are successful and concluded in a timely manner. Common global implementation is essential to make the rules effective and not to distort competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC considers that Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 of the OECD G/20 Inclusive Framework should be treated as a comprehensive and mutually integrated package. Consistency in implementing the two pillars is of paramount importance. The EESC encourages the Member States and the Commission to increase their negotiation efforts through the OECD to have the Pillar 1 implemented globally as soon as possible. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The EESC agrees with the Commission that action at the EU level is necessary and that it is ‘imperative to ensure uniform implementation of the OECD Model Rules in the EU’. The EESC furthermore agrees that ‘this can only be achieved if legislation is enacted centrally and transposed in a uniform fashion’ (7). The EESC underlines the need for the directive to respect fundamental freedoms and Treaty obligations and competences. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The fact that all Member States participated in the OECD/IF deliberations, or have since agreed to the outcome, facilitates the EU process. The EESC would like to point out that the fair taxation of multinational companies represents a long-standing request from the general public and expects a swift agreement on Pillar 2 in the EU and world-wide. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | While it is essential that technical discussions and preparatory work already take place at EU level, the EESC notes that the OECD is still working on drafting further detailed rules and clarifying definitions. Member States should therefore pay attention and include all the recommendations and working results from the ongoing OECD negotiations, since a process of amending or changing the directive should be avoided. Similarly, it is important that the EU carefully consider the timing of the implementation by third-country jurisdictions. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The EESC supports the Commission’s choice to build on the extensive preparatory work carried out internationally, utilising the OECD impact assessment to develop the proposal currently under examination, without doubling the work by means of a new impact assessment. However, the EESC would have appreciated an impact assessment for the parts of the Directive making it compliant with EU law. The EESC calls for such an analysis to be undertaken and to be made publicly available. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The EESC notes and understands the need to comply with EU law requirements. The easiest method, but not necessarily the only one, is an extension of the IIR provisions to purely domestic situations. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | The EESC agrees with the Commission that it is desirable to involve a limited number of taxpayers and that the threshold of EUR 750 million is ‘consistent with the OECD Model Rules as well as with EU law requirements’ (8), thereby respecting the principle of proportionality. The EESC notes that the threshold is in line with the rules for Country by country Reporting and the ATAD Directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The EESC agrees with the Commission that the minimum tax rate of 15 % agreed in the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS ‘reflects a balance amongst corporate tax rates worldwide’ (9). It is important to respect the agreement made by governments and to transpose the rules and to make the companies covered by its scope liable to pay the top-up tax. The EESC also supports, in line with the OECD agreement, the inclusion of the substance-based carve-out, relating to payroll costs and tangible assets, and agrees with the Commission’s assessment that ‘BEPS practices would be unlikely to flourish’ when real economic activities are taking place (10). |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | The EESC supports any possible effort aimed at reducing compliance costs for European companies and tax authorities when devising the new system. The full implementation of Pillar 2 will be complex and is going to require a significant amount of time and effort. Tax authorities will be required to develop the systems and routines to calculate and collect the new tax obligations. Furthermore, adequate and trained personnel will be needed to ensure swift implementation, while providing resources for other international tax competences such as Advanced Pricing Agreements (APAs) and dispute resolution mechanisms. The EESC encourages tax authorities to start or further advance this preparatory work if the timeline of implementation (January 2023) is to be achieved. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

| 3.13. | The EESC calls for making the directive on dispute resolution applicable to disputes regarding Pillar 2, at least between Member States. These new rules on tax dispute resolution have applied since 1 July 2019. They are laid down in Council Directive (EU) 2017/1852 (11) and bring a significant improvement to resolving tax disputes, as they ensure that businesses and citizens can resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties more swiftly and effectively. |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

| 3.14. | The EESC supports, in line with the OECD agreement, the de minimis exclusion, which allows for the exclusion of an MNE's entity when the entity’s profits do not exceed EUR 1 million and revenues are below EUR 10 million. The ceiling may have to be revised over time. |
| --- | --- |

3.14.

| 3.15. | The EESC considers it important that the safe harbour rules envisaged are presented early enough so that these rules can be transposed into the final directive. This is important in order to avoid unnecessary administrative burden on taxpayers and tax administrations. |
| --- | --- |

3.15.

| 3.16. | The EESC agrees with the intention that the Directive should provide for an assessment by the Commission of the equivalence IIR criteria, together with a listing of third-country jurisdictions that meet the equivalence criteria. This list would be modified through a delegated act. |
| --- | --- |

3.16.

| 3.17. | The EESC notes the intention announced by the French Presidency of the EU Council to finalise the discussions, if possible, before the upcoming French elections in April 2022. The EU should encourage its trading partners to be equally ambitious. |
| --- | --- |

3.17.

4.   Specific Comments

| 4.1. | It is important that other tax provisions enacted by parliaments in Member States as deliberate incentives for investments and employment efforts are not neutralised by the Model Rules. Rules in place for a long time, for instance allowing for accelerated depreciation for fixed investments, incentives for R&D activities or newer initiatives to promote the development of a greener and more digitalised economy, should not be inhibited. This applies both to the economic recovery initiatives in connection with the pandemic, but also to future technological developments, which should be encouraged. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The implementation of the GloBE Model Rules in the EU will impact on existing provisions of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) and, more specifically, on the Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules, which could interact with the IIR as the basic rule of Pillar 2. The Commission Communication on Business Taxation for the 21st Century (12) stated that governments have engaged in adopting a patchwork of anti-tax avoidance and evasion measures and that the measures have added further complexity (13). Even if it is not necessary to amend the ATAD (14), a review of the effectiveness and the administrative burden of the combined rules could be beneficial, both for tax administrations and businesses. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The EESC shares the Commission’s view that the transposition of the GloBE Model Rules in the EU could pave the way to agreement on the pending proposal to recast the Interest and Royalties Directive (IRD). |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The EESC calls for close monitoring of the effectiveness of the rules and the administrative costs. Member States should avoid excessive use of tax rulings if they are harmful to the provisions of the global agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | The EESC agrees with imposing penalties for non-compliance and calls on Member States to perform thorough tax inspections to ensure full compliance with the Directive’s provisions. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | The EESC calls for a revision of the EU list of non-cooperative third countries in light of the implementation of the agreed OECD tax package. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | The EESC would like to point out that the fair taxation of multinational companies represents a long-standing request from the general public and expects a swift agreement on Pillar 2 in the EU and world-wide. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  Council Directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union, COM(2021) 823 final.

1

(2)  The extent to which some so-called ‘digital’ companies pay corporate taxes and the countries in which they pay them has been analysed by, among others, Matthias Bauer, ‘Digital Companies and Their Fair Share of Taxes: Myths and Misconceptions’, ECIPE, February 2018, https://ecipe.org/publications/digital-companies-and-their-fair-share-of-taxes/?chapter=all

2

(3)  OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project as Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two) Inclusive Framework on BEPS, https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-the-economy-global-anti-base-erosion-model-rules-pillar-two.pdf. For an overview, see also Jefferson VanderWolk, Squire Patton Boggs, Global Minimum Taxation for Large Multinationals, https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6884197871441207296/

3

(4)  The US has its own global minimum tax regime — Global Intangible Low Tax Income (GILTI) — but the current law is, according to the Commission, inconsistent with the IIR provision. The US is in the process of reforming their GILTI to make it compatible with Pillar 2. The OECD will discuss with the US and Members of the IF the conditions for equivalence of the reformed GILTI with Pillar 2. Until such conditions are agreed, European businesses may be at a competitive disadvantage, even if an implemented UTPR would provide some cover.

4

(5)  ‘In order to ensure its consistent implementation in all EU Member States, including those that are not Members of the OECD and do not participate in the Inclusive Framework, the Commission will propose a Directive for the implementation of Pillar 1 in the EU.’ COM(2021) 251 final, page 9.

5

(6)  In respect of investment entities, there are specific rules for the determination of the ETR, the top-up tax, the option to treat them as tax transparent entities, and the option to apply the taxable distribution method.

6

In relation to distribution tax systems, the Directive provides that, on an annual decision by the filing entity with respect to constituent entities that are subject to an eligible distribution tax system, a deemed distribution tax is included in the calculation of the adjusted covered taxes of the relevant constituent entities.

(7)  COM(2021) 823 final, page 3.

7

(8)  COM(2021) 823 final, page 3.

8

(9)  COM(2021) 823 final, page 16.

9

(10)  COM(2021) 823 final, page 16.

10

(11)  OJ C 173, 31.5.2017, p. 29.

11

(12)  COM(2021) 251 final.

12

(13)  See EESC opinion on Business Taxation for the 21st Century. Not yet published.

13

(14)  COM(2021) 823 final, page 2.

14

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/58

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European single access point providing centralised access to publicly available information of relevance to financial services, capital markets and sustainability

(COM(2021) 723 final — 2021/0378 (COD))

and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Directives as regards the establishment and functioning of the European single access point

(COM(2021) 724 final — 2021/0379 (COD))

and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Regulations as regards the establishment and functioning of the European single access point

(COM(2021) 725 final — 2021/0380 (COD))

(2022/C 290/10)

| Rapporteur: | Florian MARIN |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Florian MARIN

| Referrals | Council of the European Union, 9.2.2022 (COM(2021) 724 final and COM(2021) 725 final), 15.2.2022 (COM(2021) 723 final)
  European Parliament, 14.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 50, 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
| Adopted in section | 3.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 215/1/2 |

Referrals

Council of the European Union, 9.2.2022 (COM(2021) 724 final and COM(2021) 725 final), 15.2.2022 (COM(2021) 723 final)

European Parliament, 14.2.2022

Legal basis

Articles 50, 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Adopted in section

3.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

215/1/2

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC supports the European single access point (ESAP), which is a tool that is contributing to a more sustainable, digital and inclusive economy, to strengthening digital sovereignty, and to better integration of capital markets. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC considers that the ESAP should be more ambitious and that more added value should be created by processing the information instead of being only an information tool for gathering raw information with a single access point. The aggregation and transformation of data and of sectoral and territorial reports and analyses should be delivered through the ESAP. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC suggests that the ESAP should be built as a flexible tool and that it should be possible to add new data categories and to communicate with national registers or Eurostat, taking into account different types of technologies. The ESAP should provide a clear synergy between the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the Green Deal indicators. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC considers that consideration should be given to establishing an advisory board, which should include civil society and the social partners, based on a transparent selection process, and which will decide about the future of the ESAP and strategic changes. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | Reducing the ‘white zones’ for ensuring access without discrimination to the ESAP is important. The ESAP should also allow functionalities to enable persons with disabilities to benefit from proper accessibility without discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC suggests that it is very important for the ESAP to ensure standard procedures, transparency, data integrity and the credibility of the source of information, user-friendly automatic data validation, and proper control of the collection body for data protection. Proper and adequate supervision of financial and ESG data providers will be important in the near future. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | Consideration should be given to subsidising the cost of gathering, generating and managing data for SMEs, to exempting SMEs from any fees, regardless of the quantity of data provided, and to ensuring proper working conditions for workers responsible for providing and managing data. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The ESAP should ensure a clear distinction between, and give the same level of importance to, financial and non-financial data, and offer the possibility, on a voluntary basis, of publishing social data regarding the activity of each company, its management and its employees, based on specific criteria. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC considers that a dedicated helpdesk is needed to assist with submitting the information in the correct format and ensuring that it is technically usable, and that training in financial and digital literacy are also required. A minimum set of economic Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), defined at EU level with common methodology, could be inserted into the ESAP to ensure better and broader usage. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

2.   Background

| 2.1. | The European Commission is launching a single access point that will provide centralised electronic access to information relevant to capital markets and financial services (including sustainability-related information) that must be made public under EU legislation, but also to other types of information relevant to capital markets and financial services that companies voluntarily decide to publish. The ESAP is part of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) action plan (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The information will be collected through various collection bodies that have a responsibility to, among other things, perform automated validations and provide technical assistance to entities that have submitted the information. The Commission declared its intention to make more data available for use in the economy and society, including the rollout of European data spaces. It aims to make more high-quality public sector data available for re-use, including company data, making these data sets available more easily and for free (2). The ESAP legislative initiative by the Commission is therefore both timely and highly relevant. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The ESAP will ensure non-discriminatory access to information free of charge, with the possibility of introducing fees for specific services e.g. when a large amount of data is being published. Automated validation to verify that the information submitted by the collection bodies complies with requirements will be carried out based on a technical framework established and approved by the Commission. The ESAP will be available for at least 95 % of the time each month. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The ESAP will not store information pertaining to personal data, with some exceptions, and will be monitored, taking into account indicators such as:






  — | the number of visitors and searches; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.4.

—

the number of visitors and searches;

| — | the percentage of searches that lead to a view or a download; |
| --- | --- |

—

the percentage of searches that lead to a view or a download;

| — | the number and percentage of machine-readable information accessible on the ESAP; |
| --- | --- |

—

the number and percentage of machine-readable information accessible on the ESAP;

| — | the number and percentage of machine-readable views and downloads; |
| --- | --- |

—

the number and percentage of machine-readable views and downloads;

| — | the proportion of notifications according to the automated validations. |
| --- | --- |

—

the proportion of notifications according to the automated validations.

| 2.5. | The ESAP will provide functionalities such as a user-friendly interface in all EU languages, a search function, a downloading service, an innovative approach to providing translation services and a notification service informing users of any new information available. The ESAP will be evaluated based on the accessibility, quality and usability of the information, as well as end-user satisfaction and the ability of users to meet their objectives. For the implementation of the ESAP, several directives and regulations are being modified. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The EESC supports the Commission initiative to establish the ESAP. Making the economy fit for the digital future, strengthening digital sovereignty, increasing the speed of information flow and setting common standards, with a focus on data, technology and infrastructure, are key priorities for the EU. The ESAP promotes data-driven finance and considerably improves companies’, businesses’ and financial institutions’ access to data and entities’ information. The ESAP will contribute to creating a more sustainable, digital and inclusive economy as well as to better integration of capital markets. In its opinion A Capital Markets Union for people and businesses (new action plan), the EESC states that a European single access point is a priority in order to improve the efficiency of the Capital Markets Union (3). |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC agrees with the fact that the ESAP does not generate new reporting obligations and that it uses existing disclosure requirements under EU legislation. The ESAP is a tool that will make it possible to better assess how European entities contribute to sustainability and climate targets. Sustainability-related information is key in order to redirect investments towards projects that will support the green transition, as highlighted by stakeholders in the consultation on the renewed sustainable finance strategy (4). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The ESAP ensures access to information for a period of time, including past information, which is important in order to ensure proper decision-making processes in capital markets. European finance is problematic, because it results in an uneven playing-field: the financing costs that companies face depend to a great extent on their country of incorporation, collateral-constrained start-ups find it hard to get any funding at all, and consumption is not shielded from local economic shocks (5). Tracking economic and sustainability performance will be crucial for capital markets and future investment decisions. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The ESAP is being set up at a moment in which the EU financial sector is facing a profound transformation due to the two major transitions, namely the digital and climate transitions. Jobs will be lost, new skills must be acquired, employees’ responsibilities are changing, and layoffs or new organisational models of work will be implemented. The ESAP could be a tool to positively manage some of the challenging effects of the EU financial transformation processes. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The ESAP has the potential to be a factor for development and investments. SMEs that want to increase their visibility could be encouraged to publish their data to attract future investments and markets. The EESC suggests that the role of software intermediaries must be taken into account, because some companies, mostly SMEs, will work with these types of entities in order to reduce the administrative burden linked to data management and storage. The ESAP is contributing to making the investment decision process less costly and to increasing visibility for SMEs. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The ESAP should allow efficient interoperability with Eurostat and national registers. The dynamics of public or market interests regarding transparency and data should be integrated by making it possible to add new categories of data in the future. The ESAP should be built as a data instrument that is flexible vis-à-vis the various sectors and European initiatives. Communication between different technologies is important. The cost of adding new data should be evaluated from the perspective of its impact on capital markets and from the data management point of view. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | Ensuring adequate internet connectivity across the entire European Union is important so that all companies have access to the ESAP and in order to prevent discrimination. It is crucial to invest in reducing ‘white zones’ and to ensure that all citizens and capital market stakeholders have access to the ESAP. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The ESAP should ensure data integrity and the credibility of the source of the information submitted to the collection bodies. Automated evaluation of the information should be simple and user-friendly. Granting access to valid and appropriate information and protecting consumers must remain ongoing priorities. Collection bodies should also be properly monitored and data protection should also be an ongoing priority. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | Better funding opportunities for companies will create new opportunities for the EU market and new job opportunities. The ESAP should take into account all types of investments and market actors, including in the field of the social economy or crowdfunding, which have a positive impact on the general interest, especially for vulnerable people. The ESAP should allow functionalities to enable persons with disabilities to benefit from proper accessibility. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | The EESC supports the fact that using the ESAP, and the disclosure of some information, will be free of charge. Nevertheless, the cost of licenses or of gathering, generating and managing data could be high. Fiscal incentives and subsidies for SMEs should be introduced in order to reduce the costs of providing data, especially for mandatory reports. Investments in software and hardware equipment for companies and other capital market stakeholders must be supported by EU funds in order to enable the proper usage of and interaction with the ESAP. More involvement at the Member State level is required in this regard. SMEs should be exempt from any fees, no matter how much information is being published. The level of fees, when they are applied, should be transparent and should be established in direct link with the costs of data management. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The ESAP should treat listed and non-listed companies alike, regardless of size or geographic location. The ESAP should become an instrument that generates added value by bringing more efficiency in reporting, transparency and data management. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | The governance of the ESAP should be based on the involvement of civil society and should include two levels of governance structure, as follows:






  — | an advisory board, which should include civil society and the social partners, based on a transparent selection process and which will decide about the future of the ESAP and strategic changes; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.12.

—

an advisory board, which should include civil society and the social partners, based on a transparent selection process and which will decide about the future of the ESAP and strategic changes;

| — | an executive board ensuring technical standards and the proper functioning of the ESAP. |
| --- | --- |

—

an executive board ensuring technical standards and the proper functioning of the ESAP.

| 3.13. | In a context in which banks’ exposure is high, investor confidence and the decision to invest in companies using capital markets depends on the easy availability, quality and comparability of information. To create an efficient and comprehensive relation between issuers and investors, the EESC affirms that standard procedures are crucial. Standardisation must include the same deadlines for disclosure and methodologies for data published according to the principle of ‘same activity, same risk, same rules’. |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

| 3.14. | The COVID-19 crisis and the need for a sustainable and inclusive recovery that leaves no one behind has increased the pressure to speed up the implementation of the CMU action plan. Companies’ need for funds and investments is at its highest ever level. |
| --- | --- |

3.14.

4.   Specific comments

| 4.1. | For the EESC, it is clear that the CMU is not a voluntary exercise for the benefit of the few, but needs to become a reality in all EU Member States. Proper financial and human resources must be allocated to ensure efficient and effective usage of the ESAP. Involving and supporting the Member States and national supervisors in order to ensure recognition of the ESAP as being an important European data instrument for companies, investors and financial intermediaries should be a priority. The ESAP should be promoted in all Member States, alongside the advantages and the importance of this instrument. Social media could be used to this end. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The EESC supports the fact that the Commission is willing to bring more transparency, make more data available (6) and support the digital transformation of finance in the coming years, as mentioned in the Digital Finance Strategy (7). The possibility of aggregating data and generating reports should be integrated into the ESAP (8). Comparison and newsletter functionalities should exist. The ESAP could include a stakeholder forum for discussions, explanations and the sharing of best practices. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The EESC suggests that a dedicated helpdesk should be provided to assist with submitting the information in the correct format and ensuring that it is technically usable. The assistance provided should include common procedures and a framework for consistency, comparability and usability of data. Finally, to ensure a cost-effective process, the ESAP should work with the most common file formats, such as XBRL, PDF, XML, HTML, CSV, TXT and XLS. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The EESC considers that digitalisation and centralised data will have a positive impact on reporting. It will lead to improvements in different stress tests and climate analyses as well as better identification and monitoring of the portfolios of financial institutions with respect to the targets of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The ESAP will be a tool that contributes to identifying potential risks and generating opportunities for companies. The ESAP can also be a tool to help boost SME research at European level. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | The EESC suggests that the same level of importance in terms of visibility and footing should be ensured between financial and non-financial data. Non-financial information should include — on a voluntarily basis — social data regarding the activity of each company and its employees. Data concerning the company’s management and staff should, on a voluntary basis, not be excluded (number of employees, gender, etc.). Specific criteria for social information could be established in this regard. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | The EESC considers that the ESAP should be more ambitious. Specifically, additional objectives should be added, going beyond gathering raw data, and more added value should be created by processing the information instead of ESAP being only an information tool with a single access point. The EESC welcomes the fact that the ESAP will be available in all official EU languages. The role and importance of the ESAP are crucial in order to ensure that researchers, the social partners, NGOs, academics and analysts have greater, proper, fair, equal and immediate access to information. The ESAP could support the emergence of new private information processing platforms; however, the cost of using them and access to capital markets will remain a problem, especially for small investors, as private individuals. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | Enabling big data, machine learning and artificial intelligence will bring more efficiency in using information to create more integrated capital markets and will make the EU economy more resilient. Sectorial, territorial reports and analyses should be options for future users of the ESAP. Checking and ensuring the validity of data should remain a constant concern. Overlapping data reporting and management must be carefully monitored. Nevertheless, the EESC considers that delivering raw information is less ambitious and insufficient for new investors who are unfamiliar with capital markets who are considering investing in them. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | The ESAP must be launched to achieve not only the capital market objective, but also complementary policy objectives, such as the contribution of companies to the UN SDG indicators. Giving third countries access to data could contribute to ensuring supplementary investment for EU companies in the future. The ESAP should follow the example of the InvestEU portal and could support the successful implementation of the CMU (9). |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | The EESC considers that financial (Action 7 of the CMU action plan) and digital literacy should be delivered. A guidebook for financial literacy and data is also needed. Dedicated guidelines for understanding the importance of data and for using and sharing data could be produced and promoted. ESF+ funds could be used in this regard. Proper and adequate working conditions for workers involved in collecting and managing data from various companies or stakeholders should be an ongoing concern. |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

| 4.10. | The EESC suggests that a minimum set of economic KPIs, defined at EU level, and a common methodology could be inserted into the ESAP to ensure better and broader usage. A clear synergy with Article 8 of the EU Taxonomy on sustainability (10) must be ensured since the ESAP includes sustainability data. The ESAP should include a dedicated space for Green Deal statistics and the contribution of companies to Green Deal indicators. |
| --- | --- |

4.10.

| 4.11. | Finally, the EESC would like the European Commission to assess the merits of proper and proportionate regulation and supervision of financial and ESG data providers, as they will continue to play a key role, upstream and downstream, when the ESAP becomes operational. |
| --- | --- |

4.11.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  Action 1, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A capital markets union for people and businesses-new action plan, 24.9.2020, COM(2020) 590 final.

1

A capital markets union for people and businesses-new action plan

(2)  Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information (OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 56).

2

(3)  OJ C 155, 30.4.2021, p. 20.

3

(4)  International Organization of Securities Commissions (2020), Report on Sustainable Finance and the Role of Securities Regulators and IOSCO.

4

(5)  https://blogs.imf.org/2019/09/10/a-capital-market-union-for-europe-why-its-needed-and-how-to-get-there

5

(6)  COM(2020) 66 final.

6

(7)  COM(2020) 591 final.

7

(8)  Similar to European Open Science Cloud.

8

(9)  OJ C 155, 30.4.2021, p. 20.

9

(10)  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R0852&from=EN

10

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/64

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/760 as regards the scope of eligible assets and investments, the portfolio composition and diversification requirements, the borrowing of cash and other fund rules and as regards requirements pertaining to the authorisation, investment policies and operating conditions of European long-term investment funds

(COM(2021) 722 final — 2021/0377 (COD))

(2022/C 290/11)

| Rapporteur: | Pierre BOLLON |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Pierre BOLLON

| Referral | European Parliament, 14.2.2022
  Council of the European Union, 22.3.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
| Adopted in section | 3.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 111/1/0 |

Referral

European Parliament, 14.2.2022

Council of the European Union, 22.3.2022

Legal basis

Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Adopted in section

3.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

111/1/0

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC strongly supports the proposed balanced review of the European Long-Term Investment Funds (ELTIFs) Regulation, as its previous format did not achieve its well-intended goals. A shift in financial resources and savings towards long-term investments is particularly necessary for the socially inclusive ‘post’-COVID recovery and for the twin digital and climate transitions. In this perspective an in-depth review of the ELTIF Regulation is indeed essential. The EESC consequently hopes that the adoption process will not lead to the addition of new regulatory requirements that would weaken the drive towards more simplicity rightly proposed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | ‘ELTIFs 2’ is a timely and relevant proposal that can substantially boost economic growth and job creation in the EU. ELTIFs are long-term funds that benefit from a ‘European passport’. They will have to play a significant role in financing the twin climate and digital transitions, in building up transport and social infrastructure, and in financing housing projects, as well as, of course, in financing small and mid-size European companies, especially innovative ones and start-ups. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | A sufficiently accurate estimate of the global shortfall in long-term financing is unfortunately not available at this stage. Work is still needed at European level for a better estimate, but the financing need is undoubtedly large, amounting to several trillion euro. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | Crucially, the EESC strongly emphasises the importance of funding the essential transition towards a much less carbon-intensive (and ultimately carbon-neutral) European economy, and of the European ‘Strategy for financing the transition to a sustainable economy’. It is also necessary to increase the accessibility of environmental, social and governance (ESG) and financial data, particularly through the European Single Access Point (ESAP) project and, importantly, the needed regulation and supervision of data providers. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The European Commission’s ‘ELTIFs 2’ proposal contains targeted improvements in eligible investments. This will enlarge the investment universe of ELTIFs and support economic growth and competitiveness. It will also allow them to cover a larger geographical scope of investments within Europe. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC supports the adaptation of previous dissuasive barriers to accessing ELTIFs for retail investors, who currently cannot benefit from the returns on long-term investments. ELTIFs would thus complement the current success of Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) funds. It is an important move, all the more so since investor protection is strengthened by the new strong link with the mandatory ‘suitability assessments’ under the Market in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and the clarification of the rules on conflicts of interest. The EESC also strongly reiterates its numerous previous calls for investor education to be developed everywhere in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC would be open to ‘partially open-ended’ ELTIFs (alongside ‘closed-ended’ ones) — i.e. ELTIFs that may be large and diversified and may permit redemptions (and subscriptions) after a notice period, provided of course that these possibilities are clearly set out in the documentation given to clients and overseen by the competent national authority. To help make them more ‘liquid’, these ELTIFs should be able to invest up to 50 % (and possibly even more) in diversified assets respecting UCITS rules. Further increasing the possible level of investment in other funds would also help significantly. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | Given that ELTIFs are required to strictly follow rules set out in a European Regulation, an additional positive action would be for the European Commission to assess the merit and feasibility of permitting them to use a ‘.eu’ International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) code, improving their availability and visibility across borders. A strong role for European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in adopting regulatory technical standards (RTSs), promoting supervisory convergence and coordinating the supervisory work, alongside active national regulators, is welcome. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | It is important to facilitate the eligibility of ELTIFs for saving accounts, for unit-linked life insurance contracts, for employee savings schemes and, naturally, for retirement mechanisms such as the Pan European Pension Product. Concurrently, the current proposal for a recast of the Solvency 2 Directive and the future revision of the Directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORP) could include an incentive for insurance and pensions undertakings to invest in ELTIFs. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | Last but not least, European investors in ELTIFs should be able to benefit from the ‘best tax treatment’ on their savings granted by their country of residence. Long-term investors should benefit everywhere in Europe from stable and incentivising tax rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

2.   Summary of the Commission proposal

| 2.1. | The ‘ELTIF Regulation’ is a European framework for alternative investment funds (AIFs) that invest in long-term investments, such as social and transport infrastructure projects, real estate and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The ELTIF Regulation establishes uniform rules on the authorisation, investment policies and operating conditions and marketing of ELTIFs. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The ELTIF regulatory framework is intended to facilitate long-term investments in these types of assets by institutional and retail investors and to provide an alternative, non-bank source of finance to the real economy. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | This review aims to increase the uptake of ELTIFs across the EU for the benefit of the European economy and investors. This, in turn, would support the continued development of the Capital Markets Union (CMU), which also aims to facilitate EU companies’ access to more stable, sustainable and diverse long-term financing. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | Since the adoption of the original ELTIF legal framework in April 2015, only 67 ELTIFs (as of February 2022) have been authorised, with a relatively small amount of net assets under management (estimated at approximately EUR 2,4 billion in 2021). Such authorised ELTIFs are domiciled in only four Member States (Luxembourg, France, Italy and Spain), and the other Member States had no domestic ELTIFs. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | While the ELTIF is still a relatively new framework, the available market data indicates that the market's development has not scaled up as expected. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | Based on the evaluation of the functioning of the ELTIF legal framework and stakeholder feedback, the advantages of ELTIFs are diminished by the restrictive fund rules and barriers to entry for retail investors, the combined effect of which reduce the utility, effectiveness and attractiveness of the ELTIF legal framework for managers and investors. These restrictions are the key drivers of the ELTIFs’ failure to scale up significantly and reach their full potential to channel investments to the real economy. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | In this connection, the review of the ELTIF regulatory framework seeks to accelerate the acceptance and improve the attractiveness of ELTIFs by making targeted changes in the fund rules. This especially means broadening the scope of eligible assets and investments, allowing more flexible fund rules that include the facilitation of fund-of-fund strategies, and reducing the unjustified barriers preventing retail investors from accessing ELTIFs, in particular the EUR 10 000 initial investment requirement and the maximum 10 % aggregate threshold requirement for those retail investors whose financial portfolios are below EUR 500 000. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | Furthermore, the proposal aims to make the ELTIF structure more attractive by easing selected fund rules for ELTIFs distributed solely to professional investors. The review of the ELTIF legal framework also introduces an optional liquidity window mechanism to provide extra liquidity to ELTIF investors and newly subscribing investors without requiring a drawdown from the capital of ELTIFs. The proposal also seeks to ensure appropriate investor protection safeguards are in place. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The EESC strongly supports the proposed balanced review of the ELTIF Regulation, as its previous format did not achieve its well-intended goals. This welcome review was already hailed in the EESC’s opinion on the Capital Markets Union (1) as a cornerstone of the new CMU action plan. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | Indeed, beyond improving the efficiency and safety of European capital markets, a shift in financial resources and savings towards long-term investments is particularly necessary for the socially inclusive ‘post’-COVID recovery and for the twin digital and climate transitions. In this perspective an in-depth review of the ELTIF regulation is indeed essential. The EESC consequently hopes that the adoption process will not lead to the addition of new regulatory requirements that would weaken the drive towards more simplicity rightly proposed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | ELTIFs are long-term funds that can be marketed and subscribed to on a cross-border basis across the Union, as they benefit from a ‘European passport’. They will be able to play a significant role in building up infrastructure (such as transport and energy), in updating housing, in financing research and development and, of course, in financing small and mid-size European companies and start-ups (investments that do not generally benefit from the liquidity provided by a listing on financial markets), thus promoting job creation. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | Crucially, the EESC also strongly emphasises the importance of funding the essential transition towards an inclusive and much less carbon-intensive (and ultimately carbon-neutral) European economy, and of the European ‘Strategy for financing the transition to a sustainable economy’, in particular the proposed Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the envisaged social ‘taxonomy’. It is also necessary to increase the accessibility of ESG and financial data, particularly through the European Single Access Point (ESAP) project and, importantly, the needed regulation and supervision of data providers. The work on ESG labels should also be speeded up to provide guidance to ELTIF investors. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The European Commission’s well-calibrated and proportionate ‘ELTIFs 2’ proposal rightly contains targeted improvements in eligible investments that will allow for stronger support for growth and competitiveness through ELTIFs. A significant number of them will be thus more diversified, as the investment universe of ELTIFs will be broadened, increasing the number of opportunities. Others will be more concentrated, focusing on key investments. The changes will also allow ELTIFs to cover a larger geographical scope of investments within Europe. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC supports the adaptation of previous dissuasive barriers to accessing ELTIFs for retail investors. Given the huge amount of savings which cannot today benefit from the returns on long-term investments, it is an important move, especially in a context of low (although in some cases rising) interest rates and of inflationary pressures. In terms of protection of investors, providing a broader spectrum of eligible assets and investment strategies is of great importance and will be more efficient than the detailed restrictions from 2015, which had the drawback of severely limiting the offer of funds to investors, both institutional and retail. The EESC welcomes the new strong link with the mandatory ‘suitability assessments’ under the MiFID II Directive as well as the clarification of the rules on conflicts of interest. The EESC also strongly reiterates its numerous previous calls for investor education to be developed everywhere in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | One type of ELTIFs has characteristics that make them similar to ‘closed-ended’ funds. For them the classic way to provide liquidity to investors is, as proposed, optional ‘window mechanisms’ via secondary trading mechanisms, but these mechanisms are often difficult or even in practice impossible to implement, in particular when ‘market makers’ are scarce (a risk highlighted in the EESC opinion of 16 October 2013 that has unfortunately materialised). |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | This is why, alongside these ‘closed-ended ELTIFs’, the EESC would also be open to ‘partially open-ended’ ELTIFs (2), i.e. ELTIFs that may be large and diversified and may periodically (for instance twice a year) permit redemptions (and also subscriptions) after a notice period (for instance 90 days), provided of course these possibilities are clearly set out by the ELTIF manager in the documentation given to the clients and overseen by the competent national authority. The Commission proposal to provide additional clarity in Regulatory Technical Standards with regard to the withdrawal percentage of redemption is a positive first step in the right direction that should be followed by others. To help make them more ‘liquid’, the partially open-ended ELTIFs should be able to invest up to 50 % (and possibly even more) in diversified assets respecting UCITS rules. Further increases in the possible level of investment in other funds would also help significantly. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The EESC would like to see funds raised through ELTIFs being essentially invested in the EU economy, in the context of harsh competition at global level and of the need to finance the twin transitions. A sufficiently accurate estimate of the shortfall in long-term financing is unfortunately not available at this stage. Work is thus still needed at European level for a better estimate, but the financing need is undoubtedly large, amounting to several trillion euro (low single digit percent of the EU’s gross domestic product (GDP) if one adds up the needs for climate and sustainability, for equity and innovative SMEs and start-ups, for transport infrastructure and, importantly, for social infrastructure. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | Given that ELTIFs are required to strictly follow rules set out in a European Regulation, an additional positive action would be for the European Commission to assess the merit and feasibility of permitting them to use a ‘.eu’ ISIN code, improving their availability and visibility across borders. The EESC welcomes, in this regard, the strengthening of the ELTIFs register proposed by the Commission. The EESC calls for establishing and enforcing clear EU-wide rules, under an effective leadership role for ESMA and with due cooperation from active national regulators. The rules must, in particular, ensure that ELTIF managers incorporate proper liquidity management tools (LMTs) in the funds they launch and also provide clear and accurate information on fees and risks, as already provided by the Regulation on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) and MiFID legislations. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | It is important to facilitate the eligibility of ELTIFs for saving accounts, for unit-linked life insurance contracts, for employee savings schemes and, naturally, for retirement mechanisms such as the Pan European Pension Product. Concurrently, the current proposal for a recast of the Solvency 2 Directive and the future revision of the IORP Directive could include an incentive for insurance and pensions undertakings to invest in ELTIFs. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | Last but not least, European investors in ELTIFs should be able to benefit from the ‘best tax treatment’ on their savings granted by their country of residence. Unfortunately, in many European countries, short-term saving in liquid assets is currently very often fiscally favoured, sending investors the wrong message that it is better to ‘prefer liquidity’ even when they could be more oriented towards the long term. At any rate, long-term investors should benefit from stable and incentivising tax rules. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 30.4.2021, p. 20.

