ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Impact assessment for the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of the Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, laying down a notification procedure for authorisation schemes and requirements related to services, and amending Directive 2006/123/EC and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System

To avoid the introduction of unjustified and disproportionate national regulatory measures, the Services Directive includes a procedure whereby Member States must notify the introduction of/or changes to regulatory measures. The procedure was designed to ensure the compliance of new/changed national regulatory measures with the Services Directive. The existing procedure, however, has several important shortcomings, which render it ineffective. Many Member States fail to notify new or changed regulatory measures, only notify already adopted measures, or do not supply necessary information. The scope of the notification obligation excludes some key requirements covered by the Services Directive. The consequences of non-notification are not clear.

The objective of this initiative is to contribute to more competitive and integrated services markets through an improved application of the Services Directive and by preventing the introduction of unjustified and disproportionate regulatory barriers contradicting the Services Directive and hampering the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services cross-border.

Reforming an existing notification procedure established at EU level to improve compliance with the EU Services Directive is possible only through action at EU level. In the single market, any regulatory requirement adopted by one Member State impacts the single market as a whole as it may create obstacles to any services provider seeking to establish in that Member State (domestic or foreign) or seeking to offer cross-border services.
Personal pensions are defined as "retirement financial products contracted on a voluntary basis with a non-state entity. They have an explicit retirement objective, providing for capital accumulation until retirement and serve as a complementary income on retirement". They are complementary to state-based public pensions and occupational pensions. In its Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union (CMU) , the Commission observed that no effective single market for 'third pillar' personal pensions exists. A patchwork of rules at EU and national levels stands in the way of the full development of a large and competitive market for personal pensions. Market fragmentation prevents personal pension providers from maximising economies of scale, risk diversification and innovation, thereby reducing choice and increasing cost for pension savers. In addition, existing personal pension products display in some cases insufficient product features. Many respondents in the public consultation view the supply of personal pension products currently available and sold in the EU as inadequate. This is supported by the 2015 European Commission scoreboard on retail investor markets, which shows that personal pension products are among the three products with the lowest satisfaction rating from retail investors. Finally, cross-border selling and portability of existing personal pensions are very limited. Insufficient replacement incomes in retirement and lack of investment on EU capital markets could both be mitigated by greater development of personal pension products at EU level.
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-2016)

Accompanying the document

Communication to the European Parliament and the Council

Midterm review of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies



This scoreboard presents changes in the situation of Roma in nine EU Member States as recorded by two FRA surveys in 2011 and in 2016. In 2016, the Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU MIDIS II) collected information on the situation of Roma in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. The 2011 Roma survey covered the same countries, apart from Croatia. However, information on the situation in Croatia was collected in the UNDP/World Bank/EC 2011 Regional Roma survey .

The surveys were all carried out using a similar methodology, applying a multi-stage selection of respondents. To optimise the sampling approach, EU-MIDIS II refined the methodology applied in 2011. Despite the similar approaches, the surveys are subject to some limitations as to their direct comparability. In 2017, the FRA attempted to address the limitations as to the comparability of the surveys. Given the relative similarity of the unweighted samples of the 2011 and 2016 surveys for the nine Member States, the 2011 sample was weighted to reflect the differences between those two surveys as regards regional coverage and the urban nature of surveyed localities. For Croatia, the same approach was applied to the dataset from the UNDP/World Bank/EC survey.

The scoreboard presents 18 indicators in four main thematic areas (education, housing, employment and health) and the crosscutting area of poverty. It also presents average values for the Member States in question. For 2011, the average does not include Croatia, which at that time was not a Member State. The caveats that need to be considered when analysing values for 2011 and 2016 are provided alongside each indicator.

All sample surveys are affected by sampling error, as the interviews cover only a fraction of the total population. Therefore, all results presented are point estimates underlying statistical variation. Small differences of a few percentage points between groups of respondents are to be interpreted within the range of statistical variation and only more substantial divergence between population groups should be considered as evidence of actual differences. A difference of a few percentage points between the 2011 and 2016 values may be assessed as ‘no change’.

