ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.7.1

A rule of this kind has been codified in the takeover bids directive, as mentioned above, but this is different: the guarantees of transparency associated with a takeover bid are lacking, as are the conditions which prompted it. While it may well be in the interests of the majority shareholder to control 100 % of the company (particularly in the presence of an obstructionist or argumentative minority), the minority shareholders may view the matter very differently, depending on circumstances and individual situations. A shareholder who has no influence on the running of the company may be quite happy to sell his or her portfolio at a fair price, providing it is higher than the price he or she could obtain by selling the shares on the stock market. However, if the shares provide a good return or look likely to increase in value, an investor/shareholder may prefer to hold on to them. In such circumstances, it is not clear why he or she should be obliged to sell. In conclusion, while a minority 10 % shareholding is generally unlikely to hamper corporate governance, one must also recognise the full freedom of choice that is the right of every shareholder. At the same time, however, there will be a few cases in which governance requires control of all shareholders: these are the only cases where such a rule would be justified, and then only with the authorisation of the supervisory authorities.
1.1

The EESC endorses the Commission's desire to modernise, simplify and adapt the laws governing waste. It approves, in particular, the initiative in presenting the thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste and the spirit of the strategy. It is essential to support the desire to ensure that the legislation in question is applied equally and on a general basis, in order to prevent distortions as regards the environment, public health and competition in the market for waste products. With a view to avoiding the lodging of appeals and the initiation of legal proceedings, the EESC stresses the importance of setting out clear and precise definitions and annexes to the proposal for a Directive. It does, however, regret that the provisions in respect of the prevention of waste lack ambition. The EESC draws attention to the fact that a prerequisite for any desire to achieve real sustainable development is the existence of an effective policy of preventing and reclaiming waste, bearing in mind the growing scarcity and increasing cost of raw materials; the EESC does, however, urge that instruments be developed at EU level in order to ensure that the goals which have been set can be achieved in both qualitative and quantitative terms. In this regard the proposal for a Directive displays real weakness. Furthermore, the Commission appears to believe that relaxing the procedures for obtaining permits to run processing installations will encourage recycling. This approach is misguided and will result in negative environmental consequences and health risks. Furthermore, it does not comply with the principles of the Aarhus Convention regarding public access to information on waste. Indeed, the permit comprises technical elements linked to environmental protection; it is a public document and is accompanied by requirements as to information and monitoring. It is in no way an obstacle to the development of processing or recycling but on the contrary provides the necessary guarantees, with the administrative bodies monitoring due respect for standards and the implementation of the best available techniques.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 324/11

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the space for mounting the rear registration plate of two or three-wheel motor vehicles

COM(2006) 478 final — 2006/0161 (COD)

(2006/C 324/05)

On 27 September 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Committee Bureau instructed the Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption to prepare its work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Janson as rapporteur-general at its 430th plenary session, held on 26 October 2006, and adopted the following opinion by 104 votes to 0 with 1 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 A codification of rules that have frequently been amended is also essential if Community law is to be clear and transparent.

1.2 Codification must be undertaken in full compliance with the normal Community legislative procedure.

1.3 The purpose of the proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 93/94/EEC of 29 October 1993 relating to the space for mounting the rear registration plate of two or three-wheel vehicles. The new Directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

1.4 The Commission proposal under discussion here is fully consonant with the objective of codification and with the rules involved. The EESC therefore endorses it.
2.4.2

The Community Customs Code, which is to be modernised by a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council and on which the EESC issued an opinion on 5 July 2006, is also a key reference document for understanding the Customs 2013 programme, which aims to help keep legislation in step with evolving markets and technologies, and successive EU enlargements. IT use is becoming increasingly widespread; administration will have to be on line; computerised procedures that were previously optional are now compulsory under the new code, making the task easier for large operators, possibly at the expense of smaller businesses. Moreover, non-tariff related measures have come to the fore, covering issues such as combating counterfeiting, security, controlling illegal immigration, money laundering and drug trafficking, hygiene, health, the environment and consumer protection, as well as measures relating to VAT and excise collection. The Member States continue to be the driving force behind the plan; they bear the costs of the scheme — particularly as regards IT interoperability — and their customs authorities are empowered to carry out all manner of controls; nonetheless, the Commission is gradually increasing its own regulatory powers (Art. 196 of the proposed regulation) particularly with regard to the customs systems, the Member States and international agreements. The modernised code will redefine the roles and the status of all stakeholders involved in customs procedures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 324/25

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the quality required of shellfish waters (codified version)

COM(2006) 205 final — 2006/0067 (COD)

(2006/C 324/10)

On 6 June 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 September 2006. The rapporteur was Seppo Kallio.

In view of the renewal of the Committee's term of office, the Plenary Assembly has decided to vote on this opinion at its October plenary session and has adopted Mr Kallio as rapporteur-general under Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure.