1

(2)  As it is currently envisaged in the forthcoming Long Term Asset Fund (LTAF) scheme in the UK. The majority of respondents to the Commission’s impact assessment report had the same view (see p. 73)

2

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/68

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 as regards enhancing market data transparency, removing obstacles to the emergence of a consolidated tape, optimising the trading obligations and prohibiting receiving payments for forwarding client orders

(COM(2021) 727 final — 2021/0385 (COD))

(2022/C 290/12)

| Rapporteur: | Jörg Freiherr FRANK VON FÜRSTENWERTH |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Jörg Freiherr FRANK VON FÜRSTENWERTH

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 3.2.2022
  European Parliament, 27.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
| Adopted in section | 3.3.2022 |
| Date adopted in plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 210/0/4 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 3.2.2022

European Parliament, 27.1.2022

Legal basis

Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Adopted in section

3.3.2022

Date adopted in plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

210/0/4

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1 | The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the fact that, as announced in the 2020 Capital Markets Union action plan (1), the European Commission has put forward, in good time, a proposal to establish consolidated tapes for the shares, exchange-traded funds, bonds and derivative financial instruments asset classes. This is another step towards making the Capital Markets Union a reality. The EESC supports the European Commission’s proposal. |
| --- | --- |

1.1

| 1.2 | The EESC reiterates that establishing the Capital Markets Union is a priority and an important prerequisite for creating a genuine single market, for overcoming the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and for transitioning to a sustainable economy in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

1.2

| 1.3 | The EESC welcomes the proposal for a Regulation introducing the consolidated European tapes and the accompanying measures. If well implemented, they will significantly increase the transparency and availability of market data, align the regulatory framework conditions for execution venues, and strengthen European capital markets. Consolidated transparency will significantly mitigate the effects of the persistently high fragmentation of European capital markets. |
| --- | --- |

1.3

| 1.4 | The EESC attaches great importance to ensuring non-discriminatory, free access to market data for all, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises as well as retail investors more generally. The EESC calls on the European Commission to reduce existing information asymmetries. |
| --- | --- |

1.4

| 1.5 | The Committee recommends that the European Commission undertake further action in the context of creating the Capital Markets Union in order to further develop the very uneven equities culture across Europe. In addition to preventative consumer protection rules aimed at building confidence, this includes, in particular, measures to improve consumer education. The EESC also calls on the European Commission to place great importance on the aspects of occupational health and safety and working conditions in all measures aimed at creating the Capital Markets Union. This includes ensuring that the human resources of European and national supervisors reflect the increase in their remit. |
| --- | --- |

1.5

| 1.6 | On the controversial issue of a ban on receiving payments for the transmission of client orders for execution purposes or ‘payment for order flow’ (PFOF), the EESC recommends strengthening the following principle: financial intermediaries may only select the trading venue or counterparty for the execution of their clients’ transactions with a view to achieving the best execution for their clients. The EESC supports the European Commission’s view that tangible or intangible remuneration of financial intermediaries by trading venues or counterparties for the transfer of execution orders is fundamentally inconsistent with this. |
| --- | --- |

1.6

2.   Background to the opinion

| 2.1 | On 25 November 2021, the European Commission presented a package of measures to strengthen the Capital Markets Union (‘CMU package’). The package consists of a communication from the European Commission and four legal acts (2). The subject of this opinion is the revision, as part of the CMU package, of the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR) (3), which essentially sets out the rules for financial market infrastructure and, together with the European Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (4) (MiFID II), provides the regulatory framework for the provision of investment services. |
| --- | --- |

2.1

3.   General comments

3.1   Presentation of the proposal

| 3.1.1 | A common feature of the proposals outlined in the CMU package is that they aim to increase transparency in the still fragmented European capital markets. The European Economic and Social Committee welcomes this objective, as a Capital Markets Union will not be successfully established without good transparency and reliable, readily available data. The proposed amendments to the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR) are of great importance in this connection. The proposed amendments relate primarily to market infrastructure, since investor protection rules were already covered by the MiFID ‘quick fix’ at the beginning of 2021 against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic (5). |
| --- | --- |

3.1.1

| 3.1.2 | The greatest possible transparency of securities markets is therefore also necessary, in order to provide better access to capital markets for small and medium-sized enterprises and for retail investors more generally. It is true that, currently, all execution platforms are already required to publish information on, for example, the volume, time and price of transactions. However, collecting this data in a consolidated way — and thus providing a real overview of the market — is only possible for large securities firms, and solely at considerable financial expense. Nobody can therefore currently be sure they are really getting the best price. Easy access to reliable market data is, however, absolutely crucial. This also applies in particular to sustainability-related information, which is essential in order to create sustainable financial markets in the context of the implementation of the European Green Deal, and plays an increasingly important role. There is an important substantive link here to the European single access point and to the simplified provision of sustainability-related information (sustainable development goals). |
| --- | --- |

3.1.2

| 3.1.3 | Rapid, reliable and easily accessible market data will also promote competition between trading venues through the transparency it brings, since, under conditions of transparency, securities transactions are carried out where the best price is to be obtained and where liquidity is high. Transparency with regard to crypto-assets in the system of consolidated European tapes is also a crucial aspect for private investors and institutional investors alike. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.3

| 3.1.4 | The consolidated European tapes — one for each asset class (shares, exchange-traded funds, bonds and derivative financial instruments) — are an essential tool for reducing existing information asymmetries. They may also help to reduce the dominance of high-frequency trading. The EESC welcomes competition in the market infrastructure. For the Committee, it is important that competition is fair and that it takes place on a level playing-field. Regulatory arbitrage between trading venues should be ruled out. While the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) has direct effect in the Member States, it is essential for the European Commission to closely monitor the accompanying national legislative acts and their practical implementation, as well as national supervisory practices, with a view to ensuring a level playing-field, and, where appropriate, to call on the Member States to make adjustments and, if necessary, penalise infringements. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.4

| 3.1.5 | The introduction of the consolidated tapes — i.e. centralised databases providing easy, non-discriminatory access to consolidated market data for all investors (small and large asset managers, pension funds, retail investors) as well as all financial intermediaries, whether large or small — will reduce the information advantage of large providers and significantly facilitate access to financial markets, thus making them more efficient in the future. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.5

| 3.1.6 | The consolidated European tapes can also help to counter trends towards excessive volatility, such as price surges and crashes, by creating enhanced transparency. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.6

| 3.1.7 | In the EESC’s view, the transparency created by the consolidated tapes and the easier access to market data, including for retail investors, do not replace the need for ongoing, well-developed investor protection. Facilitated access to data for retail investors calls to mind the need to strengthen efforts to ensure sufficient consumer education on financial affairs in order that consumers can engage with the opportunities and risks of capital markets responsibly. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.7

| 3.1.8 | The creation of the consolidated tapes is also a significant step forward from the point of view of data ethics, which is gaining increasing importance in our digitalised world, where data is a commodity and a key to participation in economic and social life. The EESC advocates non-discriminatory access to market data. The Committee welcomes the fact that the introduction of the consolidated tapes will give small businesses and consumers in particular access to essential data that would otherwise not be accessible to them due to a lack of financial resources. The introduction of the consolidated tapes therefore responds to the need for ethical access to information in the financial markets. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.8

| 3.1.9 | The EESC welcomes the fact that the European Commission has based its proposals on intensive discussions on their market impact, both on European trading venues and on international competition. The Committee also welcomes the fact that the European Commission has plans to carry out a subsequent evaluation of the new rules. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.9

3.2   Consolidated European tapes (CTs), Articles 22 and 27 of the MiFIR proposal

| 3.2.1 | The EESC reiterates (6) its support for the Commission’s proposal to introduce the consolidated European tapes. If well implemented from a technical point of view, they will enable all market participants to have near real-time access to trading data — on equities, exchange-traded funds, bonds and derivative financial instruments — from across all EU trading venues. As such, the consolidated European tapes should make an important contribution to tackling market fragmentation. However, the success of the consolidated European tapes will crucially depend on their practical implementation (obligation to provide data, data standards, access to data, data quality, data security, data protection (where relevant), eliminating transparency problems by assigning an international securities identification number (ISIN) to derivative financial instruments for their entire lifespan (rather than on a daily basis), use of state-of-the-art technologies, operational resilience, and easy and cost-effective access). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.1

| 3.2.2 | To be successful, all data providers — be they stock exchanges or banks, conventional data providers or fintechs — must be subject to the same strict quality requirements on a non-discriminatory basis. In addition, quality data and a sound governance structure are further essential prerequisites for success. The EESC believes that it is crucial that the quality of data and the governance of the CT system be constantly monitored and, where necessary, readjusted. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.2

| 3.2.3 | The EESC supports the well-balanced proposal to give the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) a central role in the ongoing monitoring of the consolidated European tapes. The EESC hopes that ESMA — and national supervisors in the area of securities supervision — will also be provided with the financial, material and human resources necessary to this end. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.3

| 3.2.4 | The procedures for selecting one consolidated tape operator per asset class are of great importance. The EESC deems smooth and transparent selection procedures to be important. This is mainly because the first consolidated tape operators will have a significant competitive advantage when it comes to re-tendering after five years. It would therefore be desirable for the calls for tenders to attract a broad range of competitive tenders. The Committee welcomes the fact that the selection criteria are set out in detail and that the organisational requirements for consolidated tape providers are specified. The EESC is in favour of an approach whereby consolidated tape providers publish performance statistics and reports on data quality incidents free of charge on their website at the end of each quarter. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.4

| 3.2.5 | The consolidated European tapes will also be an essential step towards, and tool for, enabling investment service providers to fulfil their ‘best execution’ obligation (Article 27(2) MiFID II) in a better informed, more broadly based and simpler manner. Achieving the best price will be the key criterion, particularly for retail investors. However, by way of precaution, the EESC would like to point out that the consolidated European tapes should not replace the principle of ‘best execution’. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.5

| 3.2.6 | The consolidated European tapes can only be fully effective if the various execution platforms in the market are subject to a level playing-field. The EESC therefore supports the European Commission’s proposals, all of which aim to ensure full transparency of trading platforms, in particular the ban on ‘dark pools’, where traders are not subject to any transparency requirements. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.6

3.3   Trading venue obligation for derivative financial instruments, Article 28 MiFIR proposal

| 3.3.1 | The EESC welcomes the fact that the European Commission’s proposal corrects a systematic error that arose with the publication of the EMIR Refit. In future, small financial counterparties will be legally exempt from the trading venue obligation and — as has already hitherto been the case — from the clearing obligation. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1

3.4   Trading venue for shares, Article 23 MiFIR proposal

| 3.4.1 | The proposal limits the trading venue obligation for shares to assets with an international securities identification number (ISIN) from the European Union. Furthermore, even these are exempted from the trading venue obligation when trading takes place outside the European Union in the local currency. The proposal is beneficial from an investor’s point of view, since, in the case of assets with a trading venue outside the European Union, the best prices are also likely to be obtained in that venue. This likewise and in particular applies to assets that carry an EU ISIN but are mainly traded in pounds sterling on the London Stock Exchange. The EESC therefore expressly agrees with the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.1

3.5   Payment for order flow (PFOF), Article 39(a) MiFIR proposal

| 3.5.1 | The proposal prohibits the remuneration model known as PFOF, whereby financial intermediaries receive fees from their trading partners in exchange for directing their clients’ business to that trading partner. PFOF is mainly a financing model for online brokers, which is often a cheap alternative to traditional trading for retail investors. In particular, in the case of ‘zero-commission’ brokers, the practice is to charge customers only a small fee for the order and to obtain (broker) revenues from rebates on the trading venue. In many cases, all orders to trade are concentrated on one trading partner. Such rebates are not disclosed to customers. The EESC agrees with ESMA (7) that this practice is in any case not suitable in light of the best execution obligation and the required price transparency. On the other hand, these online brokers provide cheap and low-threshold access to investment services, particularly for retail investors. The Committee considers it essential to ensure equal cost transparency and a level playing-field between fintechs and conventional providers. The EESC recommends that particular attention be paid to this issue in the subsequent stages of the legislative process. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.1

| 3.5.2 | In the EESC’s view, it will also be necessary to discuss whether, notwithstanding the legal concerns (best execution), PFOFs might be undesirable for reasons of market structure, simply because they will divert too much trading volume from stock exchanges and thus jeopardise the overall functioning of stock exchanges. A reduction in market liquidity would be completely contrary to the objectives of the Capital Markets Union. In particular, it would seriously harm the necessary market transparency (in particular pre-trade transparency) and have a negative impact on customers. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.2

3.6   Best execution

| 3.6.1 | The European Commission proposes to waive the obligation, set out in Article 27(1) MiFID II, for execution venues to publish information on the quality of execution of orders. This proposal from the European Commission makes sense since it is commonly accepted that investors have, in practice, not used the reports as a useful source of information, and that post-trade information on transactions will also be available through the consolidated European tapes. The EESC understands and supports this. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.1

| 3.6.2 | However, it does not make sense for ESMA to be carrying out consultations at the moment on the adaptation of precisely those regulatory technical standards (RTS 27 and RTS 28) which give concrete expression to the provision that the European Commission, in the proposal it has submitted, is proposing to delete (Article 27(2) MiFID II). Furthermore, not only does it make no sense, it also places an unnecessary administrative burden on the parties concerned, which is ultimately of no benefit. In the interests of good and sustainable regulatory practice, the EESC believes that such an approach must be avoided. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.2

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  COM(2020) 590 final.

1

(2)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Capital Markets Union — Delivering one year after the Action Plan; Proposal for a European Single Access Point (ESAP); Revision of the Regulation on European long-term investment funds (ELTIF); Revision of the Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive (AIFMD) and the Revision of the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR).

2

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 84).

3

(4)  Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349).

4

(5)  Directive (EU) 2021/338 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2021 amending Directive 2014/65/EU as regards information requirements, product governance and position limits, and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/878 as regards their application to investment firms, to help the recovery from the COVID-19 crisis (OJ L 68, 26.2.2021, p. 14).

5

(6)  OJ C 155, 30.4.2021, p. 20 et seq.

6

(7)  ESMA public statement, Document ESMA35-43-2749, dated 13.7.2021: ‘ESMA warns firms and investors about risks arising from payment of order flow’.

7

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/73

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: EU Strategy on Combatting Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021–2030)

(COM(2021) 615 final)

(2022/C 290/13)

| Rapporteur: | Ákos TOPOLÁNSZKY |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Ákos TOPOLÁNSZKY

| Referral | European Commission, 1.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 7.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 145/0/4 |

Referral

European Commission, 1.12.2021

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

7.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

145/0/4

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC strongly defends and emphasises the fundamental values that underpin the European Union and European coexistence. In its view, any phenomenon of antisemitism is incompatible with European values and norms, as it leads to violations of the law and to exclusion, which is a threat not only to the communities concerned and Jewish life, but also to Europe’s heritage and present, and to a democratic European future that can only be achieved in a diverse society. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC therefore broadly supports the establishment of the Strategy (1) and the fact that it was preceded by a broad consultation process in 2021. It also agrees in all respects with the need not only to combat antisemitism, but also to work towards public policies and community cooperation promoting mutual acceptance. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | It strongly supports that the Strategy is not only about combating antisemitism, but also about fostering Jewish life. Jewish communities and individuals are not just passive victims of the past and present, but also active participants in Europe. The EESC strongly supports the Strategy’s vision of a European future in which Jewish communities thrive and develop. The EESC firmly believes that antisemitism is not only a violation of the law affecting European Jews, but is also a test of the European idea, European coexistence, the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC endorses the working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) (2) and strongly encourages all Member States to adopt it and make it the basis of their policy action. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | It proposes that this topic be placed on the agenda of one of its priority work organisations each year and, if necessary, that the implementation of the strategy be evaluated by other means (country visit, research, etc.). |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC supports the inclusion of education as one of the priorities of the Strategy, as it plays a key role in combating and preventing antisemitism. Education and training materials on relevant issues (including ethnic intolerance, racism, hate crimes and prejudice) should be developed in cooperation with civil professional and Jewish representative bodies. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | In the media, all constitutional and EU legal instruments should be consistently used to tackle antisemitic content, while improving knowledge and understanding of Jewish life in more balanced and sensitive reporting. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC proposes that the Commission consider how to safeguard the right of Jewish communities to continue their beliefs and rituals when formulating future policies, as a means of fostering Jewish life in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | In the EESC’s view, Jewish culture, as an integral part of European identity, must be brought much closer to citizens and the general public and made more accessible. This is also a great opportunity for mutual and communal understanding, which is key to the development of both the European idea and of the Jewish people and the strengthening of their communities. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | A clear and strong legislative framework that systematically addresses the issue of hate speech and related phenomena is a necessary and binding part of the European legal order, but is not a sufficient response in itself. The legislative framework should be complemented with educational tools and a system of community-society programmes that are widely used and capable of reaching citizens. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | The rise of populism globally highlights the need to also look at the wider social context of antisemitism. One type of hatred cannot be treated without awareness of and effective action against others. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | All Member States have a fundamental obligation to ensure that their citizens have the freedom to hold religious beliefs and practise their religions without fear. Intimidation by any means or to any extent targeting religions in general, and in particular Jewish religious beliefs, should be seen as a violation of the democratic legal order. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

| 1.13. | The EESC encourages the European Commission to give the fight against antisemitism and the strategic agenda for the promotion of Jewish life a strong foreign policy dimension in all aspects of the cooperation with third countries and international organisations. |
| --- | --- |

1.13.

| 1.14. | In order to implement the Strategy even more effectively, the Committee recommends the formation of a permanent unit at Council level as well to monitor and combat antisemitism. |
| --- | --- |

1.14.

| 1.15. | The EESC firmly believes that strong recommendations and guidelines are also needed in sport, and football in particular, as the sector, because of its popularity and visibility, poses a serious risk of antisemitism but can also be an essential tool for effectively combating this phenomenon. |
| --- | --- |

1.15.

2.   General comments

| 2.1. | The EESC strongly defends and emphasises the fundamental values that underpin the European Union and European coexistence. These values include respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities (3). In the Committee’s view, any phenomenon of antisemitism is incompatible with European values and norms, as it leads to violations of the law and to exclusion, which is a threat not only to the communities concerned and Jewish life, but also to Europe’s heritage and present, and to a democratic European future that can only be achieved in a diverse society. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | However, it is important to note that the Strategy is not only about combating antisemitism, but also about fostering Jewish life. It is certainly positive that the Strategy addresses the fact that Jewish communities and individuals are not just passive victims of the past and present, but are active participants in Europe, making a significant contribution to a diverse and inclusive Europe. The EESC strongly supports the Strategy’s vision of a European future in which Jewish communities thrive and develop. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The EESC therefore broadly supports the establishment of the Strategy (4) and the fact that it was preceded by a broad consultation process in 2021. It also agrees in all respects with the need not only to combat antisemitism, but also to work towards public policies and community cooperation promoting mutual acceptance. The Committee also feels itself obliged to support all efforts to ensure that the European citizens of Jewish background feel comfortable and safe, are welcomed everywhere in Europe and will have a positive future perspective in the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The EESC firmly believes that antisemitism is not only a violation of the law affecting European Jews, but is also a test of the European idea, European coexistence, the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy. Accordingly, it affects everyone and all political and social organisations with responsibilities, and is a litmus test for promoting the European way of life and protecting the citizens and values of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The EESC agrees that the EU institutions and the Member States need to adopt a strategy based on a common approach, but that this alone is not sufficient. The commitments stemming from the values set out in the strategies must be translated into measurable and verifiable action and recognised as a self-evident reality of European coexistence. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | Recommendations from independent and evidence-based research, as well as research based on community surveys, are essential for the development and implementation of national strategies and their action plans, as well as for their monitoring and evaluation, as is the case for the 2018 European Council Declaration (5) on the fight against antisemitism and the 2020 European Council Declaration on mainstreaming the fight against antisemitism across policy areas (6). |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | The EESC recommends that the Networks Overcoming Antisemitism (NOA) project, which is supported by the European Commission and uses objective questions and indicators based on international and EU standards (7) to assess the steps taken by individual Member States to combat antisemitism, be widely applied in all Member States, so as to help them to implement and develop their policies effectively. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | The EESC has adopted and applies the working definition of antisemitism used by the IHRA. At the same time, it strongly advocates that it be adopted by all Member States and applied in their policy actions on the functioning of state and local government bodies in this area. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

| 2.9. | The EESC welcomes and considers exemplary the fact that the Strategy was developed through a broad consultation process (8). It agrees that the principle of non-discrimination and the provisions and spirit of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be fully respected. |
| --- | --- |

2.9.

| 2.10. | The EESC strongly supports the idea that each Member State should appoint a national coordinator or delegate as an essential part of its strategy, and should support their independent and free operation, involving all relevant stakeholders in society. |
| --- | --- |

2.10.

| 2.11. | As the representative of organised civil society in the European Union, the EESC sees an urgent need for action — not just as a one-off campaign or a campaign against antisemitism, but as a permanent monitoring and awareness-raising task in the European Union. In doing so the Committee strongly recommends the formation of a permanent unit at Council level as well to monitor and combat antisemitism (9). This would not only be an important visible symbol, it would also reinforce, on the part of the Member States, the meritorious work of the European Commission’s Coordinator on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life and the European Parliament working group against antisemitism. |
| --- | --- |

2.11.

| 2.12. | It proposes that this topic be placed on the agenda of one of its priority work organisations each year and, if necessary, that the implementation of the strategy be evaluated by other means (country visit, research, etc.). |
| --- | --- |

2.12.

3.   Education and youth policy

| 3.1. | The EESC supports the inclusion of education as one of the priorities of the Strategy, as it plays a key role in combating and preventing antisemitism. While legislation and enforcement of the law, including criminal law, certainly have a major role to play in tackling intergenerational hatred, long-term change in attitudes, public discourse and thinking can only be achieved through educational and community-based means. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The 2019 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) report (10) clearly shows that antisemitic attacks very often target 18–34 year-olds, for many of whom this is an everyday reality. Jewish schools across Europe need protection. The EESC recommends that secondary school students, university students and young adults be given a prominent role in the implementation of the Strategy, through the involvement of youth leaders and student organisations, and through ongoing consultation and dialogue with them, including at local level. Their experience in the fields of hate speech, hate crime, social media and education is also of paramount importance, as they can be the primary victims, and sometimes main targets, of antisemitic attacks. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | In the EESC’s view, the Strategy should also include ‘co-created actions’ in which all stakeholders are involved, including other minority groups and representatives from existing interfaith organisations, in order to bring about meaningful change. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | Universities and academic communities can potentially be intellectual hotbeds of antisemitism. The Strategy should prioritise the involvement of university leaders in the fight against antisemitism, as set out in Unesco’s guidance, Addressing antisemitism through education (11), the implementation of which should certainly be made compulsory. This includes transparent mechanisms to follow up on expressions of antisemitism, such as appropriate procedures, incident reports and subsequent monitoring, including filtering out any antisemitic actions by university administrations. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | In order to give teachers and academics in schools and universities a clear understanding of what antisemitism means, the training/educational opportunities mentioned in the Strategy should be made available to them in practice, and schools should be encouraged through educational organisation and funding to implement awareness-raising and knowledge development programmes on this topic, involving Jewish organisations, both civil and religious, in order to take action against the denial, distortion, fogging and trivialisation of the Holocaust, and to oppose efforts to glorify the Nazis and their collaborators. Similar programmes could form part of (integration) courses for immigrants. In the EESC’s view, members of EU and national decision-making bodies should also be encouraged and expected to participate in training courses where their competence could develop in areas of concern to Jewish and other minorities. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | For the future and the security of the Jewish community in Europe, the EESC recommends that Member States, through their competent ministries, examine the content and emphasis of national curricula and school curricula in terms of antisemitism and the recognition of Jewish values and identity, and develop educational and training materials and aids on relevant issues (including combating ethnic intolerance, racism, hate crime and prejudice) in cooperation with civil-professional and Jewish representative bodies. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | The EESC recommends that the Commission develop accessible educational materials capable of reaching all the affected groups which define, in the language of education and for the benefit of minorities, including Jewish communities, what it means to be part of the European Union, based on the values of democracy and fundamental human rights, where diversity and anti-discrimination are self-evident and implicit values. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | It recommends that secondary and higher education institutions make both their commitment to combating antisemitism and acceptance of Jewish values an explicit part of their anti-discrimination policy. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The Committee recommends that Jewish youth organisations be given a prominent role in future public policies to promote Jewish life in all the identified areas of the Strategy, and decision-makers should also provide appropriate support for their activities. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

4.   Media

| 4.1. | Decisive action based on shared values, and explicit support for the dissemination of positive content that recognises the dignity and rights of minorities, including those of Jewish origin, are needed in the normal workings of the media, including through social media campaigns, in order to curb antisemitic content. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The representation of Jewish communities and their members in traditional and social media is, in most cases, very limited, mainly focusing on the impact of antisemitic violence and terrorism and the collective memory of the Holocaust in Europe, the importance of which is, of course, beyond doubt. However, there is also a need to present positive content beyond this, such as contemporary Jewish performing arts, Jewish holidays or the promotion of Jewish languages as a recognition of the importance of social coexistence. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | Beyond the cultural sphere, there are currently a number of Jewish community/civil society projects and initiatives taking place in parallel in the Member States of the European Union, working for a more inclusive and democratic Europe, reflecting the values and objectives of the EU. These initiatives are taking place in a number of areas, including the fight against racism, human rights, the environment and cultural diversity. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | In the EESC’s view, it would be desirable that, in addition to social media channels providing an opportunity to promote the traditional values and historical and religious expressions of Judaism, the majority of society should have an insight into the positive impact of Jewish community activism on society as a whole, which could also play an important role in combating stereotypes (12). |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | In training and informing journalists, there is a need to improve knowledge and understanding of Jewish life in the media in order to achieve more balanced and sensitive reporting. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | All constitutional and EU legal instruments must be consistently used to curb antisemitic content in the media. To this end, systematic investigative activities should be carried out, involving the state media watchdog and monitoring organisations. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

5.   Culture

| 5.1. | The EESC believes that Jewish culture, as an integral part of European identity, must be brought much closer to citizens and the general public and made more accessible. This is also a great opportunity for mutual and communal understanding, which is key to the development of both the European idea and of the Jewish people and the strengthening of their communities. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | The teaching of Jewish culture as a self-evident, integral and inseparable part of the European cultural spectrum is increasingly needed in schools, given that fewer people have daily contact with Jewish life after the Holocaust. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | The EESC is convinced that cultural heritage must be recognised, respected and promoted not as a closed legacy of the past, but as a living and evolving reality. To this end, support must be given to strengthening local ownership and engagement by encouraging partnerships with stakeholders. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | Although the Strategy refers to the Faro Convention (13), it does not mention its practical application. There is a need to put into practice the framework and guidelines envisaged by the Faro Convention; namely, cooperation and development in the scientific, educational, cultural and artistic fields, including tourism. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | The Committee calls on the EU institutions, the Member States, social partners and civil society organisations to properly present and celebrate the Jewish community’s contribution to the EU as an integral and inalienable part of a common culture, for example drawing inspiration from the German initiative celebrating 1 700 years of Jewish life in Germany. It proposes supporting the European Days of Jewish Culture, involving the relevant institutions and civil society and encourages cooperation with the Council of Europe in implementing and expanding its European Cultural Routes programme. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

| 5.6. | Where no such initiative exists, national standards and guidelines should be established for preserving, maintaining and reinvigorating Jewish cultural heritage, while ensuring adequate funding. Jewish culture’s presence in intercultural dialogue and its presentation should be promoted. |
| --- | --- |

5.6.

| 5.7. | The EESC believes that integrated, long-term heritage protection strategies, based on the involvement of local communities and a multidisciplinary approach, need to be developed and financially supported. To this end, it is necessary to identify relevant stakeholders (local communities, municipalities, volunteers, activists, social partners and civil society organisations, Jewish religious communities, churches, regional and national institutions, public authorities), establish information, participation and consultation methods, identify opportunities for cooperation and partnerships, and systematically support these processes. The continued involvement of the European Association for the Preservation and Promotion of Jewish Culture and Heritage (AEPJ), the largest Jewish heritage protection organisation in Europe, is essential. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.

6.   Hate speech, hate crime, security

| 6.1. | A clear and strong legislative framework that systematically addresses the issue of hate speech and related phenomena, such as disinformation, is a necessary and binding part of the European legal order, but is not a sufficient response in itself. It should be complemented by educational tools and large-scale programmes that reach citizens and that, among other things, promote digital and information literacy, define the values of responsible citizenship and offer training to combat bias and disinformation in order to build a culture of mutual understanding. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.2. | The EESC believes that it is essential to understand the roots and causes of all forms of violence against Jewish individuals and communities in order to be able to take effective action not only through criminal justice, but also through a more effective system of action at community and societal level; this includes support for awareness-raising campaigns on non-discrimination, support for civil society organisations in providing training to target groups on recognising and responding to hate speech and hate crime, and support and funding for the monitoring, data collection and reporting activities of civil society organisations at national and international level. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

| 6.3. | In the EESC’s view, not all citizens have the same responsibility in these areas; the responsibility of those whose activities have the greatest influence on social prejudices should be particularly stressed, with action being taken against these people where necessary, including prosecution in serious cases. These include political actors, those working for public and local administrations, and representatives of law enforcement agencies and judicial bodies. Violations that they commit should be prioritised and dealt with appropriately. |
| --- | --- |

6.3.

| 6.4. | In-house training to raise awareness should be enhanced in these institutions, in particular in law enforcement agencies, and research should be regularly conducted to assess the internal situation in order to design policies to identify any prejudices among staff and improve the situation. |
| --- | --- |

6.4.

| 6.5. | The EESC recommends that FRA carry out a more thorough analysis of the current security situation and of threats to Jewish life. At the same time, attempts at misinformation at Member State level that target the Jewish community and are based on false or wrong information, in particular about ritual acts, should be investigated and prevented through communication and public policy tools. |
| --- | --- |

6.5.

| 6.6. | Institutionalised mechanisms for cooperation between law enforcement agencies and Jewish community organisations should be strengthened, and the requisite training should be provided to enable the police to accurately identify such offences and the fact that they were motivated by prejudices. In line with the EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020–2025) (14), the capacity of the Jewish community and civil society organisations to provide victim support services should be supported. The uniform and comprehensive collection of more comparable data is needed at EU level. |
| --- | --- |

6.6.

| 6.7. | The rise of populism globally highlights the need to also look at the wider social context of antisemitism as we fight against it: xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism and anti-Romani sentiments often go hand in hand with antisemitism, and one type of hatred cannot be treated without awareness of the others. They are different symptoms of the same social phenomenon, which cannot be interpreted and effectively dealt with independently of each other. |
| --- | --- |

6.7.

| 6.8. | Jewish communities in Europe are facing increasing security needs with regard to schools, synagogues, community centres and synagogues. States should adopt a comprehensive and holistic approach in this matter by providing adequate measures and/or funding to address those challenges in order to ensure the safety of Jewish institutions and communal life. |
| --- | --- |

6.8.

7.   Freedom of religion and religious practice

| 7.1. | All Member States have a fundamental obligation to ensure that their citizens have the freedom to hold religious beliefs and practise their religions without fear. Intimidation by any means or to any extent targeting religions in general, and in particular Jewish religious beliefs, should be seen as a violation of the democratic legal order. |
| --- | --- |

7.1.

| 7.2. | Interreligious dialogue must use strategies based on values shared by the various religious organisations and must not be considered and implemented as a simple courtesy, and this approach should be supported through specific state tools. |
| --- | --- |

7.2.

| 7.3. | Jewish communities want the growing legal uncertainty surrounding ritual slaughter (Shechita) and circumcision (Brit Mila) to be eliminated, and for this issue to be settled in a uniform manner by EU law. The EESC therefore recommends that these matters be discussed with Jewish communities and resolved by law in all cases, while recognising that they have been an integral part of active Jewish religious life in Europe for thousands of years. |
| --- | --- |

7.3.

8.   International aspects

| 8.1. | The EESC encourages the European Commission to give the fight against antisemitism and the strategic agenda for the promotion of Jewish life a strong foreign policy dimension in all aspects of the cooperation with third countries and international organisations. |
| --- | --- |

8.1.

| 8.2. | The EESC welcomes the consideration of the international aspects in the Commission’s communication and highlights, in particular, the instruments of our neighbourhood policy and development cooperation, as well as the instruments for bringing EU candidate countries closer to the EU, as appropriate mechanisms for combating antisemitism and promoting Jewish life. |
| --- | --- |

8.2.

9.   Sport

| 9.1. | The EESC firmly believes that strong recommendations and guidelines are also needed in sport, and football in particular, as the sector, because of its popularity and visibility, poses a serious risk of antisemitism but can also be an essential tool for effectively combating this phenomenon. In this regard, the Committee supports the guidelines set out in the FIFA Good Practice Guide on Diversity and Anti-Discrimination, which could also be an important reference for the Strategy. |
| --- | --- |

9.1.

| 9.2. | It is important that sport federations and organisations establish their objectives for each issue on the basis of FIFA’s recommendations (internal regulations, sanctions and monitoring of their implementation, education, networking and cooperation, communication and equal opportunities). |
| --- | --- |

9.2.

| 9.3. | The EESC considers it important to develop and widely implement training and information programmes for supporters, clubs and associations as part of a clear commitment from them. Similar training could also be imposed as part of supporter sanctions, in addition to or independently of criminal sanctions. |
| --- | --- |

9.3.

| 9.4. | The Committee calls for educational materials to be developed for the supporters’ community to help them better understand the historical background to antisemitism in the stands, while helping to create a culture of inclusion (15). |
| --- | --- |

9.4.

| 9.5. | National federations and clubs should be encouraged, through sports tools, to develop their own educational publications and awareness-raising programmes in cooperation with relevant local organisations (16). |
| --- | --- |

9.5.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  Commission Communication (2021) 615 final; EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life.

1

EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life.

(2)  ‘Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.’ https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

2

(3)  Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT&from=EN

3

(4)  Commission Communication (2021) 615 final; EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life.

4

EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life.

(5)  https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15213-2018-INIT/en/pdf

5

(6)  https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/47065/st13637-en20.pdf

6

(7)  https://www.noa-project.eu/report-cards/ The methodology assesses each Member State’s actions in ten areas, which are also represented by the Strategy: education, hate crime, hate speech, media, Holocaust remembrance, sport, interfaith dialogue, religious freedom, culture and heritage, and security. The standards are almost all based on international norms, directives, recommendations or guidelines approved by EU institutions or other international organisations (such as the OSCE or Unesco).

