ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.9.

The EESC agrees with the development of the specific capabilities proposed by the Commission within the framework of rescEU, i.e. reserve fire-fighting aircraft resources, high-capacity pumping, urban search and rescue, and operational capacities to be developed for public health through the acquisition of field hospital units and emergency medical teams, as referred to in the second paragraph of point 3.1 of COM(2017) 773 final. The EESC recognises the need for interoperability between resources and for it to be possible to use them flexibly in order to achieve economies of scale with a view to sustainable development. For example, acquisition of aerial resources could be considered that would serve simultaneously for: (a) aerial fire-fighting, (b) aerial early warning patrols and surveillance, (c) search and rescue, and (d) evacuation of casualties from hard to reach or remote island regions. In this way, use could be made of these aerial means throughout the year, so that costs, including financial costs, are recouped more quickly.
3.12.

ex-post assessments ex-post assessments mentioned by the Commission to be sound in principle, the EESC deems it important that the EU’s policies on preventing and combating fraud be based on specific and verifiable data. In the absence of a prior impact assessment, it therefore becomes imperative that the new anti-fraud programme be backed up by ongoing monitoring, assessment and reporting providing an accurate picture of the state of play and progress achieved over time. The Commission did not consider it necessary to carry out a prior impact assessment, in that the new anti-fraud programme is largely a continuation of the previous programme, regarding whichassessments ( 1 ) have already been carried out, which have deemed it effective. While it understands the choice not to carry out a prior impact assessment and considers theassessments mentioned by the Commission to be sound in principle, the EESC deems it important that the EU’s policies on preventing and combating fraud be based on specific and verifiable data. In the absence of a prior impact assessment, it therefore becomes imperative that the new anti-fraud programme be backed up by ongoing monitoring, assessment and reporting providing an accurate picture of the state of play and progress achieved over time.
3.1.3.

EPIC has stated that the lack of pay transparency plays an important role in pay differentials between men and women and that increased pay transparency can help to reduce gender pay gaps. Pay transparency has an important part to play in combating possible pay discrimination. The EESC is concerned by the low rate of implementation of the 2014 Recommendation on Pay Transparency. Although most Member States have some measures aimed at increasing pay transparency in place, in a third of Member States such measures are entirely absent. The EESC calls on Member States to step up implementation of the Recommendation, for example by foreseeing the possibility for individual to request information about pay levels or the possibility for employers in companies of a size to be defined to report on pay or conduct pay audits, as this would foster a fair approach to recruitment and remuneration. The need for full respect of employees’ (data) privacy and of general industrial relations should also be taken into account.
Social media have become important means of spreading disinformation, including in some cases, like Cambridge Analytica, to target the delivery of disinformation content to specific users, who are identified by the unauthorised access and use of personal data , with the ultimate goal of influencing the election results and thereby threatening democracy.

Besides social media, more traditional methods such as television, newspapers, websites, chain emails and messages also continue to play an important role in many regions. The tools and techniques used are changing fast.
5.2.1.

Only a limited number of the proposed objective criteria in Article 6 — stemming from Recommendation (EU) 2017/432 and corresponding in the amended text to the criteria in (f), (h) and (k) — serve to rigorously define ‘risk of absconding’. Point (j) can also be considered a suitable criterion in line with the provisions of Article 7 on the obligation to cooperate. a) The lack of documentation at the point when proceedings are initiated can, in most cases, be rectified upon request which, if not fulfilled, could lead to point (f). b) This objective puts the burden of proof on the migrant who will have to demonstrate effective residence, removing a fundamental legal safeguard. The broad difficulties related to accommodation — in particular those that many municipalities cause for foreigners in general and people with an irregular status in particular — lend this point disproportionate magnitude. c) If we wish to avoid the possibility of ALL irregular migrants being accused of a risk of absconding, meaning that procedures with safeguards will be completely cast aside, the risk of absconding cannot be defined using this kind of parameter. After all, anyone who is deprived of the right to work is obviously also deprived of economic resources and most irregular migrants will therefore suffer from a lack of financial resources. d) Given the closed border policy applied by the Member States, many irregular (and even legal) migrants will have entered the territory of the Member States illegally. e) If an irregular migrant moves between Member States this is by default unauthorised, but not necessarily a reason to find there is a risk of absconding. g) Being subject to a return decision from another Member State. If the directive itself provides for the direct enforcement of that decision by the second state, it makes no sense to set out this possibility. i) Non-compliance with the requirement to go to another Member State where they are legally resident. In such cases, initiating removal proceedings without voluntary departure to the country of origin is completely disproportionate. What is needed in such cases is some sort of compulsory measure to bring them back to the other Member State, but not removal to the country of origin, much less via the emergency procedure.
1.1.

