ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.5.3

The REFIT platform was set up in May 2015 to enable public authorities, citizens and stakeholders to contribute to improving European legislation. In the Committee's opinion certain issues cast a shadow over its proceedings: — a redundant process: the Member States' group in the platform partly duplicates the work of the approximately 200 Council working groups; — a slow process: it often takes several months to adopt an opinion as the two groups, which meet only once and do not engage in any real dialogue, rarely reach a common position; — an asymmetric process: most of the submissions originate from the employers sector, i.e. business groups or chambers of commerce (as evidenced by the statistics published by the Commission itself), and few are from civil society or the social partners. While the Commission and the Member States are represented, the EP is absent; — a body with no real expertise: on what scientific basis are the members of the platform able to analyse the very different proposals received? The only real expertise is in the hands of the Commission, which has sometimes taken advantage of this fact to push through its own proposals; — a lesser role for the EESC and the CoR compared to other stakeholders, which has the effect of diluting the opinions that the Committees could deliver; — a marked imbalance between outcomes and costs: the cost of the platform seems disproportionate to the results achieved to date; — the skewed nature of the platform: the Committee calls for a two-way street – in other words, an exercise that does not conclude in advance what course regulation should take: extending, complementing, amending or repealing legislation.
4.2.

The Committee considers that the proposal for a regulation should take account of the exception set out in the previous point: i.e. it should allow joint fishing with other CPC fleets. The Committee nevertheless considers that a protocol should be agreed on a bilateral basis in advance on the operational arrangements to be followed by the vessels and, in particular, by the authorities of each CPC on handling the catch declaration documents required by the current rules.
In this spirit, the EESC also notes the following statements by key EU institutions and individuals:

With an overwhelming majority, the European Parliament voted on April 16 to place the European Green Deal at the core of the upcoming EU recovery and reconstruction package ‘in order to kick-start the economy, improve its resilience and create jobs while at the same time assist in the ecological transition, foster sustainable economic and social development’.

On the same day, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also said that Europe must double down on investing in the European Green Deal. European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans gave the same message in an open letter in seven European newsletters. And President Charles Michel of the European Council also wants to use this opportunity to make the EU greener: ‘The European Union must become better than before, we must take advantage of this crisis.’
2.4.

The EESC must, however, underline certain technical aspects concerning seed production methods that differ between Ukraine and the European Union, in particular as regards access to plant protection products. Ukrainian producers in fact have access to a wider range of plant health products that EU producers, and have access to certain substances that are banned in the European Union. These divergences lead to a distortion of competition and would result in products which do not comply with EU health and environmental standards being able to enter the territory of the European Union. The most significant differences include access to active weed control substances such as atrazine (banned in the EU since 2003) or acetochlor (banned in the EU since 2012). In addition to the health impacts, access to these substances with a wide working spectrum, persistent character, high technical efficiency on weeds and low cost, gives Ukrainian producers a definite competitive advantage. With regard to pest protection, Ukrainian producers still have access to active substances in the neonicotinoid family, some of which are banned in the EU, such as clothianidin, thiamethoxam or very soon thiacloprid.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council empowering France to negotiate an agreement supplementing its existing bilateral Treaty with the United Kingdom concerning the construction and operation by private concessionaires of a Channel Fixed Link’

(COM(2020) 622 final – 2020/0160 (COD))

(2020/C 429/39)

Referral European Parliament, 14.9.2020 Council, 27.7.2020 Legal basis Articles 2(1) and 91(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society Adopted at plenary 16.9.2020 Plenary session No 554 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) unanimous

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 554th plenary session of 16, 17 and 18 September 2020 (meeting of 16 September) to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
2.5.

