ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
37.

appreciates that current practice invites citizens to participate in consultations. However contributions by individual citizens are rare as most of the consultations are limited due to language accessibility and use of technical terms and contexts, and are therefore largely unwelcoming. As such, they are closed off from all but a few citizens with the skills and language that enable them to take part. It is important to ensure that all relevant parties, and above all civil society, have equal access to the texts of the consultations, which must be translated into all the official EU languages and be drawn up in the simplest, clearest and most comprehensible way possible, so as to provide maximum information about the regulations advocated;
23.

suggests that the Climate Pact should have the Renovation Wave initiative as one of the crucial focuses, which has the potential to be one of the key elements for a sustainable recovery as announced in the EC Communication on the Europe’s moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation; in this area, it is particularly important to create joint initiatives of the public and the private sector, and LRAs are in a key position to inform citizens of the benefits and existing support tools for the renovation of their houses, leading by example, connecting and supporting local businesses with the necessary expertise at different levels, and developing tools to access national or EU financial assistance; moreover, LRAs should lead by example in the renovation of public buildings and promoting in particular the energetic renovation of social housing and other publicly owned housing;
2.

bearing in mind that this role is recognised internationally and that many cities, local authorities and, in particular, municipal bodies in the EU Member States have been devoting themselves for many years now to city diplomacy, and that with a thorough knowledge of the sphere they play a central role and contribute effectively in forging alliances to facilitate dialogue and prevent conflicts, in promoting conflict resolution, in post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation, and in the development of third countries both on the European continent, especially in the Balkans, and in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and the rest of the world;
9.

welcomes and acknowledges the achievements of existing voluntary certification schemes, and supports their retention, and recommends that this be broadly underpinned by other measures, including financial instruments. Certification could, at a later date, also serve as an instrument to help stem the flow of illegal timber and timber products. Suggests that this should be part of a broader push towards certification on a global scale. Recommends that, in line with such initiatives as FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade), it be made illegal to import or possess timber produced illegally in countries outside the EU. Points out, however, that the legal and economic conditions for certification and Natura 2000 status vary significantly across the various Member States and regions; also points out that the certification of wood products does not always provide ideal support to the overarching goals which are being pursued in the management of protected areas. Recommends, therefore, that these differences and requirements be taken into account in line with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles;
45.

The Committee suggests that a European homelessness centre be set up as the coordinating body that is currently lacking. Its main tasks would be to ensure coordination, but it would also help to build knowledge and develop joint strategies. The Committee urges the European Commission to look into the possibility of setting up such a body, which would also be responsible for monitoring the situation of homeless people in the Member States. The role of the centre should be to coordinate and support reforms in the Member States, for instance through exchange of best practice. It is worth noting that efforts at EU level could have real added value if the open coordination method for social protection and social inclusion is used.
17.

draws attention to the fact that the two derogations to the right to family reunification of minor children (Article 4(1), last paragraph, and Article 4(6)) have rarely been used and so could be repealed. At any rate, recommends that all decisions on this point be taken with a view to the best interests of the child and to assuring the protection of the minor child's rights. On the same grounds, also recommends that the right to reunification of minor children be guaranteed even if there is no marriage tie between the parents, in order to avoid any form of discrimination between legitimate and natural children;
37.

in this context, stresses the importance of the provision of appropriate infrastructure, without which it is difficult to bring products to market. Together, therefore, efforts should be made to push ahead with alternative fuels and to create the infrastructure needed for them; this will require coordinating committees to be set up between the sector and those in charge of infrastructure planning. Developing these infrastructures should be based on prior studies and integrated mobility plans that will make it possible to examine different options in terms of the various modes of transport and the requirements of the region or local authority;
18.

