ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.1

Since the European Council in March 2008 decided upon the climate and energy policy targets of 20-20-20 by 2020 many things have changed. Firstly, the worst economic crisis since the war, with recovery in Europe only just starting and still weak. Secondly, other main players have not followed the EU in setting targets and measures to mitigate climate change. Thirdly, the shale gas revolution in the USA has changed the energy scene, at least in sectors affected by the gas sector, thus altering the balance of competition. Fourthly, retail energy prices have increased rapidly in the last few years in large parts of the EU, putting industrial competitiveness and vulnerable consumers at risk. Fifthly, recent political developments in Ukraine have also dramatically highlighted the importance of decreasing the EU's dependence on Russian fossil energy sources. Sixthly, there have also been some genuinely revolutionary developments in renewable energy technology, which are making low-carbon energy production increasingly cost-effective. In this context, the EESC recommends that the Commission disseminate its analysis that ‘the costs of a low carbon transition do not differ substantially from the costs that will be incurred in any event because of the need to renew an aging energy system, rising fossil fuel prices and adherence to existing climate and energy policies’ more widely. Furthermore, ‘energy system costs are expected to rise over the period to 2030 to a level of around 14 % of GDP compared to about 12,8 % in 2010. There will, however, be a major shift away from expenditure on fuels towards innovative equipment with high added value that will stimulate investments for innovative products and services, create jobs and growth and improve the Union's trade balance’. Seventhly, in some Member States there have been some interesting decentralised renewable energy production initiatives, with direct civil society involvement. These show that active and direct involvement of ordinary citizens, local councils and regional authorities unlocks new regional value added potential, thus significantly enhancing social acceptance of a new climate and energy policy. And eighthly, it is becoming increasingly clear that leadership in the field of renewable energy technology offers great economic potential for the future, and that regional development must go hand-in-hand with energy policy.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 230/122

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for imports (codification)’

(COM(2014) 322 final — 2014/0167 (COD))

(2015/C 230/23)

On 15 September 2014 the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for exports (codification)’

COM(2014) 322 final — 2014/0167 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 503rd plenary session of 10 and 11 December 2014 (meeting of 10 December 2014), by 147 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 230/125

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Union import rules (recast)’

COM(2014) 345 final — 2014/0177 (COD)

(2015/C 230/26)

On 8 October 2014, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Union import rules (recast)’

COM(2014) 345 final — 2014/0177 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 503rd plenary session of 10 and 11 December 2014 (meeting of 10 December 2014), by 151 votes to 2 with 5 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/148

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council fixing the adjustment rate provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 for direct payments in respect of the calendar year 2016’

(COM(2016) 159 final — 2016/0086 COD)

(2016/C 303/22)

On 11 April 2016 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43(2) of the TFEU, on the:

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council fixing the adjustment rate provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 for direct payments in respect of the calendar year 2016

(COM(2016) 159 final — 2016/0086 COD).

Since the Committee has already set out its views on the content of the proposal in question in its opinions CES2942-2013_00_00_TRA_AC, adopted on 22 May 2013 (*), EESC-2014-02897-00-00-AC, adopted on 5 June 2014 (**) and EESC-2015-02052-00-00-AC-TRA, adopted on 22 April 2015 (***), it decided, at its 517th plenary session of 25 and 26 May 2016 (meeting of 25 May), by 161 votes to 2 with 8 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 25 May 2016. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Georges DASSIS

(*) EESC opinion NAT/602 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on fixing an adjustment rate to direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in respect of calendar year 2013 (OJ C 271, 19.9.2013, p. 143).

(**) EESC opinion NAT/646 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on fixing an adjustment rate for direct payments provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in respect of calendar year 2014 (OJ C 424, 26.11.2014, p. 73).

(***) EESC opinion NAT/668 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on fixing the adjustment rate provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 for direct payments in respect of calendar year 2015 (OJ C 291, 4.9.2015, p. 60).
4.3.

