ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.8.

In relation to the issue of renewable self-consumers: — The EESC welcomes the provisions on self-consumers in Article 21(1) to (3). However, these regulations could remain ineffective if the article does not comprehensively explain what is meant when it states that consumers ‘are entitled to carry out self-consumption and sell … their excess production of renewable electricity without being subject to disproportionate procedures and charges that are not cost-reflective’. The reference to their rights as consumers should be complemented by a reference to Chapter III of the proposed directive on the internal market in electricity, establishing what specific rights energy consumers who consume their own electricity actually have in practice, and how they can make use of them including the right to make use of peer-to-peer transactions. — The Commission should also clarify, for example, that self-consumption of electricity without use of the infrastructure should be exempt from duties and taxes, in the same way as the self-consumption of heat. — The provision that, under certain conditions, self-consumers should not be considered as conventional energy suppliers goes in the right direction, but needs to be clarified. First of all, ‘self-consumption’ and ‘supply’ are different things. The limits set in the proposal for a directive are too low. On the basis of actual business cases — in conjunction with the rules for small projects under paragraphs 125 and 127 of the current State aid rules — appropriate limits would be 20 MWh (6 000 MWh in the case of wind power) for households and 1 000 MWh (36 000 MWh in the case of wind power) for legal persons. — The provision that self-consumers should be remunerated at market value for the electricity they feed into the grid requires a definition of the term ‘market value’. It is not appropriate to determine it based on the price level on the wholesale market, as long as the market is distorted by subsidies for fossil-fuel based energy production. Moreover, the remuneration should also take account of the condition of the system as a whole (e.g. grid utilisation), to encourage self-consumers to store energy or transfer load ‘in the interests of the system’. The EESC welcomes the proposal in paragraph 2 regulating supply to individual buildings, as it would eliminate a profound injustice that has existed for years.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 173/82

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 87/217/EEC of the Council, Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directive 86/278/EEC and Directive 94/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards procedural rules in the field of environmental reporting and repealing Council Directive 91/692/EEC

(COM(2016) 789 final — 2016/0394 COD)

(2017/C 173/14)

Consultation European Parliament, 13 February 2017 Council of the European Union, 20 February 2017 Legal basis Article 192(1) 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 22 February 2017 Plenary session No 523 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 178/1/2

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier Opinion 1491/90 adopted on 18 December 1990 (*1), it decided, at its 523rd plenary session of 22 and 23 February 2017 (meeting of 22 February 2017), by 178 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the abovementioned document.

Brussels, 22 February 2017. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Georges DASSIS

(*1) EESC Opinion 1491/90 on the proposal for a Council Directive harmonizing and rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment (OJ C 60, 8.3.1991, p. 15).
4.1.4.

The EESC is in favour of better protecting Arctic resources which are the natural capital of future generations, and of viewing current environmental changes in the Arctic as a measure of European and global progress on climate protection. The EESC believes that the Commission could increase awareness among operators in the Arctic about the sensitivity of the area and the ever-increasing need for it to be developed sustainably. The preservation of Arctic regions and the fight against climate change must not be undertaken without consideration for inhabitants or in a way that is detrimental to them. While they wish to preserve their cultures, people living there also want to be able to benefit from the opportunities offered by sustainable economic and social development.
3.2.1.

In its Opinion on the Copyright package the EESC already referred to the current proposal. The Committee reiterates that swift ratification by the EU of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, which entered into force on 30 September 2016, is important and necessary. The Treaty will enable many European citizens who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled to access more accessible works and thus open the door for them to culture, education and employment, hence ensuring effective social inclusion.
6.3

The values, principles and raison d’être of social economy enterprises should be promoted, since they can be inspirational to entrepreneurs. Experiences and methods from this sector can easily be transferred to other enterprise models, such as principles of partnership and affiliation based on co-creation across sectors and stakeholders, licensing agreements, capacity-building, piggybacking which allows for leveraging the scale of other companies, open source for the rapid diffusion of solutions, smart networks building on shared and collective value and setting new standards such as movements aimed at policy change. An example of the latter is that social innovation usually leads to social policy innovation. In the same way, conventional enterprises can inspire social economy enterprises, for example in marketing, sales and business management, again demonstrating the value of best practice exchange.
4.2.4.