The requirement for co-financing prevents the participation of certain actors in both EU Member States and Partner Countries. In the case of Partner Countries, financial resource constraints may prevent the engagement of local actors, while in some Member States like Sweden, local and regional government cannot participate in programmes like Non-State Actors and Local Authorities because they are not permitted to utilise local taxes to finance international development cooperation. Given the specific goals of the programme, and the wide-ranging experiences of different European countries (welfare, decentralisation, healthcare, etc.), this does not seem to be in the interest of EU and its external cooperation programme. To avoid this situation, the Committee of the Regions encourages the Commission to adopt the rules (Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulations) for full financing ‘where it is in the interests of the Community to be the sole donor to an action’ (Article 253 — 1(e));
26.

feels that it is not enough for universities and other higher educational institutions only to mention internationalisation issues in their mission statements; rather, regardless of their legal status and their current responsibilities in the field of internationalisation, all higher education institutions should look for the most appropriate solutions in line with their needs, and develop their own governance and planning structures together with channels for cooperation;
36.

emphasises that the benefits arising from the blue economy will be felt in both the public and the private sectors. All public funding has its limitations, however. It is therefore important to also raise private capital to finance operations in this area. In view of this, broad cooperation should be encouraged between the public and the private sectors, not least through public-private partnerships, in which the public sector can benefit from the financial capacity of the private sector as well as its expertise, business experience, management skills and intellectual potential in order to develop and implement innovative solutions for the blue economy;
29.

feels that, vocational training, retraining, adult education and lifelong learning in general are particularly effective in preventing homelessness, even though they only have an indirect impact. Properly structured training leading to real employment is a good investment from the point of view of both individuals and society, and can achieve lasting results in helping homeless people to get out of a difficult situation. Education is often an indispensable basic requirement, but it is crucial that people should be motivated themselves to take long-term and proactive measures to lift themselves up to the position of active player in society. Cooperation with the persons concerned and their active involvement are essential if their lives are to be improved;
33.

welcomes the report issued by the European Commission on the public consultation which it launched on the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, and considers this a further important contribution to the efforts of both the USA and the Commission to ensure more transparency in the TTIP negotiations and to allow the views of a wide range of stakeholders to be heard; strongly recommends that the Commission take the results of the consultation into account without fail in its final evaluation of this provision of the agreement, given that the 1 50 000 replies demonstrate, inter alia, that there is widespread opposition to the mechanism; also welcomes the fact that the new Commission would not accept EU Member States' case law being restricted by special arrangements for investor disputes, and that the rule of law and equality before the law must also apply in this context;
14.

the CoR notes that point 20 of the Guidelines on State aid to promote risk finance investments (2) stipulates that ‘risk finance aid measures have to be deployed through financial intermediaries or alternative trade platforms, except for fiscal incentives on direct investments in eligible undertakings. Therefore, a measure whereby the Member State or a public entity makes direct investments in companies without the involvement of such intermediary vehicles does not fall under the scope of the risk finance State aid rules of the General Block Exemption Regulation and these Guidelines’. Consequently, when a managing authority makes a direct aid payment to an SME as part of a financial package, the aid in question can only be considered State aid compatible with the Treaty if the amount provided is smaller than the amounts decreed in the de minimis regulation, or if the aid is provided in accordance with other horizontal State aid rules (e.g. SMEs, regional cohesion, R&D, etc.). Calls therefore on the Commission to make sure this scheme does not result in the break-up of projects supported by financial instruments, and that the guidelines are not in breach of Article 38 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 on common provisions for Structural Funds with regard to implementing financial instruments;
41.

would like to highlight the significance of the SME sector for the European economy and regional development. There were over 20 million SMEs in the EU-27, making up approximately 67 % of jobs and 58 % of gross value added. Furthermore, there were almost 19 million SMEs employing up to 10 people, which provided 1/5 of the jobs in the EU. During the crisis in 2008-2011, SMEs were better able to stabilise employment than large companies, but at the same time their share in GDP creation underwent a relative decrease (1);
11.

Welcomes the announcement by the European Commission on 29 February 2016 that the investment protection chapter of the free trade agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA) picks up on the elements of the reformed approach proposed by the EU for a more transparent system for the settlement of investor-state disputes and provides for: — more binding wording as to the right to regulate at all government levels on investment protection, — the implementation of a permanent and institutionalised court responsible for settling disputes, with 15 members who will be appointed in advance by the parties to the agreement, — the establishment of a court of appeal that will enable the examination of decisions from the point of view of their legality and their cancellation in case of error, — more detailed ethics rules for avoiding any conflict of interest, — the commitment of the EU and Canada to work on setting up a permanent multilateral jurisdiction or appeal court for investment;
23.