At its 430th plenary session, held on 26 October 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 111 votes with one abstention.

1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters. The new Directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

2. General comments

2.1 The Committee regards it as very useful to have all the texts integrated into one Directive. In the context of a People's Europe, the Committee, like the Commission, attaches great importance to simplifying and clarifying Community law so as to make it clearer and more accessible to ordinary citizens, thus giving them new opportunities and the chance to make use of the specific rights it gives them.

2.2 The Committee believes that codification must be undertaken in full compliance with the normal Community legislative procedure.

2.3 It has been ensured that this compilation of provisions contains no changes of substance and serves only the purpose of presenting Community law in a clear and transparent way. The Committee expresses its total support for this objective and, in the light of these guarantees, welcomes the proposal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/40

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation EC No …/… on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods

COM(2006) 606 final — 2006/0193 (COD)

(2006/C 325/10)

On 15 November 2006, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

On 25 October 2006, the Bureau of the European Economic and Social Committee instructed the Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment to undertake the preparatory work.

In view of the urgency of the matter, at its 431st plenary session held on 13 and 14 December 2006 (meeting of 13 December), the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Kapuvari as its rapporteur-general and adopted the following opinion by 107 votes in favour with one abstention.

1. Conclusions

1.1 The EESC welcomes the inclusion in the Regulation of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The EESC concurs with the European Commission that it is important to make Community law simpler and more transparent.

2. Introduction

2.1 The present proposal aims to introduce in the Regulation (EC) No …/… of the European Parliament and the Council on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods, reference to the new Regulatory procedure with scrutiny in all cases where the Commission is empowered to adopt quasi-legislative measures within the meaning of Article 2 of Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred to the Commission, as amended by Council Decision 2006/512/EC.

2.2 The amendment is needed because of the new comitology procedure, i.e. the ‘regulatory procedure with scrutiny’.

2.3 The proposal is limited to the amendments strictly necessary to align the Regulation to the Comitology Decision.

3. General comments

3.1 The EESC welcomes the inclusion in the Regulation of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The EESC concurs with the European Commission that it is important to make Community law simpler and more transparent.

3.2 The regulatory procedure with scrutiny makes for more effective amendment of non-essential elements of the basic instrument, inter alia, by deleting some of those elements or by adding new non-essential elements.

3.3 The European Economic and Social Committee adopted an opinion on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods in March 2004, and given that the current proposal for an amendment is essentially an amalgamation exercise, no new opinion on the matter is necessary.

3.4 The new rules on the regulatory procedure with scrutiny have been in force since 23 July 2006.

3.5 It has been ensured that the new Regulation contains no changes of substance and serves only the purpose of presenting Community law in a clear and transparent way. The EESC strongly endorses this objective and in view of this, welcomes the proposal.
3.10

In its abovementioned exploratory opinion, the EESC had already pointed out that the conflicts between, on the one hand, the various strategies designed to promote economic growth and, on the other hand, biodiversity were at that time tending to increase. Economic growth is, today, often identified in too unqualified a way with the promotion of growth measured by volume; economic growth of this nature can indeed be hampered or made more difficult to achieve by the drive to maintain biodiversity. In the great majority of cases, which concern, for example, technical and planning decisions, nature conservation and biodiversity are thus not seen as providing an opportunity for economic development but are regarded, often, as an impediment to such development or seen as preventing it. This is the only way to explain the ‘pressure ’which continues to be exerted, in some cases even more intensively than before, against the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and fauna and flora (the ‘Habitats Directive’) and the Directive on the conservation of wild birds (the ‘Birds Directive’) and the resultant Natura 2000 network. Despite the fact that the European Commission with responsibility for the environment, Mr Dimas, is currently speaking out against amending the abovementioned Directives (3), there is no mistaking the fact that nature conservation is often regarded as representing a rival when it comes to determining land-use and seen as curbing development; it is regarded as providing a basis for economic development only in extremely rare cases. Furthermore, the financial expenditure and obligations arising from, for example, the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of sites are looked upon in terms of a burden, rather than as an investment for the future, or the requisite facilities are not made available.
2.7