Generally speaking, the new sustainable economic models will develop only if businesses and those that run them are convinced that this will make economic sense in the EU of 2030 or 2050. For this reason, sustainability should be seen as a cross-cutting EU objective. The EU’s policy, tax and regulatory framework must provide greater visibility, in order to guide the actions of economic stakeholders, public bodies and civil society. With this in mind, this opinion recommends: — breaking down policy silos around this issue, treating sustainability as a cross-cutting criterion that will facilitate modernisation of Europe’s economy. This is a question of aligning EU policies with sustainability criteria and incorporating those criteria in legislation. For example, each new regulation could undergo a more rigorous sustainability test. At policy level, the EU needs to develop a strong message that shows its support for sustainable development and demonstrates its leadership. And this means translating the sustainable development objectives into a new EU political strategy to 2030, by adopting a synoptic table of EU performance indicators and ‘beyond GDP’ indicators and incorporating these into the European semester. — internalising social and environmental externalities based on an economic rationale, by encouraging the Member States to better incorporate green taxation (16) and eliminate anti-environmental subsidies. Carbon-price signals need to be strengthened at European level, for example by reforming the ETS or taking additional measures at national level with regard to the energy sector, which accounts for 60 % of all CO2 emissions. This internalisation would allow sustainable products and technologies — which are designed to limit such externalities and which can therefore be more expensive to produce — to become more competitive; — developing a regulatory framework that is favourable to sustainable consumption and production (ecodesign standards, extending the lifespan of products, energy labelling, targets for waste prevention, combating transport pollution, energy efficiency standards for buildings, etc.). The current ecodesign legislation, for example, does not go far enough (17).. The standards should be adapted to the specific circumstances of SMEs (‘SME test’).
2.3.

The LEADER approach has been reinforced for the 2014-2020 period. Considering the role of local communities in contributing to territorial cohesion and to the Europe 2020 strategic goals, the EU — with strong support from the European Parliament — has decided to facilitate and strengthen the use of CLLD for all types of territories (rural, urban, coastal) and various types of community needs (notably social, cultural, environmental and economic). In the 2014-2020 period, CLLD initiatives are eligible for support from all European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds (with the exception of the Cohesion Fund) and are subject to common framework laid out in the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) governing these funds. This ensures more consistency and coordination in EU funding and greater efficiency in its use. The common rules are complemented by fund-specific features (for example, a minimum of 5 % EAFRD funds must follow the CLLD approach, whereas support to CLLD is optional for the other funds). The obligatory funding requirement guaranteed the successful implementation of Leader.
4.5.

Investments: The numerous EU instruments to support investments — both real and intangible — should mainly be directed at boosting innovation, helping SMEs scale up, supporting regions in trouble, upgrading infrastructure and empowering people through education and training. SMEs still need more help to find their way to the right source amongst the numerous different possibilities, and much easier processes for application and reporting. One important criterion should be the leverage effect on private investment. All proposals, including those expected from the HLG on Sustainable finance, that re-orient allocation of capital towards long-term investments and contributions to sustainable growth, are welcome The numerous EU instruments to support investments — both real and intangible — should mainly be directed at boosting innovation, helping SMEs scale up, supporting regions in trouble, upgrading infrastructure and empowering people through education and training. SMEs still need more help to find their way to the right source amongst the numerous different possibilities, and much easier processes for application and reporting. One important criterion should be the leverage effect on private investment. All proposals, including those expected from the HLG on Sustainable finance, that re-orient allocation of capital towards long-term investments and contributions to sustainable growth, are welcome ( 2 )
Corrigendum to Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the “Pericles IV programme”)’ (COM(2018) 369 final – 2018/0194 (CNS))

( Official Journal of the European Union C 440 of 6 December 2018 )

(2021/C 155/13)

On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 199, in the title:

for: ‘Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the “Pericles IV programme”)”(COM(2018) 369 final — 2018/0194 (CNS))’,
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 as regards nominal quantities for placing on the Union market of single distilled shochu produced by pot still and bottled in Japan

(COM(2018) 199 final — 2018/0097 COD)

(2018/C 367/25)

Consultation European Parliament, 2.5.2018 Council of the European Union, 30.4.2018 Legal basis Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment Adopted at plenary 11.7.2018 Plenary session No 536 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 170/0/5

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 536th plenary session of 11 and 12 July 2018 (meeting of 11 July), by 170 votes to none with five abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
4.2.1.