  - Improvement; ～ - no change;  - deterioration.

The direction of the arrow depends on the type of indicator – ‘positive’ (e.g. share of children enrolled) or ‘negative’ (e.g. share of youth not in employment, education or training).

  - Improvement; ～ - no change;  - deterioration.

The direction of the arrow depends on the type of indicator – ‘positive’ (e.g. share of children enrolled) or ‘negative’ (e.g. share of youth not in employment, education or training).
Executive summary sheet

Impact assessment: revision of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations

A. Need for action

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?

The main problems with the Regulation are linked to excessive national exemptions, the rights of passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility (PRMs), inadequate information, through-ticketing, complaint-handling, enforcement, discrimination based on nationality and compensation following force majeure events. These problems negatively affect the single market and prevent consistent enforcement. They may be exacerbated in a liberalised EU rail market.

What should be achieved?

1.to promote equal and strengthened rights for rail users in the EU; and 2.to enhance the rail sector's competitiveness without negatively impacting the rights of passengers.

What is the added value of action at EU level (subsidiarity)?

The current Regulation leaves room for interpretation, preventing consistent levels of passenger protection across the EU. The Member States cannot address these problems by acting alone. It therefore seems appropriate for the EU to act.

B. Solutions

What are the options for achieving the objectives? Is there a preferred option? If not, why?

What are the various stakeholders’ views? Who supports which option?

Most Member States and rail companies are reluctant to remove exemptions. Citizens are in favour of reducing exemptions and support measures to strengthen passengers’ rights. Most stakeholders are in favour of clearer rules, e.g. on assistance, complaint-handling and enforcement. Most rail companies and Member States are in favour of, and citizens are against, a force majeure clause.

C. Impacts of the preferred option

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?

The combination of preferred options provides a balanced approach to the potentially conflicting policy objectives. Reducing exemptions will increase passenger protection and legal certainty. Improvements for PRMs will encourage them to travel by rail and promote their social inclusion. Clear rules on through-ticketing will improve passengers’ rights on connecting services. A force majeure clause will ensure legal fairness and proportionality.

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?

Rail companies’ costs are expected to increase by 4.98 % from the baseline scenario over a 15-year period.

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?

Only limited indirect effects on SMEs are expected.

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?

Minor impacts are expected in view of enhanced NEB enforcement and complaint-handling.

Will there be other significant impacts?

No major additional impacts are expected.

Proportionality?

The current divergent application of the rules hinders the single market and prevents harmonised levels of passenger rights across the EU. Guidelines have not yielded sufficient results.

D. Followup

When will the policy be reviewed?
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why? Maximum 14 lines

The following policy options have been considered: • Policy option 0 (Baseline) – The Commission, in consultation with the Standing Committee on Precursors (SCP), will continue to monitor and facilitate the application of the Regulation; • Policy Option 1 (Non legislative) – Reinforce the application of the Regulation with non-legislative measures; • Policy Option 2 (Legislative – revision of the existing framework) – Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the restrictions, enforcement by public authorities, and compliance by the supply chain; • Policy Option 3 (Legislative – overhaul of the current framework) – Introduce further controls along the supply chain. Having analysed and compared the different options, policy option 2 was identified as the preferred policy option. This option would address both the identified problems and contribute to the identified general and specific objectives. Moreover, the proposed measures would strengthen and clarify the existing legal framework, without touching upon the essential characteristics. As the existing Regulation has at least partially reached its main objectives, a complete overhaul seems unnecessary.
COUNCIL DECISION authorising the opening of negotiations with Madagascar for the conclusion of a Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement and a Protocol between the European Communities and Madagascar

Sustainable Fisheries Agreements (SFPA) concluded between the European Union and third countries help to promote the objectives of the CFP internationally, particularly to promote sustainable fishing.

The Council conclusions on the external dimension (CFP) adopted on 19 March 2012, stipulate that an ex-post and ex-ante evaluation is carried out by the Commission before the negotiation of a new protocol.