7

(8)  For example, of the 76 points set out in the joint recommendation drafted by nine European Jewish organisations (B’nai B’rith International, CEJI, the World Jewish Congress (WJC), the European Jewish Congress (EJC), the European Union of Jewish Students (EUJS), the European Union for Progressive Judaism (EUPJ), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the European Association for the Preservation and Promotion of Jewish Culture and Heritage (AEPJ) and B’nai B’rith Europe), 58 have been included in the final text of the Strategy.

8

(9)  The EESC President’s opening words at the debate on antisemitism in the context of SOC/704 on the EU strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life, SOC section meeting, 10 February 2022.

9

(10)  Young Jewish Europeans: perceptions and experiences of antisemitism. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-young-jewish-europeans_en.pdf

10

(11)  https://en.unesco.org/preventing-violent-extremism/education/antisemitism

11

(12)  Examples of such campaigns and projects include: https://www.noa-project.eu/profiles/

12

(13)  https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=199

13

(14)  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0258

14

(15)  For example https://changingthechants.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Guidelines.ENGpdf.pdf.

15

(16)  Good examples of this are Chelsea Football Club’s guide: https://www.efdn.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/CFC-CST-KIO-Antisemitism-Stewards-Guide-2018.pdf and the Show Racism the Red Card initiative: https://www.theredcard.org/.

16

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/81

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application of Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals

(COM(2021) 592 final)

(2022/C 290/14)

Rapporteur:
  Carlos Manuel TRINDADE

| Referral | European Commission, 1.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 7.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 129/1/3 |

Referral

European Commission, 1.12.2021

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

7.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

129/1/3

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC shares the Commission’s assessment of the situation when it states: ‘illegal employment of people not authorised to stay in the EU (...) is damaging from an economic perspective, as it leads to losses in public finances, tax and social contributions, depresses wages and working conditions, and creates unfair competition between businesses’, which is damaging to the vast majority of businesses that do respect the law. ‘Illegal employment also exposes migrants to risks of violation of individual and social rights, notably labour exploitation, precarious living and working conditions and limited or no access to social protection’ (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC notes the Commission’s stance when it states that the Directive grants Member States the flexibility to design different approaches to achieve its objectives, which allow them to take into account national specificities relating to the labour market, the role of illegal employment and migration and the severity of violation. However, all Member States need to ensure that the rules are successful in deterring ‘irregular’ migration and tackling illegal employment (2). |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC underlines that the shortcomings of this Directive relate to its actual transposition and implementation by the Member States, in particular the considerable variability in sanctions, which in most cases means they do not do much to dissuade employers from hiring illegally staying third-country nationals. They also relate to the Directive’s inability to encourage migrants to, as a rule, engage with the authorities due to their legitimate and justified fear of being returned to their country of origin. In fact, the mechanisms for migrants to file complaints are generally ineffective, because there is a lack of permanently available, detailed, effective and meaningful information in the languages of the target group, because inspections are few and far between (due to a lack of staff) or are inefficient, and because Member States do not provide timely, adequate reports or information permitting regular evaluation of the Directive’s application. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC calls on Member States to step up their efforts to implement the Directive and to work actively with the Commission to ensure it is effective. It firmly supports the Commission’s willingness to launch infringement proceedings against Member States should they persist in not providing all relevant information on implementation of the key obligations on sanctions, inspections and protection of migrants’ rights stemming from the Directive. However, the EESC would propose that the Commission, as part of the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive that is to be carried out by 2024, examine what sanctions can be established or adopted against companies that knowingly benefit from the outcome of illegal and criminal activities. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | As regards sanctions, the EESC fully supports the Commission’s commitments and recommendations to the Member States, also making the following proposals:






  (i) | the EESC recommends that Member States make appropriate use of the potential of all the sanctions provided for in the Directive, in particular the application of all additional administrative measures (loss of public benefits, exclusion from public contracts, recovery of public subsidies, temporary or permanent closure of establishments and withdrawal of licences to operate). It likewise recommends that the Commission support Member States in this process; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.5.

(i)

the EESC recommends that Member States make appropriate use of the potential of all the sanctions provided for in the Directive, in particular the application of all additional administrative measures (loss of public benefits, exclusion from public contracts, recovery of public subsidies, temporary or permanent closure of establishments and withdrawal of licences to operate). It likewise recommends that the Commission support Member States in this process;

| (ii) | the EESC recommends that sanctions in Member States be devised in such a way as to be effective, dissuasive (more than offsetting the benefits) and proportionate, based on a comprehensive approach and incorporated into the legal framework of each Member State. It also recommends that a minimum framework of sanctions and administrative measures be adopted, to be defined for the whole of the EU, which each Member State could strengthen by means of its own legislation, adapting the sanctions to its own specific economic and social situation in this context, these financial penalties must be at least greater than the profits derived from the illegal activity. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the EESC recommends that sanctions in Member States be devised in such a way as to be effective, dissuasive (more than offsetting the benefits) and proportionate, based on a comprehensive approach and incorporated into the legal framework of each Member State. It also recommends that a minimum framework of sanctions and administrative measures be adopted, to be defined for the whole of the EU, which each Member State could strengthen by means of its own legislation, adapting the sanctions to its own specific economic and social situation in this context, these financial penalties must be at least greater than the profits derived from the illegal activity.

| 1.6. | As regards measures to protect the rights of irregular migrants, the EESC supports the Commission’s undertakings and recommendations to the Member States and proposes the following:






  (i) | on Commission cooperation with Member States:






  — | the EESC recommends that the Commission step up its dialogue with Member States to ensure that the administrative procedures developed by public authorities in the Member States are as effective as possible; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.

(i)

on Commission cooperation with Member States:

—

the EESC recommends that the Commission step up its dialogue with Member States to ensure that the administrative procedures developed by public authorities in the Member States are as effective as possible;

| (ii) | on migrants’ cooperation with the authorities in efforts to tackle irregular work:






  — | the EESC recommends to the Commission and Member States that migrants who work with the authorities to combat employers of illegally staying third-country workers be granted access to regular residence and work permits as a means of motivating them to engage actively with the authorities of the host country; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(ii)

on migrants’ cooperation with the authorities in efforts to tackle irregular work:

—

the EESC recommends to the Commission and Member States that migrants who work with the authorities to combat employers of illegally staying third-country workers be granted access to regular residence and work permits as a means of motivating them to engage actively with the authorities of the host country;

| (iii) | on the role of trade unions, business associations and civil society organisations:






  — | the EESC recommends to the Commission that these organisations be granted access to specific EU programmes in support of activities for providing information, advice, legal and financial assistance, and training, amongst other things, as a concrete way for them to pursue and improve their action in this area; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(iii)

on the role of trade unions, business associations and civil society organisations:

—

the EESC recommends to the Commission that these organisations be granted access to specific EU programmes in support of activities for providing information, advice, legal and financial assistance, and training, amongst other things, as a concrete way for them to pursue and improve their action in this area;

| — | the EESC calls for the co-financing requirement in specific EU programmes to be exceptionally reconsidered in the light of the pandemic and capital difficulties. |
| --- | --- |

—

the EESC calls for the co-financing requirement in specific EU programmes to be exceptionally reconsidered in the light of the pandemic and capital difficulties.

| (iv) | The EESC recommends to the Member States that they:






  — | allocate the necessary resources to the labour inspectorates so that they are able to carry out their tasks properly, particularly by stepping up inspections in the sectors where there is the greatest risk, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(iv)

The EESC recommends to the Member States that they:

—

allocate the necessary resources to the labour inspectorates so that they are able to carry out their tasks properly, particularly by stepping up inspections in the sectors where there is the greatest risk,

| — | use all available means, especially social and audiovisual media, to carry out information and awareness-raising campaigns, both for businesspeople who employ irregular migrants from third countries, informing them of the risks involved in hiring people under such conditions, and for the workers themselves, informing them, in several languages, of their rights and the way they can exercise them. In these campaigns, trade unions, business associations and civil society organisations must have a dedicated medium for conveying their messages, |
| --- | --- |

—

use all available means, especially social and audiovisual media, to carry out information and awareness-raising campaigns, both for businesspeople who employ irregular migrants from third countries, informing them of the risks involved in hiring people under such conditions, and for the workers themselves, informing them, in several languages, of their rights and the way they can exercise them. In these campaigns, trade unions, business associations and civil society organisations must have a dedicated medium for conveying their messages,

| — | set up a telephone line where immigrants can anonymously report exploitative practices and other malpractices by their employers. |
| --- | --- |

—

set up a telephone line where immigrants can anonymously report exploitative practices and other malpractices by their employers.

| 1.7. | On inspections, the EESC supports the Commission’s undertakings and recommendations to the Member States and proposes:






  (i) | that Member States:






  — | establish monitoring strategies targeting risk sectors as a matter of priority, increase the number of labour inspectors and improve the effectiveness of inspections, |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.

(i)

that Member States:

—

establish monitoring strategies targeting risk sectors as a matter of priority, increase the number of labour inspectors and improve the effectiveness of inspections,

| — | implement International Labour Organization (ILO) recommendations or standards on the ratio of labour inspectors to workers, namely one inspector for every 10 000 workers, as a way of allocating sufficient human resources to labour inspectorates for them to carry out their tasks, |
| --- | --- |

—

implement International Labour Organization (ILO) recommendations or standards on the ratio of labour inspectors to workers, namely one inspector for every 10 000 workers, as a way of allocating sufficient human resources to labour inspectorates for them to carry out their tasks,

| — | stipulate in inspection strategies that inspections will not be carried out in conjunction with migration authorities and that it is not the duty of labour inspectors to report irregular migrants to the authorities if they are encountered in the workplaces inspected, |
| --- | --- |

—

stipulate in inspection strategies that inspections will not be carried out in conjunction with migration authorities and that it is not the duty of labour inspectors to report irregular migrants to the authorities if they are encountered in the workplaces inspected,

| — | ensure that, in those Member States where the social partners already play a role in inspections, this role continues to be respected, |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that, in those Member States where the social partners already play a role in inspections, this role continues to be respected,

| — | give trade unions and employers’ organisations the opportunity to participate in inspection activities, in line with existing national practices, but respecting ILO standards particularly in collecting and sharing information; |
| --- | --- |

—

give trade unions and employers’ organisations the opportunity to participate in inspection activities, in line with existing national practices, but respecting ILO standards particularly in collecting and sharing information;

| (ii) | that the Commission:






  — | encourage Member States to have a sufficient number of labour inspectors relative to the number of workers in each Member State by 2024 (expected date for the next evaluation report) (3) in line with convention No 81, in the event that they not do so, consider legislation to implement this international standard in the EU; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(ii)

that the Commission:

—

encourage Member States to have a sufficient number of labour inspectors relative to the number of workers in each Member State by 2024 (expected date for the next evaluation report) (3) in line with convention No 81, in the event that they not do so, consider legislation to implement this international standard in the EU;

| (iii) | regarding the involvement of the European Labour Authority (ELA) in inspections, that the Commission and the Member States:






  — | involve the ELA more in European inspections, in keeping with its rules of operation, since many chains for the hiring and subcontracting of irregular migrant workers have already been identified as operating at European level, which requires the same level of inspection. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(iii)

regarding the involvement of the European Labour Authority (ELA) in inspections, that the Commission and the Member States:

—

involve the ELA more in European inspections, in keeping with its rules of operation, since many chains for the hiring and subcontracting of irregular migrant workers have already been identified as operating at European level, which requires the same level of inspection.

| 1.8. | Regarding the significant gaps in information, the EESC welcomes the initiative the Commission has taken, with the support of the European Migration Network (EMN), to set up an IT reporting system and database to provide timely, regular and comparable information, with a view to overcoming the current enormous difficulties. The EESC does, however, propose that the Commission stipulate in the relevant legislation that this database may not be used by Member States’ immigration services for the purpose of identifying irregular workers and returning them to their countries of origin as a consequence. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

2.   Objectives of the Communication

| 2.1. | The Communication adopted by the Commission, which is the subject of this EESC opinion, aims to strengthen implementation of Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and is part of the more general approach of the New Deal on Migration and Asylum. The Commission will assess ways to enhance the effectiveness of the Directive and the need for additional measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | This Communication also fulfils the obligation to report regularly to the European Parliament and the Council, laid down in Article 16 of the Directive. It identifies the measures needed to boost implementation of the Directive, focusing on the following strands of action:






  — | sanctions against employers (section 2); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.2.

—

sanctions against employers (section 2);

| — | measures for protecting the rights of irregular migrants (section 3); |
| --- | --- |

—

measures for protecting the rights of irregular migrants (section 3);

| — | inspections (section 4); |
| --- | --- |

—

inspections (section 4);

| — | significant gaps in information (section 5); |
| --- | --- |

—

significant gaps in information (section 5);

| — | stepping up EU action against illegal employment (section 6). |
| --- | --- |

—

stepping up EU action against illegal employment (section 6).

| 2.3. | This opinion addresses the key aspects relating to each of these sections. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The EESC notes that ‘it is difficult to estimate the size of illegal employment in the EU because it is a “hidden” phenomenon [...]. There are indications that illegal employment of irregular migrants is higher where the share of informal economic activity is high. Although informal employment is estimated to stand at 16,8 % of all employment in the EU on average, the extent of illegal employment of irregular migrants is ever harder to quantify, in particular as regards the gender specific and child sensitive aspects, since irregular migration remains difficult to estimate’ (5). The nature and extent of irregular employment varies between Member States. Improving the availability of up-to-date and precise data is one of the main challenges for better understanding and tackling this issue. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC shares the Commission’s view that ‘undocumented workers may often be employed through complex employment relationships involving sub-contracting arrangements, recruiters and temporary work agencies, as well as through online platforms providing short-term work (e.g. food and meal delivery, transport services), which increases the difficulty in identifying employers who hire irregular migrants. In this regard, the liability of the entire chain of employers is intended to protect migrants especially in those economic sectors where subcontracting is widespread, such as construction, as well as in the newly emerged economic area of online platform work’ (6). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC points out that in some cases extreme and protracted violation of human rights and the rule of law may be linked to other criminal activities and state negligence, as indicated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) landmark judgment of 2017[1], which recognised the severe labour exploitation of migrant workers in strawberry fields in Nea Manolada, Greece, as being forced labour, specifying that exploitation through labour is an aspect of human trafficking (7). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | In its opinions to date, the EESC has highlighted the need for simultaneous action to be taken to create opportunities for legal immigration and to deal with the causes of irregular immigration. In particular, in its earlier own-initiative opinion on the proposal for a Directive providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals, the EESC expressed ‘some doubts about the proposed directive’s content, the time frame in which the proposal [was] made, and the order in which the legislative proposals [were] put forward’. It also stressed ‘the importance of effective implementation of the directive in Member States, whose task will not be an easy one because the monitoring bodies do not have enough qualified staff, there are difficulties in dividing up responsibilities between the bodies concerned and there are a large number of companies for which monitoring is envisaged’. ‘The strength of the directive should be in its actual implementation’, it concluded. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | Despite the positive elements contained in the Communication, after 12 years of the Directive being in force, the EESC has serious doubts as to whether this is the right means for combating the exploitation of irregular migrant workers and of legalising their status in host countries. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC also considers that the Employers’ Sanctions Directive on its own is not sufficient to promote legal migration pathways or overcome irregular immigration. A more comprehensive approach is needed, aimed at linking the various EU policy provisions on legal migration with national efforts to tackle undeclared work. It must be made easier for businesses to employ properly regularised migrants, and the rules should be simpler, clearer and not overly bureaucratic. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

4.   Specific comments on sanctions against employers

| 4.1. | The EESC considers it extremely important that the Directive stipulate that financial and criminal sanctions be effective, proportionate and dissuasive in order to reduce employers’ incentives to hire irregular migrants. Sanctions should considerably offset the economic gains of hiring irregular migrants (8). |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | Likewise, the EESC highlights the additional administrative measures against employers provided for in the Directive, such as loss of public benefits, exclusion from public contracts, recovery of public subsidies, temporary or permanent closure of establishments and withdrawal of licences to operate. It condemns the fact that these measures remain very much under-used, despite their potential to dissuade employers from hiring irregular migrants (9). |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | There are substantial differences between Member States in the size of the financial penalties and criminal sanctions imposed (e.g. financial penalties vary from EUR 3 000 to EUR 43 000 and prison sentences vary from 8 days to 12 years) (10). However, it would be important to have an overview of the combination of different sanctions applied in Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The EESC highlights the fact that Member States with a more stringent sanctioning system consider that higher financial sanctions are a good deterrent to illegal employment, whereas Member States applying lower sanctions or where the risk of sanctions is considered low in comparison to the potential profits from illegal employment have found that the sanctions are not a sufficient deterrent. It is significant that eleven Member States have changed their legislation since 2014 to increase the fine imposed (11). |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | While the EESC understands that the ‘difference in the level of fines applied in the Member States depends on a variety of elements, such as the economic situation and the level of minimum wage in a Member State’, as referred to in the Communication, it does not consider that this warrants sanctions not constituting a deterrent. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | The EESC deems it unacceptable that there should be a significant gap in the information that Member States provide concerning the application of criminal sanctions against employers and the number of proceedings launched. Nevertheless, the available data point to the fact that the Directive has had limited impact in deterring illegal employment through sanctions; this leads the EESC to condemn the fact that it has not yet been possible to establish an efficient framework for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions across the EU (12). |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | The EESC notes and emphasises the feedback provided by stakeholders representing trade unions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), collected during dedicated targeted consultations on the topic, shows that sanctions for exploitative employers appear to be lower than the benefits gained through undeclared work and social dumping (13). However, the employers’ assessment of the situation is that the sanctions are sufficiently robust and it is important to make enforcement of sanctions more effective and proportionate in the implementation of the Directive by each Member State. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

5.   Specific comments on measures for protecting the rights of irregular migrants

| 5.1. | Articles 6(2) and 13 of the Directive grant irregular migrants a set of rights to ensure that they are adequately informed and can lodge complaints against labour violations and claim back unpaid wages. These are key provisions to protect migrants from the risk of exploitation and abuse (14). |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | The EESC takes note of and shares the Commission’s views and analyses in this domain, particularly the following:






  (i) | further efforts are still needed as regards implementation of protective elements, particularly in relation to access to information, access to justice and recovery of back payments, and the granting of temporary residence (15); |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.2.

(i)

further efforts are still needed as regards implementation of protective elements, particularly in relation to access to information, access to justice and recovery of back payments, and the granting of temporary residence (15);

| (ii) | a majority of Member States only provide general information on employees’ rights, not targeted information that is relevant for the specific situation of irregular migrant workers; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

a majority of Member States only provide general information on employees’ rights, not targeted information that is relevant for the specific situation of irregular migrant workers;

| (iii) | the cooperation of public authorities with social partners and non-governmental organisations is key to facilitating complaints, as they often have direct contact with the workers and can raise awareness, inform migrants of their rights, build mutual trust and help the workers identify situations of undeclared work and labour exploitation in order to file a complaint. The role of social partners and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is also very important to facilitate complaints, expose situations of exploitation and reduce migrants’ fear of being subject to return procedures if detected by migration authorities. In a large majority of Member States the law grants an important role to these stakeholders, notably trade unions, within the national mechanism for facilitating lodging of complaints (16); |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

the cooperation of public authorities with social partners and non-governmental organisations is key to facilitating complaints, as they often have direct contact with the workers and can raise awareness, inform migrants of their rights, build mutual trust and help the workers identify situations of undeclared work and labour exploitation in order to file a complaint. The role of social partners and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is also very important to facilitate complaints, expose situations of exploitation and reduce migrants’ fear of being subject to return procedures if detected by migration authorities. In a large majority of Member States the law grants an important role to these stakeholders, notably trade unions, within the national mechanism for facilitating lodging of complaints (16);

| (iv) | irregular migrants who have experienced labour exploitation face challenges in accessing residence permit procedures or in the conditions on granting the permits. Stakeholders report that victims face a lack of access to information and legal advice on the availability of permits and on how to apply or request consideration, on the granting of permits often being linked to criminal charges against particular employers, and on the permit being conditional on victims’ participation in criminal proceedings, although this is not required by the Directive (17); |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

irregular migrants who have experienced labour exploitation face challenges in accessing residence permit procedures or in the conditions on granting the permits. Stakeholders report that victims face a lack of access to information and legal advice on the availability of permits and on how to apply or request consideration, on the granting of permits often being linked to criminal charges against particular employers, and on the permit being conditional on victims’ participation in criminal proceedings, although this is not required by the Directive (17);

| (v) | the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) has indicated that, in some Member States, migrants in an irregular situation are not using existing complaint systems. This may be for a number of reasons: a lack of incentives for workers to lodge complaints; limited information on their rights and the available complaint mechanism; economic barriers such as membership fees to trade unions that assist members only; and, mostly, fear of being detected, detained and returned (18); |
| --- | --- |

(v)

the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) has indicated that, in some Member States, migrants in an irregular situation are not using existing complaint systems. This may be for a number of reasons: a lack of incentives for workers to lodge complaints; limited information on their rights and the available complaint mechanism; economic barriers such as membership fees to trade unions that assist members only; and, mostly, fear of being detected, detained and returned (18);

| (vi) | social partners and NGOs also play a central role in promoting and implementing the protective measures of the Directive and increasing their outreach to irregular migrants. The Commission will strengthen dialogue with the social partners and non-governmental organisations representing undocumented workers and engage with the European Platform tackling undeclared work when developing these activities. |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

social partners and NGOs also play a central role in promoting and implementing the protective measures of the Directive and increasing their outreach to irregular migrants. The Commission will strengthen dialogue with the social partners and non-governmental organisations representing undocumented workers and engage with the European Platform tackling undeclared work when developing these activities.

| 5.3. | The EESC warns that irregular migrant workers — even when informed of their rights by trade unions, civil society organisations or public service bodies — may not file complaints against employers with a view to recovering unpaid wages or may not denounce possible situations of exploitation, for fear of being ordered to return, of losing their income or, in some cases, of being subject to retaliation from their employers. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

6.   Specific comments on inspections

| 6.1. | The EESC shares the Commission’s viewpoint that inspections are the most important tools for detecting employers hiring irregular migrants and situations of exploitation. It is on the basis of the results of inspections that employers can be held accountable and sanctioned, and the necessary measures put in place to protect irregular migrant workers subject to exploitation. Article 13(1) of the Directive requires Member States to ensure effective and adequate inspections based on risk assessments identifying the sectors of activity at most risk, without which it is impossible to achieve the objectives of the Directive (19). The EESC also stresses that, in addition to ensuring effective inspections, other problems associated with the employment of irregular staying third-country nationals must also be addressed. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.2. | It is surprised to note that nowhere in the Communication is there reference to the European Labour Authority (ELA) as regards its involvement in European inspections, given that, as we know, many chains for the hiring and subcontracting of irregular migrant workers have already been identified as operating at European level, which requires the same level of inspection. The EESC believes that this should change. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

| 6.3. | The EESC fully supports the Commission’s conclusions on inspections, in particular the following:






  (i) | the number of inspections carried out under the current system is unlikely to dissuade employers from hiring irregular migrants. The share of employers subject to inspections tends to be very low; consequently employers may consider the economic advantage gained from illegal employment to be higher than the likelihood of being detected through inspections (20); |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.

(i)

the number of inspections carried out under the current system is unlikely to dissuade employers from hiring irregular migrants. The share of employers subject to inspections tends to be very low; consequently employers may consider the economic advantage gained from illegal employment to be higher than the likelihood of being detected through inspections (20);

| (ii) | Member States and other stakeholders report that labour inspection authorities are often understaffed and lack resources, affecting the number and frequency of inspections carried out (21); |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Member States and other stakeholders report that labour inspection authorities are often understaffed and lack resources, affecting the number and frequency of inspections carried out (21);

| (iii) | stakeholders promote the idea of separating labour inspections and law enforcement/immigration activities by means of a ‘firewall’, which would guarantee that irregular migrants detected during inspections would not be referred to immigration authorities for return procedures (22). |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

stakeholders promote the idea of separating labour inspections and law enforcement/immigration activities by means of a ‘firewall’, which would guarantee that irregular migrants detected during inspections would not be referred to immigration authorities for return procedures (22).

| 6.4. | In this connection, the EESC deems it to be unacceptable that in several Member States inspections are not focused on risk sectors, a situation that does not respond to the requirement of the Directive (23). In the majority of Member States, the most common risk sectors are agriculture, construction, manufacturing, domestic care and social assistance, hospitality and food services. |
| --- | --- |

6.4.

| 6.5. | The EESC highlights the FRA’s observation that inspections conducted jointly by labour authorities and anti-trafficking units or other specialised units trained to deal with labour exploitation might help identify migrants who are victims of labour exploitation or human trafficking (24). |
| --- | --- |

6.5.

| 6.6. | Regarding the FRA’s opinion on this, the EESC emphasises, however, that stakeholders working in the field highlight the fact that exploited workers are discouraged from reporting their situation during inspections due to the risk of apprehension and return, in particular when inspections are carried out jointly by labour inspection and police/immigration authorities. |
| --- | --- |

6.6.

7.   Specific comments on the significant gaps in information

| 7.1. | The Directive requires that Member States communicate annually to the Commission on the number of inspections and their results, on the back payments made by employers, on the other measures applied and on the facilitation of complaints. This information is key to assessing how the measures of the Directive are implemented and their consequences. Member States provide very limited and uneven information, leading to significant data gaps on inspections and their results (25). |
| --- | --- |

7.1.

| 7.2. | The lack of reliable and complete information makes it difficult to assess in a conclusive manner whether the Directive has had an impact in deterring and reducing illegal employment and whether criminal sanctions in the Member States are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Improved collection of information would contribute to a more effective enforcement strategy at both national and EU level (26). |
| --- | --- |

7.2.

| 7.3. | The EESC welcomes the initiative the Commission has taken, with the support of the European Migration Network (EMN), to set up an IT reporting system and database to provide timely, regular and comparable information (27). The EMN can also be a useful vehicle for organising opportunities for mutual learning and exchanges of practices between Member States and relevant stakeholders. |
| --- | --- |

7.3.

| 7.4. | The EESC believes that this database ought to comply with the rules of the General Data Protection Regulation and that it should not be allowed to be used by Member States’ immigration services for the purpose of identifying irregular workers and returning them to their countries of origin as a consequence. |
| --- | --- |

7.4.

8.   Specific comments on moves to step up action against illegal employment

| 8.1. | The EESC fully supports the following stances and intentions of the Commission as set out in this Communication: |
| --- | --- |

8.1.

| 8.1.1. | to counter irregular migration, the EU needs to address all the facets of this phenomenon through a comprehensive approach, as indicated by the New Pact. In addition to addressing the root causes of migration, relaunching the fight against migrant smugglers in partnership with third countries and stepping up the opening of legal pathways to the EU, the EU also needs to enhance its response to illegal employment, as a driver of irregular migration and a source of exploitation and abuse. To this end, it is necessary to ensure more effective implementation and enforcement of the Directive, the most important tool at our disposal whose potential is still to be fully exploited (28); |
| --- | --- |

8.1.1.

| 8.1.2. | while supporting Member States in their implementation efforts, the Commission will also continuously monitor implementation of the Directive and focus on its effective enforcement. Upon adoption of this Communication, the Commission will engage with the relevant authorities of the Member States to obtain additional information on implementation of the key obligations on sanctions, inspections and protection of migrants’ rights stemming from the Directive with the aim of identifying possible solutions. Where appropriate, the Commission will launch infringement procedures (29); |
| --- | --- |

8.1.2.

| 8.1.3. | by the end of 2022, the Commission will implement the measures presented in this Communication and report on the results achieved in the next implementation report due in 2024 at the latest. In light of the progress achieved through the recommendations presented in the Communication and renewed implementation and enforcement efforts, and taking into account possible developments in the area of illegal employment and whether the Directive is still fit to respond to them, the Commission will then consider whether it is necessary to amend the existing legal framework (30). |
| --- | --- |

8.1.3.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  Communication COM(2021) 592 final, p. 1.

1

(2)  See COM(2021) 592 final, point 1.

2

(3)  See COM(2021) 592 final, point 6.

3

(4)  Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 168, 30.6.2009, p. 24).

4

(5)  Communication COM(2021) 592 final, Introduction.

5

(6)  See COM(2021) 592 final, point 2.3.

6

(7)  Chowdury and Others v. Greece. The terrible conditions in Manolada attracted attention in 2013, when the supervisors of the farm opened fire on workers who were protesting about wage arrears, seriously injuring 30 Bangladeshi workers.

7

(8)  See COM(2021) 592 final, point 2.

8

(9)  See COM(2021) 592 final, point 2.3.

9

(10)  COM(2021) 592 final, points 2.1 and 2.2.

10

(11)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 2.1.

11

(12)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 2.2.

12

(13)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 2.2.

13

(14)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 3.

14

(15)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 3.

15

(16)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 3.2.

16

(17)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 3.2.

17

(18)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 3.2.

18

(19)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 4.1.

19

(20)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 4.1.

20

(21)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 4.1.

21

(22)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 4.1.

22

(23)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 4.1.

23

(24)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 4.1.

24

(25)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 5.

25

(26)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 5.

26

(27)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 5.

27

(28)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 6.

28

(29)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 6.

29

(30)  COM(2021) 592 final, point 6.

30

---

ANNEX

The following amendment, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, was rejected during the discussions (Rule 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure):

AMENDMENT 5

SOC/705 — Sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals

Point 1.7 (i), third bullet point

Amend as follows:

| Section opinion | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| — | stipulate in inspection strategies that inspections will not be carried out in conjunction with migration authorities and that it is not the duty of labour inspectors to report
  irregular migrants
  to the authorities if they are encountered in the workplaces inspected, |

Section opinion

Amendment

—

stipulate in inspection strategies that inspections will not be carried out in conjunction with migration authorities and that it is not the duty of labour inspectors to report
  irregular migrants
  to the authorities if they are encountered in the workplaces inspected,

| — | call for clarification of the inspection strategy of labour inspectors and their professional responsibility to report
  irregular migrants.
  The EESC notes that joint inspections carried out by labour inspectors and migration authorities are often intended to enforce immigration rules. It must be acknowledged that these inspections may discourage workers being exploited from speaking up about their circumstances during an inspection. The EESC therefore calls for a clear definition of the strategy followed by labour inspectors and their legal obligations, |
| --- | --- |

—

call for clarification of the inspection strategy of labour inspectors and their professional responsibility to report
  irregular migrants.
  The EESC notes that joint inspections carried out by labour inspectors and migration authorities are often intended to enforce immigration rules. It must be acknowledged that these inspections may discourage workers being exploited from speaking up about their circumstances during an inspection. The EESC therefore calls for a clear definition of the strategy followed by labour inspectors and their legal obligations,

Reason

The amendment aims to clarify the role of inspectors and to emphasise that as part of their professional obligations, they are required to report irregular migrants to the authorities if they are encountered in the workplaces inspected, while acknowledging that joint inspections may dissuade workers being exploited from speaking up about their circumstances at that time. The strategy followed by labour inspectors needs to be clarified.

Outcome of the vote:

| In favour: | 48 |
| --- | --- |
| Against: | 70 |
| Abstention: | 16 |

In favour:

48

Against:

70

Abstention:

16

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/90

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A renewed EU action plan against migrant smuggling (2021-2025)

(COM(2021) 591 final)

(2022/C 290/15)

| Rapporteur: | José Antonio MORENO DÍAZ |
| --- | --- |
| Co-rapporteur: | Pietro Vittorio BARBIERI |

Rapporteur:

José Antonio MORENO DÍAZ

Co-rapporteur:

Pietro Vittorio BARBIERI

| Referral | European Commission, 1.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 7.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 212/0/5 |

Referral

European Commission, 1.12.2021

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

7.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

212/0/5

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | Migrant smuggling is a cross-border criminal activity that puts people’s lives at risk, violates fundamental rights, and disrupts the orderly management of migration flows. In the last 20 years, human smuggling has grown as a result of multiple factors of expulsion in countries of origin (human rights violations, violence, conflicts, inequalities, economic factors, environmental factors, etc.), but also due to the lack of legal means of accessing the territories of many countries. Restrictions, which have increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, have increased the number of people using these illicit networks, with all the risks that this entails. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | Since its inception, European migration policy has aimed, among other things, at combatting this criminal activity, preventing the exploitation of migrants by criminal networks, and reducing incentives for irregular migration. The renewed EU Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling (2021-2025) should be understood as a tool of continuity and improvement in the European Union’s fight against this criminal activity. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | According to Europol, more than 90 % of persons entering the European Union irregularly have travelled via smuggling networks at some stage of their journey. In the framework of the fight against migrant smuggling, the European Union considers it a priority to work with partner countries to reduce the incentives to undertake these dangerous journeys; to address the root causes of irregular migration; to promote regular migration and legal and safe routes to European Union countries; to strengthen the management of common borders; to address pull factors, such as irregular jobs; and to facilitate return and reintegration for those persons who find themselves in an irregular situation on EU territory. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC welcomes the renewed EU action plan and the comprehensive approach it proposes, as the continuation of the European Union’s work to combat migrant smuggling. It is understood that, as a criminal activity, smuggling puts the lives of migrants at risk and violates their rights, takes undue advantage of people seeking access to EU territory, and is also a threat to European security. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC understands that safeguarding external borders is a priority for the European Union, but points out that they must always be protected with respect for human rights and the inviolability of public international law, always protecting people and avoiding the criminalisation of solidarity. In any case, the fight against migrant smuggling can never be directed against the migrants themselves or against humanitarian aid and assistance to them. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC considers it essential to combat migrant smuggling by means of a ‘whole-of-route’ approach. That means strengthening the proposed measures against smuggling networks by improving judicial and police cooperation; improving cooperation and dialogue with neighbouring countries in the fight against smuggling networks; strengthening actions to prevent exploitation and ensure the protection of smuggled persons; and combatting irregular employment and labour exploitation in a more coordinated and forceful manner. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC agrees with the need to eliminate demand in order to target the profits of human smuggling networks. However, it warns of the dysfunctions that can arise from addressing only the supply side (networks). In this regard, it points out that the existence of legal, effective and safe channels, as well as the protection of the right to asylum, are key to deactivating a large part of this illicit business. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC also strongly condemns the instrumentalisation of migrants and asylum seekers as elements of EU destabilisation (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC points out that protecting people and providing medical care (2) and solidarity aid should not be criminalised and treated in the same way as smuggling networks and should only be prosecuted when committed intentionally and in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit (3). The clause of obligatory exemption from liability must be expressly included if there have been humanitarian motives in aid or assistance actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

2.   General comments

| 2.1. | Migrant smuggling is a cross-border criminal activity that puts people’s lives at risk, violates fundamental rights, and disrupts the orderly management of migration flows. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | In the last 20 years, human smuggling has grown as a result of multiple factors of expulsion in countries of origin (human rights violations, violence, conflicts, inequalities, economic factors, environmental factors, etc.), but also due to the lack of legal means of accessing the territories of many countries. Restrictions, which have increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, have increased the number of people using these illicit networks, with all the risks that this entails (4). |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The main difference between migrant smuggling and human trafficking is that, in the former, migrants voluntarily participate in the migration process by paying for the services of a smuggler to cross an international border; in trafficking, people are trafficked for labour, sexual or organ removal purposes, and are victims in need of assistance and support. Trafficking activities are not necessarily cross-border. The two phenomena are often interrelated, as smuggled persons may become victims of traffickers for labour, sexual or other types of exploitation. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | Since its inception, European migration policy has aimed, among other things, at combatting this criminal activity, preventing the exploitation of migrants by criminal networks, and reducing incentives for irregular migration. In the Pact on Migration and Asylum presented by the European Commission in 2020, it is noted that the fight against migrant smuggling is a priority, and that ‘cooperation with countries of origin and transit will be strengthened in order to prevent dangerous journeys and irregular crossings, in particular by establishing with third countries specific partnerships against migrant smuggling’. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | According to Europol, more than 90 % of persons entering the European Union irregularly have travelled via smuggling networks at some stage of their journey. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | The renewed EU Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling (2021-2025) should be understood as a tool of continuity in the European Union’s fight against this criminal activity. Migrant smuggling must be seen not only as a migration challenge, but also a security threat which affects the EU’s external borders. Appropriate management and protection of the EU’s external borders, respecting the international legal framework and fundamental rights, is a key issue. The EU needs to strengthen common standards and procedures, in a way that respects human rights and international standards, in order to prevent migrant smuggling to the EU. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | In the framework of the fight against migrant smuggling, the European Union considers it a priority to work with partner countries to reduce the incentives to undertake these dangerous journeys; to address the various root causes of irregular migration; to promote regular migration and legal and safe routes to European Union countries; to strengthen the management of common borders; and to facilitate return and reintegration for those persons who find themselves in an irregular situation on European territory (5). |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | The fight against human smuggling also involves strengthening the application of the Employer Sanctions Directive (6), and understanding that irregular work is an element of attraction for irregular migration and that it may be linked to the smuggling of migrants: it must be remembered that if there are foreign workers in an irregular situation in the EU, it is because there are irregular employers who provide them with illegal work that does not comply with the minimum working conditions regarding salary, working hours, health and safety conditions, etc. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

| 2.9. | The renewed EU Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling (2021-2025) takes into account the results of targeted consultations and a public consultation that took place between 19 March and 11 June 2021. By contributing to the disruption of criminal businesses, it also supports the objectives of the EU Strategy for a Security Union (7), as well as the EU Strategy to Combat Organised Crime 2021-2025 (8) and the EU Strategy to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings 2021-2025 (9). |
| --- | --- |

2.9.

