ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Posting of workers involved 1.9 million European workers in 2014. Although it represents 0.7% of total EU employment, posting of workers supports the cross-border provision of services in the Internal Market, particularly in construction and some personal and business services sectors. Under the current rules, posting companies need to comply with a core set of rights of the host country, including minimum rates of pay. This provision causes significant wage differentiation between posted and local workers in host countries, estimated to range from 10% up to 50% depending on countries and sectors. Differentiated pay rules distort the level playing field among companies, by conferring a labour cost advantage to sending companies over local companies in host Member States. Mismatches between the Directive and other pieces of EU legislation create legal uncertainties with respect to equal treatment of posted workers in the EU regulatory framework in the case of long-term posting. On the other hand, the general rules on posting might not be adequate to deal with specific situations like posting in the context of sub-contracting chains, temporary agency work and intra-group posting.
The costs of the preferred option are proportionate to the expected benefits for businesses and the society. The costs for public authorities are rather neutral. Some additional standardisation work regarding test methods would be required for products subject to the NLF. Option 5 would imply lower administrative costs than the type-approval option for economic operators. It can, however, be expected that administrative costs will in certain cases be higher than under status quo at the level of individual companies. This would be true in particular for producers of relatively variable materials requiring a high level of third-party involvement in the conformity assessment. SMEs involved in the production of fertilising products subject to third party certification would have to pay fees to a notified body to verify the compliance of their products with the requirements. The variant of optional harmonisation could imply higher costs for national administrations than full harmonisation, since they could be expected to maintain national procedures to some extent. Transition costs would be minimal for fertilising products yet covered by the current Regulation as self-certification of products will be allowed. Member States would also need to ensure the quality of notified bodies.
Exposure to some chemical agents in the workplace can cause cancer, which is the first cause of work-related deaths in the EU. To protect workers against such risks, the EU has adopted the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (CMD), which sets out steps to be taken to eliminate or limit exposure to carcinogenic chemical agents and includes Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) values. However, the CMD is out of date as it does not take into account the available scientific evidence. The Commission has conducted a scientific and economic assessment of 25 priority chemical agents to which around 20 million workers are exposed in the EU. Out of those 13 agents, for which data sets are ready, are covered in the impact assessment. Member States have introduced OELs for some of them but they are highly divergent and sometimes set too high to protect workers. Occupational cancer impacts the economy at large, reducing labour supply (either temporarily or permanently), decreasing labour productivity and increasing the burden on public finances through avoidable public expenditure on health care, disability benefits, pensions for early retirement, and other benefits. For the workers and their families, cancer results not only in substantial quality of life losses, but also in direct health care costs and indirect loss of present and future earnings. For business, occupational cancer implies staff replacement costs, productivity losses and the need to pay higher wages to compensate for the higher occupational risk, what affects their competitiveness.
The EuVECA and EuSEF Regulations introduced a “European Venture Capital Fund” and a “European Social Entrepreneurship Fund” label respectively that EuVECA and EuSEF funds supporting young and innovative companies or enterprises with the intention of generating positive social impact are permitted to use. The Regulations enable these funds to be marketed cross-border without additional barriers in order to meet their investment needs. The review of the EuVECA and EuSEF Regulations is closely linked to the Capital Markets Union (CMU) objectives focusing on facilitating SME financing, diversifying sources of financing and strengthening cross-border capital flows. It is also linked to the first and second pillars of the Investment Plan which concentrate on ensuring additional EU funding to SMEs, equity financial instruments under the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME), as well as under Horizon 2020. The Regulations are consistent with other CMU actions, such as the Commission's plan, together with the European Investment Fund, to sponsor a pan-European venture capital fund of funds which would invest in a combination of early, later and expansion stage venture capital funds. The IA Report builds on the findings of a review, the latter originally linked to the REFIT programme.
3 policy options are considered: 1) Guidelines and in-depth information exchange between authorities could help Member States to perform proportionality tests, but will have very limited impact. Establishing an EU wide proportionality test for regulated professions could encompass several options. It could lay down the minimum criteria for conducting proportionality checks, based on and complementing the case-law and by introducing transparency on Member States' assessments through a binding instrument (2a) or in a Recommendation (2b). Additionally, it could further include procedural aspects, such as public consultations and periodic reviews to ensure that proportionality checks are conducted in an objective and independent manner to ensure comprehensive assessments in all sectors of activities (two sub-options exist in this regard (3a EU Directive and 3b Recommendation). Although the options are not mutually exclusive, the preferred option is Option 3a, as it would address most adequately the problems at all levels of regulation (ex-ante effect) and generate the most benefits.
Option 0 – Baseline scenario. This option would entail no EU policy change. Option 1 – Non-legislative initiatives This option would provide guidelines on a better enforcement of the existing EU instruments vis-à-vis unjustified data localisation restrictions imposed by Member States. Availability for regulatory control purposes should be facilitated in accordance with the Member States' existing rules. EU-level guidelines on best practices should enable easier switching of cloud service providers and porting data to another service provider or back to users' own IT systems. Option 2 – Principles-based legislative initiative and cooperation framework. This option would establish the principle of free flow of data within the EU prohibiting unjustified data localisation measures unless justified on national security grounds and requiring the notification of any new measure on data localisation. Companies which store and/or process their data in another Member State would need to provide data to a regulatory authority if requested in accordance with the law. The switching of cloud service provider and the porting of data to a new provider or back to users' own IT systems should be enabled and reliable common standards and/or certification schemes for the security of storage and/or processing of data should be promoted by dedicated provisions. Single points of contact designated by the Member States and a pan-European policy group comprised of such contact points should enable exchange and cooperation for the development of common approaches and best practices and an effective implementation of the principles introduced. A variant: - Sub-option 2a - instead of a legislative provision and co-regulation on data porting, this sub-option would foresee a self-regulatory approach to improve the conditions for data porting upon switching providers or porting data back to users' own IT systems, including the processes, timeframes and charging that may apply. On the intervention area of security of data storage and processing, the Sub-option would entail the clarification that any already applicable security requirements continue to apply to business users when they store or process their data in other Member States of the EU, also when this is subject to outsourcing to e.g. a cloud service provider. Option 3 – Detailed legislative initiative. This option would establish fully harmonised rules on unjustified data location requirements (white or black lists). A mandatory cooperation framework would allow to enforce cross-border access to relevant data for regulatory authorities. Cloud service providers would be obliged to facilitate the porting of data and disclose with sufficient detail relevant processes, technical requirements and costs. Common standards and a separate European certification scheme for the security of data storage and/or processing for cloud services provided would be developed.
Recommendation for a Council decision to authorise the Commission to open negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the renewal of the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco

The sustainable fisheries partnership agreements concluded between the European Union and third countries are based on the principles of sustainability, transparency and non-discrimination, and contribute to the establishment of a governance framework for external fisheries. The Commission is required to carry out an ex-post and ex-ante evaluation before any negotiations on a new protocol; this is a routine step in the negotiation process. This document sets out the results of the evaluation of the current protocol between the EU and Morocco, which expires on 14 June 2018.

The protocol offers access to the Moroccan fishing zone for 126 EU vessels operating in six fishing categories and targeting pelagic and demersal species in exchange for an annual contribution from the EU of EUR 30 000 000, of which EUR 16 000 000 in return for access and EUR 14 000 000 to support the national fishing industry. The beneficiary shipowners, from 11 Member States, pay fees of around EUR 10 000 000 a year.

The Commission is satisfied with the evaluation, which examines five well-defined criteria; the results are reliable and the recommendations are relevant. The analysis presented in the SWD shows that the agreement is very important for the EU, its fleet and Morocco.

The protocol is effective in allowing access to a large fishing zone for both traditional, small-scale undertakings and industrial fleets from the EU. It ensures the sustainability of the fisheries and helps maintain the profitability of ships operating in Morocco. It contributes to sustainable development in the Moroccan fishing industry and supports the implementation of the Halieutis strategy. The protocol offers added value and is efficient for both parties – it offers a good return on investment for the EU and its efficiency for Morocco is comparable to that of other multi-species agreements. The protocol is relevant, in that its objectives correspond to the needs identified. It complements the network of EU agreements in the Atlantic and gives shipowners fishing opportunities suited to their needs. For Morocco, it provides access to resources of which full use is not made locally, and promotes economic interaction. Finally, the protocol is consistent with and complements other EU initiatives.