The proposed Regulation provides guarantees to safeguard privacy and protection of personal data: — processing must be proportionate and limited to well-established technologies regularly used by NI-ICS (number-independent interpersonal communications services) for that purpose before entry into force; — technology used must be in accordance with the state-of-the-art technology used in the industry and must intrude on privacy as little as possible; — the technology used must in itself be sufficiently reliable and limit error rates to the maximum possible, and rectify any errors without delay, should they occur; — only ‘key indicators’ technology to be used to detect ‘child solicitation’; — processing is limited to what is strictly necessary for that purpose; — immediate erasure, unless online CSA detected; — obligation for the provider to publish an annual report on its related processing.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects of railway safety and connectivity with regard to the cross-border infrastructure linking the Union and the United Kingdom through the Channel Fixed Link’

(COM(2020) 782 final — 2020/0347 (COD))

(2021/C 56/12)

Referral Council of the European Union, 2.12.2020 European Parliament, 14.12.2020 Legal basis Articles 91(1) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society Adopted at plenary 2.12.2020 Plenary session No 556 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 210/1/4

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 556th plenary session of 2 and 3 December 2020 (meeting of 2 December 2020), by 210 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
There is a general tendency toward using PSO obligations, with exclusive traffic rights, on deficitary lines, usually regional lines, whereas market access is open on long distance lines. The EESC underscores the important role of PSO in providing affordable accessibility and ensuring the overall coherence of the rail system for passenger transport to ensure accessibility. PSOs are essential to ensure accessible, affordable and inclusive passenger services for citizens. Market access is open for commercial passenger services, often long distance services. However, long distance traffic and regional traffic cannot be separated. Every long distance train fulfils regional tasks for the passengers, especially when stopping in suburban areas. Regional lines ensure the necessary number of passengers and feed the main lines. They also relieve the infrastructure of the ‘grandes lignes’ and ensure the distribution in the area. Further initiatives are being taken by Member States to create key connections with new train services, including night trains, with incumbent railway operators in the lead of these developments. Such plans have in fact already been announced by, for instance, Germany (TEE 2.0), the Netherlands and Sweden. Competing of operators on the Italian high-speed network has resulted in improved service quality cheaper tickets and higher service frequency, resulting in a discernible modal shift from air to rail. Similar initiatives are planned in Spain. The EESC is of the opinion that these initiatives demonstrate both the possibilities of the current framework to create attractive and environmentally friendly transport alternatives and the need for measures to facilitate the establishment of cross-border links. The EESC is of the opinion that these initiatives demonstrate the complexity of the railway system and that free market access — in place since 2010 for international passenger transport — is not the right instrument to stimulate the development of (international) long distance passenger transport. Political will, political decisions on prioritising environmentally friendly and inclusive solutions accompanied by the necessary investment and a good governance are necessary.
3.3.

As this regulation allows citizens to benefit from improved cross-border access to justice, the EESC considers that it must also specifically address the necessary strengthening and harmonisation of Member States’ capabilities in the field of judicial cooperation. This starts with the digital ecosystem underpinning e-CODEX, which must allow for an interoperable and interconnected environment. The EESC would like to point out that so far, uptake of IT on the part of the judiciary in Europe has been divergent. Hence the EESC calls for stronger cooperation among national justice departments and convergence across the EU at various levels, fully respecting the specific features of national systems including the roles and responsibilities of the various actors involved. On a technical level, it is necessary to guarantee that Member States have similar degrees of automation and the technical capacity to handle and store large electronic documents, as well as to interconnect service providers in a highly secure manner.
5.10.

The EESC thinks that the reference to the possibility of revoking the power to adopt delegated acts referred to in the first sentence of Article 21(3) is far too vague, and seeks clarification as to whether revocation concerns one or all of the categories listed in Article 5(4), Article 10(3) and Article 13(4). It is also unclear whether this concerns one act in the above categories or the possibility generally of adopting acts for one of these categories. The EESC points out that there should be consultation between the co-legislators about the process of informing them.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Extension of the term of Community plant variety rights for the species asparagus and the species groups flower bulbs, woody small fruits and woody ornamentals’

(COM(2020) 36 final — 2021/0019 (COD))

(2021/C 220/12)

Referral European Parliament, 11.2.2021 Legal basis Article 118 and Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment Adopted at plenary 24.3.2021 Plenary session No 559 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 262/0/14

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 559th plenary session of 24 and 25 March 2021 (meeting of 24 March), by 262 votes with 14 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
3.2.