3.   Comments on the renewed EU Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling (2021-2025)

| 3.1. | The EESC welcomes the renewed EU action plan and the comprehensive approach it proposes, as the continuation of the European Union’s work to combat migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | It is understood that, as a criminal activity, smuggling puts the lives of migrants at risk and violates their rights, and also takes undue advantage of people seeking access to EU territory. The EESC therefore believes that the necessary mechanisms and tools should be put in place to combat this criminal activity. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC understands that safeguarding external borders is also a priority for the European Union, but points out that they must always be protected with respect for human rights and the inviolability of public international law, always protecting people and avoiding the criminalisation of solidarity. In any case, the fight against migrant smuggling can never be directed against the migrants themselves or against humanitarian aid and assistance to them nor be an excuse to abolish the right of asylum both in the EU and internationally. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | Protecting people and providing medical care (10) and solidarity aid should not be criminalised and treated in the same way as smuggling networks and should only be prosecuted when committed intentionally and in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit (11). The clause of obligatory exemption from liability must be expressly included if there have been humanitarian motives in aid or assistance actions. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The EESC considers it essential to combat migrant smuggling by means of a ‘whole-of-route’ approach, and to understand that the lack of legal and safe routes is one of the reasons why smuggling networks are able to flourish. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC also considers that irregular work can be linked to human smuggling networks, which often end up in situations of labour exploitation. The EESC therefore believes that efforts should be made to improve the implementation of the Employer Sanctions Directive and to combat irregular employment and labour exploitation in a more coordinated and forceful manner. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | The EESC considers it necessary to strengthen the proposed measures against smuggling networks by improving judicial and police cooperation, supporting the work of the European Multidisciplinary Platform against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) and Eurojust, and improving information gathering and information campaigns on the risks of migrant smuggling at source. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The EESC welcomes the fact that this integrated approach also involves improving cooperation and dialogue with neighbouring countries in the fight against smuggling networks, but warns against the danger of negatively impacting cooperation relations with these countries, which could end up strengthening smuggling networks by making spurious use of concepts such as return and reintegration. In this regard, it should be noted that the Commission communication correctly points out the growing role that state actors play in artificially creating and facilitating irregular immigration to promote the destabilisation of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The EESC considers it essential to strengthen actions to prevent exploitation and ensure the protection of smuggled persons. In this regard, it considers it necessary to develop pilot actions according to the whole-of-route approach, in which administrations and social actors from origin, transit and destination countries participate. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | The EESC considers the development of operational anti-smuggling partnerships with third countries to be of interest, but points out that these agreements must not violate the guiding principles of the European Union, nor must they be agreed with countries where there are systematic human rights violations. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The EESC considers that the renewed EU Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling (2021-2025) succeeds in identifying the risks posed by this criminal activity and the speed with which smuggling networks adapt to circumstances and use new technologies to their greatest advantage. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | The EESC agrees with the need to eliminate demand in order to target the profits of human smuggling networks, as set out in the renewed action plan. However, it warns of the dysfunctions that can arise from addressing only the supply side (networks) without understanding the need for structural reforms to reduce demand. In this regard, it points out that the existence of legal, effective and safe channels, as well as the protection of the right to asylum, are key to deactivating a large part of this illicit business. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

| 3.13. | The EESC is concerned that improving the prevention of smuggling — an objective that it shares — could constitute a violation of the mechanisms for assisting vulnerable migrants. It highlights the fact that in recent months there has been an increase in actions by parties and governments to criminalise acts of solidarity. The EESC points out that protecting vulnerable people and providing medical care (12) and solidarity aid should not be criminalised and treated in the same way as smuggling networks (13). |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

| 3.14. | The EESC considers that special attention should be paid to the victims of smuggling, especially those who are more vulnerable, such as (unaccompanied) minors (14), disabled people and women (15). The Committee urges the European Commission to draw up a Directive on the protection of unaccompanied minors that would serve the best interests of the child. Furthermore, the role of civil society actors, social entities and NGOs in helping and supporting victims of smuggling should be recognised as humanitarian actions to reinforce the EU principles. |
| --- | --- |

3.14.

| 3.15. | The EESC acknowledges that the plan is also relevant and clearly addresses the current problems of instrumentalised migration, when the direct involvement of state actors is evident. The EESC, like the European Council (16), also strongly condemns the instrumentalisation of migrants and asylum seekers as elements of destabilisation, as has recently been seen at the borders with Morocco and, in particular, Belarus (17). |
| --- | --- |

3.15.

| 3.16. | The EESC points out that the Member States are always obliged to comply with international commitments, including the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 New York Protocol governing the right to asylum, in addition to the entire EU legislative framework. |
| --- | --- |

3.16.

| 3.17. | The configuration of migration as a threat, and the discourse that presents migrants as a danger, dehumanise human beings and only favour those who want to take advantage of them for geostrategic or national political reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.17.

| 3.18. | The EESC regrets that the fight against migrant smuggling is of greater concern than the fight against trafficking in human beings, which remains the most lucrative criminal activity and represents not only a violation of human rights, but also a real threat to national security, economic growth and sustainable development (18). |
| --- | --- |

3.18.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  Forthcoming EESC opinion REX 554.

1

(2)  CPME statement on criminalisation of acts of solidarity. See also the European Parliament report (2019): Fit for purpose? The Facilitation Directive and the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance to irregular migrants: 2018 update.

2

(3)  Article 6 UN Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

3

(4)  Global Initiative (2021), The Global Illicit Economy.

4

(5)  OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 86.

5

(6)  Directive 2009/52/EC.

6

(7)  COM(2020) 605 final.

7

(8)  COM(2021) 170 final.

8

(9)  COM(2021) 171 final.

9

(10)  CPME statement on criminalisation of acts of solidarity. See also the European Parliament report (2019): Fit for purpose? The Facilitation Directive and the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance to irregular migrants: 2018 update.

10

(11)  Article 6 UN Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

11

(12)  CPME statement on criminalisation of acts of solidarity. See also the European Parliament report (2019) Fit for purpose? The Facilitation Directive and the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance to irregular migrants: 2018 update.

12

(13)  Expert Council on NGO Law of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe: Using criminal law to restrict the work of NGOs supporting refugees and other migrants in Council of Europe Member States (2019).

13

(14)  OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 24.

14

(15)  Objective 9 of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants. Also point 25(c): Develop gender-responsive and child-sensitive cooperation protocols along migration routes that outline step-by-step measures to adequately identify and assist smuggled migrants.

15

(16)  JOIN(2021) 32 final, Responding to state-sponsored instrumentalisation of migrants at the EU external border.

16

(17)  https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/news-media/presentations/eesc-expresses-its-concern-about-situation-border-belarus

17

(18)  Bigio, J., & Vogelstein, R. B. (2021), Ending Human Trafficking in the Twenty-First Century, Council on Foreign Relations.

18

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/95

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Better working conditions for a stronger social Europe: harnessing the full benefits of digitalisation for the future of work

(COM(2021) 761 final)

and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving working conditions in platform work

(COM(2021) 762 final)

(2022/C 290/16)

| Rapporteur: | Cinzia DEL RIO |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Cinzia DEL RIO

| Referral | European Parliament, 17.1.2022
  Council of the European Union, 4.5.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 7.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 149/80/18 |

Referral

European Parliament, 17.1.2022

Council of the European Union, 4.5.2022

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

7.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

149/80/18

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The pandemic has highlighted some changes in the world of work, which were already underway, and accelerated the expansion of all kinds of platform work, thus reinforcing the growth and impact of the digital economy. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC welcomes the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on improving working conditions in platform work (COM(2021) 762), in the framework of the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights. This regulatory intervention should aim to set clear definitions of the criteria for classifying employment relations and for governing the use of algorithms, and should provide access to social and labour protections and rights. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC has already highlighted in a number of previous opinions, which remain relevant for this opinion, the opportunities and challenges that accompany platform work, and the need to set clear and fair rules in order to ensure fair competition in the internal market, effective implementation of workers' rights and improved working conditions. The overall aim is to enforce and strengthen the internal market by securing a level playing field for all actors. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC underlined that the platform economy opens up opportunities for both businesses and workers. Companies can reach new markets, reduce costs, and capitalise on innovations in digital technologies and access to global and local workforces to improve efficiency and enhance productivity. Workers have new income-generating and job opportunities, which are increasingly important and even critical for vulnerable groups such as young people, migrants and women. These opportunities have to be addressed in a socially sustainable way. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The concerns expressed related to the working conditions in the platform economy include more limited access to social protection and social security coverage, health and safety risks, insecure work, fragmented working hours and inadequate levels of income and difficulties in ensuring the recognition of collective rights. These concerns need to be addressed and balanced solutions need to be developed at appropriate levels — European, national and through collective bargaining involving platforms. The EESC deems it necessary to ensure equal treatment between ‘traditional’ companies and those using digital means based on the functions of algorithmic management when used in order to manage work organisation and employment relations: direction, control and/or organisational power. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | Digital labour platforms differ in size. For platform SMEs, other challenges exist, which have to be taken into account, including challenges related to the costs associated with infrastructure and administrative burdens and with adapting to the digital transformation. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC recognises that flexibility in working hours can be a positive feature of platform work, welcomed in particular by those relying on platform work as an additional source of income. However, flexibility should always be based on the respect of fundamental social and labour standards guaranteed by EU law. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC agrees that the legal classification of the employment relationship and its clear distinction from genuine self-employment is key to ensuring legal certainty for both businesses and workers and to ensuring workers' rights and protections. However, this issue is dealt with differently in different Member States. Law provisions on specific areas, court rulings following labour disputes, and collective agreements in targeted segments of platform work are causing a fragmentation of existing regulation within the EU and disparities in the way platform workers are treated in the various Member States. It is necessary to clearly identify the legally responsible employer, both in terms of taxation and social contributions and in view of establishing collective bargaining processes. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | Europe cannot have different regulatory approaches to the same challenges. The EESC supports the aim of the European Commission's legislative proposal to address these very diverse regulations in the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The EESC stresses that the new rules of the Directive must be based on the EU social acquis and must include clear definitions, which should not conflict with the legal acquis, collective agreements or the case-law of the courts in the individual Member States. The Directive should be a clear legal framework to be adapted at national level according to national laws and practices, encouraging in particular collective bargaining processes. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | Moreover, this opinion addresses in particular the following aspects of the proposed Directive:

  Classification criteria: the EESC emphasises that the classification criteria set out in Article 4 of the proposal do not reflect the dynamic and rapid evolution of the digital market and would need to be constantly updated, making them vague and ambiguous. It would be more appropriate to state that the presumption of employment operates in favour of individual workers who provide their labour and/or services under the specific functions of direction, control and/or organisational power carried out through algorithmic management exercised by the digital platform in question and therefore to set the criteria according to these functions. The EESC agrees that platforms have the possibility to rebut the presumption of employment. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

Classification criteria: the EESC emphasises that the classification criteria set out in Article 4 of the proposal do not reflect the dynamic and rapid evolution of the digital market and would need to be constantly updated, making them vague and ambiguous. It would be more appropriate to state that the presumption of employment operates in favour of individual workers who provide their labour and/or services under the specific functions of direction, control and/or organisational power carried out through algorithmic management exercised by the digital platform in question and therefore to set the criteria according to these functions. The EESC agrees that platforms have the possibility to rebut the presumption of employment.

| 1.12. | The EESC points out that the specific dimension of algorithmic management, which has substantial influence on workers, might not apply to defining the presumption of an employment relationship involving registered professionals or members of national professional associations, where these exist. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

| 1.13. | Rules on algorithmic management: the EESC agrees that algorithmic management has a significant impact on working conditions and should be transparent and accountable for workers and businesses. Algorithmic management oversees, assigns tasks, provides direct instructions limiting the level of autonomy and evaluates workers, including their performance and behaviour, as well as their earnings and working conditions and can even lead to dismissal. The Directive should explicitly state that the rights established in Chapter 3 apply to all situations where algorithmic management is used in an employment context. |
| --- | --- |

1.13.

| 1.14. | The EESC believes that all platform workers should have the guaranteed right to data portability and to download their data from platforms, including data regarding skills. Additionally, further provisions should be added in order to exercise the right to review an automated or semi-automated decision. Decisions that could substantially impact on a labour relationship should be taken by human beings. The EESC appreciates the fact that the European Commission's proposal goes in this direction. |
| --- | --- |

1.14.

| 1.15. | The EESC stresses the importance of effective enforcement through stronger cooperation between data protection authorities and labour inspectorates and the need to clarify where responsibilities lie, including in cross-border situations. |
| --- | --- |

1.15.

| 1.16. | Collective rights: the EESC stresses that Article 14 of the Directive should explicitly refer to trade unions, which have the right to carry out collective bargaining. Furthermore, information and consultation rights and the right to collective bargaining should be extended to all platform workers. |
| --- | --- |

1.16.

| 1.17. | The Directive should ensure fair termination processes for platform workers and information and consultation procedures in case of collective dismissals. |
| --- | --- |

1.17.

| 1.18. | In line with the targets of the European Skills Agenda, the EESC underlines the importance of adequate training and information for platform workers, which could be available in various languages, on how to use and work in the platform in question, and on improving their digital skills. |
| --- | --- |

1.18.

2.   Introduction — The context

| 2.1. | The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the use of platform work, and made more evident, some changes in the labour world that were already underway. The EESC has already stressed that the platform economy opens up opportunities for both businesses and workers. Digital labour platforms which mediate work have rapidly penetrated a number of economic sectors. Companies can reach new markets, reduce costs, and capitalise on innovations in digital technologies and access to global and local workforces to improve efficiency and enhance productivity. Workers have new income-generating and job opportunities, which are increasingly important and even critical for vulnerable groups such as young people, migrants and women. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | However, there are also challenges linked to workers' rights, taxation, wealth distribution and sustainability, which need to be tackled at European level (1). Platform work is becoming an important element of the new productive map of economic activities linked to digital development and the digital transition. The EESC has already highlighted the opportunities and risks in a number of previous opinions (2), which are relevant for this opinion, and called for regulatory intervention at European level with clear definitions of the criteria for classifying employment relations, governing the use of algorithms, and providing access to social and labour protections and rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The weak economic position of a great number of workers operating on a wide diversity of digital labour platforms increases health and safety risks (3) and job precariousness (4), a phenomenon that is hard to define within precise and specific national geographical boundaries. Moreover, in most EU legal systems, there is a weakening of general protection and social protection mechanisms for non-standard and atypical workers. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The EESC recognises that flexibility in working hours can be a positive feature of platform work, welcomed in particular by those relying on platform work as an additional source of income, in particular young people. However, flexibility should always be based on respect for fundamental social and labour standards guaranteed by EU law and can be regulated by national law or collective agreements on the basis of the relevant EU legal framework. This is particularly necessary for young people who have fragmented working periods, low and inadequate levels of income and who need to collect their social contributions for their future pensions (5). |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The disparate nature of the employment relations that arise and develop on digital labour platforms within each Member State is not conducive to a uniform national solution in recognising the necessary social protection, the required occupational health and safety measures, adequate levels of income, appropriate working time and decent working conditions. These different forms of labour relations, and of low individual and collective protection at national level are multiplied at EU level, thus creating conditions for social dumping and unfair competition that threaten the very effectiveness of European and national labour protection standards. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | Digital labour platforms can be classified into two broad categories: online web-based platforms and location-based platforms. They differ in size. For platform SMEs, other challenges exist, which have to be taken into account, including challenges related to the costs associated with infrastructure and administrative burdens and with adapting to the digital transformation. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | The number of people working for employers using online platforms is steadily increasing, not only in the European Union but in the world (6). As the ILO and Eurofound have shown, the challenges for traditional businesses include unfair competition from platforms, some of which are not subject to conventional taxation and other regulations relating to their workforces. Moreover, a considerable amount of case-law has proved that some platform business models build their competitive advantage by seeking to avoid applicable regulations, be it social, environmental or economic legislation (7). This strategy is not conducive to long-term economic sustainability and is detrimental to fair competition, in particular between large and micro or small platform companies. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | With the digital transition, strongly supported by the EU, in the future ever more sectors and professions will be impacted by the model of ‘online platforms’. The EESC has repeatedly stressed (8) that good internal market regulation must be enforced and strengthened by ensuring a level playing field for all players and that digitalisation must benefit workers and companies. It is essential to develop a regulatory framework that ensures safe, fair and healthy working environments and conditions through a system of clearly defined rights, responsibilities and duties. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

| 2.9. | All workers have the right to fair and decent working conditions. This is a fundamental principle of international labour law and EU law. The worker has the right, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/1152, to be informed by the employer on the essential elements of the labour contract or employment relationship. Workers employed by a platform must be subject to the same labour law provisions as those in force in the country where the service is provided. |
| --- | --- |

2.9.

| 2.10. | The key issue is therefore the clear definition of ‘employee’ and its clear distinction from genuine ‘self-employed worker’. The efficacy and effectiveness of the entire regulatory framework of the draft directive depends on the clarity of these definitions. The studies referred (9) to, show that in many cases workers are asked to register as self-employed, and the challenge is to avoid bogus self-employment. Workers should get the necessary information to be able to choose whether they want to be genuinely self-employed or not. The European Commission study referred to in the Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Report on improving working conditions in platform work shows that 5,5 million platform workers are estimated to be incorrectly classified as self-employed. |
| --- | --- |

2.10.

| 2.11. | The issue of the legal classification of the employment relationships is dealt with differently in the Member States. The risk of mistakes in the legal classification of the employment relationships is mainly due to the scarcity of legislation in the national legal systems and the lack of legal clarity. So far, no Member State has comprehensively addressed the issue of the legal classification of platform work. Some Member States (Italy, Spain and France) have opted for sectoral legislation focusing on transport and delivery platforms. A large number of Member States (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden) have tried to clarify labour relations of uncertain classification through legislation, administrative acts or case-law, but these refer to general labour market situations and do not take into account the specificities of platform work. In Italy and Spain, collective bargaining has played an important role with specific agreements and protocols that have anticipated specific legal provisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.11.

| 2.12. | The opinion that the existing regulatory system at national level, in the various EU countries, is currently not suitable for regulating the various profiles of work through digital platforms, is confirmed by almost 100 legal disputes brought by workers and/or their union representatives, and in the diversity of the solutions provided by the case-law of many European countries, divided between those that reaffirm the self-employed nature of the employment relationship and the increasingly numerous ones that recognise its employment nature, without excluding those that place this specific case in an intermediate legal situation (10). Although these procedures have often led to contradictory results, they concern mostly delivery and driver services (on-location platform services) and most of them agree in defining people working on platforms as employees (particularly in the transport and delivery sectors, which are probably those in which there is the most contractual and union protection). |
| --- | --- |

2.12.

| 2.13. | Another key issue regards the impact of algorithmic management on working conditions, which is inherent in the business model of digital labour platforms (11). Attention should be paid to ensuring transparency and accountability in relation to algorithms for workers and businesses. |
| --- | --- |

2.13.

| 2.14. | Individual Member States have taken measures to improve this situation by implementing legislative initiatives that specifically address algorithmic management in the workplace, (IT, ES). Meanwhile, a number of Member States (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FI, DE, IE, LV, LT, LU, NL, SV) address algorithmic management by undertaking measures within the framework of privacy, data protection and non-discrimination policies. Pertinent court decisions have been made in several countries (FR, IT, NL, PL and LU) (12). The fragmentation of existing regulation within the EU also leaves digital labour platforms operating in different countries subject to different regulations. Given the flexible, mobile and rapidly evolving nature of the platform economy, this lack of a common approach will create difficulties in maintaining a level playing field among the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.14.

| 2.15. | In this context, the European institutions’ initiative is to be welcomed, with specific reference to the package of measures submitted by the European Commission on 9 December 2021 for improving the working conditions on platforms, in the framework of the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights. The European Commission's initiative recognises the urgency of addressing the disparities in treatment between Member States, addresses the problematic aspects outlined above and puts forward a regulatory proposal with a directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.15.

3.   General considerations

| 3.1. | The EESC agrees with the Commission's decision to draw up a proposal for a directive, the scope of which extends to platform-based work developed both through on-line web-based platforms (e.g. legal services, translation services, freelancers, etc.) and through on-location-based platforms, which require the worker to provide a physical service (e.g. taxis, deliveries, home services). As clearly stated in recital 49 of the proposal for a directive, the need for a directive rather than non-binding legal instruments is justified by the extreme diversity of situations, working conditions and legislation in each Member State, particularly with regard to ensuring formal and actual coverage, and the adequacy and transparency of social protection systems, especially as Member States provide for different levels of social protection. The large and growing number of court cases and judgments in favour of classifying this work as employment is a clear demonstration of the fact that the matter is not regulated in a sufficiently clear manner even within the individual national legal systems. The objective of improving working conditions through digital platforms cannot therefore be sufficiently achieved by each Member State alone but, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, can be better achieved at EU level. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | Quite rightly, the proposal for a directive notes in recital 9 that ‘When digital platforms operate in several Member States or across borders, it is often unclear where and by whom work is carried out via digital platforms. Moreover, national authorities have no easy access to data on digital work platforms, for instance on the number of people carrying out work via digital platforms, their employment situation and their working conditions. This makes the implementation of the relevant rules more complex, also with regard to labour law and social protection’. The EESC has already pointed out (13) that it would be necessary to set up a register of platforms in every Member State and a Europe-wide database of large and small platforms. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | These legal uncertainties may in some situations favour the emergence and proliferation of undeclared forms of work and deplorable situations of exploitation and competition between the workers themselves, who might be under illegal subcontracting practices. These workers are often migrants, who are objectively weak and unaware of the minimum protection rights envisaged. The proposed Directive does not contain a provision on subcontracting, hence it does not offer those platform workers any protection against those practices (14). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The text of the Commission proposal, however, is vague, generic and ambiguous on a number of points. It does not reflect the objectives of protecting and guaranteeing social and labour rights clearly stated in the recitals, in particular, the definition of a worker operating through digital platforms (Articles 2 and 5) and the rights of both workers and union representatives to information and consultation (Article 9, which, however, makes explicit reference only to Directive 2002/14/EC). As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the proposal for a directive often equates the protection of workers’ rights with the principle of the freedom to conduct a business. The rights of workers and fundamental freedoms must be properly safeguarded, in accordance with legislation and in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The EESC deems it necessary for the directive to include specific provisions on working conditions and social security based on the principle of non-discrimination, also with regard to similar and comparable workers employed in the same sector. This would encourage the development of uniform contractual protection for sectors and combat forms of social and fiscal dumping. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC welcomes the proposed efforts of the Commission to support the sharing of good practices in the context of its mutual learning programme, as well as support to the activities of the European Labour Authority within the scope of its mandate; to support Member States with the application of, and guidance on, social security coordination rules, where necessary and through EU programmes (such as Horizon Europe) (15). |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | The EESC believes that the draft Directive should set out clear reference criteria and principles to guide national lawmakers and to encourage collective bargaining in order to lay down rules that provide certainty, security and predictability to a highly digitalised production environment. These rules must aim to create a level playing field between digital labour platforms and offline service providers. They should not conflict with the legal acquis, should not change the content and scope of the rules defining the employment nature of a service relationship in accordance with national laws, collective agreements, national classification systems or the case-law of the courts of the individual Member States, and should not undermine fair competition between companies. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The EESC also deems it necessary to ensure equal treatment between ‘traditional’ companies and those using digital control means based on algorithmic data management, on the basis of transparent and fair competition between them, clarifying the employee status for workers providing services and/or performing activities in these sectors. The EESC also welcomes the aim of the Commission to clarify and support the genuine self-employed. ‘When necessary, the self-employed will also receive support to clarify their status’. The Directive is expected to cement the autonomy of the self-employment and support their ability to take advantage of their entrepreneurial possibilities, e.g. by developing their client pool. Those who are already genuinely self-employed will retain the benefits related to their employment status (16). |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | It is therefore crucial that the scope of application (in Article 1) is improved and made less ambiguous, to ensure that the directive applies to all digital platforms that provide a mediated supply of labour. It is necessary to clearly identify the real and legally responsible employer also in terms of tax and social contributions and in view of establishing collective bargaining processes, taking into account the specificities of micro and small platforms. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

The reference to the concept of organisation of the work performed by individuals may lead to the undesired exclusion of certain digital platforms.

4.   Chapter 4 — Specific considerations

| 4.1. | In this opinion, the following aspects of the proposal for a directive will be analysed in particular:






  — | the criteria for classification as an employee |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.1.

—

the criteria for classification as an employee

| — | algorithmic management |
| --- | --- |

—

algorithmic management

| — | collective rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

collective rights.

4.2.   Classification criteria

| 4.2.1. | Article 4 of the proposal sets out the criteria on the basis of which the presumption of the employment of the work relationship is established. The EESC notes that the proposed criteria should reflect the dynamic of the digital market, and the evolution of business models and working methods, and that they would need to be constantly updated. We regret to note that the criteria set out in Article 4 are still predominantly expressions of different forms of control exercised by the digital platform over the employee’s work activity. The EESC believes that anchoring labour protection to the exercise of control does not adequately capture and correct the power imbalance between the platform and the workers. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.1.

| 4.2.2. | Besides, Article 4 of the proposal leaves too much discretionary power to platforms to decide — as the presumption of employment is linked to the presence of at least two of the five criteria — but in a context that is constantly evolving, it would be easy to circumvent these criteria. The EESC believes that a clearly defined employment status, even for those working few hours, would guarantee the right to social protection, health and safety, the right to organise and the right to collective bargaining in relation to the working hours performed, therefore guaranteeing the necessary flexibility. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.2.

| 4.2.3. | The criteria should more punctually address the risk of downward labour standards. For this purpose, it would be desirable to have a single criterion for the presumption of employment, which can be rebutted by the platform on the basis of Article 5, which places the reverse burden of proof on the digital platform, proving the self-employment nature of the work relationship. The EESC agrees with the European Commission's proposal that it should be the platforms to rebut the presumption of employment. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.3.

| 4.2.4. | Indeed, self-employed workers and genuine self-employment relations, for which there is no definition in the directive, must also be adequately protected. There are many different forms of platform work, which cannot fall within one single category. There are forms of work that can be considered similar to employment and there are forms of work which require skilled professionals, even highly skilled workers, which in some countries are comparable to those who are listed on professional registers or who are members of national professional associations. The specific dimension of algorithmic management, which has substantial influence on workers, might not apply to defining the presumption of an employment relationship involving registered professionals or members of national professional associations, where these exist. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.4.

| 4.2.5. | It would therefore be more appropriate to state that the presumption of employment in the field of digital labour platforms operates in favour of the individual workers who provide their labour and/or services under the direction, control and/or organisational power of a digital platform using algorithmic management. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.5.

Platforms should be able to rebut this presumption of employment by proving that they do not exercise commercial powers of organisation, even indirect or implicit, over the provision of the service/labour by the worker (17).

| 4.2.6. | A common argument in court rulings recognising the employment nature of the work relationship — and, indeed, issued by high national courts — is that the platform, and more specifically algorithmic management, fully exercises a form of oversight over the performance of the service executed by the worker. This, in fact, indicates that the service performed by work is fully integrated into the business of the platform. This element in itself reinforces the need to counterbalance the aforementioned control power by providing adequate individual and collective guarantees to all workers providing their labour and/or services through digital platforms. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.6.

5.   Specific comments and recommendations on algorithmic management

| 5.1. | Algorithmic management processes a significant amount of data, oversees, assigns tasks, provides direct instructions limiting the level of autonomy, and evaluates workers, including their performance and behaviour, as well as their earnings and working conditions and can even lead to dismissal. The EESC welcomes the fact that the draft Directive adopts the GDPR — General Data Protection Regulation — principles, and in consistency with GDPR Article 9, the Directive should clearly prohibit the processing of sensitive personal data, including political opinions and trade union membership. The Directive should explicitly state that the rights established in Chapter 3 apply in all cases of algorithmic management, also when the platform manages to prove that they do not exercise commercial powers of organisation, even indirect or implicit, over the provision of the service by the worker, and thus, the presumption by the platform that there is no employment relationship. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | The systems used by digital labour platforms often rely on elements of artificial intelligence (AI). As platforms will have to abide by both the provisions of the Directive and the AI Act (a product-market regulation), the EESC invites the Commission to cross-reference the proposed directive and the AI Act, and vice-versa, in order to avoid or clarify possible inconsistencies and loopholes. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | The EESC encourages once again (18) the Commission to clarify the responsibilities of all parties involved in matters such as health and safety, data protection, insurance and legal liability, with a view to evaluating, adjusting and harmonising existing regulations. The EESC has already noted that algorithms used by platforms should also be considered in the same way as spoken or written instructions in conventional work (19). |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | The right to review an automated or semi-automated decision is highly welcome. However, the EESC believes that to practically exercise this right, the Commission should add provisions that require digital labour platforms to: (a) develop their algorithms and systems under the ‘safe-by-design’ principle; and (b) following the rationale of the proposed AI Act, envisage provisions that require digital labour platforms to undergo a conformity assessment of their algorithms, not only before they deploy them but also during the provision of labour /or service by the worker. The conformity assessment should be carried out with a multidisciplinary approach in order to promote a joint assessment by the experts nominated by the trade unions, the platform and the labour, social protection and other relevant authorities. When a conflict arises in the review of an algorithm-assisted decision, workers should have the possibility to have access to an independent arbitration. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | However, the EESC believes that Article 8 should provide that the worker could be represented by the trade union in case of human review of significant decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

| 5.6. | As the platform work model relies on customer review, platform workers should have the ability to transfer and use reviews, as a key element of data, across platforms. The EESC believes that right to data portability should be guaranteed to all platform workers. Even more importantly, the Directive should guarantee their ability to use their profile, including skills, to obtain employment outside the platform economy. |
| --- | --- |

5.6.

| 5.7. | The success of the Commission’s proposal will depend on its effective enforcement. Cooperation between data protection and labour authorities is required by the proposed Directive. However, the EESC would like to draw the attention of the Commission to the fact that Data Protection Authorities in several countries do not have the task to carry out in-depth examinations of labour issues, and vice-versa, in particular as far as oversight and redress are concerned. Therefore, the EESC invites the Commission to further clarify the allocation of competences, including cross-border considerations, and to take into account labour inspectorates. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.

6.   Collective rights

| 6.1. | In the chapter on enforcement, Article 14 of the Directive refers to workers’ representatives and not to trade unions. This is a critical issue since it is important to explicitly refer to trade union representatives so as to avoid creating unions of convenience and providing workers with rights to collective representation, also in the event of a dispute. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.2. | The EESC notes that the Directive provides information and consultation rights. However, Article 9 only refers to Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework. A direct reference to Directive 2001/23/EC on transfers of undertaking, Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies and to Directive 2009/38/EC on the European Works Council should also be made. The EESC notes that Article 10, that extends the labour rights established in Chapter 3 of the Directive to all platform workers (also to those not having an employment relationship) excludes the information and consultation rights set out in Article 9. This derogation cannot be justified. A clearer definition of information and consultation rights is required in order to support collective bargaining, which is a right that must be recognised for all platform workers too (20). |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

| 6.3. | The EESC underlines that the rights of information and consultation of workers' union representatives (Article 9) should be guaranteed, also with regard to the parameters, rules and instructions that underpin algorithms or artificial intelligence systems that influence decision-making or the adoption of decisions that may affect working conditions, access to work and the preservation of employment, including profiling. |
| --- | --- |

6.3.

| 6.4. | The EESC notes that platform workers should receive adequate and specific training available in various European languages on how to use and work in the platform and should be trained in the relevant digital skills. As highlighted in a previous opinion (21), the implementation of the 2021-2027 Digital Education Action Plan needs to ensure effective social dialogue and consultation with stakeholders, respect for and enforcement of labour rights and workers’ right to information, consultation and participation, and workers’ ability to develop their digital and entrepreneurship skills, in particular through vocational education and training (VET), adult learning and employee training, in order to reduce the skills gaps companies face. |
| --- | --- |

6.4.

| 6.5. | As stated in a previous opinion, in connection with the introduction of new technologies such as robots and smart machines, the EESC highlights in its study the importance of informing and consulting workers’ representatives in advance and the need for collective bargaining to accompany the changes generated by these technologies (22). It also points out that the Directive on European works councils makes such consultation mandatory (23). |
| --- | --- |

6.5.

| 6.6. | Bargaining also concerns sectoral collective bargaining, which constitutes a large part of the definition of workers’ rights, but there is no reference to sectoral agreements in the proposal for a directive. |
| --- | --- |

6.6.

| 6.7. | Ensuring fair termination processes for platform workers and access to independent dispute resolution mechanisms are important objectives that should be included in a regulatory framework. The proposed Directive only refers to individual dismissals, while it should also address the issue of information and consultation procedures in the case of collective dismissals, referring to existing EU legislation (24). |
| --- | --- |

6.7.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 70, point 2.7.

1

(2)  OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 173; OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 1; OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50; OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 61; OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 70.

2

(3)  JRC COLLEEM II Survey.

3

(4)  Commission Study (2021).

4

(5)  European Youth Forum — Position paper on Platform work.