acknowledges and welcomes the European Commission’s plans to focus EUR 500 million investment from Horizon 2020 on the widespread roll-out of digital innovation hubs, although it must be ensured that the hubs are financed from resources under the second pillar of Horizon 2020 (‘Industrial leadership’) and are not taken from the budget for other parts of the Horizon 2020 programme; emphasises that local and regional authorities (LRAs) are well placed to contribute to this form of competence centre and technological one-stop-shop on behalf of industrial end-users; points out that scientific excellence is still an important criterion when selecting candidates for support and that the key role of universities in knowledge transfer and the innovation process must be adequately considered so that the impact of planned investment under Horizon 2020 can be further optimised. In this context the desired impact of activities relating to digital innovation hubs should be specified and if necessary reviewed;
67.

is of the opinion that financial tools are useful and may constitute an alternative or complement to grants and can help to increase the effectiveness of cohesion policy due to their leverage effect. However, this must not lead to a phasing out of ESIF grant funding in favour of loans. Given the high administration costs associated with them, financial tools should only be used where it is deemed to be useful on the ground. In the case of public bodies and especially regions, cities and municipalities, resorting to the increased use of financial instruments must not threaten their financial stability. The CoR therefore rejects any obligation to further increase the share of financial tools in the next funding period. The provisions concerning the use of the ESIFs in the financial tools are exacting and complex, and indicative of difficulties in the implementation of financial tools. The relevant rules on how they are implemented compared to the 2014-2020 period, should therefore be radically simplified. The CoR also believes that the synergies between grants and financial tools should be made more attractive and that the operating conditions of financial instruments should be aligned as far as possible with market economy conditions;
23.

does not deny that there are also risks to using biotechnological processes. For example, using biomass as a starting point for bio-based products risks creating competition for land and water (the ‘food versus fuel’ discussion). Precisely for this reason, existing raw materials must be used sustainably and sparingly, and in a multi-faceted way. Smart and cascading use of biomass as a material — repeated and carried out as often as possible — can contribute to this objective. This approach should be taken into account when working on the future strategic direction for promoting the bioeconomy. The use of biotechnology can also have an effect on biodiversity decline, including due to the use of GMOs. It is imperative to ensure strict application of the precautionary principle in connection with any initiatives undertaken, in accordance with the principle of EU law set out in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU);
7.

agrees that the exchange of data currently remains limited. Data market places are slowly emerging, but are not widely used by the public or private sector or through public-private partnerships. Potential users may not be equipped with the right tools and skills to quantify the economic value of their data, and they may fear losing or compromising their competitive advantage when data becomes available to competitors. The owner of the data loses nothing from sharing it: on the contrary, sharing knowledge increases the value of the data;
The objective of this Directive is to remove obstacles to the exercise of fundamental freedoms , such as the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment , which result from differences between national laws and procedures on preventive restructuring, insolvency and second chance. This Directive aims at removing such obstacles by ensuring that viable enterprises in financial difficulties have access to effective national preventive restructuring frameworks which enable them to continue operating; that honest over indebted entrepreneurs have a second chance after a full discharge of debt after a reasonable period of time; and that the effectiveness of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures is improved, in particular with a view to shortening their length.

The objective of this Directive is to remove obstacles to the exercise of freedoms linked to the single market , which result from differences between national laws and procedures on preventive restructuring, insolvency and second chance. This Directive aims at removing such obstacles by ensuring that viable enterprises in financial difficulties have access to effective preventive restructuring frameworks which enable them to continue operating; that honest over indebted entrepreneurs have a second chance after a full discharge of debt after a reasonable period of time; and that the effectiveness of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures is improved, in particular with a view to responding to the requirements of worker consultation (Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) and shortening their length. The preventive solutions sometimes referred to as ‘pre-pack’ are part of a growing trend in modern insolvency law which favours approaches aimed at the recovery of a company in difficulties or at least saving the parts of it which are still economically viable, rather than the traditional approach of liquidation.
46.

stresses the key role played by the ESF in responding to the employment, education and social inclusion guidance set out in the Country Specific Recommendations, calling for better alignment of a reformed European Semester and cohesion policy. The European Semester should indeed be further democratised at European and national level, better defined in terms of European added value and relation with EU competences and also be more focused on ownership, to which could contribute the adoption of a Code of Conduct setting standards for the involvement of local and regional authorities as well as the setting up of a ‘structural dialogue on the state of cohesion in Europe’ to be incorporated into the European Semester process;
10.