The evaluation makes various recommendations to be taken into consideration by the Commission in the negotiations on a future protocol, including maintaining most of the conditions in the current protocol. The Commission agrees with the conclusions of the evaluation and considers renewal of the Protocol to be the best option. The recommendations are considered relevant for such a renewal. However, the Commission considers that some technical provisions should be reviewed. Finally, it considers it appropriate to include blue growth in the sectoral support, which would be relevant in the context of a regional and proximity policy in which Morocco plays an important role.
The current rules on the VAT treatment of SMEs result in 1) disproportionate compliance costs for small enterprises as compared to large enterprises (while SMEs spend on average 2.6% of their sales revenues on tax compliance costs, for large enterprises these costs represent only 0.02%), 2) lack of neutrality, in particular, in relation to suppliers from other Member States (MS) and 3) revenue losses for MS. The current VAT SME scheme does not reflect legal and economic reality in which SMEs function already now and will become even more inadequate when the evolution of the VAT system towards taxation at destination is completed.
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

The policy options that have been considered aim to address unnecessary complexity and legal uncertainty of the existing rules for cross-border distribution of funds, increase the transparency of these rules, and safeguard investor protection. Given the technical and detailed nature of the regulatory framework that is being addressed, specific policy options have been developed for each problem driver. Both legislative and non-legislative options were considered. For some problem drivers the preferred option was to increase transparency at national level and/or European level, while for others more harmonisation was identified as the best way forward. The policy options retained are as follows: ·As to the lack of transparency regarding national requirements, transparency is improved at national and EU level with respect to national marketing requirements and regulatory fees. ·As to diverging national marketing requirements, a harmonised definition of pre-marketing is introduced and the process of checking of marketing material is framed more clearly. ·As to diverging regulatory fees, high-level principles are introduced in order to ensure more consistency in the way regulatory fees are determined. ·As to administrative requirements, the choice of how facilities to support local investors are provided (local presence or electronically) is left to the asset manager, but with the introduction of safeguards for investors. ·As to notification requirements, further harmonisation of the procedures and requirements for updating notifications and de-notification of use of the marketing passport is introduced.
Impact assessment on the review of Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters

Transport represents more than 30 % of energy consumption in the EU. Road transport is responsible for about 22 % of the EU’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In its 2016 Communication on A European strategy for low-emission mobility, the Commission stated that, by 2050, GHG emissions from transport should be at least 60 % lower than in 1990. Therefore, the Third Mobility Package will include initiatives to reduce emissions from cars and lorries, to improve the safety of road transport and to reduce pollution. It will also contribute to reducing the EU’s dependence on energy imports. Vehicle tyres affect fuel consumption (and thus GHG emissions), noise and safety. A stocktake of the current Tyre Labelling Regulation showed that it is not sufficiently achieving its aim of increasing the environmental efficiency of road transport by promoting fuel-efficient and safe tyres with low noise levels; this is due to: ·the low visibility, and low public awareness, of tyre labelling; ·compliance problems and inadequate enforcement of the rules by Member States; and ·outdated performance classes and inaccurate and incomplete information.
In addition to the baseline-scenario, we have analysed four options. All options build on an aggregation of user demand at EU and national level, on security accreditation, and on the implementation of a smart "GOVSATCOM Hub" that will interconnect the multiple suppliers and users. The options differ on the supply side. Since neither commercial nor national satellites (Options n° 1 and 2) can provide the full solution, two more options are considered. Both combine the supply from national and security-accredited commercial sources, and address possible longer-term shortfalls at a later stage: either via a Public-private partnership between EU and industry (Option n°3), or through EU-owned assets (Option n°4). Option n°3 provides the most effective and diversified solution in terms of access, security, and geographic and frequency cover, for both all users. This option also allows using existing user equipment, is flexible and scalable. It will not distort the existing commercial SatCom market, and enable the EU to act as a major anchor client. Service-delivery will be more cost-effective thanks to the built-in economies of scale, and if needed, the partial investment from the EU through a PPP. The PPP approach promotes innovation by sharing technology risks. The overall costs are equivalent or lower compared to what the current governmental SatCom users will have to pay anyhow in fragmented markets, so the EU added value is considerable.
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