This staff working document (SWD) is built on the results of an external ex-post evaluation and ex-ante evaluation of the current Protocol (2015-2018) between the European Union and the Madagascar, which expires on 31 December 2018.

The current Protocol provides access to a maximum of 94 tuna vessels from the EU in return for an annual financial contribution of EUR 866 250 – 787 500.

On the basis of the evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, economy, coherence, relevance, EU added value and acceptability) analysed in section 5 of the staff working document, it can be concluded that this deal is very important for the EU and its fleet, as well as for Madagascar. It promotes the objectives of the CFP and to the development of the fisheries sector of Madagascar.

The Protocol is assessed as a relevant and efficient EU financial contribution commensurate with the fishing opportunities used. The Protocol is consistent with other EU interventions that are themselves in synergy with other donors. The added value of this Agreement allows the EU to establish a management and control framework of its fleets, consistent with the framework negotiated under other tuna agreements, while creating a platform of sectoral dialogue between the EU and Madagascar with a view to establishing sustainable fisheries.

However, a number of issues/points have been identified, the evaluation also makes some recommendations on fishing opportunities, the embarkation of seamen, monitoring and surveillance capabilities, sanitary issues, the communication strategy and a possible support for maritime Blue Growth/Ocean Governance policy of Madagascar (currently in a definition phase).

In conclusion, the Commission supports the conclusions of the evaluation study and considers that the renewal of the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement should be the preferred option. It also considers that the recommendations presented are relevant and should also take into account the operational constraints of the fleet and the regional context. Finally, considers it appropriate to explore ways to increase the impact of Protocol on the local economy (employment and value-added creation) and may also consider the option of supporting blue growth.
The options considered are:

A) Binding technical specifications for achieving harmonised reporting gateways (front-ends) to the National Single Windows (NSWs) either with comprehensive information scope (option A1) or limited information scope (option A2);

B) Common IT solution for a reporting gateway front-end component in all NSWs with comprehensive (option B1) or limited (option B2) information scope;

C) A central Maritime Single Window reporting gateway established at EU-level, with comprehensive (option C1) or limited (option C2) information scope.

Based on stakeholder acceptance, effectiveness, cost-efficiency, risks and coherence, the proposed preferred option is B1.
Today, one third of the EU territory suffers from water stress all year round, and water scarcity is a concern for many EU Member States. According to climate change projections, the problem will increase across the EU in the next decades. Reduced availability negatively impacts upon EU citizens and economic sectors (agriculture, tourism, industry, energy and transport). This may affect competitiveness and the Internal Market. As part of an integrated water management approach that includes water savings and water efficiency measures, treated water from urban waste water treatment plants provides a reliable alternative water supply for various purposes such as agricultural irrigation or aquifer recharge. Water reuse in the EU today is far below its significant potential even though it has a lower environmental impact than water transfers or desalination and can yield environmental, economic and social benefits. The initiative thus seeks to address the overall problem of a too limited application of water reuse in order to contribute significantly to alleviating water scarcity in the EU. The need for EU action has been acknowledged in the Blueprint (2012) and taken up in the Circular Economy Action Plan (2015) and Commission Work Programme.

The general objective is to contribute to alleviating water scarcity across the EU, in the context of adaptation to climate change, notably by increasing the uptake of water reuse for agricultural irrigation wherever this is relevant and cost-effective while ensuring the maintenance of a high level of public health and environmental protection. More specifically, establishing an enabling framework through a common approach to water reuse in agricultural irrigation across the EU can facilitate a more efficient management of scarce water resources. Setting common minimum requirements is expected to achieve a high level of protection for consumers, workers and any other exposed public as well as for the environment, in particular water resources and dependent ecosystems and soils; more indirectly, it is expected to positively impact on public perception.