The draft 2016 PINC heralds a significant change in approach by the Commission. Previous PINCs have set the review in the context of the energy challenges facing the EU and the global community. For example the 2007 PINC featured sections not replicated in 2016 which offered clear strategic insight. These should be added to the present proposal, and should cover: — competitiveness — what are the current and future factors affecting the competitiveness of nuclear power, for example the role of state aid, especially financial and fiscal aid, changes in perspectives on construction costs, capital costs, waste disposal, licencing procedures, lifetime extensions and the relative costs of other energy sources, — economic aspects — the structure of the energy market remains uncertain, discouraging long term investment, and the economic risks of nuclear power are significant in a period of financial and political uncertainty, — security of supply — energy demands worldwide are steadily increasing even if they have stabilised or reduced in Europe and the implications of this, and the political and foreign policy aspects, need greater attention. Energy security in particular is an area to which nuclear power can and does contribute with sources of fuel supply (uranium) at present seemingly more secure than oil or gas (3), — climate change — nuclear power contributes half of Europe’s low carbon electricity, — public acceptability — the wide variation across the EU on public attitudes to nuclear power is a little understood reality with significant effects on political acceptability. All these issues have become more important in the last 9 years but the focus on safety and the fuel cycle dominates the PINC with little elaboration on these areas in either the communication or the staff working document. It neither outlines the nature of the debate on these topics, many of which are contested and controversial (for example, maintaining high standards in sub-contracted work), nor offers a set of guidelines or a strategic approach for the discussion of nuclear power in the energy mix as a whole. This reflects the approach of the Energy Union package where there is a similar reluctance to draw out the implications of a European energy strategy for national debates on the continuing role of nuclear (if any) in the energy mix.
3.5.

The strategy identifies several significant challenges. Fossil fuels account for over 80 % of the energy employed making this sector critical in achieving low carbon objectives and a transition to a more efficient and secure energy system. Two thirds of the EU’s buildings — the majority of which will still be in use in 2050 — were constructed prior to the introduction of energy efficiency requirements. Incentives to ‘improve’ can be fragmented by ownership or tenancy arrangements and weakened by lack of appropriate finance schemes. There is a lack of market driven competition in the heating sector, a lack of training and expertise amongst constructors and installers and a lack of awareness of the potential benefits amongst domestic consumers. The rate of building renovation is low (0,4-1,2 % pa) and in addition energy poverty is a growing problem across the EU.
5.1.3.

New point (za) — This point clarifies that ‘equivalent material’ means aluminium alloy or any other non-combustible material that maintains structural and integrity properties equivalent to steel at the end of the applicable exposure to the standard fire test due to the insulation provided. As some Member States have not been certifying aluminium ships under this directive, the EESC welcomes this clarification in principle. However, the EESC recommends that the corresponding technical standard included in the Annex to Directive 2009/45/EC be further clarified in cooperation with national experts. Finally, the EESC believes that the new definition of ‘equivalent material’, especially the reference to ‘any other non-combustible material’, may be confusing as it does not adequately specify which type of material a material must be equivalent to in order to fall under the scope of the amended directive.
3.4.1.

The future of work is an essential topic which must be accorded a key place in political debate and social dialogue on high quality education. Moreover, tectonic shifts are reshaping the ways in which work is performed. The result is that, in spite of opening new opportunities in turning innovations into new jobs, the world of work is now characterised by high levels of unpredictability for both workers and businesses. And, while combined with new positive opportunities, the transitions that the digital revolution is bringing magnify the sense of unpredictability and complexity still further. As stated in the first Education and Training Monitor developed by the Juncker Commission, ‘Equipping people for employment is only part of the picture. Education has an equally important role in creating a better society’. However, nowadays, even the most qualified workers can lose their jobs. Although crucial, education and training per se no longer give any guarantee of a good, stable, well-paid job. Also inequalities in the labour market seem to have become a concern that needs to be adequately addressed.
3.5

