ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341/97

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Regulations in the field of fisheries and animal health by reason of the change of status of Mayotte with regard to the Union’

COM(2013) 417 final — 2013/0191 (COD)

and on the

‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Directives in the fields of environment, agriculture, social policy and public health by reason of the change of status of Mayotte with regard to the Union’

COM(2013) 418 final — 2013/0192 (COD)

2013/C 341/22

On 1 July 2013 the European Parliament, and on 27 June and 16 July 2013 respectively the Council, decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43(2), Article 141, Article 153(2), Article 168 and Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Regulations in the field of fisheries and animal health by reason of the change of status of Mayotte with regard to the Union

COM(2013) 417 final — 2013/0191 (COD)

and on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Directives in the fields of environment, agriculture, social policy and public health by reason of the change of status of Mayotte with regard to the Union

COM(2013) 418 final — 2013/0192 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposals and feels that it requires no comments on its part, it decided, at its 492nd plenary session of 18 and 19 September 2013 (meeting of 18 September 2013), by 170 votes to 6 with 12 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
2.3

The main points of the proposal are summarised below and aim to: — improve governance of and controls over the benchmark process. Prior authorisation and ongoing supervision of the provision of benchmarks will be required, at national and European level. The proposal also stipulates that benchmark administrators should avoid conflicts of interest where possible, or at least manage them adequately when they are inevitable; — improve the quality of the input data and methodologies used by benchmark administrators. The proposal stipulates that when setting benchmarks, sufficient and accurate data must be used which represent the actual market or economic reality that the benchmark is intended to measure. The data must come from reliable sources and the benchmark set using a robust and reliable methodology. The data used to calculate benchmarks must be disclosed or made available to the public, along with information on what each benchmark measures, except when this could have very harmful consequences. When setting benchmarks, data on transactions must be used where possible; when these are not available, verifiable estimates should be taken as a basis; — ensure that contributors to benchmarks provide appropriate input data and are subject to appropriate controls. The benchmark administrator must draw up a legally binding code of conduct laying down the obligations and responsibilities of contributors when they provide input data for the benchmark. These obligations also concern the management of conflicts of interest; — ensure adequate protection for consumers and investors using benchmarks. The proposal enhances the transparency of data used to calculate the benchmark and of the calculation method, what they measure and how they should be used. Moreover, banks must evaluate the suitability of the benchmark used before proposing a financial contract, warning the client if the benchmark is not appropriate (e.g. in the case of contracts for mortgage loans); — coordinate supervision and applicability of critical benchmarks. The supervision of critical benchmarks will also be entrusted to specific colleges of supervisors, which will be guided by the supervisory authority of the benchmark administrator and other supervisory authorities of other relevant jurisdictions and which will include the European Securities Markets Authority (ESMA). Should the college be unable to agree, the ESMA will decide by means of binding mediation. Further special requirements have been drawn up for benchmarks deemed critical, including the power for the competent authorities to make contribution mandatory.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 451/157

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Directive 93/5/EEC of 25 February 1993 on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food’

COM(2014) 246 final — 2014/0132 COD

(2014/C 451/26)

On 22 May 2014, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 114 of the TFEU, on the:

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Directive 93/5/EEC of 25 February 1993 on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food.

COM(2014) 246 final — 2014/0132 COD.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its opinion CES 404/2001 — 2000/0286 COD, adopted on 28 March 2001 (1), it decided, at its 500th plenary session of 9 and 10 July 2014 (meeting of 9 July), by 185 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 9 July 2014. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Henri MALOSSE

(1) ESC opinion NAT/099 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Authority, and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, 2001/C 155, page 32-38 of 29 May 2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12/115

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences’

COM(2014) 476 final — 2014/0218 (COD)

(2015/C 012/18)

On 29 July 2014, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 194(2) of the TFEU, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences

COM(2014) 476 final — 2014/0218 (COD)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 502nd plenary session of 15 and 16 October 2014 (meeting of 15 October), by 172 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 242/66

