ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Why? What is the problem being addressed?

Free movement of workers and of services are key asset for the EU. Yet, they depend on clear, fair and effectively enforced rules on cross-border labour mobility and social security coordination. The EU has developed an extensive body of legislation regulating free movement of workers, posting of workers in the context of the provision of services and rules on social security coordination. The Juncker Commission has submitted several proposals to improve this regulatory framework, including the revision of the Posting of Workers Directive and of the Regulation on the Coordination of Social Security Systems, as well as the lex specialis on posting in the international road transport sector. However, concerns remains regarding compliance with and effective enforcement of EU rules which risk jeopardising trust and fairness in the Internal Market. In particular two problems stand out: first, inadequate information, support and guidance function for individuals and employers in cross-border situations; second, inadequate cooperation between national authorities on rule enforcement. This proposal aims at addressing the following specific challenges: -Inadequate support and guidance for individuals and businesses in cross-border situations, including incomplete or sparse information available to the public concerning their rights and obligations; -Insufficient access to and sharing of information between national authorities responsible for different domains of labour mobility and social security coordination; -Insufficient capacity of national authorities to organise cooperation with authorities across borders; -Weak or absent mechanisms for joint cross-border enforcement activities; -The lack of a cross-border mediation mechanism between Member States across all domains of labour mobility and social security coordination; -Insufficient cooperation set-up at EU level in this area. EU labour mobility has shown an upward trend throughout the crisis. By 2017, 17 million citizens lived or worked in a Member State other than that of their nationality. The figures almost doubled compared to a decade ago. Postings have increased by 68% from 2010 to 2.3 million in 2016. 1.4 million EU citizens commute to go to work in another Member State. Facing this situation, there is a need for effective cooperation between national authorities and for concerted administrative action to manage the increasingly European labour market.
Crowdfunding is a technology-enabled financial service that carries the potential to help business projects in need of funding and investors to diversify their portfolio. Crowdfunding is increasingly establishing itself as an essential part of the funding escalator for start-ups and young businesses. It is often the main funding tool for early stage companies financed where venture capital or even private equity funds are only partially taking interest in them. Crowdfunding provides an alternative to unsecured bank lending, such as bank overdrafts or credit card loans, which are currently the main sources of external finance for SMEs. Crowdfunding complements bank finance and corporate and thereby diversifies the sources of finance in the economy. It provides new opportunities in particular for young, innovative companies without extensive collateral, fixed asset or financial track record. Despite this important role, EU crowdfunding markets for business finance are largely underdeveloped compared to other major economies, and most importantly unable to properly operate cross-border. Recent studies and evidence gathered via targeted consultations has confirmed that, due to fragmented and conflicting regulatory regimes, crowdfunding platforms are unable to scale and freely provide their services on a pan-European level. Likewise, investors refrain to engage cross-border due to a lack of trust in those platforms and their fragmented regulatory frameworks applicable to the service provision..
Following the financial crisis, the regulatory framework for banks has changed substantially. Reforms agreed at the level of the G20 and the Basel Committee have been and are being implemented around the globe in order to reduce the risk in the banking sector and to make the financial system more stable and resilient. Nevertheless, some risks have been addressed only locally. In particular, major jurisdictions (such as the United States or Japan to name just a few) have taken a number of measures to reduce the level of non-performing loans (NPLs) and repair banks’ balance sheets, inter alia by introducing or intensifying mandatory provisioning/writing-off regimes for NPLs. NPLs and other and other non-performing exposures (NPEs) have also piled up in parts of the EU banking sector in the aftermath of the financial crisis and ensuing recessions. These elevated levels of NPLs affect financial stability as they weigh on the profitability and viability of the affected credit institutions and have an impact, by reduced bank lending, on economic growth. To further address the challenges of high NPLs in the EU, the "Action Plan to Tackle Non-Performing Loans in Europe" by the ECOFIN Council calls upon various institutions and agencies to take appropriate measures. In particular, to reduce the risk of new NPL problems arising in the future, one of the key policy areas is to ensure that NPLs are recognised in a timely way and covered adequately in order to prevent loss forbearance and enhance NPLs resolution. Under-provisioning and loss forbearance are major obstacles to debt restructuring or asset sales, since banks may postpone restructuring or deleverage in order to avoid loss recognition (so-called "wait-and-see" approach). Delays in loss recognition have been found to contribute to reduced lending, as delays put even more pressure on banks to increase provisions during stress times (i.e. when losses materialise and regulatory capital requirements become most binding). This pro-cyclical provisioning implies pro-cyclical bank lending and more ample swings in the business cycle (i.e. boom-bust credit cycles). Addressing high stocks of NPEs as well as their possible accumulation in the future is an important part of the Union’s efforts to further reduce risks in the banking system and enable banks to focus on lending to businesses and citizens. On-going discussions in the Council confirm that further advances in addressing NPLs are essential to complete Banking Union which forms a top priority in the Leaders’ Agenda.
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the early warning report for Member States at risk of missing the 2020 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