The Strategic Objectives for 2025, as presented in the communication, set a timetable for developing the European high-capacity broadband infrastructure. They are derived by assuming an accelerated investment rate to ambitious but still realistic values: — Gigabit connectivity for all main socio-economic drivers, — All urban areas and all major terrestrial transport paths to have uninterrupted 5G coverage, — 5G connectivity to be available by 2020 as a fully-fledged commercial service in at least one major city in each Member State, — All European households, rural or urban, will have access to internet connectivity offering a downlink of at least 100 Mbps, upgradable to Gigabit speed, — Member States should efficiently combine their public support via grants and financial instruments to achieve the long-term objectives, — Launch of a Broadband Fund by the end of the year, building on the CEF and EFSI, — Weigh up the need for adequate budgetary resources for efficient broadband financing in underserved areas under CEF financial programming beyond 2020, — Dedicated ESI funds support, possibly with an indicative share, for the digital transformation, — Set up a public wifi voucher scheme for public authorities to offer free wifi connections in town centres, — Call on Member States to review progress on their National Broadband Plans and update them by the end of 2017, — Set up a participatory broadband platform by the end of 2016, ensuring a high level of engagement and cooperation between relevant public and private entities for broadband investment and progress in implementing national broadband plans, — Establish and support the EU network of Broadband Competence Offices at regional/national level. By 1 July 2018, assess the impact on the cost of EU-funded broadband projects and issue guidelines on promoting best practice.
3.3.8.

Information on gas consumption will be based on actual consumption through a self-check system on the meter. There will be a requirement for data on consumption and billing to be available to energy service suppliers. The bill (in electronic format) will need to be clear and understandable for the consumer. Given the improvements proposed, the EESC hopes that the Member States will become more involved in finding socially and economically appropriate solutions to the costs of metering (who pays for the meter?). This issue is crucial for guaranteeing a fair, appropriate approach to defining a level playing field for access to energy.
2.1.

As part of the REFIT programme and the commitment to better regulation, and with the aim of ensuring a legislative framework that is fit for purpose and of high quality, as referred to in the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, the Commission is proposing to repeal three Regulations that have become obsolete.
4.3

Although the objective of improving road safety is very welcome, the EESC has reservations about the requirement in the current proposal for a directive that at least one subject relating solely to road safety be included in the periodic training (in practice on one of the five days of periodic training). Instead, the requirement could be framed, in line with the proposal in the directive (11) and also complementing it, by including in the periodic training at least one day of training ‘with specific emphasis on road safety, health and safety at work, and the rationalisation of fuel consumption’. This would ensure that fuel-efficient and anticipatory driving methods are also included in any training programme for professional drivers in the EU. These areas are an integral part of road safety.
3.3.2.

Given the difficulties encountered by BIC in delivering its financial contribution in the mode envisaged by the Council regulation, it is proposed to introduce the possibility of delivering financial contributions at project level, in addition to the existing mode of delivery at programme level. This solution addresses the situation effectively and works towards achieving the initial objectives of the Council regulation by allowing BIC members to comply with their initial commitment. This solution is similar to the one used for IMI 2 JU (Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking), where members other than the Union can make financial contributions both at programme level, which is commonly done by trusts and charities, and at project level, which is the mode used by commercial entities. This amendment is not part of the REFIT programme.
2.1.1.

Without doubt the most serious has been, and this will increasingly be the case, the one caused by ‘choke species’, i.e. species for which operators have small quotas or none at all, but which, despite this, are also caught in nets and other types of fishing gear. The flexibility mechanisms included in the regulation are completely inadequate to deal with this situation. When the landing obligation comes fully into force in 2019, there will be many fishing vessels which, despite not having used up their quota of target species, will have to remain in port without being able to go out to fish because they have exhausted their meagre quota of accessory species.
1.2.

These statistics have been compiled — in part at first and then in greater detail — since 1980 (1). In 2003, a new piece of legislation, Regulation EC No 91/2003 (known as the original instrument), introduced substantive amendments and additions. Since then, the Member States have been required to collect and submit annual, quarterly or five-yearly statistics on the carriage of goods and passengers, on the basis of specified indicators.
4.3.

