ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The current EU export control system is not fully adapted to keep up with today's evolving and new security risks, rapid technological and scientific developments as well as transformations in trade and economic processes. Moreover, the current system does not clearly take into consideration the emerging trade in cyber-surveillance technology and the risks it creates for international security and human rights. From an economic perspective, the system imposes heavy administrative burden on industry and authorities alike, and sometimes lacks legal clarity. What is more, divergences in interpretation and application among Member States result in asymmetrical implementation and create competitive distortions within the Single Market. The problem affects a variety of economic operators across numerous industries, including SMEs, while the security and human rights aspects are relevant for specific categories such as dissidents or activists in third countries, as well as the EU population as a whole.

The EU export control policy review aims at supporting the overall policy objectives of the Union, as stipulated in Art. 3 TEU, i.e. "contribute to peace and security, as well as free and fair trade and the protection of human rights". The specific policy objectives are: adjusting to evolving security risks and threats; adapting to rapid technological and scientific developments; preventing the export of cyber-surveillance technology in violation of human rights; reducing competitive distortions and administrative costs within the Single Market; levelling the global playing field; and ensuring the effective and consistent application of controls in the EU.

Dual-use export controls form part of the Common Commercial Policy. The EU therefore has the right to act, based on exclusive competence under Article 207 of TFEU. The objectives can only be achieved through EU action ensuring that competent authorities act in close collaboration and apply controls in a consistent way. EU intervention is also necessary to iron out competitive distortions within the Single Market, and promote dialogue with key trade partners to level the global playing field. EU action is furthermore needed to protect fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental rights. The identified review options comply with the principles of proportionality in that they are limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives.

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION of Articles 6 and 7 of the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU)

As part of the Energy Union Strategy, the Commission carried out a review of Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency (EED). Given the recent transposition date of the Directive (5 June 2014), this evaluation did not examine all aspects of the EED. It focussed on the two elements for which a review is explicitly required under Article 24: Article 6 (on purchasing by public bodies) and Article 7 (on efficiency obligation schemes / alternative measures).

Evaluation of Article 6

The evaluation of the effectiveness of Article 6 shows that it is too early to judge the achievement of the objectives of Article 6 due to the following reasons:

The recent transposition date and the fact that most Member States are still putting in place the necessary measures to implement Article 6 requirements.

Lack of expertise on the operational aspects of the use of energy efficiency criteria within public procurement based on the requirement of Article 6.

Lack of data and of a reference scenario allowing quantification of progress in the rate of public procurement applying energy efficiency criteria.

It is therefore premature to proceed to a legal revision of Article 6 of the EED.

Policy recommendations of this evaluation highlight the need to improve guidance to the Member States on the use of the conditionalities and the energy efficiency criteria in public procurement. The knowledge base on certain operational aspects should be strengthened and more synergies between national purchasing bodies and existing EU-networks on public procurement should be developed to increase awareness and use of energy efficiency criteria.

Evaluation of Article 7

The evaluation of the implementation reveals that Member States are on track to achieve their savings requirements under Article 7, provided that the measures are effectively implemented by Member States and that robust monitoring and control systems are established.

More specifically the results of the evaluation are as follows:

Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes (EEOSs) are expected to generate the highest amount of savings by 2020 of a single measure notified under Article 7 (34 % or 86.1 Mtoe). Other major policy measures are financing schemes and fiscal incentives (19 % or 49.0 Mtoe) followed by energy and CO2 tax measures (15 % or 34.4 Mtoe) and regulations and voluntary agreements (11 % or 27.1 Mtoe).

Despite initial start-up costs, the administrative costs to run the EEOSs are relatively low, although they can be expected to vary between Member States.

There is more evidence available on how the monitoring and verification systems work for the EEOS than for the alternative measures, including only limited evidence on the costs associated with the monitoring of alternative measures.

As regards the existing framework, certain requirements (e.g. additionality, materiality and eligibility) require further clarification, simplification and/or guidance.
The general objectives of this initiative are to enhance market integration in business services and construction and improve productivity growth in both sectors. The specific objectives of this initiative are to:

Make it easier and less costly for companies to provide services in other Member States;

Inspire more confidence in the market from foreign service providers by increasing transparency and available information;

Inject increased market dynamics and competition leading to more choice and lower prices for customers, including industrial customers.
Why? What is the problem being addressed?

A long-term solution is foreseen for 2017 as announced in the Action Plan on VAT . Meanwhile, the Commission accepted to consider temporary derogating measures to the VAT Directive as suggested by some MS.

Some Member States (MS) are more heavily affected by carousel fraud (€ 50 billion in the EU) which finds its roots in the endemic weakness of the current VAT system (intended to be transitional), that allows for goods being bought cross-border VAT-free.