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures that the Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures (codification)’

COM(2014) 318 final — 2014/0164 (COD)

(2015/C 242/12)

On 20 October 2014, the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures that the Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures (codification)

COM(2014) 318 final — 2014/0164 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 504th plenary session of 21 and 22 January 2015 (meeting of 21 January 2015), by 219 votes to 1 with 10 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
4.23

The spread of animal and plant pests and diseases, exacerbated by globalised trade and climate change, has a detrimental impact on food systems. Recent outbreaks of African swine fever or of Xylella fastidiosa affecting olive trees in southern Italy are just some examples of how plant and animal diseases can disrupt the food system and generate food losses. While having nearly the best early detection and prevention system in the world, the EU’s policy and legislative framework on animal and plant health could be further developed and reinforced with a stronger focus on crisis prevention, better surveillance and early detection, preparedness, and management, as well as on the identification and assessment of emerging or new risks both in the EU and outside the EU. A network of reference laboratories already exists for animal diseases, but not for plant diseases. Knowledge and research are the most important pillars for prevention. The EESC calls on the Commission and the Member States to be even more ambitious in urgently funding animal disease research centres and establishing plant disease reference labs. Early detection and prevention systems should also be reinforced, while ensuring that food producers and other operators (e.g. agricultural workers) are duly compensated for any losses, including for financial losses borne by farmers when trade restrictions are imposed in the public interest because of epidemic outbreaks. Furthermore, emphasis needs to be given to establishing more diverse farming systems which are more robust in terms of withstanding biotic stresses.
2.4.

The following three main pillars of Horizon 2020 comprise over 90 % of the Horizon 2020 budget: 1. ‘Excellent Science’ with the European Research Council (ERC), future and emerging technologies (FET), researcher mobility (MSCA) and European research infrastructures (EUR 24,4 billion). 2. ‘Industrial Leadership’, focussing on the competitiveness of the European Industry in six sub-programmes with a particular emphasis on SME funding (EUR 17 billion). 3. ‘Societal Challenges’ with seven sub-programmes (EUR 29,7 billion). 2.5. The programme was agreed by the Council and European Parliament with a total budget of over EUR 70 billion (nearly EUR 80 billion in current prices) of funding over seven years. The programme’s budget was cut by EUR 2,2 billion in 2015 so that these funds could be used for the EFSI. 2.6. Horizon 2020 has a multi-faceted role in the strategy of the EU. It is the financial instrument that implements the Innovation Union, a Europe 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe’s global competitiveness. It has its roots, however, in the Lisbon Treaty, notably Articles 179 et seq., which set the goal of achieving a European Research Area and task the European Union ‘with the implementation of research, technological development and demonstration programmes, by promoting cooperation with and between undertakings, research centres and universities’. 2.7. Horizon 2020 was established in times of severe economic challenges and youth unemployment in Europe, and in consequence has put a much stronger emphasis on innovation than earlier EU research programmes. Innovation is generally understood in this context to be the commercial introduction of a new or significantly improved products and services. 2.8. In this context, Horizon 2020, with its focus on economic growth, has also established a new SME instrument specifically designed to help individual SMEs to be more innovative. Its aim is that 20 % of the funding in pillars 2 and 3 will be absorbed by SMEs and it places a stronger emphasis on financial instruments.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 487/112

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America (codification)

[COM(2016) 408 final — 2014/0175 (COD)]

(2016/C 487/19)

Consultation European Commission, 23/06/2016 Legal basis Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible REX Adopted at plenary 21/09/2016 Plenary session No 519th Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 165/0/8

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 519th plenary session of 21 and 22 September 2016 (meeting of 21 September), by 165 votes with 8 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
2.6.

However, these opportunities do not exist at present for smaller or infrequent cross-border online purchases or for individual senders, including many SMEs; delivery services do not benefit from negotiated tariffs and only have access to an international distribution network at high prices, to the extent that, ultimately, the end consumer often has to pay excessive delivery prices. In such cases, cross-border delivery tariffs can be three to five times higher than the domestic equivalent (1) and these differences cannot be explained by labour or other costs in the destination country. Examples of inflated prices and substantial discrepancies in the two-way relationship between various Member States are documented in the Commission’s impact assessment (SWD(2016) 166 final).
4.8.