Those aspects relating to the authorisation of content in connection with previous notices could also be made more specific. For example, lists could be drawn up of those online platforms that harbour illegal content, as well as those developing best practices which have official recognition. This would help increase competition for the best reputation and improve trust in the internet. Innovation favours investments in research, development and improving workers’ skills, and is of crucial importance when it comes to generating new ideas and developments. Technological innovation should be used for procedures to detect, identify and remove illegal content and prevent it from being republished, such as processing of information and digital intelligence, and the use of automatic detection and filtering technologies; however, ultimately, people’s individual decisions need to be made and their actions taken in a way that guarantees fundamental rights and democratic values. Reaffirming that a balance must be found between upholding fundamental rights and restricting illegal content, the EESC stresses that the use of current automated filter technology places a disproportionate burden on the freedom of intermediaries to conduct their business, the right of end-users to the freedom of expression and the right to protection of personal data. One-size-fits-all solutions, such as automatic re-upload filters, should not be forced upon the industry without considering the specific needs of SMEs in the IT sector. Current best practices of automated filter technology indicate that the systematic application of the human in-the-loop principle is necessary. This is a system in which final contextualised decisions on a smaller number of contestable cases are always made by humans in order to decrease the likelihood of infringing the fundamental right to freedom of expression. It should be made clear that Artificial Intelligence must not replace decisions taken by human beings on the basis of ethical assessments.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/103

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Repealing Regulation (EU) No 256/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union’

(COM(2017) 769 final — 2017/347 (COD))

(2018/C 227/17)

Consultation European Parliament, 15.1.2018 Council of the European Union, 11.1.2018 Legal basis Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society Adopted at plenary 14.2.2018 Plenary session No 532 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 192/0/2

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 532nd plenary session of 14 and 15 February 2018 (meeting of 14 February), by 192 votes with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
4.6.2.

Likewise, according to the new proposal, it will not be mandatory for the appointed registry to be a not-for-profit organisation. If the Commission confirms this approach it will, in the EESC’s view, constitute a major change that will have significant consequences. This is because commercial entities will act differently, as they will need to make a profit on the .eu domain name, and the surpluses generated by the registry will no longer be transferred to the EU budget. The EESC wants the Commission to clarify this as soon as possible, so that the legislative process can be conducted with all relevant information made available.
3.7.

In the area of crypto-assets, and in particular cryptocurrencies, we have recently seen in Europe how much they are taking off and how volatile they are. In view of these developments, the lack of transparency and the high risks they may entail, the EESC recommends that the Commission keep a close eye on the situation in this regard on an ongoing basis, in cooperation with the European supervisory authorities. Moreover, action needs to be taken wherever the security and stability of the financial system could be put at risk, at any time and in any way. Such action should in the first instance apply to the whole of the EU, and should therefore be taken at that level.
2.7.

Thus, whilst the Austrian territories of Jungholz and Mittelberg, the Principality of Monaco, the Republic of San Marino, the French overseas departments (ODs) (Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana and Reunion), the Isle of Man and the Canary Islands are part of the EU customs territory, others which are part of the EU’s geophysical area are excluded: these include the Faroe Islands, the Island of Heligoland and the territory of Büsingen, Ceuta and Melilla, the French overseas territories (TOMs) (French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, New Caledonia, the French Southern and Antarctic Territories and the territorial communities of Mayotte and Saint Pierre and Miquelon) and Livigno. Also hitherto excluded were Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano, between Ponte Tresa and Porto Ceresio, territories which Italy has asked to be included.
2.6.

The new shortened deadlines for lodging visa applications and deciding on applications for visas as well as the harmonization of the possibility to issue uniform visas (especially as regards the decision to issue multiple-entry visas) are both deemed as positive by the EESC, as well as the new proposed Article 25(a) on Cooperation on readmission, meant to increase the cooperation of the third countries on readmission of irregular migrants, by introducing the possibility to introduce a restrictive and temporary application of clearly specified measures. A harmonised approach to how to facilitate the visa application procedure for those applicants who have travelled to the EU before must be elaborated.