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

3)Avoid fraud shifting by ensuring that tax fraud does not move from one sector to another or between MS.

2)Minimize the general increase in administrative burden (for businesses and tax administrations (TA)).

1)Reduce the VAT fraud, in particular carrousel fraud, in certain MS.

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

The application by MS of a GRCM cannot be granted under the current VAT legislation and needs an amendment to the VAT Directive.

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 19.1.2017

SWD(2017) 20 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

U.S. Response to the European Commission's Report on the Joint Review of the U.S. - EU Passenger Name Record Agreement

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the joint review of the implementation of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security

{COM(2017) 29 final}

{SWD(2017) 14 final}
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

Concerning target levels, manufacturers in general support less ambitious targets for 2030 compared to environmental and consumer NGOs that are in favour of more ambitious targets for both 2025 and 2030. As regards the distribution of effort, manufacturers support a limit value curve based on mass, whereas NGOs prefer footprint as utility parameter. While the automotive industry is mostly against a LEV/ZEV mandate, battery and electricity producers, infrastructure investors, European cities facing air quality problems, as well as most environment and transport NGOs call for such an approach. Consumer organisations take a neutral position on this.

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?
The general objective of the proposal is twofold:

• to improve security within the EU and at its borders;

• to facilitate EU citizens’ right to move and reside freely in the EU.

The specific objectives of the proposal are:

• to improve acceptance and authentication of ID cards and residence documents and reduce document fraud;

• to improve identification of people based upon ID documents;

• to raise awareness about these documents and the rights linked to them, including through training;

• to simplify daily life for citizens, cut red tape and lower costs for all stakeholders.
COUNCIL DECISION authorising the opening of negotiations with Cabo Verde for the conclusion of a Protocol implementing the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Communities and Cabo Verde

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

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

This staff working document (SWD) is built on the results of an external ex-post evaluation and ex-ante evaluation of the current Protocol (2014-2018) between the European Union and the Cabo Verde, which expires on 22 December 2018.

The new Protocol provides access to a maximum of 71 tuna vessels from the EU in return for an annual consideration of EUR 500 000 - 550 000.

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

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

However, a number of issues/points have been identified, the evaluation also makes some recommendations on fishing opportunities, the embarkation of seamen, training of observers, monitoring and surveillance capabilities, the communication strategy and support for maritime Blue Growth/ Ocean Governance policy of Cabo Verde.

In conclusion, the Commission supports the conclusions of the evaluation study and considers that the renewal of the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement should be the preferred option. It also considers that the recommendations presented are relevant and should also take into account the operational constraints of the fleet and the regional context. Finally, considers it appropriate to explore ways to increase the impact of Protocol on the local economy (employment and value-added creation) and may also consider the option of supporting blue growth.
In relation to the two cross-cutting issues dealt with separately, the IA analyses both the possibility of the .eu Registry to offer direct registration to registrants given changes in market conditions, and possible changes to the eligibility criteria for obtaining a .eu TLD.

OPTION 3: SEPARATE GOVERNANCE: Combines option 2 with the creation of a multistakeholder body which would have an advisory role. This body would be independent from the .eu Registry.

This impact assessment (IA) explores a series of policy options which are mainly, but not exclusively, extrapolated from problem drivers relating to the "outdated and rigid legislation" and "governance mechanisms". Two separate cross-cutting issues, which aim to address the issues emerging from the rapid changes to the market", are taken into account horizontally.

The vast majority of consulted stakeholders who took part in the consultations welcome the preferred option as they favour a simplification of the legal framework, while slightly relaxing the current eligibility criteria. Views on the governance model were more varied.
The Commission proposal is based on an Impact Assessment (IA) submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 21 March 2018 and for which the Board issued a positive opinion (ref. number "MFF – CEF") with reservations. The Board in particular recommended reinforcing the description of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluation of the programme, explaining better the coherency with other EU programmes and explaining in more detail how the extensions of the programme's scope reinforce the cross-border character of CEF. The recommendations provided by the Board in its opinion have been reflected in the final version of the IA report.

In line with the general approach applied for all the MFF-related impact assessments, the IA for CEF focused on the changes and policy choices foreseen in the legislative proposal. The report in particular explained the structure and priorities for the proposed continuation of the CEF programme and looked into the options for a most optimal delivery.

The IA report drew on lessons learned and experience from the current CEF with the recent mid-term evaluation of CEF used as the principle source of data (in addition to the results of the open public consultation organised as part of a series of public consultations covering the entire spectrum of EU future funding and of more targeted exchanges with stakeholders in case of synergies and renewables).