The EESC agrees that there is an absolute need for a European forum — like the former Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture — in which all stakeholders can participate to discuss the situation faced by the aquaculture sector and to provide consensus-based recommendations to the European and national institutions. It therefore welcomes the creation of the new Aquaculture Advisory Council (AAC), which will represent a wide range of economic, social and environmental stakeholders, as well as researchers and consumers. It regrets, however, that the establishment and launch of the AAC was delayed, as that led to a three-year gap between the termination of the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and the launch of the AAC.
4.1.3.

The communication does not sufficiently highlight or support the crucial role of SMEs, and should reinforce it, in particular innovative start-ups. Whilst more attention is given to their strength in terms of innovation, the financial solutions proposed do not meet the sector’s real needs, one of which is the chronic shortfall in funding. Given the high risks involved, the banking system is reluctant to support innovation. For many SMEs it is impossible to participate in public calls for tender, since they are often tailored specifically to large-scale players. More support should therefore be given to SMEs by introducing calls for tender for companies of this size. More open subcontracting to a wider range of SMEs for the larger projects would also be also a step in the right direction. Horizon 2020 and other R & D programmes have a significant role to play, and their use should be maximised from the perspective of SMEs.
3.8

The EESC appreciates that the Commission intends to take measures to ensure coherence on a number of important points. It will for instance publish ‘guidance’ regarding the European C-ITS Security and certificate policy in 2017 and guidance regarding data protection in 2018. The Commission will also reserve the frequency band currently used for safe European Telecommunication Standard (3) Services for C-ITS Services. The EESC also takes note, however, that the Commission will also consider, where appropriate adopting delegated acts under the ITS Directive 2010/40/EC in 2018 on ITS security, data protection, the communication approach and interoperability. On top of that, legislation on continuity of ITS Services and compliance assessment may be adopted. The EESC regrets that there is nothing to indicate on what grounds the Commission will decide whether to legislate or stop at guidelines that are not legally binding. With respect to the Commission plans to adopt delegated legislative acts under Directive 2010/40/EU on ITS, the EESC repeats the point made already in its opinion on that Directive that the limits for such acts drawn by Article 290 TFEU must be observed. The EESC also underscores the urgency of prolonging the seven-year limit of the mandate to adopt delegated acts under Directive 2010/40/EU as the mandate to adopt such acts expires in August 2017.
4.21

Generational renewal must be a key feature of a new reshaped CAP. It is proposed that the existing increase in CAP Pillar 1 payments to young farmers under 40 years of age should continue. It is proposed that the 5-year rule be re-examined to remove the inflexibilities denying young farmers access to higher payment levels. In addition, it is proposed that higher payment rates for young farmers under the general RDP scheme measures should apply. Payment levels for structural grant aid programmes for young farmers should be increased to 70 %. Such support should also be made available for young farmers and young professionals in partnerships, cooperatives, and companies. An effective national reserve to allow young farmers’ and new entrants’ access to supports on an ongoing basis is very important. The option to implement an effective retirement programme under Pillar 2 should be available. Member States should have flexibility to introduce additional measures for young farmers, especially women. A strong focus on education and improving skills is essential. To enhance the position of women in agriculture, similar incentives as those available to young farmers should be available to women to ensure equal access to land, credit, training and status.
3.1.

The spread of information and communication technologies and of the ‘Internet of Things’ has brought forward many new technology companies. Numerous new business models are emerging within the digital and collaborative economy sector. These models differ in their structures and the size of the businesses, as well the extent of the reference markets, the ways technologies are used, and the organisational model. Three main groups may however be identified with regard to fiscal treatment: — the model of very large companies performing various digital functions via the web, where most revenue is yielded by selling and managing collected data and advertising (e.g. Google); — the model of supply and demand matching and management platforms, based on connecting consumers and suppliers using digital platforms as connecting facilities, where transactions generate income both for the connecting platform and the final service providers (e.g. Airbnb, Uber); — the model of peer-to-peer platforms where in theory there are no monetary transactions but one-to-one exchanges of goods and services can be generated between users and providers.
3.8.

