ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.13.

The EESC is convinced that there is scope for further reflection on the relevance and sustainability of the existing parameters of the tax system. The euro area is characterised by a relatively high tax burden, which is also skewed towards labour taxation. At the same time, environmental and property taxes generally account for very little of the overall tax take. The EESC therefore notes the need to bring in forms of taxation that ease the tax burden on labour and raise it, for example, on speculation. It recommends introducing fair taxation arrangements, particularly in relation to new forms of the digital economy, where capital is concentrated more into the extraction of value than the production of goods and provision of services. In future, environmental taxes could be an important instrument for driving greener consumer and producer behaviour, without significantly affecting the conditions for economic growth. At the same time, the EESC notes that any changes in tax systems must avoid further aggravating the heavily skewed distribution of income and wealth. The EESC calls for efforts to be continued and strengthened in the fight against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance (aggressive tax planning), which would make the tax system more efficient. The EESC agrees with the European Commission that there should be closer coordination and collaboration between Member States in designing tax policy that helps to create fair conditions in the Single Market. The EESC also supports the European Commission in its efforts and deliberations to achieve consensus on the CCCTB and an overview of the allocation of profits between Member States. The EESC, supporting the Commission’s initiative on qualified majority voting, considers it important that it be implemented gradually and that a broad consensus be reached on the conditions for its application.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 573/2014/EU on enhanced cooperation between Public Employment Services (PES)’

(COM(2019) 620 final)

(2020/C 47/16)

Referral European Parliament, 19.9.2019 Council of the European Union, 19.9.2019 Legal basis Articles 149 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship Adopted at plenary 30.10.2019 Plenary session No 547 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 219/3/11

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion SOC 620 — The new role of public employment services (PES) in the context of the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (1), adopted on 17 July 2019, it decided, at its 547th plenary session of 30 and 31 October 2019 (meeting of 30 October 2019), by 219 votes to 3 with 11 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the abovementioned document.

Brussels, 30 October 2019. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Luca JAHIER

(1) OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 46
4.1.

The EESC firmly believes that the new 5G technologies can change the way we interact with the world, offering opportunities for new applications, business models, new lifestyles, smart factories, greater productivity and new quality services for people, potentially opening doors to breakthrough technologies such as automated cars and advanced manufacturing and distribution systems, as well as making possible many thousands of interconnected devices set to enter our daily lives as part of the Internet of Things (IoT). However, the EESC would expect the EC to strengthen the impact and feasibility studies and the cost-benefit analysis of 5G compared to the use of 4G technology or fibre optic telecommunications. The EESC considers it essential that 5G is oriented to achieve a better circular use of resources and to reduce the large energy-related CO 2 footprint. The EESC highlights the importance of dealing with social structural changes by enhancing a fair and smooth transition and addressing the skills gap to get to better paid, flexible, highly skilled jobs.
2.5.

The main changes in comparison with the January 2020 proposals include: — a robust increase in financial allocation, mainly in case of the JTF, the original basis financial allocation is proposed to increase from EUR 7,5 bn to EUR 40 bn (additional EUR 2,5 bn within the ordinary MFF and a new sum of EUR 30 bn within the Next Generation EU); the rule to multiply (1,5 up to 3 times) the JTF financial base through the ERDF, or ESF+ transfers is related only to the sources within the MFF 2021-2027, not to those in the Next Generation EU instrument, — increased sources in favour of InvestEU — the guarantee amount would be doubled; the sustainable infrastructure window is to work with EUR 20 bn, the research, innovation and digitalisation window with EUR 10 bn, the same amount is allocated for the SME window, the social investment and skill window has EUR 3,6 bn, and the financial allocation for the newly proposed strategic European investment window is EUR 31 bn, — the public loan facility receives through this package a legal base for this proposal and represents a unique and innovative combination of practical implementation of financial instruments and subsidies.
3.6.

lack of [national] resources has had detrimental consequences on the ability of countries to provide all NEETs with an opportunity to work or to attend training within four months’. The increased budget for the YG is welcomed in line with the expansion of the age cohort of people targeted by the initiative. However, the EESC regrets that while the EU Recovery Plan provides EUR 750 billion for the economic recovery of Europe, the YG only receives EUR 22 billion which, according to the EC national co-financing . The Commission has also presented the use of additional funds : this includes EUR 55 billion for 2020-22 from REACT-EU and EUR 86 billion from ESF+ that can also be used by countries for youth employment support, among several other funds. Research at least EUR 50 billion per year . The EESC urges the Commission to provide MSs with clear calculations and guidelines on the full amount of EU-level investment for supporting the YG and an evaluation on its effective use. As the sustainability of the support mechanism enhanced with public investment is needed, we welcome the integration of targeted support for young people into the European Semester. We note that, according to ILO analyses ( 13 ) of the YG, a ‘has had detrimental consequences on the ability of countries to provide all NEETs with an opportunity to work or to attend training within four months’. Theis welcomed in line with the expansion of the age cohort of people targeted by the initiative. However, the EESC regrets that while the EU Recovery Plan provides EUR 750 billion for the economic recovery of Europe, the YG only receives EUR 22 billion which, according to the EC ( 14 ) , comprises European Social Fund and Youth Employment Initiative investment, including. The Commission has also presented the use of: this includes EUR 55 billion for 2020-22 from REACT-EU and EUR 86 billion from ESF+ that can also be used by countries for youth employment support, among several other funds. Research ( 15 ) suggests that effective support could be achieved under the revised YG with. The EESC urges the Commission to provide MSs with clear calculations and guidelines on the full amount of EU-level investment for supporting the YG and an evaluation on its effective use. As the sustainability of the support mechanism enhanced with public investment is needed, we welcome the integration of targeted support for young people into the European Semester.
1.4