5

(6)  ILO report The role of digital labour platforms in transforming the world of work; Eurofound Report 2018; EC staff document — data on the numbers and turnover that tripled with the pandemic (according to the ILO data, in the EU a 12-billion euro turnover was recorded in 2020); CEPS Final Report 2021; Digital labour platforms in the EU; ETUI Study 2021; The definition of worker in the platform economy: exploring workers’ risks and regulatory solutions.

6

(7)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2021, p. 1, point 3.2.7.

7

(8)  OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 1; OJ C 123, 9.4.2021, p. 1; OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 70; OJ C 367, 10.10.2018, p. 15.

8

(9)  See footnote 6.

9

(10)  Among the rulings in favour of the employment nature of the working relationship it is sufficient to recall, by way of example: the ruling of the French Court of Cassation (Chambre sociale, No 374 of 4 March 2020), which recognised the employment nature of the work performed by an Uber driver; the ruling of the Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sala de lo Social, Sentencia 40/2020 of 17 January 2020), which recognised the employment nature of the working relationship between riders and the Deliveroo platform; the ruling of the Barcelona Court, of 13 January 2021, which acknowledged the employment nature of the employment relationship of as many as 748 riders. According to the latter ruling, it is necessary to examine new indexes on which to base the judgement on the nature of the relationship, thus concluding that the hourly flexibility is, in any case, the result of a choice that aims to identify the most profitable time slots for the company and is certainly not aimed at preserving a better work/life conciliation for riders and that riders are therefore to be considered employees. In addition to these rulings, the Belgian, Italian and Dutch ones have ruled out that the work relationship is self-employment on the basis of the relativisation of riders’ alleged freedom in the concrete performance of the service.

10

Chambre sociale

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sala de lo Social, Sentencia

(11)  Commission Study to support the impact assessment on improving working conditions in platform work.

11

(12)  Commission Study to support the impact assessment on improving working conditions in platform work.

12

(13)  OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 173, point 1.15.

13

(14)  Report Fairwork (2021); Fairwork response to the European Commission's Proposal for Directive on Platform Work.

14

(15)  See the Commission Communication.

15

(16)  9.12.2021 COM(2021) 761 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Better working conditions for a stronger social Europe: harnessing the full benefits of digitalisation for the future of work, p. 10; the box down the page.

16

(17)  See definition in recital 30 of the Guidelines of the Commission on competition law and collective bargaining: (iii) it involves, as a necessary and essential component, the organisation of work performed by individuals, irrespective of whether that work is performed online or in a certain location. Platforms which do not organise the work of individuals but simply provide a means through which the solo self-employed persons can reach end-users, do not constitute digital labour platforms. For example, a platform that merely aggregates and displays the available service providers (e.g. plumbers) in a specific area, thereby allowing customers to use their services on demand, is not considered a digital labour platform, as it does not organise the work of the service providers.

17

(18)  OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 173.

18

(19)  OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 173, point 1.8.

19

(20)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2021, p. 1, point 3.2.8.

20

(21)  OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 27.

21

(22)  EESC Study (2017).

22

(23)  OJ L 122, 16.5.2009, p. 28.

23

(24)  Directive 98/59/EC; Directive 2001/23/EC.

24

---

ANNEX

The following counter-opinion, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, was rejected during the discussions (Rule 43(2) of the Rules of Procedure):

AMENDMENT 1

SOC/709 — Working conditions package — platform work

Replace the whole opinion:

1.   Conclusions

| 1.1. | Digital labour platforms promote innovative services and new business models and create many opportunities for consumers, businesses, workers and the self-employed. The digital platform concept covers a wide range of activities, services, tasks and business models. This means that one size fit all solutions may become a barrier for innovation and investment in the setting up and developing digital platforms in the EU. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC recognises the need to address some of the challenges of digital platform work where they exist. However, any regulation on platform work should be designed to maintain flexibility as a critical motivator while providing the essential safeguards for the adequate protection of workers, taking also into account that for many platform work is a complementary activity (1). That is why the EESC generally supports the approach used by the EC in the Working conditions package, namely the use of different instruments to create the necessary favourable environment allowing for improved working conditions of the digital platforms. The adequate access to social protection and health and safety conditions through proper implementation of the two Council recommendations (2) is this area is also needed. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | Whilst the correct determination of the employment relationship is one of the key issues and possible misclassifications needs to be tackled, this matter concerns only a minority of platform workers, as highlighted also by the Commission figures which indicate that 5,5 million platform workers out of 28,8 million could be at risk of employment status misclassification. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | However, the EESC considers that many of the issues covered by the draft Directive are already addressed in existing or forthcoming EU legislation, i.e., data protection, the right of information and consultation for workers, etc. This means that the implementation of the existing legislation needs to be strengthened and improved where necessary. A new directive that repeats existing rights only creates confusion and fragmentation of the EU acquis. Should there be a need for clarifications, identified in the process of the implementation, the adjustments must be made in the respective EU acts. In this respect, the EESC reminds the EU institutions that especially now the EU needs real smart regulation and competitiveness checks, that allows businesses to innovate, grow and create jobs and added value to our society and economy. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | In order to enhance legal certainty and avoid unnecessary disputes, focus should be in clarifying the existing national rules and definitions concerning the status of worker while respecting the rules that allow the autonomy of entrepreneurs and other forms of self-employed. A legal EU definition of who is a worker and who is self-employed platform worker would not be appropriate or effective, as it cannot respect the different models in Member States and keep up with the dynamic developments on labour markets. It increases confusion and legal uncertainty and undermines national definitions by introducing a specific definition for a limited group of workers in digital platforms. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | Another source of confusion is the attempt of the Directive to cover both workers and self-employed, by introducing two separate definitions for ‘persons performing platform work’ and ‘platform workers’. Mixing different categories of subjects, covered by the directive, and providing them different sets of rights and obligations also creates legal uncertainties and complexity. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | There is no justification for blurring the line between genuine self-employment and employment by creating rules that have an impact on entrepreneurs/self-employed on the basis of Article 153 TFEU, which is not at all appropriate legal basis for regulating business-to-business relations. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The proposed presumption in the draft Directive states that once 2 out of 5 criteria are met, any contractual relationship shall be legally presumed to be an employment relationship. At the same time, a good part of the proposed criteria in Article 4.2 contains standard B2B clauses, for example (a) [upper limit for remuneration and fees] and (c) [verifying the quality of the results], (d) [timing of the work] and (e) [possibility to build a client base]. This means that even genuine self-employed could be wrongly classified as employees and will then have to rebut this presumption if they want to continue practising their activities. The status of self-employed could only be confirmed in court or in administrative proceedings which imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on all parties, including the authorities. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | Setting up the mechanism of rebutting the legal presumption is confusing and likely to decrease legal clarity with regard to the fact that similar mechanism is already included in the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions (3) as one of the options for Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | Instead of the two-out-of-five criteria, the EESC considers an assessment of the criteria for defining the existence of an employee status at Member States' level and in line with the jurisprudence of the ECJ is the right way forward. In this respect, EESC welcomes the proposed efforts of the Commission to support the sharing of good practices. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | The EESC considers that a separate set of rules on issues related to platform work and algorithmic management is not appropriate or necessary. The existing rules in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (4) and the forthcoming AI Act will provide also workers with a variety of rights with respect to their personal data together with a comprehensive set of risk management, human oversight and transparency requirements to mitigate the risks for health and safety and fundamental rights. Therefore, unnecessary overlaps and duplications should be avoided. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

2.   General remarks

| 2.1. | In the process of rapid transformation of the economy and businesses, digitalization has taken on a key strategic role, to the point of becoming pervasive across all sectors of activity, and affecting the entire cycle of the product and service value chain, involving both large companies and small and micro enterprises. The consequences for the world of work –resulting from new forms of working and new forms of business organization, are significant as regards both their nature and the speed of change. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | Digital labour platforms can efficiently match supply and demand for labour and offer possibilities to make a living or earn additional income. For consumers it means improved access to products and services which would be otherwise hard to reach, as well as access to a new and more varied choice of services (5). However, in addition to opportunities, digital platform work, as an integral part of evolving forms of work, creates possible challenges that may need adapted solutions. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The labour market status of platform workers is a key issue which has been addressed by Member States and in their national jurisprudence. This development has created a number of different rules and judgements based on different national concepts, models and definitions, thus simply reflecting and respecting the national labour market systems and practices. Focus should be in clarifying the existing national rules and definitions concerning the status of worker while respecting the rules that allow the autonomy of entrepreneurs and other forms of self-employed. In this respect actions at European level could also be promoted, such as exchanges of information, education and training and cooperation between authorities. Also social partners have an important role to play as well as the platforms themselves. Regulatory framework could be adapted at the appropriate level, without undermining well-functioning national practices and legislation. Where necessary, protection for platform workers has to be improved. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

3.   General comments on the proposed directive

| 3.1. | On 9 December, the European Commission proposed a set of measures to improve the working conditions in platform work and to support the sustainable growth of digital labour platforms in the EU (6). The opinion of the SOC section in SOC/709 adopted on 7 March 2022 addresses only the proposal for a directive on improving working conditions in platform work. Therefore, also this counter opinion focusses on that proposal. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC acknowledges that the recent developments of the labour platform economy has brought new challenges to those who work through them. As the Commission notes, these can range from a lack of transparency and predictability of contractual arrangements to health and safety challenges, the misclassification of the employment status, or inadequate access to social protection (7) as well as algorithmic management challenges in platform work. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | However, the proposed directive is not the right instrument to answer to the challenges. In addition, it seems that the main focus of the proposal is clearly on the activities of deliverers, riders and lower skilled on-location services in general, omitting the fact that the variety of platform work is much larger. The proposed regulation is not at all adapted for those working through platforms for online work. Furthermore, the possible effects of EU legislation on online platforms that can deliver their services from outside the EU are not taken in account (8). The possible loss and relocation of those activities outside EU (e.g. UK) should at least be evaluated. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The challenges should be addressed primarily using, and where necessary, reinforcing the implementation of the existing regulations and practices. In addition, there is a large potential for actions to be pursued by platforms themselves together with local partners as well as with social partners. This is something that the Commission should support. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | A legal EU definition of who is a worker and who is self-employed platform worker would not be appropriate or effective, as it would not be able to respect the different models in Member States and keep up with the dynamic developments on labour markets. It would just add confusion and legal uncertainty and undermine national definitions by introducing a specific definition for a limited group of workers. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

4.   Specific comments on the proposed directive

4.1.   Scope and definitions

| 4.1.1. | There is a clear risk that the scope and definitions of the proposed directive would cover a much wider range of digital platform activities than intended. Its main target seems to be the low skilled activities but the proposed definitions and criteria would cover all categories of platform work, even when performed by genuinely self-employed persons. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.1.

4.2.   Correct determination of employment status and legal presumption

| 4.2.1. | The EESC agrees that the Member States should have necessary mechanisms to ensure ‘correct determination of the employment status of persons performing platform work (...)’. However, the EESC has serious doubts as regards the proposed framework for legal presumption of an employment relationship if two of the five criteria listed in the directive would be fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.1.

| 4.2.2. | The EESC considers that the criteria especially in points (a) [upper limit for remuneration and fees] and (c) [verifying the quality of the results], (d) [timing of the work] and (e) [possibility to build a client base] are regularly used in B2B contracts and would lead to a situation where genuine self-employed would be subject to the employment presumption and thus forced to become employees. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.2.

| 4.2.3. | This approach is in contradiction with the practice of overall assessment of employment relationship criteria applied by the jurisprudence in Member States. Furthermore, as stated above, platform workers would by default be classified as employees and this would take away individual's choice to be self-employed. Hampering entrepreneurial activity should not be in the interest of anybody. Given that majority of platform workers consider themselves and want to be considered as self-employed, this approach would be in contradiction with the fundamental rights and freedoms such as the right to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work and the freedom to conduct a business. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.3.

| 4.2.4. | In view of diversity of national labour market systems, labour law traditions and jurisprudence as well as different definitions e.g. in labour law, tax and social security systems, there is a risk that the five criteria of the proposed Directive do not adequately mirror the complex reality of various situations. Instead of the two-out-of-five criteria the EESC would opt for an overall assessment of the criteria for defining the existence of an employee status as generally applicable approach in Member States and in the jurisprudence of the ECJ. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.4.

4.3.   Possibility to rebut the legal presumption

| 4.3.1. | The EESC considers the possibility to rebut the legal presumption as an instrument which is likely to create more problems than to clarify complex legal situations. Setting up this mechanism is confusing with regard to the fact that similar mechanism is already included in the directive on transparent and predictable working conditions as one of the options for Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.1.

| 4.3.2. | The possibility of rebutting the legal presumption falls short of setting fair balance between the parties of the rebuttal process since — with the burden of proof on the side of the platform — the legal presumption as defined by the five criteria would be difficult to challenge in practice. Given the diversity of national definitions, the five criteria and their relevance are likely to be interpreted in different ways in Member States thus leading to even more complex patchwork of jurisprudence across Europe. As this process could be pursued both in courts dealing with labour law issues and administrative courts dealing with tax and social security issues, the result could be less legal clarity, not more. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.2.

4.4.   Algorithmic management

| 4.4.1. | The EESC shares the aim of the Commission to add information and transparency as regards the use of algorithms in the platform work. The EESC considers, however, that a separate set of rules on issues related to platform work is not appropriate or necessary. The existing rules in the GDPR (9) and the forthcoming AI Act (10) will provide also workers with a variety of rights with respect to their personal data together with a comprehensive set of risk management, human oversight and transparency requirements to mitigate the risks for health and safety and fundamental rights. Therefore, unnecessary overlaps and duplications should be avoided. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.1.

| 4.4.2. | As regards the form and contents of the information to be given by the platforms it should be ensured that the platforms have the necessary room for manoeuvre in terms of defining the technical means to provide the information. The same applies to the methods of evaluating the risks and human reviewing of significant decisions. Furthermore, it should be ensured that the disclosure requirements concerning the algorithms do not apply to any kind of business secrets or confidential information of any sort. The EESC also underlines the need to allow mitigations tailored to SMEs on administrative procedures required by the algorithmic management (11). Notably, these include longer deadlines to provide requests of review of algorithmic decisions and the reduction in the frequency of updating relevant information. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.2.

4.5.   Collective rights

| 4.5.1. | The proposal seeks to ensure information and consultation of platform workers or their representatives on decisions likely to lead to the introduction of substantial changes in the use of automated monitoring and decision-making systems referred to in the Article 6(1) of the Directive. For this purpose the proposal refers to the Directive 2002/14/EC (12). As this reference allows the application of existing information and consultation mechanisms as defined at national level and also promotion of social dialogue without establishing any new or duplicate mechanisms this solution can be supported. However, the responsibility of the digital labour platform to bear the expenses for the expert (Art. 9(3)) is not compatible with general rules on information and consultation based on Directive 2002/14/EC. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.1.

4.6.   Remedies

| 4.6.1. | The EESC stresses the need to clarify the distinction between ‘workers’ and ‘persons performing platform work’ especially as regards remedies and enforcement of the Directive. Article 18 contains similar rules for protection from dismissals for both categories which may lead to confusion and lack of legal certainty as judicial remedies for labour law and contract law in Members States are based on different sets of legislations and are thus not similar. In the same vein, Article 17 (Protection against adverse treatment or consequences) may lead in unwanted consequences and problems in the judicial systems of Member States if different contractual relationships are forced to be treated according same rules. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.1.

4.7.   Non-regression and more favourable provisions

| 4.7.1. | For the promotion of fair working conditions in digital platform work the EESC emphasizes the role social dialogue and collective agreements at appropriate levels and within the scope, mandate and autonomy of social partners in Member States. Therefore, the EESC questions the limitation of the scope of collective agreements only to agreements which are more favourable to platform workers (Article 20). This limitation interferes in the autonomy of social partners. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.1.

Reason

This text comprises an amendment which aims to set out a generally divergent view to an opinion presented by the section and is therefore to be described as a counter-opinion. It sets out the reasons why the Commission proposal is not the right instrument to address challenges of digital platform work and why it does not adequately mirror the complex reality of various situations in the rapidly changing world of platforms. Furthermore, the counter opinion seeks to highlight the major flaws and challenges in the draft directive especially as regards the legal presumption of employee status and the algorithmic management.

Outcome of the vote:

| In favour: | 149 |
| --- | --- |
| Against: | 80 |
| Abstention: | 17 |

In favour:

149

Against:

80

Abstention:

17

---

(1)  As regards the pace of development, the data collected by COLLEEM I and II surveys concludes that the phenomenon of platform work is increasing slowly but steadily in Europe. Secondly, only a small proportion — around 1,4 % — of the working age population — performs platform work as a main form of employment. Furthermore, according to the study referred to in the Commission Impact Assessment Report, approximately 5,5 million platform workers out of 28,8 million could be at risk of employment status misclassification. See JRC Publications Repository — Platform Workers in Europe Evidence from the COLLEEM Survey (europa.eu) and JRC Publications Repository — New evidence on platform workers in Europe (europa.eu); See Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Report. In the study commissioned by Delivery Platforms Europe couriers largely (72 %) say platform work is a complementary activity, with 34 % delivering while studying and another third (34 %) saying they access platform work to top up income from other full or part-time work. For two thirds of respondents (67 per cent), flexibility is the main reason for working as a courier. It allows them to combine delivery work with other work or studies, with caring for family members and is a way to top up another income. Flexibility is also the most liked attribute in working as a courier (for 58 per cent).

(2)  Council recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed and Council recommendation on improving the protection of the health and safety at work of self-employed workers.

(3)  Directive on transparent and predictable working conditions.

(4)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and COM/2021/206 final.

(5)  COM/2021/762 final, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 1.

(6)  They include: (1) a proposal for a directive on improving working conditions in platform work; (2) draft guidelines on the application of EU competition law to collective agreements regarding the working conditions of solo self-employed persons, which cover those working through digital labour platforms; (3) calls for new measures, as outlined below, on national authorities, social partners and all relevant stakeholders to achieve better working conditions for those who work through digital labour platforms (Communication on better working conditions for a stronger social Europe: harnessing the full benefits of digitalisation for the future of work).

(7)  Idem (Communication) p. 2.

(8)  According to the Commission study ‘Even if all freelance services provided through platforms were discontinued across the EU-27, these businesses could still rely on freelancers in other parts of the world’. See Study to support the impact assessment on improving working conditions in platform work.

(9)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

(10)  COM/2021/206 final.

(11)  COM/2021/762 final, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 13.

(12)  Directive 2002/14/EC.

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/109 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/109

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for universities

(COM(2022) 16 final)

and the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation

(COM(2022) 17 final)

(2022/C 290/17)

| Rapporteur: | Tatjana BABRAUSKIENĖ |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Tatjana BABRAUSKIENĖ

| Referral | European Commission, 1.3.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 190/0/2 |

Referral

European Commission, 1.3.2022

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

190/0/2

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC underlines the importance of the European Commission’s statement regarding the initiative: ‘Universities need to be places of freedom: for speech, thought, learning, research and academic freedom at large. Academic freedom cannot be isolated from institutional autonomy, nor from the participation of students and staff in higher education governance.’ (1). It asks the European Commission, the Member States and higher education institutions (HEI) to consider this a guiding principle for implementation. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC is pleased that the initiative encourages the Member States and HEI to bolster transnational cooperation in order to improve students’ skills and competences for the twin transitions of the labour market and economy, uphold the EU’s values, identity and democracy, and make European society and economy more resilient. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC would point to (2) the important role played by HEI in improving green skills acquisition, environmental responsibility and sustainable development which should be integrated transversally within the learning outcomes of education. It welcomes the European Commission’s intended actions to help the Member States and HEI to develop national and whole-institutional approaches to sustainability and climate and environmental literacy. The EESC would point out that this is important for students in full study programmes and for learners taking HEI’s lifelong learning programmes, not only for micro-credentials (3). |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC calls on the Member States and HEI to improve the quality, fairness, equality and social inclusion of higher education and research when setting up digitalisation strategies, to enhance equal access to digital material for all students, to support the safe use of digital technologies while always prioritising the social interaction of in-person teaching, and to respect academics’ intellectual property rights. The EESC calls on the European Commission to engage with students and academics when developing education and training programmes on digital skills within the Digital Europe Programme. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC underscores the importance of balanced partnerships between HEI and companies, with a view to meeting the skills needs of students, society and the labour market, and to ensuring and broadening access for students to high quality and paid apprenticeships and traineeships in companies and institutions. It calls on the Member States and HEI to ensure academic freedom and institutional autonomy, especially in relation to collaboration with non-academic actors on curriculum development, skills and the requirements incumbent upon academic staff. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC would point out that the European Commission and every Member State must protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy as fundamental values enshrined in the Rome Communiqué. The EESC welcomes the European University Alliances (UA) initiative as Erasmus+ projects which comprise voluntary and bottom-up actions by HEI, and they are important for closer cooperation under democratic leadership. The EESC is concerned that fundamental values are at stake when the European Commission and Council institutionalise UA projects, asking the Member States to set up a legal statute for the Alliances’ joint European degrees, as well as external quality assurance and accreditation for the Alliances’ joint transnational educational activities and programmes. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC flags up the essential value of diversity of HEI which can support different kinds of cultural, educational, societal and economic needs. The EESC calls for the equal value of HEI both outside and within the UA to be acknowledged and for the principle of freedom of knowledge to be upheld. The EESC welcomes the establishment of guiding principles protecting fundamental academic values, based on the Rome Communiqué, with the involvement of the relevant social partners and stakeholders. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC regrets that HEI are underfunded (4) despite their increased needs during the pandemic, and calls on the Member States to increase public funding for them. It is concerned about the increasing privatisation of HEI and private investment in higher education and research which could jeopardise academic freedom and institutional autonomy. It also points out that keeping up financial support for the UA will ensure sustainable national public funding for all HEI. The EESC calls on the Member States to use the European Semester and the EU funds, including the RRF, ESF+, Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe, to help the HEI to achieve their goals. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC asks the European Commission to monitor EU, national and institutional level investment in higher education, using the leading political tools of the European Semester and the RRF. It also asks the Commission to restrict use of the European Higher Education Sector Scoreboard and the findings of the Expert Group on Quality Investment in Education and Training to a supporting role. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The EESC is concerned about the objectives and governance of the European Higher Education Sector Scoreboard which conducts annual assessments of the progress made across the EU towards meeting the initiative’s key priorities: inclusion, values, quality and relevance, mobility, green and digital skills, employability, transnational cooperation, technology transfer and knowledge valorisation. The EESC asks the European Commission to clarify the role of this tool in monitoring the Member States’ progress and the governance of this monitoring tool in relation to the European Semester process, and to specify whether this tool will also be used to monitor national investment in higher education. The EESC asks for the role of the Member States, social partners in the field of education and relevant stakeholder in the process to be upheld. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | The EESC welcomes the establishment of a European Higher Education Sector Observatory to bring the best current EU data tools and capacities together. The EESC asks the European Commission to uphold the role of the Member States, social partners in the field of education and relevant stakeholder in this process. The social partners play an important role in the education-to-work transition, in representing students’ labour market interests and in reducing the number of NEETs. More efforts should be made at both EU and Member State level to track students as they move from education to work. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | The EESC asks the European Commission and the Member States to actively involve social partners in the field of education and civil society organisations in the further development of the Commission’s initiatives and actions under this strategy and in implementation at Member State level. This is important in order to ensure that students acquire the skills needed to be citizens of a democracy and to access quality jobs within the twin transitions. Democratic governance and effective social dialogue are essential to improve students’ wellbeing, academic freedom, permanent status and working conditions for staff, and institutional autonomy. The EESC asks the European Commission to involve social partners in the field of education and civil society organisations in developing European criteria for awarding a European Degree label. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

| 1.13. | The EESC asks the Member States and HEI to involve learners, academics and researchers more effectively in the governance of higher education policy and institutional, transnational cooperation structures, with effective collaborative leadership, collegial governance and social dialogue. This should seek to ensure good quality and inclusive higher education and research, effective mobility of students, staff and researchers, and full diversity (including gender equality) of students, academics, researchers and professional staff. |
| --- | --- |

1.13.

| 1.14. | The EESC asks the European Commission to ensure that there is social dialogue with academic trade unions when developing a European framework for attractive and sustainable careers in higher education, to improve the working conditions, well-being and status of academics, and to support academic careers in and beyond academia. Increasing the participation of students in the decision-making process and improving the operational capacity of student organisations should be a constant concern. ESF+ funds could be allocated to this end. |
| --- | --- |

1.14.

| 1.15. | The EESC welcomes the promotion of staff and students from diverse backgrounds, entailing setting up a European framework for diversity and inclusion (including gender gaps), providing support for at risk researchers with guiding principles for universities to facilitate their inclusion, and setting up national and institutional strategies for inclusion with a focus on refugees and asylum-seekers. The EESC calls for transparent and fair recognition of third-country qualifications, including those held by refugees, through the network of academic recognition centres. The EESC asks the European Commission, the Member States and HEI to develop such strategies together with students and staff, particularly those who can bring to bear their own experience in strategy development. |
| --- | --- |

1.15.

| 1.16. | The EESC welcomes the further development of the European Student Card initiative, in order to reduce the administrative burden involved in managing student and staff mobility and exchanges, while also flagging up the importance of ensuring data security and protection. Reducing red tape and facilitating credit transfers between Member States is mandatory for assuring proper mobility at EU level. |
| --- | --- |

1.16.

| 1.17. | The EESC welcomes the move to extend mobility of students and staff to third countries and points to the importance of in-person mobility and ensuring health and safety. It welcomes the new Erasmus Charter for Higher Education and the new Erasmus Student Charter; they integrate academic freedom and integrity and foster academic debates and the exchange of good practices on values and democracy, as part of Erasmus+ Jean Monnet Higher Education activities, including in third countries. |
| --- | --- |

1.17.

2.   Background to the opinion

| 2.1. | After the Education Council of the EU had adopted the Council conclusions on the (5). European Universities initiative — Bridging higher education, research, innovation and society: Paving the way for a new dimension in European higher education, the European Commission published two documents. The Communication from the Commission on a European Strategy for Universities includes the actions set to be taken by the European Commission between 2022 and 2024 on higher education and research, while the proposal for a Council Recommendation on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation, to be adopted by the Education Council of Ministers at their meeting on 4-5 April 2022, includes specific recommendations for the Member States. These initiatives plan to meet the new EU target whereby by 2030, at least 45 % of 25-34 year-olds obtain tertiary level attainment |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | Through this initiative, the Commission plans to expand the existing 41 European University Alliances to 60, with more than 500 universities being members by mid-2024. There will be an indicative Erasmus+ budget of EUR 1,1 billion for 2021-2027 and several supporting initiatives. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The recommendations to the Member States ask them to enable HEI to develop and implement innovative joint transnational education activities (within and beyond the EU), to set up a legal statute for the European University Alliances by 2024, to facilitate the delivery at national level of a joint European degree by 2024, including the link to the National Qualifications Frameworks, to support more mobility for students and staff (including online), to provide sustainable financial support for European Universities Alliances, and to promote and protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The EESC points out (6) that ‘It is important to seek more connections between the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Research Area to improve the quality and inclusiveness of higher education and research for all students regardless of their age or socioeconomic background. Enhancing the quality and recognition of studies between universities needs to be an important focus of the European Universities initiative. While higher education is a national competence, the Commission’s proposals for the European Degree, a European University Statute and a European Recognition and Quality Assurance System seems to be a move towards the synchronisation of higher education studies. Thus, the EESC requests that the ideas behind these initiatives and further policy actions be further discussed with governments, relevant social partners and civil society organisations.’. The EESC is pleased that the social partners and civil society organisations could express their views on this initiative via public consultations. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are increasingly under attack in some countries which are signatories to the Bologna Process (7). The Rome Communiqué, adopted by 49 ministries of the European Higher Education Area at the 2020 Ministerial Conference of the Bologna Process, reaffirms the ministers’ commitment to ‘promoting and protecting our shared fundamental values in the entire EHEA through intensified political dialogue and cooperation as the necessary basis for quality learning, teaching and research as well as for democratic societies’. They also committed ‘to upholding institutional autonomy, academic freedom and integrity, participation of students and staff in higher education governance, and public responsibility for and of higher education’. Annex I to the Rome Communiqué defines academic freedom as ‘an indispensable aspect of quality learning, teaching and research in higher education as well as of democracy’ based on institutional autonomy, and underlines that ‘Societies cannot be genuinely democratic without honouring academic freedom and institutional autonomy.’. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on teaching and research methods, university operation (in terms of campus closures and the shift to online learning) and university governance. The pandemic has also highlighted the importance of universities’ community engagement. Approximately half of all students felt that their academic performance worsened with online education, and they have had a larger workload since the transition to online teaching. Access to digital skills, online communication tools and the internet remained a challenge for many socioeconomically disadvantaged students. There was also an impact on students’ psychological and emotional well-being (8). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | For academic staff, the COVID-19 crisis has led to a deterioration in working conditions, including massively increased workloads due to online and blended learning, and job losses for fixed-term and casual staff. These developments have had a disproportionate effect on specific groups of staff, such as women and ethnic minorities. The pandemic has also had a detrimental impact on the mental health and well-being of staff. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | Academic staff play a vital role in providing quality education and research in universities. Even before the pandemic, academics across Europe faced decreasing job security, due to budget constraints, reduced employment opportunities, an increasing proportion of staff in temporary, part-time or fixed-term positions, and an increasing proportion of staff in externally funded positions. Decent working conditions and salaries are pivotal if they are to be able to effectively prepare their students for the twin transitions of society and the economy. Academics on fixed-term contracts are in precarious employment situations which makes it harder for them to undertake high quality teaching and research (9). The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the career prospects of post-doctoral researchers and is having a detrimental effect on their well-being. Younger and female researchers are more likely to be affected by precarious conditions and by the negative effects of the pandemic in this regard (10). Increasing allowances for doctoral researchers and ensuring free access to literature and participation in international conferences should be a priority. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | In order to reduce skills shortages and ensure that students from HEI can access the labour market, effective partnerships between HEI and companies and access by students to high quality and paid apprenticeships and traineeships in companies is essential. The EESC would point out that ‘Business and higher education partnerships should be beneficial for both parties without external pressure and be balanced to ensure company research and innovation work in its own right and public higher education and research objectives in its own right.’ (11). |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | Facilitating access to higher education should take into account the fact that university fees are under pressure due to energy prices and additional costs relating to the educational process (accommodation, access to literature, etc.). Additional costs could be subsidised by EU funds, reducing exposure to loans and other financial methods used to finance university studies. Synergies must be ensured between the dynamic of technological progress and the equipment, standards and procedures used in the educational process, in order to ensure an efficient transition from education to active life. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  Communication from the Commission on a European strategy for universities, 2022.

1

(2)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2021, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2021, p. 1.

3

(4)  EUA Public Funding Observatory Report 2019/20.

4

(5)  The Council Resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021-2030).

5

(6)  OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 40.

6

(7)  https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/academic-freedom-monitoring-project-index/?_gp=1

7

(8)  European Commission: The impact of COVID-19 on higher education: a review of emerging evidence, 2021.

8

(9)  ETUCE Report to Rome Ministerial Meeting (2020).

9

(10)  OECD: Reducing the precarity of academic research careers, 2021.

10

(11)  OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 40.

11

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/114

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings (recast)

(COM(2021) 802 final — 2021/0426 (COD))

(2022/C 290/18)

| Rapporteur: | Mordechaj Martin SALAMON |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Mordechaj Martin SALAMON

| Referral | European Parliament, 14.2.2022
  Council, 9.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 194(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted in section | 10.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 212/6/6 |

Referral

European Parliament, 14.2.2022

Council, 9.2.2022

Legal basis

Article 194(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted in section

10.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

212/6/6

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC welcomes the proposal for a recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), as it takes up the key challenges identified in previous EESC opinions to provide tools to tackle energy poverty and remedy structural long-term under-investment in the building area, boosting renovation of especially the worst-performing buildings and setting us on a path of decarbonised heating and cooling. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC wholeheartedly supports this EU approach to achieve an energy-efficient, high-quality and fossil-free built environment, as measures at EU level are more efficient in accelerating the necessary transition. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC considers that the recent sharp price increases for energy and the prospect of high prices in at least the medium term have shown that it is even more important to put a strategy in place to alleviate and eradicate energy poverty. Concrete measures must be implemented aimed at improving the energy efficiency of buildings to ensure decent, affordable and healthy housing for all. These measures must include the safe removal of asbestos. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC strongly supports the establishment of Minimum Energy Performance Standards, specifically for the worst-performing residential buildings. Introducing the principle at EU level is a significant step forward. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC calls for a more comprehensive progression of requirements for improvements to be established from the outset, with a clearer and more complete timeline leading up to 2050, to encourage forward-thinking renovations.
  As the EBPD itself does not provide new financing and the task of financing the needed renovations is daunting, the EESC consider it crucial that the framework and tools provided for access to both public and banking finance in the EBPD be up to the task. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

As the EBPD itself does not provide new financing and the task of financing the needed renovations is daunting, the EESC consider it crucial that the framework and tools provided for access to both public and banking finance in the EBPD be up to the task.

| 1.6. | Considering their central role in improving the energy efficiency of building stock, the EESC welcomes the increased requirements, reliability and useability of the Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs). |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC welcomes the increased importance of the National building renovation plans and the inclusion of reporting of the Member State’s efforts to reduce energy poverty. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC supports the establishment of a building ‘Renovation passport’ by 2024, giving consumers easier access to information and lower costs when planning the renovation of their buildings. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC recognises the need to include requirements to report on whole life-cycle carbon emissions (manufacturing and construction, use and end of life) of buildings, as the main climate influence from new houses may come from the materials and the construction effort. The EESC highlights the need to ensure that the definition of a ‘zero-emission building’ allows it to interact in an optimal way with the surrounding energy systems and includes all the embedded greenhouse gas emissions. Life-cycle assessments should be understood as project-specific guidance tools comparing different choices of materials and techniques. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The EESC calls for the implementation of a real community process for training and upgrading in the building trades. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

2.   Background

| 2.1. | The Commission has proposed an Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) in the context of the European Green Deal ambition to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Within the ‘Fit for 55’ strategy, the EPBD follow up on the Renovation Wave Strategy, which set out the goal of at least doubling the annual energy renovation rate of buildings by 2030, and highlighted the need for the necessary regulatory, financing and enabling measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The EPBD attempts to provide the necessary measures and tools within the three focus areas of the Renovation Wave Strategy, namely tackling energy poverty and worst-performing buildings; public buildings and social infrastructure showing the way; and decarbonising heating and cooling. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | A series of changes and additions to the current EPBD is proposed, in particular:






  — | As of 2030 all new buildings must be zero-emission; new public buildings must be zero-emission already by 2027. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.