In its opinion of October 2011, the EESC criticised the fact that very few deadlines were included in the list of proposed measures and that the Roadmap did not clearly link strategic measures (with a 2050 deadline) with tactical measures (which could have started to be taken immediately). The opinion called for the Roadmap to — in particular — establish a more detailed work plan for the period 2013-2020. In its 2015 opinion, the EESC suggested a general re-assessment of the action plan in annex I to the Roadmap in terms of its current political feasibility. It is clear that, in 2018, the progress made on the three specific targets (GHG emissions — 60 % reduction on 1990 by 2050 and 20 % reduction on 2008 by 2030; fossil fuel dependency, limiting congestion growth) was modest. GHG emissions were 32 % above 1990 and grew over the period 2013-2018. Fossil fuels still accounted for the bulk of the energy needs of the transport sector. Although their share had been declining over recent years, the rate of decline, closely linked to the implementation of the various countries’ environmental regulations, was insufficient. With regard to the congestion indicators, however, the unquantified, unambitious objective still seems not to have been met. The EESC points out, however, that the new ways of organising work generated by the health crisis are opening up new possibilities for systems.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/625 as regards official controls on animals and products of animal origin exported from third countries to the Union to ensure compliance with the prohibition of certain uses of antimicrobials’

(COM(2021) 108 final — 2021/0055 (COD))

(2021/C 341/16)

Referral European Parliament, 11.3.2021 Council, 17.3.2021 Legal basis Articles 43(2), 114, 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 9.6.2021 Plenary session No 561 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 212/0/4

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 561st plenary session of 9 and 10 June 2021 (meeting of 9 June), by 212 votes in favour with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
3.5.7.

As trust is the cornerstone of a digital society, the EESC particularly welcomes the Commission’s approach in all of the areas that can uphold the general interest and in particular the interests of citizens and consumers, as well as of workers and businesses, including in the social economy, so as to raise the overall level of trust in AI: the protection of fundamental rights, cybersecurity, data protection, intellectual property and the sustainable and efficient use of resources, without overlooking regulatory issues related to innovation. It seems important to pinpoint the possible dangers of the misuse of AI and to propose appropriate remedies. The EESC supports the measures envisaged by the Commission to strengthen security in all areas and adapt the regulatory framework to the challenges posed by AI. It points here to organised civil society’s pioneering role, for example in assessing the risks inherent in facial recognition.
the Next Generation EU initiative has been developed and adopted in the right form and at the right time

The EESC has supported NGEU from its very beginning and has repeatedly expressed its endorsement ( 4 ) . In its opinion on the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy 2021 ( 5 ) , the EESC confirms that ‘’. Due to its confidence-boosting effect, NGEU is already having a positive impact on the EU’s economy and has reduced the likelihood of a deep crisis in some countries. In the long run, NGEU is expected to considerably increase the EU’s output, meaning that, ultimately, all Member States are likely to become net beneficiaries ( 6 ) . The EESC welcomes the fact that all Member States have completed national ratification of the ORD, allowing borrowing to begin, and calls on all stakeholders to go through the next steps swiftly to start the money flowing.
The EESC invites the Commission to further analyse some of the new definitions so as to ensure the clarity of the text. For example, the definition of a creditor should be revised in order to ensure that all lending businesses are covered by the scope of the Directive and equally supervised/licensed when they conduct the same type of activity. Moreover, for the purpose of ensuring a level playing field and effectively providing consumers with the same level of protection, all lenders, regardless of their legal company status, should apply the same rules and be subject to the same obligations, including with regard to reporting.