Several options have been discarded as they were considered disproportionate or less effective in reaching the objectives of this initiative. Among these options are the ban on the use of the carcinogenic chemical agents at work, market-based instruments (subsidies, tax breaks, etc.), industry self-regulation and guidance documents. Setting new or revised EU wide OELs in the CMD have been retained as the most appropriate option. Several OELs scenarios have been assessed, including OELs agreed by the tripartite Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (ACSH), which take into account scientific recommendations as well as socio-economic and feasibility issues. The ACSH is composed of representatives of Governments, Employers and Workers. In addition to OELs agreed by the ACSH, lower and higher limit value scenarios have been considered for each substance. Based on a thorough impact assessment, OELs recommended by the ACSH have been retained as the preferred options as they represent the best scenarios in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. These retained options are also considered complementary with the existing REACH measures for each substance.
Executive Summary

The European Commission established the Task Force for Greece (TFGR) in July 2011, at the request of the Greek Prime Minister. The mandate of the TFGR was to identify and coordinate technical assistance to Greece, with the objective to deliver on commitments undertaken in the context of the economic adjustment programmes of the country. The TFGR acted upon demand of the Greek authorities.

The TFGR mandate included specifically the following tasks:

1)to provide technical assistance to the Greek authorities to support the delivery of commitments undertaken under the economic adjustment programme; and

2)to provide technical assistance to the Greek authorities for the acceleration in the absorption of EU funds.

In response to technical assistance demand expressed by the Greek authorities, the TFGR mobilised expertise or relevant support from Member States, international organisations or other specialist bodies that have relevant experience in implementing similar reforms.

The TFGR concluded its mandate at the end of June 2015.

The purpose of this ex-post evaluation is to focus on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the activities carried out and coordinated by the TFGR.

The evaluation follows a recommendation from the European Court of Auditors (ECA) issued in the context of the Special Report no 19/2015: “More attention to results needed to improve the delivery of Technical Assistance (TA) to Greece”. The ECA report raised two main questions: to reply to two key questions:

1)To what extent was the EU technical assistance provided to Greece under the coordination of the TFGR managed effectively?

2)To what extent has the EU technical assistance provided to Greece under the coordination of the TFGR contributed positively to the process of reforms in Greece?

The three economic adjustment programmes for Greece are out of the scope of this evaluation.

The ex-post evaluation of the technical assistance provided by the TFGR gathered information from three main source of information:

1.the desk research;

2.the online survey, and

3.the interviews with the stakeholders.

The data analysis led to the following conclusions:

1)The TFGR intervention was overall relevant in satisfying the needs, given the particular situation in Greece where immediate and wide-ranging actions were necessary to redress the financial and socio-economic situation. The TFGR intervened swiftly, mobilised the support from the Member States and the European Commission and adequately coordinated the requests from the Greek authorities for assistance with the available expertise.
Due to EU’s constant support and involvement in the negotiations that led up to the adoption of the Convention in 2019, as well as the preservation of EU’s main interests in the process, the option of not acceding to the Convention was mainly taken into account as a benchmark in order to assess the several policy options considering accession. These options looked at EU’s accession to the Judgments Convention either without any declaration, or while entering a declaration under Article 18 of the Convention excluding its application to certain matters (consumer, employment or insurance matters, as well as commercial leases of immovable property), or judgments in civil or commercial matters involving States or State entities, under Article 19 of the Convention. Yet another option was considered in the form of accession making both declarations under Articles 18 and 19. The preferred option is to accede to the Convention with a limited, targeted declaration excluding the recognition and enforcement by courts in the EU of third-country judgments which ruled on commercial leases (tenancies) of immovable property situated in the EU. A declaration that would exclude the other considered matters is deemed to be unnecessary because the Convention does provide adequate protection for weaker parties, albeit in a different fashion than in the EU acquis, and, unlike the preferred option, broader declarations could impede the full achievement of the objectives of this initiative. While the preferred option enhances access to justice and is set to promote international trade and investment, it will equally increase legal certainty and predictability in international court litigation, reduce costs and length of proceedings and is fully in line with the EU acquis on this matter, namely the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012). Pursuant to this Regulation, courts in the EU have exclusive jurisdiction to rule on disputes related to commercial tenancies of immovable property situated in the EU.