EU Member States share 60% of EU river basins, making action at EU level necessary to address water management and pollution. For water reuse, if Member States act alone, the technical barriers and associated costs are unnecessarily high, including for technology providers which are EU-scale companies. EU action for agricultural irrigation is also justified to prevent different national requirements from negatively affecting the level playing field, causing obstacles to the internal market for agricultural products irrigated with reclaimed water. This need for EU action was confirmed by the extensive public and stakeholder consultations. For aquifer recharge, EU regulatory action is not found proportionate, due to a strong local dimension.
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the early warning report for the Member States at risk of missing the 2020 preparation for re-use/recycling target on municipal waste

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.Introduction

This early warning report is part of the Commission's overall implementation report and aims to assist Member States at risk of failing to meet the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste set out in Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC. It builds on previous support provided by the Commission to help Member States comply with EU law in the area of municipal waste management. This resulted in country-specific roadmaps being drawn up for the relevant Member States.

The assessment underpinning the early warning report is based on a collaborative and transparent process involving the Member States concerned and an in-depth analysis of their most recent policy developments. This also involved extensive consultation with the authorities in charge of waste management.

The possible actions identified during this process are based on the existing best practices and aim to help Member States in meeting the 2020 municipal waste preparation for re-use/recycling; they therefore focus on policy measures that can be taken forward in the short term. These actions should be seen as complementary to those recommended in the roadmaps that were drawn up as part of the preceding compliance promotion activities and to the recommendations made in the Environmental Implementation Review.

2.Key findings

In 2016, Greece’s municipal waste recycling rate (including composting) reported to Eurostat was 17 %, while its landfilling rate was 82 %. Based on an analysis of existing and firmly planned policies in the area of waste management, Greece is considered at risk of missing the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste.

The assessment that underpins the early warning report concludes that Greece’s poor performance in waste management is due to:

·the absence of the infrastructure needed for source separation of recyclables;

·the general public’s low level of awareness;

·a lack of financial incentives; and

·the absence of relevant economic instruments, e.g. landfill tax.

The economic recession and subsequent financial crisis in Greece have affected the waste sector, leading to a decrease in waste generation but also to a sharp increase in informal recycling in recent years.

The table below lists possible actions to support Greece’s efforts to improve its waste management.
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the early warning report for Member States at risk of missing the 2020 preparation for re-use/recycling target on municipal waste

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.Introduction

This early warning report is part of the Commission's overall implementation report and aims to assist Member States at risk of failing to meet the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste set out in Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC. It builds on previous support provided by the Commission to help Member States comply with EU law in the area of municipal waste management. This resulted in country-specific roadmaps being drawn up for the relevant Member States.

The assessment underpinning the early warning report is based on a collaborative and transparent process involving the Member States concerned and an in-depth analysis of their most recent policy developments. This also involved extensive consultation with the authorities in charge of waste management.

The possible actions identified during this process are based on the existing best practices and aim to help Member States in meeting the 2020 municipal waste preparation for re-use/recycling target; they therefore focus on policy measures that can be taken forward in the short term. These actions should be seen as complementary to those recommended in the roadmaps that were drawn up as part of the preceding compliance promotion activities and to the recommendations made in the Environmental Implementation Review.

2.Key findings

In 2016, Spain’s municipal waste recycling rate (including composting) reported to Eurostat was 30 %, while its landfilling rate was 57 %. Based on an analysis of existing and planned policies in the area of waste management, Spain is considered at risk of missing the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling for municipal waste.

The assessment that underpins the early warning report concludes that slow progress in recycling rates is due to a lack of harmonisation of the separate collection obligation (e.g. for bio-waste) between the Autonomous Communities and a lack of economic instruments (e.g. landfill tax, incineration tax) set up at national level In addition, while the recycling targets have been cascaded down to the regional level, there are no instruments in place to enforce them at municipal level. Separate collection is not yet being carried out effectively in many municipalities. On the whole, there is not enough coordination between the national, regional and local levels, including as regards planning and use of the waste treatment infrastructure.

The table below lists possible actions to support Spain's efforts to improve its performance in waste management.