The EESC would therefore see benefit in, for example, the strategic initiatives presented by the Commission to implement the EGD, such as the Biodiversity Strategy, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Circular Economy Action Plan, along with their respective detailed requirements, being integrated and included in the 8th EAP. Furthermore, the Council and the European Parliament (EP) could also oblige the Commission via an 8th EAP to perpetuate and deepen the EGD, by giving it an explicit mandate to present, at the latest in the new term of office, a legislative proposal for an ‘EU Agenda 2050’ (as an amended and expanded ‘EGD 2’), which would add a concrete and detailed list of measures as an appendix to the 8th EAP. However, no plans have been made for this.
3.10.

In the digital market, however, some FinTech companies offer services to financial companies, while others compete with them. The EESC considers that the Commission should take these issues into account when drafting new regulations. The EESC therefore recommends that the new regulations be geared towards supporting partnerships between incumbent financial institutions and the FinTech sector. While it is evident that banks are the most significant institutions, legislation should avoid simple copy-paste requirements that may not fit all kinds of financial services. It should differentiate between consumer-oriented products that can be seen as commodities and more complex products where the scope and the after-sales services are of significant importance.
the development of a European standard for collecting data and information on their own users that platforms will have to communicate

12

The proposal to impose customs reporting obligations on platforms is a potential burden for legitimate businesses. Platforms do have important data that customs could use, but would need to make specific investment in IT software that can gather and provide this data. The use of automated robotic systems should be immediately explored, as these could be invaluable in easing the reporting obligation process. Furthermore, the EESC considers that these companies should be provided with necessary funding if they are asked to gather data that they would not otherwise need. Managing this data is extremely important in tackling customs and VAT fraud, undervaluation, false origin declarations etc. The EESC has already called for
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/2397 as regards the transitional measures for the recognition of third countries certificates’

(COM(2021) 71 final — 2021/0039 (COD))

(2021/C 220/13)

Referrals Council of the European Union, 26.2.2021 European Parliament, 8.3.2021 Legal basis Article 91(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society Adopted at plenary 24.3.2021 Plenary session No 559 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 262/0/14

Since the Committee unreservedly 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 in favour and 14 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
4.2.

The EESC also welcomes the proposed operational cooperation with third countries, enabling cooperation with private parties, notably regarding the exchange of data. The EESC does not consider the proposal enabling cooperation with private parties to be disproportionate. On the contrary, the proposal is deemed quite necessary given the constant evolution of international crime using internet and mobile devices. Criminal organisations increasingly use cross-border services offered by private parties to communicate and carry out illegal activities. However, private operators do not currently have a point of contact at EU level where they could report information that might be relevant for criminal investigation. This proposal seeks to address this gap. In effect, the legislative amendment would enable Europol to act as the contact point and to examine, in a centralised manner, the crime or the case under investigation by the Member State(s). This arrangement allows for the development of the necessary cooperation between Europol and private parties.
3.18.

Law enforcement authorities and police services around the world are most likely to respond only after a crime has been committed and in most cases are unable to take counter-measures before a crime has occurred. The EESC considers the ideal approach would be to react and prevent criminal activity, but everyone should be aware that staying one step ahead of criminal groups is extremely difficult. Criminals use new technologies with ease, they are not restricted by budgets, laws or political correctness, and prioritise profit over people’s lives. Criminals adapt extremely quickly to new conditions, create new ways of working and enter areas where they have not been active before. The COVID-19 pandemic could be an example here.
4.5.

The EESC welcomes the prohibition of ‘social scoring’ in Article 5(1)(c). The EESC recommends that the prohibition of social scoring also apply to private organisations and semi-public authorities, rather than just to public authorities. There is no place in the EU for scoring the trustworthiness of EU citizens based on their social behaviour or personality characteristics, irrespective of the actor performing the scoring. If there were, the EU would open the door to multiple areas where social scoring would be allowed, such as at the workplace. The conditions under subparagraphs (i) and (ii) should be clarified so as to draw a clear line between what is considered ‘social scoring’ and what can be considered an acceptable form of evaluation for a certain purpose, i.e. at the point where the information used for the evaluation should no longer be deemed relevant or reasonably related to the goal of the evaluation.
3.12.