The EESC can support the fact that under Article 4(1) of the proposal, workers are to be informed of important working conditions at the start of the employment relationship. This is the only way of making sure that both sides are aware of their rights and obligations when they enter into the employment relationship. Providing information at a later stage works solely to the detriment of employees and in the case of short-term work they lose entirely the protection to which they are entitled. Nevertheless, the EESC recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances, which may prevent micro and small businesses from being able to provide the information on the first day. The EESC recommends that a brief extension of the timing for the provision of the information could be provided for micro and small enterprises. The EESC also recognises that an expanded package of information for businesses, particularly small and micro-enterprises, could be burdensome. The EESC therefore believes that assistance and support should be provided to natural persons, small and micro-enterprises, among others by associations of SMEs, to help them to fulfil their obligations under the directive.
4.4.

The EESC believes that the following measures will help to avoid unnecessary regulatory and administrative burden: — The EC should carry out integrated impact assessments (IAs) in the course of European legislation take due account of unnecessary burden and any other impact for any substantial regulatory text; — EU laws must be assessed on their own merits, on a case-by-case basis, in order to reach targeted harmonisation which allows, depending on the circumstances, a form of harmonisation that is advanced in some areas and less so in others. It is for the EC, through IAs, to suggest the most appropriate level of harmonisation, taking into account the need for a high level of protection; — When transposing EU legislation, Member States at national and regional level should be fully transparent about any supplementary requirement that could negatively affect the Single Market, competitiveness and growth; — The fact that one Member State imposes less strict rules than another does not automatically mean that the latter’s rules are disproportionate and incompatible with EU law. It is for the Member State to assess on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the viewpoints of all stakeholders and the entirety of the regulatory context. Impact Assessment could be an important tool to that end; — Any additional requirements during the transposition of directives should be accompanied by documents stating transparently specific reasons for these additions.
4.5.

price parity clauses’ (also known as ‘ most favoured customer clauses’ ) are a serious obstacle to the development of fair and open competition in the digital single market. These clauses force business users to quote their lowest price — compared to other online platforms or to their own website — on a given online platform. This leads to significant market distortion since it reinforces the position of the scant handful of online platforms currently in operation (thus preventing the development of new platforms), reduces the opportunities available to consumers to access lower prices and binds business users to the platform, keeping them from developing their own distribution network with consumers. This practice has already been prohibited in many EU countries The EESC considers that ‘(also known as ‘) are a serious obstacle to the development of fair and open competition in the digital single market. These clauses force business users to quote their lowest price — compared to other online platforms or to their own website — on a given online platform. This leads to significant market distortion since it reinforces the position of the scant handful of online platforms currently in operation (thus preventing the development of new platforms), reduces the opportunities available to consumers to access lower prices and binds business users to the platform, keeping them from developing their own distribution network with consumers. This practice has already been prohibited in many EU countries ( 11 ) on the initiative of these countries’ competition authorities, a measure which has had a positive impact on the way in which the market operates and so been beneficial to both businesses and consumers. The EESC therefore hopes that these clauses will shortly be prohibited throughout the EU, possibly in connection with the regulation under discussion.
3.7.

The EESC also notes that the corridor alignment now proposed by the Commission has been questioned, both in detail and in broad terms. During the consultation procedure preceding the Proposal, the roadmap, which is largely followed by the Proposal, was questioned by a number of ports on the southern coast of the English Channel and by the association of French ports and regional authorities, which raised the issue of making the ports of Dunkirk, Calais, Le Havre, Roscoff and Brest part of the proposed link of the North Sea-Mediterranean Corridor and of modifying the alignment of the Atlantic Core Network Corridor. Likewise, various Irish interests have questioned the efficiency of a long sea link as a replacement for the ‘land bridge’ via the UK, as shorter sea routes are available, for instance from Ireland to ports in Brittany. It has been maintained that shorter sea routes will be more suitable, e.g. for perishable goods.
3.4.1.