The EESC invites the Commission to further analyse some of the new definitions so as to ensure the clarity of the text. For example, the definition of a creditor should be revised in order to ensure that all lending businesses are covered by the scope of the Directive and equally supervised/licensed when they conduct the same type of activity. Moreover, for the purpose of ensuring a level playing field and effectively providing consumers with the same level of protection, all lenders, regardless of their legal company status, should apply the same rules and be subject to the same obligations, including with regard to reporting , except in the case of loans free of any charge provided that all provisions aimed at consumer protection have been complied with .
the external trade imbalance in aquatic products is unacceptable, both from an economic point of view, given the trade deficit that this entails, and from a social point of view, given the missed opportunities for employment

The EESC considers that the EU aquaculture sector should provide many more products to meet demand in the internal market. It is still unbelievable that 65 % of the aquatic products consumed in Europe come from imports. As it stands now, the European Union is jeopardising its future food security. The EESC has already stressed that ‘ ( 8 ) . The EESC is very disappointed that 5 years later, the situation is the same and the expected results have not been reached.
4.6.

In order to achieve climate neutrality in 2050, decarbonisation of the energy system must be achieved by 2045. A gross final consumption of renewable energy of 40 % in 2030 means that most of the decarbonisation process will have to be achieved over a period of 15 years (between 2030 and 2045). Thus, the climate emergency requires greater pragmatism as regards the development of renewable energy sources, in terms of determining what can actually be done within the available time-frame. First, it is important to focus on targets that are achievable in the light of the provisions currently in force. While the directive establishes a medium- and long-term strategy by setting ambitious targets, this should not happen at the expense of a faster-paced roll-out of green energies, but should go hand in hand with it. In the short term, it is equally relevant and essential to focus on the use of mature and popular renewable energy sources such as photovoltaic panels. For the transport sector, greater flexibility and a wider choice of admissible raw materials with respect to biofuels must be mentioned. It is only in the medium to long term that investments made on the basis of the guidelines set out in the future directive can take over and harness their full potential (renewable hydrogen, offshore wind turbines, etc.) and contribute to the decarbonisation of the European economy through the electrification of uses. Otherwise, there is a great risk that Europe will pay a heavy price for its laxness over the last two decades. In order to avoid this, the EU needs to clarify its strategy, which will have to go far beyond the Renewables Directive alone and foster a comprehensive approach that makes use of synergies.
5.7.

Measurements and measurement methods could favour sectors which are more easily measurable, where there are more resources or more data available, to the detriment of areas where the objective measurement is more complex or where data are more difficult to obtain; steps must be taken to ensure that this does not happen. Collaboration between the public, private and the social sectors is necessary in order to achieve success in the social investment. The collaboration of the social sector is essential in order to prioritise the necessities, since they are the ones who work on the ground and know the needs.
2.2.2.

The EESC supports the European Commission's objective of creating a regulatory framework in which the insurance sector plays an even greater role as an investor in financing the transition to a sustainable economy and in combatting the impact of COVID-19. At the same time, the EESC stresses the importance of not jeopardising the protection objectives of the Solvency II system, namely the protection of insured persons and beneficiaries and the preservation of financial stability. However, this could be threatened if, in order to support the European Green Deal, the strict risk assessment of insurers' investments is not firmly adhered to. The consumer protection rules of the Solvency II system should cover the insurance industry's investments and activities in sectors where insurers invest on the basis of requests by the authorities or government. These investments can then be rewarded or sanctioned accordingly. In any case, any investment under the European Green Deal or NextGenerationEU, for example, must be subject to the same risk assessment as any other investment. Sustainable insurance supervision requires a fact-based risk assessment and a calculation of capital based on that. The EESC fully backs the European Commission's approach of reviewing the existing rules on capital requirements to determine where they have led to inadequate requirements (excessive or insufficient). The European Commission's proposals show how much leeway can be created from this alone. However, where capital requirements are too low (for example, risks relating to climate change), they need to be increased to ensure the stability of the sector.
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

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.
1.1.

The EESC considers it appropriate and necessary to transpose into EU law the recommendations adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), given that the EU is a contracting party to the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and in order to comply with the conservation and enforcement measures adopted at its annual meetings in 2006, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021.