In 2016, Estonia’s municipal waste recycling rate (including composting) reported to Eurostat was 28 %, while its landfilling rate was 10 %. Based on an analysis of existing and firmly planned policies in the area of waste management, Estonia 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 there are some structural problems in Estonia leading to slow progress in recycling. These structural problems include regulatory barriers that cause uncertainty (for example, the fact that municipalities can choose between tendering for the market and competition in the market) and the lack of effective instruments in place to force municipalities to comply with the recycling targets. Separate collection is not yet being carried out efficiently, the extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for packaging are not sufficiently integrated with municipal collection services, and there are insufficient incentives for households to separate waste. Moreover, there is no incineration tax to shift waste disposal towards recycling.

The table below lists possible actions to support Estonia's efforts to improve its performance in waste management..
The proliferation of terrorist content online continues to be a strong and urgent societal and political concern. Despite a number of non-regulatory measures, online hosting services continue to be used for the dissemination of terrorist content.

This initiative aims to achieve greater trust in the online environment in the Digital Single Market by limiting the availability of terrorist content online, whilst ensuring a high level of security for EU citizens. Specifically, it aims to increase the effectiveness of measures to detect and remove terrorist content, while increasing transparency and accountability of hosting service providers. The measure also aims to improve the ability of relevant authorities to intervene against terrorist content online, and to safeguard against the risk of erroneous removal of legal content, and the appropriate protection of fundamental rights.

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

Member State action alone cannot effectively address the challenge of limiting availability of illegal content online, given the nature of the services in question, and the emerging fragmentation of the internal market.

A patchy framework of national rules is appearing or risks to increase, which would jeopardise an effective exercise of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provider services in the EU, while also limiting the effectiveness of the fight against terrorist content online, as they would lead to increased compliance costs for businesses.

Most online platforms operate across borders and enable the access to content regardless of where the users or the providers of information are located. Member States have legislated in the field of removal of illegal content online, but the need to ensure public security at national level has to be balanced with the fundamental freedom of provision of services and freedom of establishment under single market rules.

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the Early Warning report for compliance with Article 11(2)a of Directive 2008/98/EC

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 non-compliance with the 2020 target for recycling of municipal waste set out in Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC. It builds on previous support of the Commission to Member States to comply with EU law in the area of municipal waste management which resulted in country-specific roadmaps.

The assessment underpinning the early warning report is based on a collaborative and transparent process involving Member States and, based on an in-depth analysis of the most recent policy developments in each Member State at risk of non-compliance and involving extensive consultation with the authorities in charge of waste management.

The suggested priority actions resulting from this assessment aim at ensuring achievement of the 2020 municipal waste recycling target and thus focus on policy measures to be taken forward in the short term. These priority actions should be seen as complementary to those identified in the roadmaps resulting from the preceding compliance promotion activities and to the recommendations made in the Environmental Implementation Review.

2.Key findings of the 'Early Warning report for Poland'

In 2016, Poland’s municipal waste recycling rate (including composting) reported to Eurostat was 44% while the landfilling rate was at 36%. Based on an analysis of existing and firmly planned policies in the area of waste management, and of Poland's performance according to the calculation method selected for compliance with the 2020 target (reported recycling rate of 27% in 2015), Poland is considered at risk of non-compliance.

The analysis of the study underpinning the early warning report concludes that the separate collection of recyclables is not yet effective, that economic incentives for citizens to separate waste are missing and that the Extended Producer Responsibility schemes in Poland do not operate efficiently. In addition, some questions regarding the quality of waste data undermine the reliability of the high recycling rates reported to Eurostat.