—

As of 2030 all new buildings must be zero-emission; new public buildings must be zero-emission already by 2027.

| — | A new requirement is imposed on Member States to ensure that all buildings owned by public bodies and all non-residential buildings are upgraded to at least energy performance class F by 2027 and at least class E by 2030. All residential buildings must also be upgraded to at least class F by 2030 and at least class E by 2033. Given the recalibration of the energy performance classes, the requirements will lead to more than 15 % of the building stock getting an upgrade by 2033. |
| --- | --- |

—

A new requirement is imposed on Member States to ensure that all buildings owned by public bodies and all non-residential buildings are upgraded to at least energy performance class F by 2027 and at least class E by 2030. All residential buildings must also be upgraded to at least class F by 2030 and at least class E by 2033. Given the recalibration of the energy performance classes, the requirements will lead to more than 15 % of the building stock getting an upgrade by 2033.

| — | The obligation to have an EPC is extended to buildings undergoing major renovation, buildings for which a rental contract is renewed and all public buildings. Buildings or building units which are offered for sale or rent must have an EPC, which must be stated in all advertisements. |
| --- | --- |

—

The obligation to have an EPC is extended to buildings undergoing major renovation, buildings for which a rental contract is renewed and all public buildings. Buildings or building units which are offered for sale or rent must have an EPC, which must be stated in all advertisements.

| — | National Building Renovation Plans will be fully integrated into National Energy and Climate Plans to ensure comparability and tracking of progress — including roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels in heating and cooling by 2040 at the latest. |
| --- | --- |

—

National Building Renovation Plans will be fully integrated into National Energy and Climate Plans to ensure comparability and tracking of progress — including roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels in heating and cooling by 2040 at the latest.

| — | A building ‘Renovation passport’ will give access to information and lower costs for consumers to facilitate their planning and a step-by-step renovation towards zero-emission level. |
| --- | --- |

—

A building ‘Renovation passport’ will give access to information and lower costs for consumers to facilitate their planning and a step-by-step renovation towards zero-emission level.

| — | Member States are invited to include renovation considerations in public and private financing rules and to establish appropriate instruments, in particular for low-income households. |
| --- | --- |

—

Member States are invited to include renovation considerations in public and private financing rules and to establish appropriate instruments, in particular for low-income households.

| — | A sunset clause is introduced for financial incentives to use fossil fuels in buildings. |
| --- | --- |

—

A sunset clause is introduced for financial incentives to use fossil fuels in buildings.

| — | Charging infrastructure for electric vehicles and parking space for bicycles must be established. |
| --- | --- |

—

Charging infrastructure for electric vehicles and parking space for bicycles must be established.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The EESC welcomes the proposal for a recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), as it takes up the key challenges identified in previous EESC opinions to provide tools to tackle energy poverty, remedy structural long-term under-investment in the building area, boosting renovation of especially the worst-performing buildings and setting us onto a path of decarbonised heating and cooling. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The problem of poorly or moderately insulated buildings that depend on fossil fuels for heating and cooling is EU-wide. In the absence of coordinated policies at EU level, there is a risk that Member States will not take sufficient action due to concerns about an uneven playing field. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | Therefore, the EESC wholeheartedly supports this Commission proposal of an EU approach to achieve an energy-efficient, high-quality and fossil-free built environment. Measures at EU level are more efficient in accelerating the necessary transition. In addition, a joint approach at EU level helps to reap the benefits of the internal market, such as economies of scale and technological cooperation between Member States. It also contributes to more certainty for investors and generally underpins the leading role that Europe and European companies can play as global standard-setters and front runners in this field. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC considers that the recent sharp price increases for energy and the prospect of high prices in at least the medium term have shown it even more important to put a strategy in place to alleviate and eradicate energy poverty. While in 2018, 6,8 % of people across the EU (30,3 million) were unable to keep up with utility bills, and so were at risk of having their supply cut off, the recent developments have aggravated this problem. In the long term, concrete measures must be taken aimed at improving the energy efficiency of buildings to ensure decent, affordable and healthy housing for all. This is all the more urgent, as costs for heating and cooling based on fossil fuels will increase through rising costs of ETS allowances. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The EESC strongly supports the establishment of Minimum Energy Performance Standards, specifically for the worst performing residential buildings. Introducing the principle at EU level is a significant step forwards. It is, however, up to Member States whether the rest of the residential building mass should be covered by nationally set standards. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | While the EESC supports the emphasis on eradicating energy poverty through prioritised renovation of the poorest performing part of the residential building stock, this should not lead to lack of improvement for the other residential buildings. The EESC therefore calls for a more comprehensive progression of requirements for improvements to be established from the outset, with a clearer and more complete timeline leading up to 2050. This will also give building owners insight into future requirements in order to plan renovation to optimal cost level. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | As Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) are becoming a central tool, their reliability and usability need to be improved. The EESC therefore welcomes the greater demands for upgrading to a digital format, good-quality and detailed content and calculation methods, affordability, access to and publication of the EPCs. An EPC in paper format should always be available for citizens who need one. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The EESC welcomes the inclusion of each Member State’s efforts to reduce energy poverty in the National building renovation plans, where they will report on the reduction of the number of people affected by energy poverty and share of the population living in inadequate housing (e.g. leaking walls or roofs) or with inadequate thermal comfort conditions. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The EESC supports the establishment of a building ‘Renovation passport’ by 2024 but questions its effect, as it is not mandatory. The Passport will give consumers easier access to information and lower costs when planning renovation of their buildings. As a positive development, it also includes wider benefits related to health, comfort and the building’s response to climate change. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | Given the widespread inability to meet the financing requirements for initiating renovation among the energy poor and also for many small home owners, the EESC considers it crucial that the framework and tools provided in the EBPD for financing are up to the task. This must include clear explanations and guidance in the financial aspects of renovation, including the use of credits at local level. The EESC also points to its call in (TEN/723) for the multiple schemes to be unified in order to make them clearer and more accessible to the households and public authorities they target. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The EESC recognises the need to include in the EPBD requirements to report on whole life-cycle carbon emissions (manufacturing and construction, use and end of life) of buildings. When new low-energy buildings are built, the main climate influence may come not from the use of the building but from the materials and the construction effort. Life-cycle assessments should be understood as project-specific guidance tools comparing different choices of materials and techniques. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | The EESC highlights the need to ensure that the way a ‘zero-emission building’ is defined allows it to interact in an optimal way with the surrounding energy systems and includes the embedded greenhouse gas emissions from the use of building materials and the construction site. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

4.   Specific comments

| 4.1. | While the EBPD in itself does not provide new financing, it sets requirements for Member States’ levels of financing and coordination of financial efforts to create a tailored legal and financial framework, including targeted financial support. The EESC questions, however, whether financing in reality will be easily made available to the prospective renovators and thinks it is not clear if the total financing effort in each Member State will suffice for the renovation targets to be met. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | Today, financing and grants all too often can only be disbursed once energy renovation is completed, thus making it difficult for many consumers to initiate the work. The EESC therefore recommends that the text state that financing schemes need to provide at least part of the up-front costs faced by consumers. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The EESC reiterates its call (TEN/749) for a substantial share of the 37 % of the Recovery and Resilience Facility that is ring-fenced for green projects to be allocated to energy-efficiency projects in line with the real demand and need in each Member State. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The EESC thinks it central to the success of the EPBD that Member States be required to adjust regulatory frameworks not fit for purpose and remove non-economic barriers, of which especially the problem of split incentives stand in the way of renovation for many house-owners and tenants. At the same time, the EESC finds it necessary to include protection shielding tenants from disproportionate rent levels following renovation, either through rent support or caps on rent increases. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | The EESC considers an overhaul of the articles in the Directive related to Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) as long overdue. Experience with EPCs across Europe points to a number of necessary adjustments, some of which are in the current proposal. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | The EESC recognises as a step forward that Member States will have to ensure the quality, reliability and the affordability of EPCs, and must carry out controls and establish a well-functioning control system.
  The EESC regards as valuable improvements the shortened period of validity of the EPC to five years for the least performant building stock, the need for experts to be qualified or certified and independent and the explicit requirement to include an onsite visit before issuing the EPC. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

The EESC regards as valuable improvements the shortened period of validity of the EPC to five years for the least performant building stock, the need for experts to be qualified or certified and independent and the explicit requirement to include an onsite visit before issuing the EPC.

| 4.7. | The EESC proposes making the EPC more useful for consumers by including information about:






  (a) | the remaining lifespan of the heating system, average cost of works; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.7.

(a)

the remaining lifespan of the heating system, average cost of works; and

| (b) | contact information of the nearest one-stop-shop. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

contact information of the nearest one-stop-shop.

| 4.8. | The EESC supports the proposal to streamline at EU-level the performance classes (A-F) within the EPC and the establishment of common templates. The requirements to establish easily accessible databases at national level for EPCs, building renovation passports and smart readiness indicators, coupled with the transfer of information from national databases to the Building Stock Observatory, are also positive. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | The EESC notes that coherence between the Building Renovation Passport and Energy Performance Certificates is needed to avoid redundancy and unnecessary additional costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

| 4.10. | The EESC reiterates its call (TEN/723) call for a further strengthening of the Energy Poverty Observatory and the establishment of close cooperation with the Building Stock Observatory. |
| --- | --- |

4.10.

| 4.11. | For European citizens, access to advice, information, planning assistance and financial guidance will be crucial. At present, one-stop shops are estimated to only help approximately 100 000 homeowners per year to energy renovate, whereas the potential in 2030 may be about 2 000 000 owners per year (1). The EESC calls for better national development and coordination of one-stop-shops, their adequate financing, crossborder sharing of best practices and a closer follow-up by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.11.

| 4.12. | The EESC supports the broadening of the public consultation on the draft National building renovation plan and proposes that consumer organisations be mentioned specifically, as they are best placed to provide assessment and feedback on how well programmes and financial instruments reach out to consumers. |
| --- | --- |

4.12.

| 4.13. | The EESC notes the reinforcement of the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) through establishing the necessary definitions, requirements and sharing of data, but regrets that residential buildings are not yet included and that the required levels to achieve have not yet been introduced. |
| --- | --- |

4.13.

| 4.14. | Given the large investments, expected innovations and raised activity levels in the relevant sectors, the need for skilled, reskilled and upskilled labour will mount considerably. The EESC therefore welcomes the requirement for Member States to promote and finance education and training to ensure a skilled workforce in the building sector, and the corresponding requirement to report an overview of the capacities in the construction, energy efficiency and renewable energy sectors in the National building renovation plan. The ESEC calls for the implementation of a real community process for training and upgrading in the building trades. |
| --- | --- |

4.14.

| 4.15. | The EESC reiterates its call (CCMI/166) for the Commission and Member States to ensure that harmful substances are removed during building renovation, and emphasises the need for the safe removal of asbestos. |
| --- | --- |

4.15.

| 4.16. | With a view to the accelerated demand for charging infrastructure already seen today, the EESC proposes raising the level of requirements, including the installation of smart recharging points in non-residential buildings earlier, possibly before 2027. |
| --- | --- |

4.16.

| 4.17. | Provision of information, advice and financing for renovation is largely likely to take place locally and regionally. Also, local and regional authorities are expected by the EPBD to go in front with upgrading their buildings. The EESC therefore finds it important that attention and effort at EU and national level goes into coordinating with and engaging local and regional authorities, also exploring the potential of initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors. |
| --- | --- |

4.17.

| 4.18. | In order to go beyond reporting and spur action on climate impact before 2030, the EESC urges the Commission to set maximum values well before 2030 for CO2 emissions per square meter per year, adjusted for climate zones. |
| --- | --- |

4.18.

| 4.19. | The EESC supports the widening of the definition of ‘Energy from renewable sources’ to include more energy sources, especially ambient energy harnessed by electric devices such as heat pumps, but suggests that biomass and biogas be defined as partially renewable as only a very small part of the biomass used or biogas produced can be considered fully renewable. For limited use in a transitory period, where alternatives do not exist, this broader definition could also include renewable liquid energy (biofuels and RFNBOs). A new annex to the Directive could be introduced where the climate impact of different biomass forms, of biogas production and of liquid energy is determined. |
| --- | --- |

4.19.

| 4.20. | In addition to climate-damaging emissions and regardless of the energy carrier, the classic air pollutants must not be ignored, such as particulate matter/fine dust, NOx and others. |
| --- | --- |

4.20.

| 4.21. | The EESC highlights the need to carefully consider the practical effects of using the chosen definition of a ‘zero-emission building’ as a building with a low energy requirement and where all the necessary energy must be produced on-site or in the connected district heating or district cooling systems. The definition:






  (a) | regulates in principle the building as an ‘island’ that is poorly connected to the surrounding electricity system, as only a limited range of external renewable energy sources are explicitly allowed; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.21.

(a)

regulates in principle the building as an ‘island’ that is poorly connected to the surrounding electricity system, as only a limited range of external renewable energy sources are explicitly allowed;

| (b) | does not include the embedded greenhouse gas emissions from the use of building materials and the emissions from the construction site. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

does not include the embedded greenhouse gas emissions from the use of building materials and the emissions from the construction site.

| 4.22. | The EESC proposes including electricity produced externally from renewable energy sources on an equal footing with on-site electricity production for zero emissions buildings. The ‘get-out-clause’ in Annex III, end of paragraph I, will not provide the general means for a national cost-efficient shift of buildings towards being energy efficient and for energy systems to be supplied with renewable energy. Expanding the overall energy system with large units is much cheaper per unit of energy produced than small units on each building. This is especially important for periods where the building’s own production is not working (sun/wind). Also, flexibility in relation to the electricity system will lower costs both within the building and in the system as a whole. |
| --- | --- |

4.22.

| 4.23. | The Commission proposes ceasing the granting of subsidies for fossil fuel installations from 2027. The EESC is surprised by this, as a reasonable depreciation period of 15 years means installations will be subsidised that have to be phased out by 2040 at the latest. The EESC therefore strongly recommends bringing the deadline forward to 2025 at the latest. |
| --- | --- |

4.23.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/423a4cad-df95-11eb-895a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

1

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/120 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/120

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013

(COM(2021) 812 final — 2021/0420 (COD))

(2022/C 290/19)

| Rapporteur: | Stefan BACK |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Stefan BACK

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 17.2.2022
  European Parliament, 7.3.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 172 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Plenary Assembly decision | 25.10.2021 |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted in section | 10.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 222/1/7 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 17.2.2022

European Parliament, 7.3.2022

Legal basis

Article 172 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Plenary Assembly decision

25.10.2021

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted in section

10.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

222/1/7

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC welcomes the proposal, considering that the current TEN-T Regulation was adopted in 2013 and that it was therefore high time to propose a new updated framework, adapted to the current policy context and drawing on the lessons learned from the current Regulation. For instance, the updated TEN-T Regulation shall form the infrastructural basis required for the successful implementation of the Commission’s goals included in the Green Deal, the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy and the Rail Action Plan. Furthermore, the implementation of the TEN-T under the current framework has not been satisfactory, with significant delays, and the EESC therefore welcomes the strengthened rules on implementation. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC agrees with the measure to increasingly harmonise the core and comprehensive network requirements and make the distinction between them a matter of timing. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC likewise approves the focus on European Corridors as a means to promote efficient transport and multimodality, as well as the strong monitoring mechanism and the enhanced role of the European Coordinators. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC also welcomes the added value in the form of synergy effects following on from improved coordination of the European Corridors with the Rail Freight Corridors. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC welcomes the importance the proposal attaches to cohesion when implementing the network and takes note that this means ensuring accessibility and connectivity for all regions in the Union for both passenger and freight traffic, and efficient coordination and interconnection between, respectively, long-distance, regional and local traffic, as well as transport in urban nodes. The EESC thus also welcomes the obligation on Member States in Article 58 of the proposal to ensure that national transport and investment plans are coherent with Union transport policy.
  Efficient rail freight links with infrastructure enabling adequate speed helping towards punctuality will enable rail to play its full part in the intermodal transport chain, considering that insufficient punctuality of rail has been a major obstacle to making multimodality, including rail, an attractive option. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

Efficient rail freight links with infrastructure enabling adequate speed helping towards punctuality will enable rail to play its full part in the intermodal transport chain, considering that insufficient punctuality of rail has been a major obstacle to making multimodality, including rail, an attractive option.

| 1.6. | With regard to the two additional Coordinator functions regarding the European Maritime Space and ERTMS, the EESC takes the view that rapid implementation of ERTMS will also require substantial financial support, considering the cost involved. The EESC therefore welcomes the suggestion by the Commission to consider exempting public financing of ERTMS from the obligation to notify under State aid rules. The EESC would furthermore ask for a feasibility study on ERTMS implementation by 2030, also taking into account financing issues.
  Regarding the European Maritime Space, the EESC draws attention to the sea bridges with regular and dense ferry connections, which could be seen as similar to infrastructure and eligible for co-financing as projects of common interest. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

Regarding the European Maritime Space, the EESC draws attention to the sea bridges with regular and dense ferry connections, which could be seen as similar to infrastructure and eligible for co-financing as projects of common interest.

| 1.7. | The EESC regrets that no fixed timing for Member State reports on the implementation of the comprehensive network is foreseen. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC fully supports the focus on broad, adequate and timely consultation on planned projects with all parties concerned, and recalls its 2012 opinion on the potential of EESC as a link to civil society. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC takes favourable note of the general priorities for all networks set out in Article 12, and which provides for the removal of administrative, technical and operational barriers and optimising the use of infrastructure. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The EESC calls for facilitation of efficiency enhancing measures to be taken across the board in order to promote multimodality which implies making the best possible use of the advantages of all modes of transport to achieve the best possible results, while at the same time improving safety and reducing the environmental burden. The EESC draws particular attention to the importance of the interface between land transport and other modes, allowing inland waterways, short sea shipping and aviation to contribute fully to the multimodal chain. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | We believe that increasing the network’s resilience to climate change, natural hazards and human-made disasters is key in establishing a network that generates long lasting value for EU citizens and businesses. Resilience aspects should be taken into consideration as early as possible in a project’s planning phase. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | The EESC points out that in the case of traffic problems or emergencies, the most sustainable solution should be preferred. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

| 1.13. | The EESC approves the attention brought to the ICT systems and their capacity to facilitate multimodal transport development. We consider it important that the vast potential of digitalisation to improve the performance of transport should be developed as a matter of high priority. |
| --- | --- |

1.13.

| 1.14. | The EESC also draws attention to the possibility to improve the monitoring of compliance with regulations on working and rest hours, regarding in particular rail transport, by digital means, and requests that such a system is developed. |
| --- | --- |

1.14.

| 1.15. | The EESC welcomes the inclusion of urban nodes and multimodal terminals as specific elements of the TEN T since both are essential for the smooth functioning of transport. The EESC notes that one multimodal terminal may serve more than one urban node if the functional criteria laid down in the proposal are complied with. |
| --- | --- |

1.15.

| 1.16. | The EESC notes that rail infrastructure is very unevenly equipped with facilities for railway staff. In the EESC’s view, infrastructure for workers must at least include safe routes, overnight accommodation, up-to-date break rooms (cooling, heating, hygiene), utilities and sanitation facilities. |
| --- | --- |

1.16.

| 1.17. | The EESC takes note of the requirements on rest areas, set out in Article 29(2)(b) and would suggest introducing common minimum standards also for those. |
| --- | --- |

1.17.

| 1.18. | The EESC likewise welcomes the increased focus on links to neighbouring countries including partner countries such as EEA Member States and Switzerland, as well as accession countries. The EESC takes note that this objective is set to promote the extension of TEN-T policy into third countries, including the objectives of sustainability, cohesion, efficiency and increased benefits for users. |
| --- | --- |

1.18.

| 1.19. | The EESC also welcomes the attention given to third country subjects’ involvement in TEN T projects, as a matter of security and public order, and the notification duty of Member States to enable an impact assessment also outside the general framework on screening of foreign direct investments in the EU. This also ensures interoperability and EU standards. |
| --- | --- |

1.19.

| 1.20. | The EESC also condones the possibility of adjustments through delegated acts of infrastructure elements, and the configuration of the Corridors. |
| --- | --- |

1.20.

| 1.21. | The EESC is satisfied that an obligation of maintenance of TEN-T infrastructure by the Member States is now proposed to be included in the Regulation. The EESC would have appreciated a monitoring mechanism also in this regard as well as appropriate sanctions in the event of inadequate maintenance. |
| --- | --- |

1.21.

| 1.22. | The EESC welcomes the objectives regarding transport infrastructure worldwide set out in the Commission Global Gateway Connectivity Strategy. |
| --- | --- |

1.22.

2.   Background

| 2.1. | The Commission submitted its proposal for a new Regulation to replace the current Regulation on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network ((EU) No 1315/2013) (the Proposal) on 14 December 2021 (COM(2021) 812 — 2021/0420 (COD)) as a key action of the European Green Deal and the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The Proposal keeps the core and comprehensive network structure of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). For the core network, the implementation deadline remains 2030 with a further 2040 milestone for an extended core network and 2050 for the comprehensive network. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The four specific objectives of the current TEN-T Regulation (efficiency, cohesion, sustainability and increased user benefits) remain and are further developed. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The Proposal seeks to remedy problems of delays in project preparation and implementation by aligning national and TEN-T interests, objectives and responsibilities and strengthening monitoring particularly regarding the European Transport Corridors and the horizontal priorities ERTMS and the European Maritime Space where the role of the European Coordinator is strengthened and work plans given legal force through implementing acts. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The Proposal ensures the alignment of the Rail Freight Corridors with the European Corridors through amendments to Regulation (EU) No 913/2010, and provides for coordination between the two instruments. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | The Proposal introduces TEN-T maintenance as an obligation of Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | In the event of significant delays in implementing the networks, the Commission may, if the delay is not objectively justified and the problem not resolved within six months, withdraw EU co financing. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The EESC welcomes the Proposal, considering that the current TEN-T Regulation was adopted in 2013 and that the EU transport policy agenda has changed a lot since then, given that the 2011 transport policy White Paper has been succeeded by the 2020 Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy that, inter alia, focuses on sustainability, digitalisation and promotion of rail/multimodality. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

Furthermore, the experiences of the implementation of the TEN-T under the current TEN-T Regulation, have not been satisfactory, with significant delays.

It was high time to propose a framework, adapted to the current policy context, by creating an infrastructure compatible with for instance the European Green Deal, the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy and the Rail Action Plan, drawing on the lessons learned from the current Regulation. The EESC pointed to this need for updating in its 2020 Evaluation Report (1).

| 3.2. | The EESC agrees with the measure to increasingly harmonise the core and comprehensive network infrastructure requirements and to essentially distinguish between the two categories by fixing a 2030 deadline for the implementation of the core network, a 2040 deadline for the so-called extended core network and a 2050 deadline for the comprehensive network. Regarding the 2030 deadline, the EESC maintains the feasibility doubts raised in its 2020 evaluation report, but considers that the deadline should be maintained to bring pressure on Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | We also welcome the importance attached to cohesion, including connectivity and accessibility for all across the EU, for both passengers and goods, and on both long and short distances, as well as the obligation on Member States to ensure coherence with EU transport policy in their national action. Minimum criteria regarding rail infrastructure will improve the prospects of multimodality. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC approves the focus on European Corridors to promote efficient transport and multimodality. It also supports the strengthened role of the European Coordinators and the strong monitoring mechanism that shall ensure adequate and timely implementation.
  The EESC expresses its satisfaction with the coordination of the configuration and management of the Rail Freight Corridors with the European Corridors, which should bring considerable added value through synergy effects. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

The EESC expresses its satisfaction with the coordination of the configuration and management of the Rail Freight Corridors with the European Corridors, which should bring considerable added value through synergy effects.

| 3.5. | The EESC notes that European Coordinators are also appointed for the European Maritime Space and ERTMS. With respect to ERTMS, the EESC underscores the need for financial support to ensure its rapid implementation and welcomes the suggestion to exempt state support from State aid notification. The Coordinator for the European Maritime Space shall ensure the integration of maritime links into the trans-European transport Network, and the creation and upgrading of short sea shipping links. We particularly underscore that tasks that aim to ensure a seamless interface between sea, inland waterways and land transport are very useful. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The European Maritime Space replaces the Motorways of the Sea, which is considered too complex. The EESC draws attention to the so-called sea bridges, meaning regular and dense ro-ro ferry connections, where ferries almost fill the function of a bridge. The EESC questions if such sea bridges should not be seen as connections similar to an infrastructure element, and eligible for co-financing as a project of common interest. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | The EESC regrets that no fixed timing is stipulated for the provision of information by Member States on the progress of the implementation of projects outside the European Corridors. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The EESC nevertheless approves the follow up and sanctioning mechanism provided for in case of delays in the implementation of projects without satisfactory explanation. The EESC regrets that the only sanction clearly spelt out is terminating co-financing and invites the Commission to come up with proposals for instance for a daily fine as long as the delay continues due to negligence. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The EESC fully supports the focus on adequate consultation of those concerned, both authorities at different levels and civil society, and the exchange of information on best practice in this regard to be ensured by the Commission. In this context, the EESC recalls its 2012 Opinion Transport White Paper: getting civil society on board and the Draft guidelines for citizens and civil society participation in EU transport policies and projects, discussed at a conference organised by the EESC Transport Permanent Study Group in Milan on 24-25 October 2016. The EESC also makes this point in its abovementioned 2020 evaluation. The EESC insists on the necessity to start wide consultations as early as possible, with a particular focus on organised civil society and taking into due account the feedback received. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | The EESC appreciates the additional prerequisites on infrastructure laid down to promote the achievement of the objective of the Green Deal to reduce CO2 emissions by 90 % before 2050, and the emphasis placed on environmental aspects, including external costs, when conceiving a project. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The EESC takes notes of the general priorities for all networks set out in Article 12, and which provides for the removal of administrative, technical and operational barriers and optimising the use of infrastructure (Article 12(2)(c) and (d)). This is also consistent with the generally favourable attitude toward resource efficiency and innovation set out in Article 43 on sustainable freight transport services. In this context, the EESC underscores the importance of improved network resilience to disasters, which should be considered back at the planning stage. Sustainable solutions should be preferred when resolving problems due to strain on the resilience of the network. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | The EESC therefore takes the view that increased efficiency across the board should be the objective, bearing in mind that improved efficiency in all modes will contribute to better environmental performance, as found in a recent study by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2). |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

| 3.13. | The EESC appreciates that with respect to both the comprehensive and the core network, Member States are to ensure that rail infrastructure enables a train length of 740 m without special permission, and that consideration should be given to developing infrastructure for train lengths above 740 m and up to 1 500 m and 25,0 t axle load, subject to socioeconomic cost-benefit analyses. A provision regarding 740 m trains on private sidings also applies regarding multimodal transport infrastructure. |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

| 3.14. | The EESC calls for facilitation of efficiency enhancing measures to be taken across the board in order to promote multimodality which implies making the best possible use of the advantages of all modes of transport to achieve the best possible results, while at the same time improving safety and reducing the environmental burden. The EESC draws particular attention to the importance of the interface between land transport and other modes, allowing inland waterways, short sea shipping and aviation to contribute fully to the multimodal chain. |
| --- | --- |

3.14.

| 3.15. | Considering the provision mentioned in the preceding point, it is also surprising that the maximum dwelling time for trains at border crossings provided for on the European Transport Corridors, does not apply on both the core and comprehensive networks. |
| --- | --- |

3.15.

| 3.16. | The EESC takes favourable note of the attention brought to the ICT systems for transport to facilitate, inter alia, transport management and exchange of information between modes to facilitate multimodal transport development, which is one of the priorities set out to develop sustainable freight. The EESC considers that the vast potential of digitalisation to improve the efficiency, coherence and sustainability of transport should be developed as soon as possible. |
| --- | --- |

3.16.

| 3.17. | The EESC also approves urban nodes and multimodal terminals to be included as specific elements of the TEN-T. Both are essential for the smooth functioning of transport, the former because they are essential to the first and last mile, and the latter because of their key role in well-functioning multimodal transport. The EESC notes that the criteria proposed regarding the location of terminals makes it possible for one terminal to serve several urban nodes. |
| --- | --- |

3.17.

| 3.18. | The EESC, in this context, points to its opinion on multimodal transport and intermodal logistics which underscores the importance of digitalisation and multimodal terminals to develop multimodality (3). |
| --- | --- |

3.18.

| 3.19. | The EESC welcomes the increased attention given to links to neighbouring countries, including partner countries such as the EES Member States and Switzerland, and accession countries, in particular the Western Balkan countries, as further developed in the Commission communication on the extension of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) to neighbouring third countries. |
| --- | --- |

3.19.

| 3.20. | The EESC, in this context, also draws attention to the importance of implementing the Commission Global Gateway Connectivity Strategy (JOIN(2021) 30) to promote worldwide investments in sustainable, smart, resilient and safe transport in all modes, and bring all modes together in a multimodal system. |
| --- | --- |

3.20.

| 3.21. | The EESC further welcomes the attention given to third country subjects involvement in TEN-T projects and the obligation on Member States to notify such involvement to the Commission, so that it may assess its impact on security or public order in the Union in all cases that do not fall under Regulation (EU) 2019/452 establishing a framework of screening of foreign direct investment into the Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.21.

| 3.22. | The EESC would like to express its appreciation of the possibility of adjustment through delegated acts of infrastructure elements and the configuration of the Corridors. Transport flows change, and this possibility of adjustment makes it easier to ensure that the network infrastructure and corridor configuration correspond to the realities of transport flows. |
| --- | --- |

3.22.

| 3.23. | Finally, the EESC would like to express its satisfaction that the issue of the maintenance of the TEN-T as a Member State obligation is now included in the Proposal, as suggested by the EESC in its abovementioned evaluation report. |
| --- | --- |

3.23.

4.   Specific comments

| 4.1. | The EESC takes note of the need to provide adequate infrastructure facilities for staff to rest at railway stations. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The EESC, following up on the general remark on digitalisation, notes that digitalisation could be used to monitor compliance with social legislation, for instance in the rail sector. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | Regarding road transport, the EESC considers that minimum criteria should be defined not only for Secure Parking Areas (Article 29(2)(c)) but also for resting areas (Article 29(2)(b)). |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  Evaluation on Trans European Network — Transport (TEN-T) guidelines 2013-2020 — TEN/701.

1

(2)  Modal shift for an environmental lift — Rapport 7003, August 2021, with a summary in English.

2

(3)  OJ C 374, 16.9.2021, p. 1.

3

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/126 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/126

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2010/40/EU on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport

(COM(2021) 813 final — 2021/0419 (COD))

(2022/C 290/20)

| Rapporteur: | Stefan BACK |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Stefan BACK

| Referrals | European Parliament, 27.1.2022
  Council, 28.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 91 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted in section | 10.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 225/1/5 |

Referrals

European Parliament, 27.1.2022

Council, 28.1.2022

Legal basis

Articles 91 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted in section

10.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

225/1/5

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC welcomes the Commission proposal, which is fully in line with the EESC’s recommendations in its earlier opinion on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems, and sees considerable added value in the proposal with respect to improvements, security, safety and efficiency. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC also welcomes the broader scope of the information to be provided and the obligation on Member States to cooperate. In particular, attention may be drawn to the widened scope of information exchange regarding freight, as well as cooperative, connected and automated mobility, including vehicle-to-vehicle communication, which also significantly improves road safety. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC notes that the improved efficiency will concern both freight and passenger transport, enabling, for instance, the progress of a consignment to be followed. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | While appreciating the need to standardise exchange of information, the EESC nevertheless underscores the need to leave reasonable room for local and company-specific solutions, where duly justified and proportionate, also taking into account possible impacts on the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC underscores that the deployment of ITS must be undertaken in a broad societal context, considering elements well beyond mere technical aspects, and that failure to do so may have adverse effects, in both sustainability and resource efficiency aspects. In this context, the EESC underlines the importance of devoting sufficient attention and resources to the needs of rural areas, including public service aspects and alternative means of mobility such as walking and cycling. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC also raises the issue of the sharing of mobility resources and would like to draw attention to the possible need for a delegated act regarding ITS support for that purpose, addressing, for instance, availability of transport resources and capacity, as well as the aggregation of travel needs, and defining matching possibilities to optimise use of capacity. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | Optimising use of available resources, with the increased number of zero-emission vehicles, will improve sustainability. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC sees the proposal as a significant step towards a Common European Mobility Data Space, meaning added value through improved efficiency, as well as creating prerequisites for improved working conditions in the transport sector, for instance facilitating compliance with legislation on working and rest times, as well as finding and accessing rest areas. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC draws attention to the importance of confidence building in order for a system built on the sharing of resources and information to be accepted by the public and function properly. This means that, inter alia, privacy and data protection as well as protection for business secrets must be satisfactory. The EESC is therefore looking forward to the framework of governance announced by the Commission in its Communication on a European Strategy for data. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | Regarding in-vehicle data, the EESC also points to the need to ensure both consumer protection and fair competition, as further developed in point 3.18. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | The EESC calls for an urgent sector-specific regulation regarding access to in-vehicle data, functions and resources. So far, the Commission has not put forward a proposal on the matter. Such a delay is particularly detrimental to consumers. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | The EESC also points to the need to improve the inclusion of people with reduced mobility and calls for the accessibility requirements under Directive (EU) 2019/882 to be included in ITS requirements, possibly in the form of a delegated act. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

| 1.13. | Finally, the EESC reiterates its offer made in the above-mentioned opinion on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems to assist the Commission in its implementing activities by serving as a link with civil society. |
| --- | --- |

1.13.

2.   Background

| 2.1. | The Commission proposal is part of the implementation of the Commission’s 2020 Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (the Strategy) and the transformation of the European transport system. It sets out where digitalisation plays a key role in making the transport system seamless and more efficient. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | Intelligent transport systems (ITS) play a key role in creating a connected and automated multimodal mobility system which will improve the efficiency, safety and sustainability of transport. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | In line with its Communication on a European Strategy for Data (COM(2020) 66), the Commission has submitted the current proposal to contribute to implementation of the objectives of the Green Deal and to make Europe fit for the digital age. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The ITS Directive (2010/40/EU) needs updating to meet the challenges of technical development in ITS and in particular to improve cooperation among stakeholders as well as the availability of ITS services. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The proposal for updating the ITS Directive is part of a legislative package that focuses on the goals of CO2 emission reduction, digitalisation and improved resilience of transport infrastructure. For instance, both the proposal for a review of the TEN-T Regulation (1) and the Communication on the new urban mobility framework (2) include provisions regarding the deployment of ITS services such as the provision of safety-related information and urban mobility development. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | The ITS Directive will be an important element in implementation of the common European mobility data space, which is one of the data spaces planned for strategic sectors under the European strategy for data. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | The proposal amends the ITS Directive by adding availability of data and the deployment of ITS services to the scope of the Directive. The priority areas for action have been restructured to tally better with the various types of ITS services.






  — | A National Access Point is being set up in each Member State for data exchange. Exchange/provision of data is becoming compulsory in a number of fields, and data will to a large extent be forwarded also to stakeholders. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.7.