Using the lessons learned and considering the new challenges and developments (in particular in the area of the digital sector) it was assessed whether the objectives needed to be adjusted for the continued programme. The challenges ahead for the new CEF programme were set out and the assessment was carried out on how CEF could deliver on the common objectives of the MFF such as simplification, greater flexibility and improved performance.

The structure and priorities, the calibration with the current CEF as well as the expected delivery mechanism of the new programme were further discussed from the perspective of the programme effectively attaining the set objectives. Alternative implementation options were assessed in particular for the extensions to the programme’s scope of intervention, both in the digital pillar and for the Renewable Projects of European Interest. The IA also looked into options and capacities for reinforcing synergies between the sectors under the programme.
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the early warning report for Member States at risk of missing the preparation for re-use/recycling target on municipal waste

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

1.Introduction

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

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

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

2.Key findings of the early warning report for Bulgaria

In 2016, Bulgaria’s municipal waste recycling rate (including composting) reported to Eurostat was 32 % while the landfilling rate was at 64 %. Based on an analysis of existing and firmly planned policies in the area of waste management, Bulgaria is considered at risk of missing the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste.

The assessment that underpins the early warning report concludes that the separate collection of recyclables, including bio-waste, is not yet being carried out effectively, that economic incentives for citizens to separate waste are missing and that the Extended Producer Responsibility schemes in Bulgaria do not fully cover the costs of separate collection. In addition, more investment is needed in projects higher up the waste hierarchy (e.g. recycling) that go beyond treatment of residual waste.

The table below lists possible actions to support Bulgaria's efforts to improve its performance in waste management.
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

In the baseline scenario (option 1) the EU Member States follow different approaches to fight against VAT fraud in the e-commerce and only some of them collect data from online intermediaries. Under the non-regulatory option (Option 2) the European Commission will help tax authorities to develop their administrative capacity to fight VAT fraud in e-commerce and will publish guidelines in order to enhance the cooperation between tax authorities and payment intermediaries. The regulatory option (option 3) implies amending the EU legal framework for the payment service providers to transmit the relevant payment data to the tax authorities; for the tax authorities to 1) collect the payment data and carry out a risk analysis to detect remote suppliers not complying with VAT obligations, and 2) to exchange or share these data with other Member States’ tax authorities. Under the regulatory option, different alternative technical solutions are envisaged to make tax authorities exchange or share the relevant payment data. One solution implies an automated access to the databases of the other Member States, while the three other solutions imply a central repository of payment data at EU level accessible to anti-fraud officials of the Member States. The preferred option is the regulatory solution referring to a central EU repository.
Self-regulation and energy labelling policy options have been discarded as industry has not proposed any kind of self-regulation, and as servers and data storage products are mostly B2B products. Apart from the business as usual option (where EU takes no action), the following options were considered:

Option 3.1 Ecodesign regulation, 2 tiers less stringent Power Supply Unit (PSU) requirements, information on power consumption and server efficiency.

Option 3.2 Ecodesign regulation, 3 tier PSU requirements, information on operating condition class, power consumption and server efficiency, maximum idle power limit, and material efficiency requirements.

Option 3.3 Ecodesign regulation, most stringent PSU requirements, compulsory requirement on operating condition class and server efficiency, information on power consumption, material efficiency requirements.

Option 5 Compulsory ENERGY STAR requirements, 1 tier PSU requirements, information on power consumption, server efficiency and operating condition class, maximum idle power limit.

The preferred option is 3.2, because it yields high environmental savings without imposing significant economic burden to the industry and end-users. Although Option 3.3 yields the highest energy savings in the long term (i.e. as of 2030, onwards), it imposes a large burden for industry and end-users in the immediate years after the regulation enters into force and so the cumulative cost saving for all EU end-users remains negative until 2027.
Trans fats are an important risk factor for the development of coronary heart disease, the single leading cause of mortality in the EU. Industrially manufactured trans fats are used in some foods, such as biscuits or chocolates to high levels, for technological reasons and due to their competitive price. Trans fats are also naturally present in ruminant products, however, on average, they contribute to a limited extent to high trans fat intakes. Some population groups are at risk of high intakes of industrially manufactured trans fats. At the same time, there is low consumer awareness of the risks associated with trans fat consumption. Without EU action, consumer health is likely to be at risk due to persistent offer and continuous introduction of new products with industrially manufactured trans fats on the market. At the same time, some Member States have taken action to limit the presence of industrially manufactured trans fats, creating obstacles to the free movement of goods. Consumers and food producers (which are mainly SMEs), as well as national authorities supervising food producers, would be affected by EU action.