A new Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) was approved on 13 March 2019 by the Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision 1313/2013/EU. The Union Civil Protection Mechanism provides a framework for cooperation and assistance in the event of major emergencies inside and outside the EU. Since 2001, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism has been activated more than 300 times. All EU Member States, two EEA countries (Iceland and Norway), as well as Montenegro, Serbia, FYROM and Turkey, are party to the Civil Protection Mechanism, as well as the United Nations (Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030) and relevant international organisations. The act provides for the setting up of an additional pool of resources, rescEU, to provide assistance in situations where overall existing capacities are insufficient. RescEU will include in particular aerial means to combat forest fires, as well as resources to respond to medical emergencies and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents. The Civil Protection Knowledge Network for training and knowledge-sharing will also be a strategic factor in preparedness and prevention.
1.5.

The EESC believes that the initiatives already put in place by the Commission to deal with the backlog in developing standards are showing encouraging signs. However, it is clear that some key sectors, such as the digital sector, are still showing signs of serious delays in sensitive areas, such as the blockchain, which have a cross-cutting impact on the lives of all citizens, businesses and workers. The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to draw up increasingly specific work programmes with clear, well-defined time frames. Moreover, it awaits with interest the outcome of the economic and social impact assessment on standardisation, and hopes that it will also properly take into due account indirect aspects such as employment levels and worker safety.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 as regards fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters’

(COM(2019) 398 final — 2019/0187(COD))

(2020/C 14/20)

Referral European Parliament, 16.9.2019 Council of the European Union, 16.9.2019 Legal basis Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment Adopted at plenary session 25 and 26 September 2019 Plenary session No 546 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 123/0/4

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 546th plenary session of 25 and 26 September 2019 (meeting of 25 September), by 123 votes to none with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (codification)’

(COM(2020) 48 final — 2020/0029 (COD))

(2020/C 311/06)

Referral European Parliament, 9.3.2020 Council, 27.2.2020 Legal basis Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Single Market, Production and Consumption Adopted at plenary 10.6.2020 Plenary session No 552 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 210/0/4

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinions CES 1166/1987 (1), CESE 1157/2006 (2) and CESE 6789/2015 (3), it decided, at its 552nd plenary session of 10 and 11 June 2020 (meeting of 10 June), by 210 votes with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 10 June 2020. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Luca JAHIER

(1) OJ C 35, 8.2.1988, p. 5.

(2) OJ C 318, 23.12.2006, p. 83.

(3) OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 77.
3.6.

Many SMEs, particularly micro- and small enterprises, are suffering substantially from the COVID-19 crisis and the lockdown measures adopted by most EU countries. That is why it is crucial to make sure that sufficient funding will be made available in order to allow them to recover from the crisis. This support needs to be demand-driven, meaning that both debt and equity products need to be available. Since the guarantee capacity of the SME window decreases, this decrease should be compensated for by making SME portfolios, and particularly those of small and micro-enterprises, eligible for the Strategic Investment Window. This shall be accompanied by proportionate reporting requirements in order to avoid creating excessive administrative burdens for the smallest enterprises with scarce resources, as this would discourage them from seeking support from InvestEU. The role of the implementing partners and the financial intermediaries is crucial to ensuring that the funds reach these companies.
While the regulation provides for the possibility for manufacturers to dispose of ‘end-of series’ vehicles, this is limited in each Member State to a maximum of 10 % of the average number of vehicles sold the two preceding years, or a hundred vehicles. According to industry sources, it is estimated that around 553 700 Euro 4 vehicles were in stock in March 2020.

Given the 98 % slump in sales and the number of vehicles in stock, the existing provisions on end-of-series vehicles are not an appropriate mechanism for addressing the situation.
6.2.1.