The proposal for a regulation allows the Commission to act on its own initiative to investigate any potential distortion of the EU internal market by a foreign subsidy (Chapter 2). The only requirement for the Commission to investigate is that the total amount of foreign subsidies exceeds the threshold of EUR 5 million for three consecutive fiscal years. This threshold is fairly low in absolute terms, and the Committee considers that the Commission should be encouraged to raise it to avoid minor, less significant cases, a shift which would be to the benefit of small and medium-sized companies. The Commission also has the power to investigate foreign financial contributions granted up to 10 years before the start of its investigation, with the possibility of investigating foreign subsidies granted in the 10 years prior to the date of entry into force of the new regulation where the distorting effects come into play after the start of the application of this regulation.
3.10.

The EESC supports and welcomes the start of public consultations aimed at management (governance) of public finances. In this context, the orientation is towards: (a) the timing of the fiscal consolidation process; (b) the definition of rules for long-term measures linked to overcoming the consequences of the epidemic, but in particular the investments associated with the green and digital economy; (c) and simplification of fiscal rules. The EESC points to its various opinions on economic governance and on fiscal rules in particular. In our latest opinion ( 11 ) , in these regards, the EESC calls for the introduction of a golden rule for public investments in combination with an expenditure rule and points out that both national parliaments and the European Parliament need to be given a prominent role in the future EU economic governance framework. Moreover, the EESC calls for a greater involvement of civil society in the European Semester at both national and EU level and also for guidelines for a transition period, during which time the excessive deficit procedure should not be triggered.
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.
5.3.

Civil society organisations, social partners and especially trade unions representing the workforce in the sectors concerned, as well as public health, patients and equality organisations and service providers, play an important role in ensuring that the public interest is at the core of public health policies and measures taken by the EU and its Member States in relation to crisis prevention and response. In particular, civil society can provide feedback on the acceptability of public health measures and information on the needs of vulnerable groups. The EESC is particularly concerned by the lack of inclusion of organised civil society, including social partners, in the structure and functioning of HERA. Under the present structure, organised civil society may only contribute to the work of the HERA Advisory Forum with other external stakeholders, including industry and academia. For example, civil society has not been allocated any role in the HERA Board and the Health Crisis Board that will coordinate urgent actions during a crisis phase.
2.5.

The Commission is also proposing a CBAM aimed at reducing the risk of carbon leakage into the EU by putting a carbon price on imports, corresponding to what would have been paid had the goods been produced in the EU. This mechanism will apply to a targeted selection of sectors and has been deemed by the Commission to be fully consistent with the WTO rules. In line with the proposal, the phasing in of the CBAM will take place concurrently with the phasing out of the ETS re-allocation scheme, which was always envisaged to be temporary in any case. Goods imported to the EU would pay a charge which reflects their ‘carbon content’ — that is the CO 2 emissions generated by their production (the overall price on these CO 2 emissions is the same as the EU carbon price). On the other hand, a rebate (reflecting the difference between the carbon price paid for their production in Europe and the carbon price in the destination market) will not apply on goods exported to other countries. To compensate for this, the Innovation Fund (IF), with revenues derived from the auctioning of 450 million ETS allowances from 2020 to 2030, will help European industry adapt to the decarbonisation process. For 2020-2030, the Fund may amount to around EUR 10 billion, depending on the carbon price. The IF is a key funding instrument for delivering the EU’s economy-wide commitments under the Paris Agreement, and supporting the European Commission’s strategic vision of a climate-neutral Europe by 2050, as recognised also in the European Green Deal Investment Plan.
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

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.
3.5.

The EESC finds it relevant to consider hate speech and hate crime as an area of crime having a common ‘substance’ based on a bias motivation of hatred targeting persons or groups. This leads to the requirement to consider hate speech and hate crime in a holistic way, and to avoid a silo approach to different forms or targets of hatred, especially in regard to differences between the Member States. It also calls for considering hate speech and hate crime in relation to EU values and fundamental rights as a whole. Moreover, it calls for identifying the linkages of hate speech and hate crime with existing EU crimes. In this context, information sharing between law enforcement agencies and governments should be stepped up.
4.8.

Despite the primary due diligence obligation of large companies, MSMEs will be indirectly affected as companies which fall within the scope of the directive will increase their demands on suppliers with regard to their implementation of the UNGPs, their non-financial reporting and their own supply chain management. The considerable effort is easier for large companies than for smaller companies, that have not yet been included in the scope of this kind of legislation. The latter have particularly less leverage to address human rights risks in their supply chain, and much fewer resources for conducting comprehensive risks assessments. The EESC proposes that the European Commission establishes a Help Desk that provides easily accessible information on human rights risks in countries and regions. It should be possible for stakeholders to engage with such a helpdesk and for partner countries or regions to collaborate with it. This helpdesk should also support the human rights capacity building of suppliers in third countries and the strengthening of their environmental performance. The EESC additionally calls on Member States to provide assistance, particularly to MSMEs, in a manner that is practical, specific and efficient, framed in a structural cooperation with the representative organisations concerned. The EESC considers it of utmost importance that the scope of companies addressed with this directive is in accordance with other relevant EU-legislation mentioned under paragraph 2.1.