However, distortions of competition can also result from the EU’s own rules. An example of this is the REACH Regulation (Registration, Evaluation. Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) which, as of 31 May 2018, will be applicable to companies that make or place chemical substances on the market, on their own or in mixtures or articles, in quantities exceeding 1 tonne per year. This Regulation requires companies to submit a registration dossier of chemical substances, either on their own or contained in mixtures or articles, in quantities exceeding 1 tonne per year to the European Chemical Agency (ECHA), accompanied by the relevant fee. The registrant is considered to be the legal holder of the report, thereby allowing the information that it contains to be transformed into a commodity which is traded on the market by the lead registrants, generally larger businesses with greater economic power. In practice, when a company tries to register with ECHA, they are told that they should contact the lead registrant, who will then inform them of the cost of authorising access to the information deposited. This can reach up to tens or hundreds of thousands of Euros per substance. It has been established that registrations submitted under the Regulation at least 12 years previously can be used for the purposes of registration by another manufacturer or importer. However, in practice, as the date on which the REACH Regulation will apply fully to all substances produced or placed on the market in quantities exceeding 1 tonne per year approaches, lead registrants require microenterprises and SMES in the sector to pay hefty sums or even a percentage of sales in return for the ‘letter of access’ to the information they have provided to the ECHA. This information should be public and available free of charge to all EU citizens and companies, in order to fulfil the purposes that it was created for: to protect peoples’ health and the environment. In this case, the regulation, which was designed to improve the protection of human health and the environment from risks that may arise from the use of chemicals, may create barriers to market entry for new businesses and to the free movement of chemical substances, resulting in restricted competition and the abuse of dominant positions by larger companies. The EESC draws attention to the need to carry out an evaluation and review of the REACH Regulation in order to remove any barriers to competition resulting from the application of this legislation.
As well as acknowledging the improvement and modernisation of vehicle cabin features in general, limitations remain concerning the availability of space and facilities in the cabin. Therefore, the EESC welcomes the EC’s important clarification that weekly rest periods of 45 hours and more must be taken away from the vehicle, either in accommodation paid for by the employer, at home or in a place of the driver’s own free choosing. The EESC, however, raises the issue that spending the regular weekly rest in private accommodation or the driver’s home could create difficulties in documentation. Nonetheless, in order to satisfy the requirement that the driver must be able to ‘freely dispose of his/her time’ during a weekly rest, it is imperative that the driver is free to leave the vehicle and to have an uninterrupted period of time when he/she does not have to take responsibility for its safe keeping and security. The EESC equally points out that availability of safe parking and other facilities ensuring the sound application of the proposed measures is on the other hand needed. The lack of safe parking and other facilities will in reality mean that a legal obligation to take the weekly rest period outside the cabin will confront drivers and operators with an impossible dilemma of risking cargo and vehicle or comply with the law. Enforcement authorities must give due consideration to this dilemma.
5.6.

The Committee also has some concern about the possibility of illegal cabotage being facilitated. Cabotage is the haulage of goods for hire or reward in one Member State by a vehicle belonging to a non-resident haulier registered in a different Member State. (A goods vehicle operator with a standard international licence has Community Authorisation to only carry out up to three cabotage jobs in seven days within the host Member State. The jobs must follow a journey where goods were transported from one Member State to the host Member State.) In a perfectly competitive internal market restrictive rules would, of course, be unnecessary but this objective remains an aspiration. Lifting the restrictions on hired vehicles would make it much easier for a haulier to perform cabotage on a permanent basis (illegal cabotage) by simply hiring vehicles registered in the Member State where the haulier is interested in conducting this type of activity.