A policy for all regions: Three-quarters of cohesion policy investment focuses on the least developed regions, but provisions remain for regions in industrial transition as well as for the outermost regions of the EU. In addition, cross-border cooperation has been stepped up and the role of cities, metropolitan areas and local initiatives strengthened, with a new priority devoted to bringing ‘Europe closer to citizens’. Despite the overall reduction in the EU's budget, resources should continue to focus on the poorest Member States and regions. In the Commission’s proposal, this focus is even more pronounced than in the current period and the poorest Member States still receive much more than more developed ones. Support does go where it is needed most — 62 % of resources for the jobs and growth goal have been earmarked for the less developed regions (in 2014-2020 this share was 52 %). Despite budgetary constraints, it has been possible to ensure increased allocations in real terms for the less developed (+ 8 %) and transition regions (+ 17 %), measured against 2018 prices. That is the essence of cohesion policy: putting the solidarity principle into practice.
Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 as regards certain charges on cross-border payments in the Union and currency conversion charge

Cross-border payments are crucial for the integration of the EU economy, and play an important role in ensuring that citizens and enterprises from all EU Member States enjoy the same rights offered by the single market ( 6 ) . In fact, payments are a key element of the single market which encompasses the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. As stated in the Commission staff working document ( 7 ) , ‘High cross-border payment costs are creating barriers to the single market — effective barriers to cross-border activities of households (buying goods/services in another currency zone) and enterprises (using suppliers located abroad, reaching clients in another currency zone) […]. High costs of cross-border payments also create two categories of payment services users: those in the euro-area who are able to reach, with their payments, a majority of EU citizens and businesses at very low costs, and those in non-euro countries who can only reach a small number of people and businesses with low-cost payments. In order to address those two concerns, legislative action at EU level is the most effective response, and it is in line with the objectives of the Treaties’.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production as regards its date of application and certain other dates referred to in that Regulation’

(COM(2020) 483 final – 2020/0231 (COD))

(2021/C 10/13)

Referral European Parliament, 14.9.2020 Council, 14.9.2020 Legal basis Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment Adopted at plenary 29.10.2020 Plenary session No 555 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 209/0/9

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 555th plenary session of 27, 28 and 29 October 2020 (meeting of 29 October 2020), by 209 votes with 9 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
5.6.

The EESC welcomes the position taken by the Commission (p. 16) that the aviation and maritime sectors belong to economy-wide measures, which are necessary to address in view of the Paris Agreement. These global transport modes are, together with some industrial emissions, those that currently are furthest from cost-efficient new non-fossil fuels, although promising tests are on-going. Aviation and shipping are also difficult to regulate through national or even European legislation and a large part of their emissions are outside EU territory. Since the EU international emissions from navigation and aviation have grown by more than 50 % since 1990, we do support the Commission's focus on finding constructive ways to include aviation and shipping in the EU climate policy. Aviation, within and between EU Member States, is already included in the European Emissions Trading System, and the Commission is currently assessing if shipping could also be included in ETS in the same way. For emissions outside EU territory we support the Commission's aim to be proactive in the work of UN organisations like the IMO and the ICAO to find effective and binding global emissions reduction schemes.
1.2.

The EESC considers that the EU’s existing investments deployed in recent years and even after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic for the acquisition and operation of world-class supercomputing machines are still not at an optimal level compared to those of its competitors (the US, China and others). Additional resources and investments are called for, including on the part of the EU Member States, particularly those that are less advanced and/or involved in the field. It is vital for these resources to be combined with coherent EU research and innovation programmes and the next 2021-2027 MFF, including the Recovery and Resilience Facility, if the EU is to compete in HPC applications at global level.
4.17.

The EESC fully supports the Commission’s objective of proposing legislation which seeks to secure right of access under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory conditions to infrastructure technologies considered necessary to support the provision of payment services. Currently some important technologies supporting the provision of payment services, such as the Near Field Communication (NFC) antenna on some mobile devices, have restricted access, which has the effect of limiting competition in the area of contactless mobile payments, forcing banks to pay a fee to a third party for simply allowing a consumer to use a technology (like NFC) for their everyday payments. Those fees paid by banks may in some cases be subsequently passed on to the consumer. While this issue has already been tackled in some Member States, it is important to take this up at European level in order to allow all EU citizens to benefit from increased competition in this area, enable a level playing field for PSPs, and increase widespread adoption of mobile contactless payments. The legislation should ensure that all participants have the same rights and obligations and are subject to the same licensing and other regulatory requirements.
4.5.