The decarbonisation of transport and the transition to clean energy are among the core elements of the third mobility package. This initiative is part of the wider ambit of the Circular Economy Action Plan. In order to attain higher levels of sustainability and competitiveness, the EU is launching a series of initiatives: a) The Strategic Action Plan on Batteries (11): this stems from the need to raise Europe’s energy self-sufficiency, following on from the creation of the European Battery Alliance involving industrial players, Member States and the EIB. The plan’s goal is the production of batteries that are sustainable throughout the value chain, starting with the mining of raw materials (primary and secondary), the design and production of battery cells and battery packs, and their use, re-use, recycling and disposal; b) Regulation on emissions of new HDVs (12), which aims to specify a set of CO2 emission performance indicators for trucks and buses, complementing and supplementing the existing legislation. The initiative also provides for measures to encourage companies to purchase more energy-efficient and less polluting vehicles. This measure ties in with a proposal to rapidly bring into force new design standards for aerodynamics and the weight of heavy duty vehicles, with a view to reducing CO2 emissions (13); c) Regulation to facilitate comparison of different fuels, using a single unit of measurement to boost the purchase of new vehicles with low environmental impact (14); d) Regulation on the labelling of tyres (15) highlighting their standards of safety, energy efficiency and noise; e) Revision of the taxation framework for energy products, promoting electro-mobility; f) Regulation to streamline measures for implementing the core Trans-European Transport network (TEN-T) (16), to speed up project authorisation procedures.
3.11.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the European Pillar of Social Rights will serve as an overarching guiding framework for the EGF which will enable the EU to put the relevant principles into practice in the event of major restructuring. Given the difficulty of identifying the specific factor that leads to redundancies, the EESC recommends that, in future, the mobilisation of the EGF’s resources be based first and foremost on the principle of the sizeable impact of restructuring not only with regard to processes of globalisation, but also as regards other significant changes. These include decarbonisation, digitalisation and Industry 4.0 and the related technological changes and processes of transformation, as well as changes caused by many factors such as large-scale relocations or redundancies, or financial or economic crises. In this regard, the EESC expressly welcomes the extension of the scope of the EGF to include labour market risks caused by structural changes that are brought about by digitalisation and developments in the area of decarbonisation.
2.8.

a dynamic learning process knowledge and understanding, skills and attitudes they need not only to exercise their rights, but also to contribute to their community and society and act with empathy, care and with future generations in mind. The contemporary understanding of civic education has slowly but steadily moved away from the traditional view as only the imparting of ‘knowledge and understanding of formal institutions and processes of civic life (such as voting in elections)’ to a broader understanding that includes participation and engagement in both civic and civil society and the wider range of ways in which citizens interact with and shape their communities (including schools) and societies. EU citizenship education in general should be ( 9 ) , adapted to each context and to each learner, driven by values and equipping learners, mostly young people, with thethey need not only to exercise their rights, but also to contribute to their community and society and act with empathy, care and with future generations in mind. The contemporary understanding of civic education has slowly but steadily moved away from the traditional view as only the imparting of ‘knowledge and understanding of formal institutions and processes of civic life (such as voting in elections)’ to aand the wider range of ways in which citizens interact with and shape their communities (including schools) and societies.
9.3.

The MSP set up by the Commission in 2017 and in which the EESC took an active part should now play a lead role in developing and supporting the implementation of an ambitious Strategy and Implementation Plan for a Sustainable Europe. An official review of the functioning of the MSP that involves all stakeholders should be carried out and a clear mandate should be set out. This process should examine best practice from other relevant multi-stakeholder forums (e.g. the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform) and incorporate this learning into the way in which the MSP is organised going forward in order to maximise its effectiveness and overall functioning. This could include the need for more adequate resourcing of the MSP’s work, more frequent meetings of its high-level political committee, more opportunities for extended debate and engagement amongst its members, more focus on regular liaison with national SD platforms and the facilitation of more regular, transparent and accessible public consultations on matters related to sustainable development.