A range of measures to support Poland's efforts to improve its performance in waste management has been identified. The following list summarises these recommended priority actions for Poland.
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

Four policy options have been considered. Policy Option 1 envisages voluntary, non-legislative measures to encourage more common approaches and information-sharing as a complement to the existing ECI Directive. Policy Option 2 entails a revision of the existing ECI Directive in order to align the sectoral coverage with that of the existing Network and Information Systems (NIS) Directive, and to refine the selection criteria for and requirements on ECI operators, e.g. maintaining an operator resilience plans. Both Member States and designated ECI operators would also be required to carry out risk assessments. Meanwhile, Policy Option 3 involves replacing the existing ECI Directive with an overarching framework legal instrument in order to enhance the resilience of critical entities in at least the sectors covered by the existing NIS Directive and improve the functioning of the internal market in this respect. Implementation would be supported by a knowledge hub within the Commission. Member States would be required to identify, on the basis of risk assessment, critical entities, which would be subject to different resilience-enhancing requirements. Both Member States and critical entities would be obliged to carry out risk assessments. A procedure for the identification of critical entities with particular European significance would also be included, as well as certain particular rules applicable to those entities. Policy Option 4 includes all elements outlined in Option 3. In addition, the Commission would play a more active role in designating critical entities and a dedicated EU Agency for critical infrastructure resilience would be created. Having considered the anticipated impacts and value of each option, the preferred option is Option 3, which would result in a more comprehensive resilience framework accounting for existing EU measures and national specificities.
Executive Summary

The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) stock is in a critical state, with recruitment at an all-time low and exploitation of the stock currently unsustainable. Considering this, the Commission was requested in the context of the 2017 December Council to assess the current measures under the Regulation No 1100/2007 (hereinafter ‘Eel Regulation’) and its contribution to the recovery of the stock.

The Commission first attempted to assess the implementation of the Eel Management Plans (EMPs) under the Eel Regulation in 2014 but the results were largely inconclusive due to the delays in the preparation and approval of the national EMPs and the delays in the implementation of non-fisheries related measures.

Based on an evaluation external study and other relevant sources, this staff working document looks at the implementation of the Eel Regulation by examining its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, EU added value and sustainability. The results of this evaluation help to determine whether the Eel Regulation needs to be reviewed and/or whether its implementation needs to be improved and/or other actions are needed.

State of play of the implementation of the Eel Management Plans

The Eel Regulation required Member States (MS) to establish EMPs for their river basins that constitute significant eel habitats for implementation from 2009 onwards. Nineteen MSs have developed EMPs, covering almost 90 Eel Management Units and around 1,880 actions. Some MS were exempted from preparing the EMP. SI, HR and BU (for its river systems outside the Black Sea) have not prepared their EMP. One transboundary EMP has been established.

The reporting by MS on the EMP implementation in 2012, 2015 and 2018 was incomplete with some countries not submitting the reports or providing incomplete information. There are inconsistencies in reporting and calculation of reported stock indicators among MS.

Despite disparities among MS regarding the implementation of EMPs, it can be observed that overall:

·The silver eel escapement is still well below the target of 40% biomass that would have existed if no anthropogenic influence had impacted the stock.

·Some progress has been made in reducing fishing effort, but it has also risen in some MS. Although catches of yellow and silver eels have declined, glass eel catches are steadily increasing. There is also likely to be considerable un-observed and un-estimated glass eel mortality through illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in EU waters.

·Whilst restocking works in some MS, not all have achieved their 60% restocking targets.

·Non-fisheries related anthropogenic mortality has not declined significantly over the last decade. This has received insufficient focus in the EMPs and related actions.

Evolution of market prices for glass eels

MS are required to report glass eel prices annually, but these are incomplete. Prices crashed in 2014 (due to over-supply) but have recovered since. Many MS fund glass eel stocking through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

Main findings of the evaluation

Relevance
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/13

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8385 — Pillarstone/Famar)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 212/03)

On 3 May 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

— in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8385. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for CCMP: global private equity firm focused on making buyout and growth equity investments in North America and Europe in the consumer, industrial and healthcare industries,

— for MSD Aqua: investment entity within the MSD group of companies which is active in the debt and equity of public and private companies, real estate and other asset classes,

— for Hayward: manufacturer and supplier of swimming pool equipment.
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8537 — Moody’s/Bureau Van Dijk Electronic Publishing, to the following address:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 230/23

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8535 — Itochu/Toppan printing/Thung Hua Sinn/TPN Food Packaging)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 230/03)

On 7 July 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

— in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8535. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8059 — Investindustrial/Black Diamond/Polynt/Reichhold)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 223/03)

On 12 May 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

— in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8059. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.