More support must be given to local media and media start-ups that do not have the capacity to apply for this type of financing, through tools that are easy to access by the small independent media that are struggling the most with financial resources. Channeling the financing via professional associations could help small media to access the support needed. In some Member States, the media market, particularly the local market, is weak and vulnerable and so investors might not see it as an opportunity. Solutions must therefore be found allowing local media companies to diversify their income flows and to strengthen their market position, without their becoming dependent on external investors who might dismiss the potential profitability of investing in these low-value markets.
1.9.

The EESC is concerned about the lack of details regarding specific measures and support instruments, which may put the financing of renewables at risk. In the Committee’s view, a single instrument dedicated to financing offshore wind energy projects should be created within existing programmes. Moreover, such an approach should be extended to other types of renewable energy sources, like onshore wind and photovoltaic power, in keeping with the aspirations of the European Energy Union and the Renewable Energy Directive II, which precisely see more decentralised and regional generation facilities as making a contribution to generating additional potential for regional value creation, to creating jobs, and to putting the public at the heart of policy and making them active producers and prosumers. In this connection, the EESC notes with some concern that the Commission is currently dealing ‘only’ with offshore and hydrogen technologies, but is neglecting these decentralised approaches.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decisions 2003/17/EC and 2005/834/EC as regards the equivalence of field inspections and the equivalence of checks on practices for the maintenance of varieties of agricultural plant species carried out in the United Kingdom’

(COM(2020) 853 final — 2020/0379 (COD))

(2021/C 123/20)

Referral European Parliament, 18.1.2021 Council, 8.1.2021 Legal basis Article 43, paragraph 2 and article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment Adopted at plenary 27.1.2021 Plenary session No 557 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) unanimous in favour

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 557th plenary session of 27 and 28 January 2021 (meeting of 27 January), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
2.3.

The EESC notes that the Plan needs to be further adapted to facilitate the equal involvement of each and every MS and their regions to help bridge any possible inequalities. Quite often, morbidity and mortality are correlated not only with the type of cancer, but also with location and social gradients. Thus, the recommendations need to be adapted to the involvement of individual MS in the fight against cancer, including the organisational advancement of national screening and vaccination programmes and support schemes, and by addressing the issue of social inequalities in health. It is also necessary to support the person and their carers in dealing with the consequences of cancer in terms of loss of autonomy and citizenship: access to funds, support for everyday life, etc. The same attention must be paid to combating the economic fallout of cancer and the consequences of this for certain already insecure sections of society.
3.5.1.

The DMA sets out the gatekeeper’s obligation to refrain from more favourable treatment even with respect to ‘any third party belonging to the same undertaking’. This further specification is not repeated in other provisions, however, although a gatekeeper might avoid the restriction stipulated in these provisions by providing relevant data to a third party. As an example, we can refer to Article 5(a) or Article 6(1)(a), where transfer of data to a third party (whether or not belonging to the same undertaking) is not prohibited. While Article 11 offers certain solution, we do not consider it sufficient.
2.13.

To achieve these goals, 20 million technology experts will need to be employed in the relevant areas of work by 2030 — compared to 7,8 million today. In 2019, only 18 % of the 7,8 million ICT workers were women. Diversity in the digital sectors is essential and will help shape the vision of the world and its challenges, namely to reduce risks of bias. The target of achieving a more balanced gender composition must be closely monitored and women’s access to STEM disciplines must be encouraged. Social dialogue should be promoted at all levels (company, industry and national) as it can contribute to this aim. Powerful campaigns should be promoted in the Member States, starting in primary schools, to encourage young girls to choose scientific and technological disciplines. The digital divide is a major challenge. In many rural areas, not even 3G is available yet. Europe and the Member States should provide incentives to encourage investment in rural areas to ensure that no citizen is left behind.