These criteria will be communicated to all market participants and will be applied uniformly in all the Member States. The competent authority then must only take account of: — the reputation of the potential buyer: the preamble to the draft directive states that this means checking if there are any doubts about the buyer's integrity and professional competence (e.g. as a result of past business conduct) and if these are founded; — the assessment of integrity is considered particularly relevant if the buyer is not another regulated financial institution or an investment undertaking; — the reputation and experience of any person who may actually direct the business of the insurance undertaking as a result of the proposed acquisition; — the financial soundness of the proposed acquirer, in particular in relation to the business pursued and envisaged in the insurance undertaking in which the acquisition is sought; — if the insurance undertaking will continue to fulfil the obligations imposed by the prudential and solvency rules laid down by the European Union; — whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that, in connection with the proposed acquisition, money laundering or terrorist financing is being or has been committed or attempted, or that the proposed acquisition could increase such a risk; — the competent authority receiving notification must acknowledge receipt of it in writing within two working days; — the competent authority will then have a maximum of thirty working days (the ‘assessment period’) from the date of the acknowledgement of receipt to assess the proposed acquisition. The assessment period may be increased to a maximum of fifty working days if the prospective buyer is regulated outside the Community and is situated in a non-EU country where there are legal impediments to the transfer of the necessary information; — the competent authority may, if necessary, request further information from the buyer. While the information required is being provided, the assessment period is suspended for a maximum of ten working days.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/33

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on non-automatic weighing instruments’ (Codified version)

COM(2007) 446 final — 2007/0164 (COD)

(2008/C 44/07)

On 5 September 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 439th plenary session of 24 and 25 October 2007 (meeting of 24 October), by 153 votes in favour with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
4.6

The argument that a firm that is active in several countries must be treated in the same way as a firm that operates in several areas of the same country only addresses half the problem. The Commission wants firms with cross-border operations to be treated the same. Given that loss relief rules vary between the Member States, new discrepancies emerge between firms. If a firm comes from a country where cross-border loss relief is permitted and it can apply those rules in a country where loss relief between the parent company and the subsidiary is not permitted, then a discrepancy arises between national and foreign firms. As long as the rules differ there can be no equivalence between all three types of firm; the equivalence is merely transferred. The legal equivalence that used to exist between all firms operating in a given country thus becomes equivalence between all firms from the same country, regardless of where their operations are carried out. Put differently, the rules on transfers of losses are transferred from one country to another via a subsidiary or a branch in that country. This is unacceptable. In other words, the Commission's analysis does not include the potential impact on firms with no cross-border operations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 120/100

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (Codified version)’

COM(2007) 587 final

(2008/C 120/21)

On 24 October 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Council Directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (Codified version).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 440th plenary session of 12 and 13 December 2007 (meeting of 12 December 2007), by 129 votes in favour with six abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 77/41

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on statutory markings for two or three-wheel motor vehicles (Codified version)’

COM(2008) 318 final — 2008/0099 (COD)

(2009/C 77/08)

On 18 June 2008 the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on statutory markings for two or three-wheel motor vehicles (Codified version).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 447th plenary session of 17 and 18 September 2008 (meeting of 17 September), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
3.3.9

Responses to the consultation procedure confirmed the need for Community-wide measures. The proposed Council recommendation focuses on three areas: — identifying and codifying rare diseases, and creating a European system to codify and classify rare diseases to support recognition of each one. In the course of preparing a new version of the International Classification of Diseases, the Commission is collaborating with the WHO, given that compared to elsewhere in the world, it is in the EU that various types of rare diseases are most likely to be identified; — setting fundamental principles and policy guidelines for use in the formulation of national action plans; supporting and encouraging the development of national health policies on rare diseases, aimed at securing equal access to prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation, as well as the general accessibility of such services. — The Council Recommendation set out in the draft Communication envisages the following: — Member States are to draw up national plans on rare diseases; — mechanisms enabling the definition, codification and classification of rare diseases are also to be put in place; — research into rare diseases is to be promoted, for example through cross-border cooperation, making full use of EU research cooperation potential; — centres of expertise should be identified and their participation in European Reference Networks encouraged; — overall statistics should be compiled on expertise on rare diseases in the Member States; — measures should be taken to ensure the involvement of patients and organisations representing them; and — closer cooperation is needed in all fields where Community action offers added value in developing joint policy guidelines and ensuring their mutual recognition throughout Europe. This could involve specific measures relating to research, reference centres, access to information, incentives to develop orphan drugs, screening, etc., as elements constituting a minimum common strategy on rare diseases (e.g. pilot programmes, research and development, and steps to monitor implementation of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 on orphan drugs).
5.4

It would be advisable to avoid making long-term predictions about the possible exhaustion of available reserves in the ground. This is a recurring fear, which has been around for decades – but may be unjustified. A recent edition of The Economist (21 June 2008) pointed out that known oil reserves should, at present production rates, last another 42 years (which is far from negligible – there is no knowing what may happen, especially in terms of scientific and technological innovation over the next 42 years). It also noted, however, that identified reserves in the Middle East have remained the same for many years: as the magazine pointed out, this could mean that new discoveries tend to offset the oil that is produced and consumed, or that estimates of reserves are not very accurate. It should nevertheless be underlined that the calculation is based on present production rates. The problem does not hinge, however, so much on the exhaustion of long-term reserves, as on the likelihood of future crises, arising from short-term imbalances in supply and demand, and in particular following possible interruptions in production in strategic areas.