considers that STEM-related initiatives, strategies, action plans and public-private partnerships implemented at local and regional level can play an important role in bridging the gap in development between the various regions. In many cases, improving competences linked to STEM-related jobs does not require the use of expensive traditional educational infrastructure, and there are also many opportunities, especially in vocational education and adult training, for organising specialised, short-term training courses, sometimes only a few months in duration. Local and regional authorities may have a positive impact in this regard, given that the presence of a competent STEM workforce is a decisive factor in determining the competitiveness of a region. Treating STEM subjects as a local and regional educational priority, as well as prioritising collaborative initiatives and investment with regard to their development, can go a long way towards limiting the harmful effects of the brain drain by offering career opportunities that are suitable for the active STEM workforce;
20.

welcomes, while stressing that Horizon and COSME will gain importance for SMEs, that the ERDF will remain the most important source of finance for local and regional policies supporting SMEs in the new programming period 2021-2027, and particular in relation to access to finance, support for R & D and innovation, skills development as well as access to markets and internationalisation. Reiterates however its objection to the proposal that the ERDF thematic concentration would focus on the national level as a centralised allocation mechanism would go against a place-based approach and the multilevel governance principle, which are key for an efficient and effective support of SMEs;
3.

as already stated in the opinion on ‘Smart Cities and Communities — European Innovation Partnership’ by Mr Ilmar Reepalu (SE/PES), reaffirms the importance of recognising the existing great variety of urban settlements, be they considered cities or not, and the importance of their relationship and complementarity with the surrounding rural territories; as already stated in the opinion on ‘Revitalisation of rural areas through Smart Villages’ by Mr Enda Stenson (IE/EA), also reaffirms that ‘in common with the Smart City model, a Smart Rural Areas initiative should take a broad approach to development and innovation to include the following six dimensions: — a smart, innovative, entrepreneurial and productive economy, — improved mobility, with accessible, modern and sustainable transport networks, — an environmental and sustainable energy vision, — qualified and engaged citizens, — quality of life in terms of culture, health, safety and education — an efficient, transparent and ambitious administration,’ stresses, however, that an essential additional element of promoting ‘smartness’ must be to involve citizens and provide the conditions for them to develop their potentials, through education and support for research, innovation and social cohesion. This also requires for effective, transparent and reliable regulation of data protection and data use to be in place;
37.

Local and regional authorities are the only authorities that know best the citizens’ needs and challenges on local level and are responsible for the implementation of EU policies on local and regional level. Therefore, there is a need for EU regulations to include requirements toward Member States to not only consult and involve LRAs into EU and national legislation related decision-making process, but to delegate funds’ and financial instruments’ management, based on the principle of subsidiarity. This can ensure that decisions taken closer to citizens shall allow citizens to better understand the EU. In conclusion, this would allow for a new approach to policy- and decision-making, which is more open, more participative, led by local and regional authorities in a more permanent dialogue with citizens: in short, a new common European political and democratic culture.
32.

draws attention to the fact that, throughout the European Union, it has been women who have worked on the front line during the COVID-19 pandemic (health, care, childcare, domestic and retail workers, etc.), in turn making them more vulnerable to infection. Moreover, some of these professions are among the least valued and lowest paid in the EU. The CoR therefore requests that the imbalance in the representation of women and men in these jobs that have proven to be key during the pandemic, especially in relation to care, be taken into account in the measures to combat unemployment and precariousness. It should also not be forgotten that many professions involving care and domestic work are carried out by migrant women, who are affected by a double bias; the gender dimension needs to be included in recovery plans and support given to women business-owners and their business projects, as well as to women managers, highlighting the additional efforts involved in teleworking;
5.

points out that in many countries the treatment of patients with other diagnoses and medical needs has been postponed, building up a ‘healthcare backlog’ that will take a long time to catch up on. Many of those whom COVID-19 hit particularly badly now need rehabilitation, and there are also strong indications that the need for care and treatment of mental health issues has increased in the wake of the pandemic, both in the population in general and among health and care workers. Healthcare, including public health, primary and outpatient care, will therefore need more resources for a long time yet;