—

A National Access Point is being set up in each Member State for data exchange. Exchange/provision of data is becoming compulsory in a number of fields, and data will to a large extent be forwarded also to stakeholders.

| — | Member States are also to cooperate, where necessary, with relevant stakeholders on operational aspects of implementation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Member States are also to cooperate, where necessary, with relevant stakeholders on operational aspects of implementation.

| — | A new section in Annex I regarding priority areas contains provisions regarding a role for data in tracking and tracing freight and a new section on cooperative, connected and automated mobility services. |
| --- | --- |

—

A new section in Annex I regarding priority areas contains provisions regarding a role for data in tracking and tracing freight and a new section on cooperative, connected and automated mobility services.

| — | There are also provisions on data protection and integrity. |
| --- | --- |

—

There are also provisions on data protection and integrity.

| — | One important element is that the Commission is to be empowered to adopt delegated acts to update certain information requirements. |
| --- | --- |

—

One important element is that the Commission is to be empowered to adopt delegated acts to update certain information requirements.

| — | Member States are to report regularly to the Commission on implementation of the Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Member States are to report regularly to the Commission on implementation of the Directive.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The EESC welcomes the Commission proposal, which is fully in line with the developments recommended by the EESC in its opinion on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (3). It sees considerable added value in the updated ITS system now being proposed by the Commission, as a matter of both improved security and safety, as well as of improved efficiency, not only relating to improved and safer traffic flows but also as a support function for efficient logistics. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC therefore also welcomes the broader scope of the information to be provided and the fact that Member States will be under an obligation to cooperate. It particularly appreciates the widened scope of provisions on information exchange regarding freight and extension of the information covered to include cooperative, connected and automated mobility. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | It assumes that the proposed information system also covers vehicle-to-vehicle communication, as already requested in its opinion on the European Strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems. The EESC recalls the major contribution of vehicle-to-vehicle communication in preventing road accidents. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC assumes that the upgraded information exchange system now being proposed will bring added value in the form of improved efficiency in both passenger and freight transport and also that the progress of a consignment, for instance, will now be easy to follow for those concerned, since relevant information will now also be forwarded to relevant stakeholders. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | It notes that the information to be exchanged at this stage is largely standardised and therefore reiterates its view that it is important that reasonable room be left for local and company-specific solutions, where this is duly justified and proportionate, also taking into account possible impacts on the internal market. The EESC assumes that this does not pose a problem as long as the information fed into the proposed system complies with the standards set. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC notes that the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) must be undertaken in a broad societal context and does not automatically lead to a climate-friendly transport system. The digitalisation of transport modes in itself (e.g. automated mobility by car) can even be counterproductive in terms of environmental policy. Intelligent Transport Systems should be developed, promoted and used in such a way as to develop climate-friendly added value. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | An efficient public transport system as part of services of general (economic) interest, complemented by cycling and walking, is essential for sustainable mobility. The EESC advocates the promotion of Intelligent Transport Systems to strengthen and complement public transport. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The EESC points out that a purely technology-oriented view of the development of Intelligent Transport Systems may lead to a failure to contribute to achievement of the set goals and results — for example, the contribution of car-sharing systems in urban agglomerations that already have well-developed public transport systems. Automated car driving may not be a forward-looking solution for cities either, especially where there is congestion and scarce public space. The EESC therefore maintains that the major mobility innovations of electrification, automation and sharing will yield the best added value if they are conceived and laid out with due regard to the needs of society, such as accessibility, efficiency and public service aspects. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | Stakeholder consultations have revealed many concerns about territorial coverage. The EESC regrets that the proposal does not mention the development of Intelligent Transport Systems to cover the needs of rural areas, as an issue apart from their development in urban areas. The EESC recommends that the Commission pay special attention to extending ITS systems to rural areas, as life in such areas largely depends on the availability of quality public services and infrastructure. A separate Communication from the Commission entitled A long-term vision for EU: Rural Areas (4) also states that basic services and related infrastructure in these areas are key to ensuring social and economic inclusion. It should therefore be an EU-level concern that rural areas be able to profit from the solutions provided by ITS. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | This may be of particular interest in the efficient use of transport capacities in rural areas. The damage caused by transport is reflected not only in emissions but also in the use of transport resources. We recommend that the Commission consider, where appropriate, adopting delegated acts to address the sharing of resources supported by ITS. This should include smart, digitally supported aggregation of travel needs and the sharing of spare capacity (see ride-pooling), which would be particularly needed in rural areas, where available transport capacity is becoming increasingly limited and where it is becoming increasingly difficult to build new capacity due to distances. Such intelligent systems should enable the sharing of information about use of the vehicle and the ability to replenish the existing system with additional passengers or goods. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The EESC welcomes the fact that, in addition to the proliferation of zero-emission vehicles, the proposal will also contribute to more sustainable transport through shared mobility services, leading us to net zero emissions by 2050. By making road traffic smoother and reducing traffic jams, we are serving our environmental goals in a number of ways. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | The EESC appreciates that strengthening the ITS system as is now being proposed may be seen as a first step toward a Common European Mobility Data Space, which would mean considerable added value in terms of improved efficiency. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

| 3.13. | Clearly the creation of such a space would facilitate the provision of mobility as a service with respect to both passengers and freight and may improve working conditions in the transport sector. |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

| 3.14. | The EESC welcomes ITS for safe parking for professional drivers on the Trans-European Motorway Network. Telematics applications for safe parking can facilitate compliance with legal driving and rest times. However, the EESC points out that the basic problem for companies and professional drivers alike is the inadequate infrastructure of motorway rest areas, which leads to over-parking at night. Infrastructure development must go hand in hand with ITS-based services (e.g. reserved parking). |
| --- | --- |

3.14.

| 3.15. | The EESC would, in that context, again underline the importance of confidence building and the fact that no obligation to provide information should impinge on business confidentiality, privacy or data protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.15.

| 3.16. | Regarding the right of the Commission to adopt delegated acts to update specific information obligations, the EESC notes the need for a level playing field and trust regarding all involved in ‘data sharing’. The EESC supports the widened scope of the ITS Directive and the added value that it brings. The EESC also takes note of the existence of problems of trust regarding data sharing and the need to establish a framework of governance of European Data Spaces, particularly in strategic areas such as mobility, as outlined in the Commission Communication on a European strategy for data (5). |
| --- | --- |

3.16.

| 3.17. | Here the EESC would likewise stress that it is important that the information in the system be used for ITS purposes only and not for other ends. The EESC reiterates the importance of effective privacy and data protection in the context of the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems. However, the General Data Protection Regulation does not provide sufficient protection when technologies (e.g. mobility patterns of vehicle data, facial recognition, etc.) that allow conclusions to be drawn about individuals or even discriminate through algorithms are used when anonymising data. When it comes to the use of personal data in the workplace, workers, their representatives and trade unions need a say and a veto. The EESC stresses that Article 10 of the proposal (provisions on data protection and privacy) must exclude this potential risk. This is particularly important to strengthen trust in the system and acceptance in society at large. |
| --- | --- |

3.17.

| 3.18. | The EESC notes that consumers must stay in control over the data that is being shared: their personal information when booking services or tickets, as well as the data their cars share with service providers or infrastructure. In all circumstances, consumers must be at the centre and have their data protected, in full compliance with the GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

3.18.

| 3.19. | Access to in-vehicle data must finally be regulated in favour of data and consumer protection, as well as fair competition. If in-vehicle data is left to car manufacturers, this leads to monopolies and dominant market positions and risk of abuse. The Commission has long been called upon to submit a regulatory proposal and has given positive signals in that regard, for instance in the abovementioned data strategy, so far however without taking any steps to submit a proposal. This delay is particularly detrimental to consumer interests and the possibilities of consumers to control data and make alternative, informed choices. |
| --- | --- |

3.19.

| 3.20. | Digitalisation can reduce the lack of inclusion that affects people with reduced mobility in their daily lives. In this sense, explicit accessibility requirements under Directive (EU) 2019/882 should be programmatically enshrined in this Directive for all ITS sectors. Mentioning this topic only in a recital that holds out the prospect of developing accessibility features for people with reduced mobility in digital multimodal services is too little. |
| --- | --- |

3.20.

| 3.21. | The planned exchange and availability of data on roads and motorways (driving bans, speed limits, real-time data on road closures, road works, etc.) in Annex III is to be welcomed. In this context, the EESC would encourage the development of intelligent traffic management systems that can equalise the traffic of (transit) road transport on motorways in terms of time and thus ensure the safety and ease of traffic. |
| --- | --- |

3.21.

| 3.22. | In this connection, the EESC notes that the Commission, in its work to update the list of mandatory information, intends to call on input from the European ITS Advisory Group. Here the EESC reiterates the offer it set out in the above-mentioned opinion to assist the Commission by serving as a link with civil society. |
| --- | --- |

3.22.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013.

1

(2)  COM(2021) 1811.

2

(3)  OJ C 288, 31.8.2017, p. 85 and COM(2016) 766.

3

(4)  A long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas — Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040 — COM(2021) 345.

4

A long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas — Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040

(5)  COM(2020) 66.

5

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/131 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/131

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on EU Soil Strategy for 2030 — Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate

(COM(2021) 699 final)

(2022/C 290/21)

| Rapporteur: | Arnaud SCHWARTZ |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Arnaud SCHWARTZ

| Referral | European Commission, 20.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted in section | 8.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 169/0/5 |

Referral

European Commission, 20.12.2021

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted in section

8.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

169/0/5

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The Committee welcomes the communication of the European Commission on a Soil Strategy for 2030 and wishes to be regularly informed and actively contribute to the preparation of the proposal for soil protection. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | Soil is a strategic and threatened economic and environmental asset and it deserves a framework of targets, programmes and regulations. The Committee urges the Commission to promote a European legal framework that is effective at preventing soil degradation, supporting restoration programmes and fixing the road map towards a good soil health status. The Committee also calls for the necessary allocation of resources from the European budget for the implementation of the Soil Strategy. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | For the implementation of the strategy, the Commission foresees the adoption of a Soil Health Law. However, the EESC recommends carrying out the planned impact assessment and then to decide upon the most appropriate instruments. The EESC also recommends for the framework to build on the following principles, so as to ensure a level playing-field for all stakeholders operating in the economic sectors linked with soil and its use:






  — | providing a clear definition of ‘healthy soils’, indicators and threshold values developed on a scientifically sound basis; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.3.

—

providing a clear definition of ‘healthy soils’, indicators and threshold values developed on a scientifically sound basis;

| — | setting clear targets for 2030 based on the definition of ‘healthy soils’; |
| --- | --- |

—

setting clear targets for 2030 based on the definition of ‘healthy soils’;

| — | guaranteeing an adequate level of environmental protection and climate action; |
| --- | --- |

—

guaranteeing an adequate level of environmental protection and climate action;

| — | fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity, given the heterogeneity of soils, the variety of uses and demands for use, the different geological, climatic and landscape conditions as well as the differentiated hazards and national rules already in place; |
| --- | --- |

—

fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity, given the heterogeneity of soils, the variety of uses and demands for use, the different geological, climatic and landscape conditions as well as the differentiated hazards and national rules already in place;

| — | prioritising of measures on education, advice, knowledge transfer and incentives for soil protection over additional legal obligations; |
| --- | --- |

—

prioritising of measures on education, advice, knowledge transfer and incentives for soil protection over additional legal obligations;

| — | keeping the administrative burden for all actors to a reasonable level while ensuring its affordability. |
| --- | --- |

—

keeping the administrative burden for all actors to a reasonable level while ensuring its affordability.

| 1.4. | The Committee recommends having the broadest possible discussion, with economic and social actors as well as with civil society organisations, about the contents of the legislative initiative. For this reason, the Committee calls on the Commission to present a proposal as soon as possible, in order to allow time for the discussion before the vote of the text within the current legislative mandate. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The Committee highlights the need to address all aspects of soil degradation, with a special focus on the topics of soil contamination, land take by urban developments and infrastructure, and of organic matter depletion in agricultural soils, as these phenomena have a particularly deep and potentially irreversible impact on soil health and its capability in terms of providing ecosystem services. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | There is a great diversity of soils in Europe, reflecting differences in climate, geology and land use; the threats to which soils are exposed also differ in type and intensity, therefore the policies developed in order to prevent soil degradation requires adaptation to different geographical and cultural contexts. Legislation for soil protection in Member States (MSs) is heterogeneous and fragmented, and many soil threats are not addressed by the policy and legislative frameworks of several MSs. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The Committee also point out the crucial and urgent need to address the human caused impacts on soils due to climate change. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends to integrate in the new EU Soil Strategy actions against erosion and desertification linked to extreme floods, droughts and fires. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The Committee expresses great concern about land take caused by urbanisation processes which, in the vast majority of cases, affect fertile soils of plains and coastal areas. The goal ‘zero net land take’ to be pursued by 2050, must be accompanied by incentives to encourage the reuse of abandoned sites and the restoration of unused impermeable surfaces. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The Committee considers a priority, consistent with the challenge of a circular and resource-efficient economy, safeguarding the ecological productivity of European soils, thus reducing the footprint of EU demand towards third countries. It considers an absolute priority the finalisation of the initiatives for deforestation-free guarantees in international trade. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

2.   Background

| 2.1. | On 20 May 2020, the Commission published its proposal for a EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. This communication emphasises that ‘soil is a hugely important non-renewable resource, vital for human and economic health, as well as the production of food and new medications’ (1) and stresses the need to tackle land take and restore soil ecosystems. It announces the Commission’s commitment to updating the Soil Thematic Strategy in 2021 and to forming a mission in the area of ‘soil health and food’ under Horizon Europe, in order to develop solutions for restoring soil health and functions. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | On 28 April 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on soil protection, stressing the need to protect, sustainably manage and restore Europe’s soils, to preserve their multifunctional role and capacity to support the production of healthy food and raw materials, and to provide society with a multitude of ecosystem services. The resolution highlights that healthy soils are essential in order to achieve the objectives of the European Green Deal, including climate neutrality and biodiversity restoration. It also complains about the lack of a level playing-field between Member States regarding their different soil protection regimes, and calls on the Commission ‘to design an EU-wide common legal framework, with full respect for the subsidiarity principle, for the protection and sustainable use of soil’. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | On 9 June 2021, the European Parliament welcomed the proposed European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, approving a resolution in which, among nearly 200 recommendations, the central role of soil biodiversity is greatly highlighted. The European Parliament again urges the Commission to present a proposal for the establishment of a common legal framework for the protection of soil and ‘for the effective integration of that protection in all relevant EU policies’. In its resolution, the European Parliament also points out that ‘the EU has committed to achieving land degradation neutrality by 2030, but this target is unlikely to be achieved’, as concluded by a special report of the European Court of Auditors (2). |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | On 17 November 2021, the Commission published, as part of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, its proposal for a European Soil Strategy for the EU, subtitled ‘Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate’. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The Commission’s proposal upgrades the former Soil Strategy, in line with the strategic mission of the European Green Deal, for tackling the climate and biodiversity crises and to underpin a EU ambition for global action on soil. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | The strategy aims to make a decisive contribution to achieving many objectives of the Green Deal, including: combatting desertification and restoring degraded land and soil, and striving to achieve a land degradation-neutral world by 2030 (Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15.3); contributing to greenhouse gas (GHGs) removal; reaching good ecological and chemical status in surface and groundwaters by 2027; reducing nutrient losses by 50 % and the overall use and risk of pesticides by 50 % by 2030; reducing soil pollution to levels no longer considered harmful to human health and natural ecosystems, thus creating a toxic-free environment by 2050; and reaching no net land take by 2050 (3). |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | The strategy sets out a definition of ‘healthy soil’ as one that is in good chemical, biological and physical condition, and thus able to continuously provide as many of its expected ecosystem services as possible, such as food and biomass provision, water storage and filtering, mineral nutrients cycling, supporting life and biodiversity, carbon storage, and supporting human activities, landscapes and cultural heritage. This definition is consistent with that provided by United Nations organisations (4). In the vision depicted by the strategy, good soil health is to be achieved by 2050, through commitments to sustainable land use and restoration efforts: the EC has estimated that, currently, 60 % to 70 % of EU soils are ‘unhealthy as a direct result of current management practices’ (5) with strong differences between different countries; however, ‘a 75 % goal of healthy soil by 2030 through a radical change in current land management practices is both feasible and necessary’ (6). |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | The strategy aims to ensure the same level of protection for soil as exists for water and air, overcoming the lack of soil legislation at EU level. It therefore announces a Soil Health Law to be drafted by 2023, following an impact assessment, a subsidiarity check and a consultation of stakeholders and the MSs. The new Soil Health Law should address the cross-border impacts of soil degradation and ensure policy coherence at EU and national levels in order to pursue the goals of the strategy. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

| 2.9. | The strategy encompasses a combination of new voluntary and legally binding measures, to be developed in full respect of subsidiarity and building on existing national soil policies designed to:






  — | enhance the protection of organic soils and peatlands; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.9.

—

enhance the protection of organic soils and peatlands;

| — | support the Commission initiative for sustainable carbon cycles, including rewarding practices of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils; |
| --- | --- |

—

support the Commission initiative for sustainable carbon cycles, including rewarding practices of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils;

| — | support the reuse of excavated soils, including introducing a ‘passport’ to ensure that they are transported, treated and re-used in a safe way; |
| --- | --- |

—

support the reuse of excavated soils, including introducing a ‘passport’ to ensure that they are transported, treated and re-used in a safe way;

| — | require the Member States to set, by 2023, national targets for the reduction of land taken up by new settlements and infrastructure, in line with the goal of ‘net zero land take’ by 2050, and introducing a hierarchy for the better use of urban soils, prioritising reuse of the built environment and phasing out local fiscal benefits for the urban transformation of agricultural land; |
| --- | --- |

—

require the Member States to set, by 2023, national targets for the reduction of land taken up by new settlements and infrastructure, in line with the goal of ‘net zero land take’ by 2050, and introducing a hierarchy for the better use of urban soils, prioritising reuse of the built environment and phasing out local fiscal benefits for the urban transformation of agricultural land;

| — | promote the recycling of organic matter such as compost, digestate, sewage sludge, processed manure and other agricultural residues, in a safe and sustainable way; |
| --- | --- |

—

promote the recycling of organic matter such as compost, digestate, sewage sludge, processed manure and other agricultural residues, in a safe and sustainable way;

| — | assess, protect and restore soil biodiversity; |
| --- | --- |

—

assess, protect and restore soil biodiversity;

| — | integrate and coordinate soil and water management and promote the adoption of nature-based solutions for surface and rainwater management; |
| --- | --- |

—

integrate and coordinate soil and water management and promote the adoption of nature-based solutions for surface and rainwater management;

| — | support sustainable soil management in agriculture; |
| --- | --- |

—

support sustainable soil management in agriculture;

| — | monitor desertification trends and adopt measures to mitigate and prevent soil degradation; |
| --- | --- |

—

monitor desertification trends and adopt measures to mitigate and prevent soil degradation;

| — | prevent soil pollution by regulating and restricting the use and release of microplastics, polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other toxic chemicals into the soil; |
| --- | --- |

—

prevent soil pollution by regulating and restricting the use and release of microplastics, polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other toxic chemicals into the soil;

| — | cooperate with the Member States to identify contaminated sites and remediate them; |
| --- | --- |

—

cooperate with the Member States to identify contaminated sites and remediate them;

| — | assess the feasibility of introducing a soil health certificate for land transactions; |
| --- | --- |

—

assess the feasibility of introducing a soil health certificate for land transactions;

| — | improve soil monitoring activities and the adoption of digital tools for nutrient management; |
| --- | --- |

—

improve soil monitoring activities and the adoption of digital tools for nutrient management;

| — | substantially fund research activity on soil biodiversity and solutions to soil degradation and contamination; |
| --- | --- |

—

substantially fund research activity on soil biodiversity and solutions to soil degradation and contamination;

| — | implement communication, education and citizen engagement to promote soil health. |
| --- | --- |

—

implement communication, education and citizen engagement to promote soil health.

| 2.10. | In its 2017 opinion NAT/713, entitled Land use for sustainable food production and ecosystem services, the EESC agreed on the decisive importance of an updated EU policy framework for the sustainable use and protection of soil, in particular referring to agricultural soil, including a definition of good soil status and uniform terminology and harmonised criteria for monitoring, and called for the principles of sustainable soil management to be incorporated into EU policy measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.10.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The Committee welcomes the Commission’s proposal of a European Soil Strategy for 2030, strongly rooted in the framework of the Green Deal and its vision to turn the threats of climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation into an opportunity to transform the EU into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The Committee acknowledges the strategic role played by healthy soils which, in their entirety and diversity, constitute one of the most important natural assets that citizens can rely on for their well-being and security. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The Committee is aware that soil is a unique and limited resource, threatened by a multiplicity of pressures. Soil degradation and the associated loss of fertility may contribute to the European footprint on global soils, leading to increased dependence on imports of food and non-food raw materials from third countries in which the growth of inappropriate cultivation triggers land degradation processes, associated with deforestation and GHG emissions. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The Committee highlights the absolute requirement and need to finalise the initiatives for deforestation-free guarantees in trade with third countries, and considers it a priority, consistent with the challenge of creating a circular and resource-efficient economy, to reduce the impact of internal demand by safeguarding and restoring the long-term ecological productivity of European soils. A more sustainable use of soil, based on agroecology principles, can make a big difference, both at the European and the global scale, in achieving the targets of the European Green Deal and the SDGs of the UN 2030 Agenda. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | It is necessary to overcome a reductionist concept of soil as a mere platform for settlements and activity: as soil is a complex biotic system on which the provision of ecosystem services and essential goods depends, its management requires appropriate governance, including landowner and user stewardship, responsibility of local administrators, and the role of national governments. European leadership is needed, as the challenges of food security, water storage, biodiversity conservation and climate change response are strictly related to good soil management. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The Committee stresses the need for the Soil Strategy to use fair methods and tools, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity, for the sustainable management of soils: each level of government on land must be given appropriate tasks and responsibilities, and adequate resources in the allocation of funds; special attention must be given to supporting small rural communities. The Committee also calls for greater inclusion of citizens, civil society organisations, trade unions and businesses, sharing responsibilities and resources in achieving the goal of combating soil degradation. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | For the implementation of the strategy, the European Commission foresees the adoption of a Soil Health Law. However, the EESC recommends carry out the planned impact assessment and then to decide upon the most appropriate instruments. The EESC also recommends for the framework to build on the following principles, so as to ensure a level playing-field for all stakeholders operating in the economic sectors linked with soil and its use.






  — | providing a clear definition of ‘healthy soils’, indicators and threshold values developed on a scientifically sound basis; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.7.

—

providing a clear definition of ‘healthy soils’, indicators and threshold values developed on a scientifically sound basis;

| — | setting clear targets for 2030 based on the definition of ‘healthy soils’; |
| --- | --- |

—

setting clear targets for 2030 based on the definition of ‘healthy soils’;

| — | guaranteeing an adequate level of environmental protection and climate action; |
| --- | --- |

—

guaranteeing an adequate level of environmental protection and climate action;

| — | fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity, given the heterogeneity of soils, the variety of uses and demands for use, the different geological, climatic and landscape conditions as well as the differentiated hazards and national rules already in place; |
| --- | --- |

—

fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity, given the heterogeneity of soils, the variety of uses and demands for use, the different geological, climatic and landscape conditions as well as the differentiated hazards and national rules already in place;

| — | prioritizing of measures on education, advice, knowledge transfer and incentives for soil protection over additional legal obligations; |
| --- | --- |

—

prioritizing of measures on education, advice, knowledge transfer and incentives for soil protection over additional legal obligations;

| — | keeping the administrative burden for all actors to a reasonable level while ensuring its affordability. |
| --- | --- |

—

keeping the administrative burden for all actors to a reasonable level while ensuring its affordability.

| 3.8. | The new proposal for soil protection must create synergies with legislation on climate, water, air and biodiversity, as well as with the Common Agricultural Policy. The Committee calls on the Commission to anticipate the presentation of the framework in order to allow for a wider discussion of its contents with the different stakeholders, before it is submitted for final approval within the current legislative term. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

4.   Specific comments

| 4.1. | Among the forms of soil degradation, one of the most severe and difficult to reverse is certainly land take associated with urbanisation processes: in the period 2012-18, land take in the EU-28 occurred at a rate of 539 km2/year, with 78 % of land taken at the expense of agricultural areas, and only 13 % of urban developments occurring over recycled land (7). The Committee believes that the goal of ‘net zero land take’ by 2050 must be accompanied by shorter intermediate and realistic targets, supported by incentives to encourage the reuse of abandoned settlements and the restoration of unused sealed surface. Targets to reduce land take for urban development and infrastructure can and should take account of different demographic developments in Member States and regions. Special attention should be paid to the protection and restoration of the coastal territory, in particular the Mediterranean shore, which has undergone extensive urbanisation processes, causing significant damage to coastal biodiversity and tourism. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The undisturbed soils of natural ecosystems are a key source of support for biodiversity and a natural carbon reservoir, whose status must be preserved. For this reason, the Committee believes that the Soil Strategy must prioritise the protection of such soils, and their associated vegetations, maintaining their integrity and supporting their management through appropriate husbandry or cultivation. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | Specific support should be given to the maintenance of permanent pastures and grasslands, as their proper management by sustainable husbandry can help to preserve their carbon-rich soils |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | Soil organic matter is the key component in regulating the ability of soil to support a high level of biodiversity and provide ecosystem services related to its fertility, as well as constituting a stock of carbon removed from the atmosphere. The decline of organic matter in European soils is a major cause for concern, mainly because of the loss of fertility and the risks of desertification that this entails, but also because of the resulting GHG emissions: it has been calculated that these amount to more than 170 Mton CO2 per year (8), or more than 4 % of EU27 global GHG emissions, mainly related to land use change of organic and peat soils. The new Soil Strategy should ensure the protection of peatlands and wetlands, and adequately support farmers with new forms of revenues for adoption of practices, based on agroecological concepts, which favour the maintenance and increase of organic matter in soils. Dissemination of knowledge related to good practices and sustainable management of agricultural soils should be prioritised, and targeted particularly at small farmers. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | In addition to the importance of organic matter in the soil, the EESC stresses the need of avoiding depletion or loss of soil mineral nutrients. The use of fertilisers must be dosed according to crop needs, avoiding over-application and pursuing a 50 % reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus leakage from soils by 2030, in line with the targets of the Farm to Fork Strategy. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | Soils that have suffered past or recent industrial contaminations continue to pose a threat to public health and the chemical state of water resources; 2,8 million sites in the EU have potentially contaminated soil, of which about 390 000 require remediation (9). Decisions on how to restore them should be made according to sustainable remediation criteria and based on site-specific risk analyses. The Committee expects that the strategy will provide, based on the most advanced national experiences, homogeneous methods and criteria for the conduct of these procedures, so as to avoid the significant inconsistencies that are found between different national regulations. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | The Committee, appreciating that the strategy focuses on the key concept of ‘healthy soil’ (10), stresses the need to develop a system of effective indicators to unambiguously frame the health status of soils in a Soil Health Index, the general targets to be achieved and their articulation in the diversity of European pedoclimatic conditions. In order to monitor the achievement of these objectives, reliable tools must be available to unequivocally estimate the soil health index at the individual parcel level. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | The Committee stresses the need to increase the level of awareness and knowledge about soil, its ecology and functions. To this end, it is necessary to support information programmes for citizens and education for schools, as well as training for farmers and, in general, for professionals working with land and soil, in traditional or emerging areas of the bio-economy and circular economy, as well as for local and regional decision-makers on whom choices that determine changes in land use depend. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | Access to healthy soil is vital for various economic sectors; jobs and competitiveness should not be affected by the strategy’s economic and social implications. In particular, there is a need to safeguard income in rural communities and families which are depending on soil to live. The strategy should ensure equitable distribution of costs and benefits among stakeholders: vulnerable groups and regions should be protected, subsistence farmers should be supported and funds should be allocated to communities in need. |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  European Commission, 2020, Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en

1

(2)  ECA Special Report 33/2018: Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action.

2

Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action

(3)  The strategy refers to soil as the complex and biologically active system (pedosphere) that supports terrestrial vegetation, lying at the interface between the lithosphere and the atmosphere and interacting with the hydrosphere. It does not include marine and lake sediments. According with the FAO communications, soil is the basis of 95 % of world food production.

3

(4)  Healthy soils are the basis for healthy food production, FAO 2015, https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/645883cd-ba28-4b16-a7b8-34babbb3c505/

4

Healthy soils are the basis for healthy food production

(5)  European Commission 2020, Caring for soil is caring for Life, Report of the Mission Board for Soil Health and Food, https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/32d5d312-b689-11ea-bb7a-01aa75ed71a1

5

Caring for soil is caring for Life

(6)  Ibidem.

6

(7)  EEA (2020), Land take in Europe — Indicator assessment, https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/land-take-3/assessment

7

(8)  JRC-EC (2015), Soil threats in Europe: Status, methods, drivers and effects on ecosystem services, technical report https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/public_path/shared_folder/doc_pub/EUR27607.pdf

8

Soil threats in Europe

Status, methods, drivers and effects on ecosystem services

(9)  JRC-EC 2018, Status of local soil contamination in Europe https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC107508

9

(10)  ‘Vision and objectives: achieving good soil health by 2050’, European Commission 2021, EU Soil Strategy for 2030, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/publications/eu-soil-strategy-2030_en

10

EU Soil Strategy for 2030

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/137 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/137

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: Long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas

(COM(2021) 345 final)

(2022/C 290/22)

| Rapporteur: | Lidija PAVIĆ-ROGOŠIĆ |
| --- | --- |
| Co-rapporteur: | Piroska KÁLLAY |

Rapporteur:

Lidija PAVIĆ-ROGOŠIĆ

Co-rapporteur:

Piroska KÁLLAY

| Referral | European Commission, 10.8.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted in section | 9.2.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 222/1/5 |

Referral

European Commission, 10.8.2021

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted in section

9.2.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

222/1/5

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions

| 1.1. | The EESC broadly welcomes the European Commission’s long-term vision for rural areas. Proposals for an Action Plan, including a Rural Pact for engaging actors at EU, national, regional and local levels to support the vision, are also welcomed, as are those for the establishment of a Rural Observatory and a rural proofing mechanism. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | However, it is unclear what the implications of the design and content of the Commission’s new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and CAP strategic plans for each Member State will be for the long-term vision, and how the Commission should ensure consistency and added value between the CAP and other policies. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC endorses the Action Plan’s priorities of becoming ‘stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous’. The EESC considers that prosperity, defined as a socially and environmentally sustainable way of living, must be the aim for all citizens, wherever they live. If the Action Plan is delivered, there will be real grounds for an optimistic, confident future for rural Europe. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The Commission commits to delivering through the Rural Pact and the Rural Action Plan; however, so much depends on having the buy-in of all Member States, regions and local communities. The EESC considers that the Council of Ministers, each Council presidency, the European Parliament, the Committee of Regions (CoR) and the EESC itself all have roles to play, as do civil society organisations and networks, in order to deliver on the vision. The key to delivering the vision is having a fully-funded Action Plan with clear targets and dates for transparent measurement. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC further welcomes the strengthened rural proofing policy and the establishment of a transparent Observatory for monitoring progress (1). Sharing of information and dialogue with social and civil society partners is essential. The EESC is willing to provide support for this work, for example by contributing to the work of the ENRD’s new Thematic Group on Rural Proofing. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

Recommendations

| 1.6. | The EESC believes that more ongoing engagement with and empowerment for local rural-urban participative organisations and civil society organisations is needed for the vision to be fully understood and inclusive. The European Rural Parliament and other existing networks, as well as the current Conference on the Future of Europe, should play an important role in providing local community views. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC considers that the Commission’s rural network and civil dialogue groups, led by various DGs, need to foster two-way, transparent reporting procedures. The EESC also believes that, while appreciating the commitments to rural proofing in the Horizon Research Programme, more Commission departments should demonstrate their holistic commitment to the vision. In particular, rural proofing should be extended to include Creative Europe and the Erasmus+ Programme. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC believes that the Rural Pact requires the Commission to create a governance model that includes local governments as well as local businesses, both private and not-for-profit, working with local democratic and social partner structures to ensure that local voices are heard and that the long-term vision can be successfully implemented. The Pact should learn from the experience with the best practices of LEADER and CLLD, and each EU Council presidency should promote the Pact concept across the EU. The Commission and the Member States should be active facilitators and funders of pilot projects. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | Common priorities should be designed using bottom-up and data-based methods. A reappraisal of the pandemic’s effect on the Action Plan should be carried out, looking at the impact of increased demand for rural housing, new business space in villages, better public services, accommodating more travel into rural areas and greater demand for recreational, health-related, green and cultural tourism. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The development of a charter of rural/urban rights and responsibilities may further help citizens understand how their ambitions for well-being can be realised and inspire them to act, while the Pillar of Social Rights must be a guide for all actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

2.   Background

| 2.1. | Some 136 million people live in the EU’s rural areas, representing almost 30 % of the EU’s population, and for a long list of reasons, highlighted in previous EESC opinions (2), there has been a widening gap in economic and social well-being between urban and rural citizens. While rural areas play a crucial role in economic and social cohesion, including sustainable food production, they face the challenge of depopulation, especially of young people. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | Historically, rural support has come from a number of different departments and financial instruments, at the EU, national, regional and local levels, in a somewhat fractured, disjointed and frustratingly bureaucratic way. Public intervention has only partially succeeded, particularly in remoter rural areas and islands, in keeping pace with declining economic activity, poor digital accessibility, the exodus of young people and the loss of key public services, rural craft skills, biodiversity and cultural heritage. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | This is why the EESC believes in a much more integrated, but equitable, place-based approach to tackling these imbalances. As highlighted in the opinion NAT/820 Towards a sustainable rural/urban development (3), a holistic, cross-departmental and streamlined approach is needed that ‘leaves no one’, and no territory, ‘behind’. A partnership of all citizens based on mutual understanding and respect for both rural and urban assets is recommended. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | Acknowledging the range of challenges faced by rural areas, in June 2021 the European Commission published a communication that sets out a long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas up to 2040 (4). This communication includes proposals for a Rural Pact engaging actors at the EU, national, regional and local levels to support the vision and an Action Plan to support stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas. It also provides for the establishment of a Rural Observatory to improve data collection and analysis of the situation of rural areas and a rural proofing mechanism to assess the anticipated impact of major EU legislative initiatives for rural areas. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | Anticipating the joined-up context referred to above, which may be further developed in the Conference on the Future of Europe, the EESC broadly welcomes the European Commission’s long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas, and supports the initiative and commitment of the Commission presidency. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC believes that a vision needs to be inclusive, widely understood, inspirational and deliverable. Furthermore, the EESC welcomes a particular focus on remote and less developed rural regions, including islands. However, it is unclear what the implications of the design and content of the Commission’s new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and CAP strategic plans for each Member State will be for the long-term vision, and how the Commission should ensure consistency and added value between the CAP and other policies. The CAP must be able to combine agricultural and food policies with territorial development. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The European Commission held a broad consultation of both rural and urban citizens, and engaged more deeply with stakeholder organisations through platforms such as the European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) and targeted consultations (5). Engagement was also supported by the research scenarios of the Joint Research Centre (6) and cross-departmental work on the vision was carried out within the Commission. The EESC welcomes such an approach. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC believes that more ongoing engagement with and empowerment for local rural/urban participative organisations and civil society organisations is needed for the vision to be fully understood and inclusive. The Commission’s recently created competence centre on participatory and deliberative democracy could be a forum for developing good practices and ensuring linkages between local and wider policy structures. The vision specifically mentions the work of the European Rural Parliament as one example of providing local community views and creating a platform of priorities for engagement with senior policy-makers. The work and contributions of other existing networks are equally important. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | Local consultees need to see evidence that their views have been heard and that they share ownership of developments. The EESC therefore considers that the Commission’s rural network (which will become the future CAP network) and civil dialogue groups, led by various DGs, need to foster two-way, transparent reporting procedures. The ENRD will contribute with two new thematic groups focusing on rural revitalisation and on rural proofing, particularly at national and regional level. The EESC is looking forward to hearing about the outcomes of their work in the months ahead. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC also believes that more Commission departments, including those with responsibility for culture, research and innovation, education and training, mobility and transport, youth, employment, social affairs and inclusion, climate action, energy, the environment, and other relevant areas, should demonstrate their holistic commitment to the vision. However, decisions on the 2021-2027 funding period were taken before its publication. In this period, the responsibility for including rural needs in the relevant programmes lies, primarily, with national, regional and local governments. There is still a risk of confusion and a lack of understanding unless policy and funding, at all levels, are streamlined and coordinated. The European institutions must also ensure that the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) are in line with the European Green Deal and its legislative instruments, and can finance the implementation of the rural vision. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | Dates for the beginning of the Action Plan and some mid-term review dates are listed, but completion dates for individual programmes are not. Some slippages on dates are likely, while the new CAP, with its contribution to the vision, will not be ready until 2023. Some confusion is also possible unless a reference is made to global climate and other target dates. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | To be inspirational, the vision needs to be underpinned, as recommended in NAT/820, by a charter of rural/urban rights and responsibilities, which is widely disseminated and explained, so that all citizens understand how their ambitions for well-being can be realised. The EESC believes that being inspired to act and make a difference depends on having a well-rounded understanding of the challenges and a sense of shared ownership and trust. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The Commission commits to delivering through the Pact and the Action Plan; however, so much depends on having the buy-in of all Member States, regions and local communities. The setting of targets for delivery at Commission level is one challenge, while setting targets and achieving delivery at state, regional and local level is much more difficult. The EESC considers that the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the CoR and the EESC itself all have roles to play, as do civil society organisations and networks, in order to deliver on this vision. Otherwise, inconsistent delivery could lead to further imbalances, with some localities benefiting from the Action Plan and others missing out. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | The EESC further believes that the Commission could also learn from, and share learning with, non-EU states and regions, as different areas of the world tackle similar rural/urban challenges and opportunities. The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission presented the Rural Vision Communication to our Western Balkan and Turkish partners. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

4.   Specific comments

| 4.1. | The EESC believes that the Rural Pact requires the Commission to create a governance model that includes local governments as well as local businesses, both private and not-for-profit, working with local democratic and social partner structures to ensure that local voices are heard and that the long-term vision could be successfully implemented. Greater use of hybrid interaction tools may increase participation, while the contribution of local communities will have to be clearly demonstrated. The Commission and the Member States should be active facilitators and funders of pilot projects. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The Pact should learn from the experiences with the best of LEADER and CLLD, and each EU Council presidency should promote the Pact concept during their presidencies. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The EESC believes that rural development should be an integral part of regional development policy. LEADER/CLLD should be an important component of territorial development. The EESC acknowledges that post-2020 cohesion policy introduces a new cross-cutting policy objective for integrated and sustainable territorial and local development with the aim of leaving no place and nobody behind. It also provides a flexible framework for Member States to support rural areas, addressing their specific challenges. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The key to delivering the vision is having a fully-funded Action Plan with clear targets and dates for transparent measurement for all EU institutions and Member States. The EESC is looking forward to seeing, by mid-2023, the result of the Commission’s work, which will take stock of what actions are planned for rural areas — under the CAP and cohesion policy funds — for the 2021-2027 programming period. This should clearly identify any gaps to be addressed. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | The EESC is also looking forward to seeing the Commission’s public report by the first quarter of 2024, based on the implementation of the EU Rural Action Plan, which should contain reflections on possible re-orientation for enhanced support action and financing for rural areas, which would support preparations for the 2028-2034 period. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | The EESC endorses the Action Plan’s priorities of becoming ‘stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous’ as well as the emphasis on specific action on each priority. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | For the ‘stronger’ priority, the Commission highlights community decision-making frameworks, with full gender and other socially inclusive opportunities for innovative responses. The coordinated voices of rural young people need to be heard and should be involved in decision-making at all levels of government. There should be specific opportunities under the Erasmus+ Programme to develop leadership skills and greater understanding between rural and urban young people. Specific attention should also be paid to women, by broadening the range of work and training available to them and promoting measures to ensure work-life balance. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | The EESC believes that business support should target not just agricultural but also wider, sustainable rural activity, building on local added value, the circular economy and the potential for meeting global targets in renewable energy, health and cultural tourism. Emphasising the role of fair food quality schemes (e.g. geographical indications, avoid unfair trading practices, promotion programmes for certified products) and financing alternative heating solutions are concrete examples. Decent job creation, especially of quality employment, is essential for the sustainable development of rural areas. Special measures may be required to improve the living and working conditions of seasonal workers. Further innovative measures, including tax incentives (7), are also required to enable young people to return to rural areas. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | Streamlined financial support, also including through adapted taxation, in particular for SMEs, from the Recovery and Resilience Facility, InvestEU and the European Investment Bank, among other sources, all of which should be rural proofed, should be readily available. The contribution of volunteer time to match the funding of social enterprises should be promoted. |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

| 4.10. | For the ‘connected’ priority, the EESC strongly recommends that the Commission’s ‘digital decade’ initiative be accelerated and made universal, so that all rural communities can innovate, develop business links, and tackle health, education and social deprivation. |
| --- | --- |

4.10.

| 4.11. | Sustainable transport systems are necessary for an inclusive society and the need to shift from a carbon fuel-based system to a renewable one will create both problems and opportunities for remote rural areas. In this context, easily accessible and affordable public transport systems are the key drivers for addressing demographic change and halting depopulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.11.

| 4.12. | For the ‘resilience’ priority, the Commission recognises, in the European Green Deal, the immense contribution that sustainable agriculture, forestry and other land and water resources can make to tackling wider, global climate change, and proposes the provision of ecosystem services, preserving and restoring biodiversity, greener farming and the promotion of cultural landscapes as rural opportunities to build economic resilience and well-being. The ‘Soil Deal for Europe’ will improve reporting across the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.12.

| 4.13. | The EESC endorses this approach, but believes that resilience is also about community cohesion, intergenerational relationships, training, education and the transfer of skills. The EESC points out that the focus on social resilience should be more strongly emphasised, taking a broader approach. |
| --- | --- |

4.13.

| 4.14. | The Pillar of Social Rights should be observed by seeking support for quality, rural employment, decent work and decent working conditions. The social partners need to be formally engaged in formulating economic and social policies through social dialogue at local and regional level. The European Green Deal should also be an inclusive social deal. |
| --- | --- |

4.14.

| 4.15. | For the ‘prosperous’ priority, the Commission recognises the need for rural areas to diversify and to be based on ‘sustainable local economic strategies’. The EESC supports this call, while recognising that peri-urban and remote areas may have different expectations. |
| --- | --- |

4.15.

| 4.16. | The EESC recognises that the pandemic has accelerated different activities related to sustainable food production, employment, new jobs, remote and new forms of working, and the need for a new approach to ensure improved quality of life in rural areas, so that rural people can continue to work in decent conditions. With further digitalisation of working life, easily accessible co-working spaces could be promoted as a public service, if necessary, to utilise vacant village and local centres. |
| --- | --- |

4.16.

| 4.17. | In remote and less-developed rural areas, a lower quality of life is attributed to a lack of easy access to public services and to poorer public services more generally. Comprehensive improved educational, health and social care provision for all ages is needed, as is more and better social housing. As the EESC has already stressed in its opinion SOC/628 (8) on Demographic challenges in the EU in light of economic and development inequalities, safeguarding families’ living standards, including the promotion of child educational services, would be one of the key measures to fight the depopulation of rural areas and small and medium-sized towns. |
| --- | --- |

4.17.

| 4.18. | Common priorities should be designed using bottom-up and data-based methods. A reappraisal of the pandemic’s effect on the Action Plan should be carried out, looking at the impact of increased demand for rural housing, new business spaces in villages, more public services, accommodating more travel into rural areas and greater demand for recreational, health-related, green and cultural tourism. The EESC considers that increased migration from cities to peri-urban and perhaps rural areas in general may create tensions between traditional rural economic activity and a tranquillity-based recreational expectation, requiring some mediation activities. |
| --- | --- |

4.18.

| 4.19. | The Commission needs to fast-track and mainstream many of the valuable lessons learnt from its Horizon research projects. The Life Programme (9), Robust (10), Rubizmo (11), Sherpa (12), Smart Villages (13), Farmwell (14) and many others, have provided the guidance needed to help deliver the vision. |
| --- | --- |

4.19.

| 4.20. | The EESC further considers that prosperity, defined as a socially and environmentally sustainable way of living, must be the aim for all citizens, wherever they live. Prosperity should not be thought of exclusively in economic terms, but must be complemented by community-based approaches focusing on social and environmental sustainability. |
| --- | --- |

4.20.

| 4.21. | The EESC welcomes the flagship initiatives proposed in the Action Plan, as they prioritise the consultation responses. The EESC considers that the challenge is for the combined resources of the Commission, in partnership with the Member States and regions, to be aligned, seamlessly and with sufficient funding, in order to create a positive impact for local communities of people and places. The proposed one-stop-shop concept for support, and the funding toolkit, when available, are to be welcomed; however, a clear timeline is required. |
| --- | --- |

4.21.

| 4.22. | The New European Bauhaus, aimed at helping deliver the Green Deal, demonstrates the Commission’s trend towards more inclusive and joined-up policy-making and delivery. |
| --- | --- |

4.22.

| 4.23. | The EESC further welcomes the strengthened rural proofing policy and the establishment of a transparent Observatory for monitoring progress. |
| --- | --- |

4.23.

| 4.24. | While the concept of rural proofing is not new (see the Cork 2.0 Declaration (15)), the EESC is yet to be persuaded that there is sufficient determination in the Commission as a whole, and in the Member States and regions, for it to make a lasting difference. The concept is flawed, since many budgets are allocated on a per capita basis, which works against sparsely populated communities. Experience has shown that creating policies based on urban needs and then seeking to make them suitable to addressing rural areas is a problem of suitability and timeliness, while establishing a swift, transparent accounting process and ensuring that all relevant departments agree to rural proof is challenging. |
| --- | --- |

4.24.

| 4.25. | However, the EESC recognises the efforts of the Commission to deliver better rural proofing and hopes that a holistic rural/urban design of policies and allocation of resources can deliver for the vision. The EESC encourages the Commission to publish an annual report detailing which departments, which policies and which Member States and regions have delivered rural proofing and how. Good examples of rural proofing should be highlighted. The EESC supports integrating rural proofing into the Better Regulation Agenda, and also calls for the Member States to consider implementing the rural proofing principle at the national, regional and local level. |
| --- | --- |

4.25.

| 4.26. | The EESC welcomes the intention to establish an Observatory within the Commission to improve data collection and analysis, while supporting the overall implementation of the Action Plan, but recommends transparency, clear working dates, budgets and purposes, and external scrutiny from civil society representatives on its workings. |
| --- | --- |

4.26.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  EESC Information report on the Evaluation on the CAP's impact on territorial development of rural areas.

1

Evaluation on the CAP's impact on territorial development of rural areas

(2)  EESC own-initiative opinion, Towards a holistic strategy on sustainable rural/urban development (OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 49); EESC information report on the Evaluation on the CAP's impact on territorial development of rural areas; EESC own-initiative opinion on An integrated approach for the EU’s rural areas, with particular emphasis on vulnerable regions (OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 60).

2

Towards a holistic strategy on sustainable rural/urban development

Evaluation on the CAP's impact on territorial development of rural areas

An integrated approach for the EU’s rural areas, with particular emphasis on vulnerable regions

(3)  EESC Information report on the Evaluation on the CAP's impact on territorial development of rural areas.

3

Evaluation on the CAP's impact on territorial development of rural areas

(4)  https://europa.eu/!TH39QH

4

(5)  Commission SWD stakeholder consultation — synopsis report, SWD(2021) 167 final/2.

5

(6)  JRC Publications Repository — Scenarios for EU Rural Areas 2040.

6

Scenarios for EU Rural Areas 2040

(7)  Examples of such tax incentives exist in several Member States (e.g. The Castilla-La-Mancha region in Spain (jccm.es), https://bit.ly/3Llp0hb).

7

(8)  EESC opinion on Demographic challenges in the EU in light of economic and development inequalities (OJ C 232, 14.7.2020, p. 1).

8

Demographic challenges in the EU in light of economic and development inequalities

(9)  https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/strategy/hydrogen/funding-guide/eu-programmes-funds/life-programme_en

9

(10)  https://rural-urban.eu/

10

(11)  https://rubizmo.eu/

11

(12)  https://rural-interfaces.eu/what-is-sherpa/

12

(13)  https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/smart-and-competitive-rural-areas/smart-villages/smart-villages-portal_en

13

(14)  https://farmwell-h2020.eu/

14

(15)  EESC own initiative opinion From Cork 2.0 Declaration to concrete actions (OJ C 345, 13.10.2017, p. 37).

15

From Cork 2.0 Declaration to concrete actions

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/143 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/143

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC

(COM(2021) 851 final — 2021/0422 (COD))

(2022/C 290/23)

| Rapporteur: | Arnaud SCHWARTZ |
| --- | --- |
| Co-rapporteur: | Ozlem YILDIRIM |

Rapporteur:

Arnaud SCHWARTZ

Co-rapporteur:

Ozlem YILDIRIM

| Referral | European Commission, 2.5.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 83(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted in section | 8.3.2022 |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 215/3/6 |

Referral

European Commission, 2.5.2022

Legal basis

Article 83(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted in section

8.3.2022

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

215/3/6

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC welcomes the Commission’s proposal to review the Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law and to replace Directive 2008/99/EC (ECD), as it addresses the main deficiencies of the current Directive and aims to tackle the rise in environmental criminal offences in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC points out that the proposal retains its previous scope via a list of offences and lacks a definition of an autonomous general offence of harming or endangering the environment. The EESC believes that the list of offences should be extended to as many types of crime as possible so as to avoid having to revise the ECD again shortly after its entry into force and to prevent particular environmental criminal activity from going unpunished. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC recognises the urgent need to improve the implementation of environmental criminal law in Europe and acknowledges that an ECD with clearer provisions would contribute to better implementation. The EESC believes that the proposed elements to take into account when assessing whether damage is substantial are unsatisfactory, that further guidance may be needed and that a self-standing definition of ‘substantial damage’ would be clearer. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC welcomes the reference to ‘ecocide’ in the recitals. However, the EESC believes that it would be appropriate to include this term in the operational part of the Directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC endorses the inclusion of minimum standards for setting maximum limits for penalties for private persons and maximum limits for sanctions for legal persons. However, the EESC believes that, in order for sanctions to be truly effective, proportionate and dissuasive, their limits should be substantially increased. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC encourages the Commission to assess the possibility of extending the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to environmental crimes, thereby creating a Green European Public Prosecutor’s Office that would be able to support the fight against environmental crimes with known links to organised crime. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC stresses the need for reinforcement of the enforcement chain and implementation of European environmental criminal law. It reiterates its recommendation in Information Report NAT/767 on Evaluation on Environmental Crime Directive (1) for EU Member States to set up specialised police forces, prosecutors, judges and courts in the area of environmental crime. The EESC believes that the ECD can only be effective if coupled with adequate resources and training at Member State level. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

2.   Background

| 2.1. | Environmental crime is the fourth most lucrative crime category globally and has been recorded by Eurojust as increasing in the European Union (2). While cross-border convictions for environmental crime have not grown substantially, the rate of environmental crimes committed in Europe has. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | On 15 December 2021, the European Commission published its Proposal for a revision of the Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The objective of the Directive is to provide common minimum rules to criminalise environmental crime by addressing the shortcomings of the current Directive 2008/99/EC. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The Commission published the evaluation of Directive 2008/99/EC in 2020 (3). This evaluation identified significant deficiencies related to enforcement on the ground, the limitation of scope, the definition of criminal offences, the levels of sanctions, lack of clarity of legal terminology, the lack of cross-border cooperation, the system of liability for legal persons, and other areas of the Directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The proposed Directive aims to improve the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions by updating the scope of the Directive and by clarifying or eliminating vague terms used in the definitions of environmental crime, to ensure effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanction types and levels for environmental crimes, to foster cross-border investigation and prosecution, to improve informed decision-making on environmental crime through improved collection and dissemination of statistical data, and to improve the operational effectiveness of national enforcement chains to foster investigation, prosecution and sanctioning. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | The proposal is based on Article 83(2) TFEU which, unlike the previous legal basis from before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, is more strongly anchored in the cross-border nature of environmental crime and grants the EU the competence to establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | The objective of this proposal is therefore to harmonise the use of criminal law as a last resort tool to enforce the entire EU environmental law acquis, including the European Green Deal, while respecting the EU’s objectives of sustainable development, better environmental quality and the polluter pays principle. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The EESC welcomes the Commission’s proposal to review the Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replace Directive 2008/99/EC, as it addresses the main deficiencies of the current Directive and aims to tackle the rise in environmental criminal offences in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC emphasises the European Union’s international leadership role in the fight against global climate change and the protection of the environment. The EESC is of the opinion that the fight against environmental crime and organised environmental crime at European level is a crucial element of this leadership role and emphasises the need to increase cooperation with EU neighbourhood countries and other third countries. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC believes that the revision is a welcome step towards addressing the rise in environmental crime and organised environmental crime in Europe. The Committee appreciates the decision to fully replace the dysfunctional old Environmental Crime Directive rather than amend it. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC recognises the urgent need to improve implementation of environmental criminal law in Europe and acknowledges that an ECD with clearer provisions will contribute to better implementation. Furthermore, the EESC strongly supports the concrete implementation obligations of national strategies, of reporting duties and of minimum requirements for resources, training and investigative tools. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The EESC welcomes the proposed extension of the ECD’s scope. The Committee notes that the proposed revised definition of ‘unlawful’ eliminates a major cause of ambiguity and the proposed significant extension of the list of offences allows for much better protection of the EU environmental acquis. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC points out that the proposal lacks a definition of an autonomous general offence of harming or endangering the environment. While significantly extending the scope of the ECD, the proposal still links the scope to those of several other branches of law and to secondary EU legislation, therefore making it dependent, inter alia, on administrative law and preventing it from being future-proof. The EESC notes that the proposed exclusive list of offences may require future legislative procedures in order to be updated. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | The EESC welcomes the reference to ecocide in the recitals. However, the EESC believes that it would be appropriate to include ecocide in the operational part of the Directive. Furthermore, the EESC emphasises that any reference to ecocide needs to adhere to the wording proposed by the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide in June 2021 (4). The EESC recommends that ecocide be referred to as unlawful or wanton acts committed in the full knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts. The EESC would welcome a mention of armed conflicts in the recitals and notes that those are practically always by definition ecocides. The EESC regrets that none of the suggested measures and rulings have been or are applicable to those cases. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The Committee laid out its recommendations for the revision of the Directive in its Information Report NAT/767 on Evaluation on the Environmental Crime Directive. In light of the published proposal, the EESC reiterates its past recommendations of using the ECD revision to create a general offence of endangering the environment, to establish a permanent dialogue between public authorities and civil society organisations and to extend the scope of environmental criminal law to cover environmental cyber-criminality. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | Several investigations have shown that there is increasing use of environmental crimes as a means or link to corrupt behaviour or as a predicate offence for money laundering. As more resources from the EU budget are allocated to the green transition, we expect also to see an increased risk of such criminal behaviours associated with the implementation of such funds. While it is true that waste management is one of the high-risk sectors, many other areas that impact environment protection can be affected by corruption, money laundering or fraud. The EESC welcomes the inclusion of these risks in the recitals but draws attention to the need for more resources allocated to the identification and investigation of such offences, as well as in the training of law enforcement or access of civil society and journalists to information that can expose such behaviour. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | In its Information Report NAT/824 on Environmental protection as a prerequisite for respect for fundamental rights (5), the Committee emphasised the urgent need for the EU to put forward a proposal on a Sustainable Corporate Governance Directive and an EU anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law to protect environmental defenders, journalists, and whistle-blowers. The EESC reiterates these recommendations and welcomes the inclusion of a provision on the protection of persons who report environmental offences or assist the investigation. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The EESC welcomes the harmonisation of minimum standards for penalties and sanctions as well as the extension of criminal conduct to include serious negligence and endangerment crime, the inclusion of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the reference to additional penalties and sanctions. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | The EESC supports the Parliament’s call in report 2020/2027(INI) on the liability of companies for environmental damage and encourages the Commission to assess the possibility of extending the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to environmental crimes, thereby creating a Green European Public Prosecutor’s Office that would be able to support the fight against environmental crimes with known links to organised crime. The EESC furthermore encourages the Commission to assess the possibility of extending the European Anti-Fraud Office’s mandate to allow it to conduct administrative investigations of environmental offences. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

4.   Specific comments

4.1.   Penalties and sanctions

| 4.1.1. | The EESC endorses the inclusion of minimum standards for setting maximum limits for penalties for private persons and maximum limits for sanctions for legal persons. Additionally, the EESC appreciates the recognition of the need to allow for simultaneous administrative and criminal fines as well as freezing and confiscation measures, respecting the basic principle of not facing prosecution twice for the same offence. However, the EESC believes that, in order for sanctions to be truly effective, proportionate and dissuasive, their limits should be increased substantially. Setting sanction levels for breaches of environmental law lower than those in other areas of EU law, for example competition law, sends the wrong signal about the priority of the EU environmental law acquis, including the European Green Deal and the 2030 climate targets. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.1.

4.2.   Environmental offences

| 4.2.1. | The EESC supports the Parliament’s call, in its report 2020/2027(INI) on the liability of companies for environmental damage, for the Commission to evaluate the possibility of including environmental crimes among the ten exhaustive categories of offences in Article 83(1) TFEU (6). |
| --- | --- |

4.2.1.

| 4.2.2. | The EESC welcomes the extension of the list of offences in the ECD proposal. In particular, it welcomes the addition of breaches to Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.2.

| 4.2.3. | The EESC believes that the list of offences should be extended to as many types of crime as possible so as to prevent having to revise the ECD again shortly after its coming into force and to prevent particular environmental criminal activity from remaining unpunished. The EESC encourages the co-legislators to propose any expansions to the list of conduct that constitutes a criminal offence when it is unlawful and committed intentionally or with serious negligence. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.3.

4.3.   Definition of substantial damage

| 4.3.1. | Considering that the ambiguity of the term ‘substantial damage’ in the old ECD had been identified as a major obstacle to effective investigations and prosecutions, the EESC believes that the proposed elements to take into account when assessing whether damage is substantial are unsatisfactory, that further guidance may be needed and that a self-standing definition of ‘substantial damage’ would be clearer. This could substantially contribute to the much-needed full internal harmonisation of definitions, parameters and understandings within the ECD. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.1.

4.4.   Criminal liability for legal persons

| 4.4.1. | The EESC recognises that the regulation of company and parent-company liability varies significantly between the legal systems of the Member States but, nevertheless, regrets that the Commission’s proposal does not review the original wording on liability for legal persons to strive for more harmonisation. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.1.

| 4.4.2. | The EESC emphasises the Parliament’s considerations, in its report 2020/2027(INI) on the liability of companies for environmental damage, that in accordance with the polluter pays principle, companies should bear the full costs of the environmental harm they have directly caused in order to incentivise them to internalise environmental externalities and avoid externalising the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.2.

| 4.4.3. | The EESC is concerned at the explicit exclusion of liability for State authorities and believes that there should be no obstacle to prosecuting environmental offenders, especially when permits and licences are obtained through the corruption of public authorities. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.3.

4.5.   Interaction with the public

| 4.5.1. | The EESC welcomes the inclusion of a provision on the protection of whistle-blowers and persons who report environmental offences or assist the investigation. The Committee stresses the role that the general public and civil society organisations play in detecting and reporting environmental crimes and emphasises the need for public authorities to strengthen the protection of and dialogue with environmental defenders. The Committee emphasises that the protection granted to persons who report environmental offences or assist the investigation needs to extend to natural and legal persons. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.1.

| 4.5.2. | The EESC supports the attention given by the proposal to the protection of persons who report environmental offences or who assist with investigations. However, in recent years, not only whistle-blowers but also environmental activists and investigative journalists reporting on environmental crimes have been the victims of serious pressure or even violence. Thus, we call on the European Commission to make sure that adequate protection is put in place in all Member States for whistle-blowers, as well as for those that might help them with bringing their reporting to the public, such as activists or journalists. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.2.

| 4.5.3. | The EESC welcomes the recognition of the right for members of the public concerned to participate in proceedings. The Committee emphasises the importance of applying and interpreting this right in light of Article 2(5) of the Aarhus Convention (7). Furthermore, seeing as the environment can neither defend itself nor represent itself in court, the EESC stresses the importance of providing for adequate public access to justice as defined in Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.3.

| 4.5.4. | The EESC encourages the European institutions and Member States also to increase their support for environmental defenders outside the European Union, via diplomatic, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and civil society channels. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.4.

| 4.5.5. | The EESC recommends that civil society be involved in the implementation of the new ECD. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.5.

| 4.5.6. | The EESC reiterates that that the ‘Enforcement chain’ is only the second half of the entire ‘Supply chain’ of the environmental crime phenomenon and its treatment (see: offences committed-discovered-reported-prosecuted-sanctioned). Studies prior to the EESC’s NAT/767 Information Report showed huge cascading gaps in the first half of the chain, mainly due to society’s varying knowledge and perceptions of environmental offences. Presenting the issue to the whole of society and raising awareness of it is key to developing social responsibility, the lack of which undermines the efficiency of the enforcement chain. Training and public communication is needed where the contribution of civil society is essential. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.6.

4.6.   Enforcement chain

| 4.6.1. | The EESC welcomes the provisions on prevention, resources, training, investigative tools, cross-border cooperation and national strategies. The Committee reiterates its recommendation in Information Report NAT/767 for EU Member States to set up specialised police forces, prosecutors, judges and courts in the area of environmental crime. As identified during the evaluation of the current ECD, in stakeholder consultations and by academia, the low levels of expertise and resources available to combat environmental crime and organised environmental crime in the Member States are posing major obstacles to detection, prosecution and enforcement. The EESC believes that the ECD can only be effective if coupled with adequate resources and training at Member State level. The EESC considers that the proposed ECD national strategies are a positive first step in the right direction. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.1.

| 4.6.2. | The EESC considers that the inclusion of environmental information, including the commission of crimes by legal persons, in companies’ annual non-financial part of the reporting could be an important component of Corporate Social Responsibility. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.2.

4.7.   Training and education

| 4.7.1. | The EESC highlights the need for education to include both training for national officials and awareness-raising among the public. The EESC welcomes the Commission’s communication on stepping up the fight against environmental crime and calls on the Commission to give further support to Member States by providing professional networks, developing new detection and enforcement tools, and revising training programmes for judges and prosecutors. However, the EESC believes that training and education schemes should not apply exclusively to national officials’ involvement in the enforcement chain but should be extended to a wider audience. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.1.

4.8.   Reporting of data and crime statistics

| 4.8.1. | The EESC welcomes the envisaged data collection and reporting duties. However, it highlights the Eurojust report, which notes and demonstrates that the lack of a universally agreed upon definition of an environmental crime presents challenges to the collection of meaningful data and crime statistics (8). |
| --- | --- |

4.8.1.

| 4.8.2. | The EESC welcomes the Commission’s commitment to issuing a biennial report on the data transmitted by the Member States and points out that the annual national crime statistics should inform and reinforce the biennial Environmental Implementation Review. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.2.

5.   Transposition and financial implementation

| 5.1. | Environmental crimes damage the environment and health first and foremost, but they also distort competition and circularity, deplete public resources through externalisation of reinstatement and remediation costs and hurt taxpayers’ pockets by circumventing the polluter pays principle. Without adequate enforcement and sanctioning for damaging the environment, including through criminal law, environmental crimes undermine the effectiveness of the entire European Green Deal. The EESC therefore believes that the resources needed for the transposition and implementation of the ECD will be offset by its positive effect on the EU’s and the Member States’ public resources. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

6.   Regionality and subsidiarity

| 6.1. | The EESC notes that the sources of environmental non-compliance are practically always local/municipal or small-/sub-regional ones, even if their impact can be widespread, e.g. pollution sources are not only specific, intensive or dispersed but also additive and cumulative. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.2. | The discovery and reporting steps should be reinforced and also follow a place-based approach. Technical equipment, human and skill resources, functional responsibility, budget and financing should be attributed to and mirror this regional challenge. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  NAT/767 — Evaluation on Environmental Crime Directive (information report).

1

(2)  Report on Eurojust’s Casework on Environmental Crime — January 2021.

2

(3)  SWD(2020) 259 final of 28 October 2020.

3

(4)  Stop Ecocide Foundation, June 2021, Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide, commentary and core text.

4

(5)  NAT/824 — Environmental protection as a prerequisite for respect for fundamental rights (information report).

5

(6)  Parliament report 2020/2027(INI).

6

(7)  United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

7

(8)  Report on Eurojust’s Casework on Environmental Crime — January 2021.

8

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/149 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/149

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/833 laying down conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization

(COM(2022) 51 final — 2022/0035 (COD))

(2022/C 290/24)

| Rapporteur: | Francisco Javier GARAT PÉREZ |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Francisco Javier GARAT PÉREZ

| Referral | European Parliament, 17.2.2022
  Council, 28.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted at plenary | 24.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 219/0/0 |

Referral

European Parliament, 17.2.2022

Council, 28.2.2022

Legal basis

Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted at plenary

24.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

219/0/0

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC again reiterates the views it set out on the proposal for a regulation under consideration in opinion 2018/05155 (1) and in opinion 2020/02842 (2), the conclusions and recommendations of which were as follows. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC believes that the conservation and enforcement measures adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) should be transposed into EU law, with a view to achieving their uniform and effective implementation within the EU. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | However, it considers that the proposal under consideration does not establish an efficient mechanism for transposing the measures adopted by NAFO, and does not resolve the issue of having to update these measures each year. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The Committee is in favour of a more efficient, simpler mechanism, and therefore proposes drafting a regulation that contains a single article stipulating that the European Union must, without fail, apply NAFO measures to its fleet. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC stresses the risk involved in introducing a system of delegated acts, as this would give the Commission the power to legislate without being required to follow the ordinary procedures. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

2.   Gist of the legislative proposal

| 2.1. | The main aim of the proposal under consideration is to transpose into EU law the conservation and enforcement measures adopted by NAFO in its annual meeting in September 2021. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | It incorporates amendments concerning the calculation of the ‘Others’ quota, on flanking measures for cod in Division 3M, as well as Greenland halibut in relation to inspection of landings. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | Also included are new provisions concerning additional procedures, serious infringements related to the use of certain mesh, grate or sorting grid sizes, and reinforced measures on the follow-up for infringements, and the transmission of documents to NAFO and the European Fisheries Control Agency. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The proposal delegates powers to the Commission to amend Regulation (EU) 2019/833 concerning landing inspections for Greenland halibut, and control measures for cod in Division 3M, should NAFO amend its measures in the future. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The EESC recognises the need to speed up the adoption of these provisions in order to allow EU vessels to fish under the same conditions as the other NAFO Contracting Party vessels. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The EESC believes that the conservation and enforcement measures adopted at the last annual meeting of NAFO should be transposed into EU law so as to ensure that they are applied uniformly throughout the EU. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The Committee believes, however, that the transposition procedure is still not based on an efficient mechanism, since these measures are amended every year and the EU’s bureaucratic procedures are very slow, leading to a continuous time-lag between the rules adopted by NAFO and EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC reiterates the need to adopt a more efficient procedure, such as that proposed by the EESC in 2019 and 2020, which was also supported by the administrations of the Member States and the sectors concerned. This would be a simple regulation containing a single article, which would include a commitment by the European Union to apply the rules approved by NAFO each year to its fleet without fail. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The Committee again warns that continuing with this regulation could lead to conflicting rules or, at the very least, periods of legal uncertainty for administrations and even businesses themselves, which won’t know whether they are required to comply with the previous rules, which would be those still in force in the EU, or with the new rules. Furthermore, it creates distortions in the application of measures with regard to non-EU fleets. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The EESC believes that the only thing that will make it easier to introduce the system of delegated acts is for the Commission to lay down rules without having to go through the ordinary procedures. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

Brussels, 24 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  EESC opinion on Conservation and control measures in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (OJ C 159, 10.5.2019, p. 60).

1

Conservation and control measures in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation

(2)  EESC opinion on the Conservation and enforcement measures — NAFO (OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 279).

2

Conservation and enforcement measures — NAFO

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/151 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/151

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the extension of the application period of the optional reverse charge mechanism in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud and of the Quick Reaction Mechanism against VAT fraud

(COM(2022) 39 final — 2022/0027 (CNS))

(2022/C 290/25)

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 28.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 194/1/4 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 28.2.2022

Legal basis

Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

194/1/4

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the extension of the application period of the optional reverse charge mechanism in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud and of the Quick Reaction Mechanism against VAT fraud and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 568th plenary session of 23 and 24 March 2022, (meeting of 23 March), by 196 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/152 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/152

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC as regards its period of application and as regards the equivalence of field inspections carried out in Bolivia on cereal seed-producing crops and oil and fibre plant seed-producing crops and on the equivalence of cereal seed and oil and fibre plant seed produced in Bolivia

(COM(2022) 26 final — 2021/0016 (COD))

(2022/C 290/26)

| Referral | European Parliament, 14.2.2022
  Council, 8.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 43(2) and Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 178/1/7 |

Referral

European Parliament, 14.2.2022

Council, 8.2.2022

Legal basis

Articles 43(2) and Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

178/1/7

Since the Committee has already set out its views on the content of the proposal in question in its opinion on Equivalence of inspections — seed produced in Brazil and Moldova (1), adopted on 14 February 2018, it decided, at its 568th plenary session of 23 and 24 March 2022 (meeting of 23 March), by 178 votes in favour with 1 against and 7 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the abovementioned document.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.6.2018, p. 76

1

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/153 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/153

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down transitional rules for the packaging and labelling of veterinary medicinal products authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004

(COM(2022) 76 final — 2022/0053 (COD))

(2022/C 290/27)

| Referral | European Parliament, 7.3.2022
  Council, 11.3.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 114 and 168(4)(b) and article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 193/0/4 |

Referral

European Parliament, 7.3.2022

Council, 11.3.2022

Legal basis

Articles 114 and 168(4)(b) and article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

193/0/4

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 568th plenary session of 23 and 24 March 2022 (meeting of 23 March), by 193 votes in favour with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

| 29.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/154 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/154

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 as regards Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE)

(COM(2022) 109 final — 2022/0075 (COD))

(2022/C 290/28)

| Referral | European Parliament, 10.3.2022
  Council, 10.3.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 175(3), 177 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted at plenary | 23.3.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 568 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 199/0/6 |

Referral

European Parliament, 10.3.2022

Council, 10.3.2022

Legal basis

Articles 175(3), 177 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted at plenary

23.3.2022

Plenary session No

568

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

199/0/6

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinions, namely SOC/597 — European Social Fund+, adopted on 17 October 2018, ECO/462 — Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund, adopted on 17 October 2018, and also in its position papers SOC/651 — Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD)/COVID-19 Crisis, ECO/517 — COVID-19: European Structural and Investment Funds — Exceptional flexibility, it decided, at its 568th plenary session of 23 and 24 March 2022 (meeting of 23 March 2022), by 199 votes, with no votes against and 6 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 23 March 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---