ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
6.1.

The overall objective of this Platform could be to increase the participation of women and improve gender equality in the transport sector by improving the opportunities for women, for women-owned companies and for female managers, and by improving working conditions for all within the sector and their ultimate impact on jobs, inclusiveness, innovation, sustainability and growth. The focus should be on gender equality, thus promoting employment and addressing gaps in the sector. This objective can be achieved, inter alia, by improving the quality of jobs and working conditions for all; addressing harassment and gender based violence, improving reconciliation between work, private and family life, increasing the number of women in decision-making positions and improving the image of the sector to attract more female workers, entrepreneurs, academia and innovators. The scope of the Platform could be later expanded to cover related issues such as improving the user experience and focusing on actions which address women as users.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/215

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 establishing the Creative Europe programme (2014 to 2020)’

(COM(2017) 385 final — 2017/0163 (COD))

(2018/C 081/30)

Consultation European Parliament, 11.9.2017 Council, 22.9.2017 Legal basis Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (CCMI) Adopted at plenary 18.10.2017 Plenary session No 529 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 196/0/3

The Committee adopted its previous opinion on the Creative Europe programme 2014-2020 (Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013) — CCMI/098 — CES828-2012_AC — on 28 March 2012 (1).

The previous opinion fully endorsed both the content of the Commission proposal establishing the Creative Europe programme (2014-2020) and the budget increase to fund it. However, while the Committee highlighted the importance of the economic dimension of the Creative Europe programme, it also noted that the programme was overly concerned with the general objective of competitiveness, while the goal of promoting European cultural and linguistic diversity and values is less visible. In addition it also considered the budget amount as insufficient to cover its targets in relation to the total EU budget or the funds allocated by some Member States to support cultural activities.

In its new proposal, the Commission proposes to create a legally sound and transparent solution to ensure sustainable support for the European Union Youth Orchestra (EUYO), taking into account its specific features, by recognising it as a ‘body identified by a basic act’ within the meaning of Article 190(1)(d) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012.

This initiative is totally in accordance with the Committee’s view in its previous opinion. This funding for the EUYO will not require additional resources from the EU budget.

The new proposal adds only one point to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 establishing the Creative Europe programme (2014-2020): ‘(f) the European Union Youth Orchestra’.

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion (2), CCMI/098 — CES828-2012_AC adopted on 28 March 2012, it decided, at its 529th plenary session of 18 and 19 October 2017 (meeting of 18), by 196 votes in favour, no vote against and 3 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the abovementioned document.

Brussels, 18 October 2017. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Georges DASSIS

(1) EESC opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2014-2018) (OJ C 181, 21.6.2012, p. 35).

(2) See footnote 1.
5.2.

The EESC draws attention to the following overarching issues. — As pointed out in point 4.2, the EESC regrets that Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 is not extended to LCVs which means an unwarranted market opening for vehicles covered by rules on access to the profession. This might distort competition and have a negative impact, for instance on congestion and the environment. — The EESC regrets that the question of when a cabotage activity is no longer temporary but turns into such a continuous and permanent activity that the right to provide services in a Member State other than the one where the undertaking is established, as set out in Article 8, no longer applies, is not addressed in the Proposal at all. The current situation, where operations respecting the formal criteria for cabotage operations, as set out in Article 8, can be carried out systematically and regularly over a long period, even under a long term contract, and still remain temporary is not satisfactory and not consistent with the criteria defining the temporary character of the right to provide cross-border services (see European Court Reports 1995 p. I-04165 and European Court Reports 1985 p. 01513). The EESC therefore deems it crucial to find a clear rule on what is temporary. The EESC points out that Article 91(1)(b) of the TFEU gives the EU legislator a wide margin of appreciation in establishing the conditions for carrying out cabotage as a temporary provision of services. Possible solutions could be a maximum number of operations or operational days over a given period or to establish a cooling-off period between batches of cabotage operations. In the EESC’s opinion, it is very important that rules on this matter are clear and easy to apply, for instance at a roadside check. — Ensuring national authorities have access to staff with adequate competence to carry out effective checks under the proposed Article 10a is key to efficient compliance monitoring. In the EESC’s opinion, it is vital that both these elements are in place and that a network is set up for exchanging best practice. — The EESC regrets that the proposal for a review of Directive 92/106/EEC on combined transport is not submitted at the same time as the Proposal since in practice that directive grants a parallel market access to national transport operations for hauliers established in another Member State. In the opinion of the EESC, the fully legitimate transport policy aim to promote combined transport chains can be achieved without this special market access rule. Therefore, the road leg of a combined transport operation to and from ports or railway terminals inside one Member State should be considered as a national transport operation and the provisions on cabotage in Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 or provisions to that effect should apply.
3.3.

The preferred option is the third one, which appears to have found consensus on all sides. Revision here implies the conclusion of a ‘common framework agreement with three regional pillars’: ‘the third option is an agreement with the partner countries, comprising three distinct regional partnerships with Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, with the possibility of close involvement with other countries as part of a common framework. This framework would define common values, principles, vital details and interests, which implies cooperation between those involved, by using the ACP’s longstanding “acquis”. It would also provide for specific cooperation mechanisms in the world arena. The three regional partners would use and integrate those that already exist (for example the common EU-ACP strategy) and would establish priorities and actions focused on specific details in the partnership programme in each of the three regions.’ This institutional arrangement proposed by the Commission consisting of three separate regional partnerships with Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, under an umbrella arrangement, retains the acquis and the advantages of the EU-ACP format whilst allowing for differentiated development initiatives according to the region. In addition, according to this preferred option there is the possibility of allowing for the involvement of other countries outside of the ACP, such as the other least-developed countries (LDCs), or those in North Africa, in the future.
5.7.

Guideline 6 is welcome; more detail about the potential for green growth would also be worthwhile. Similarly the new commitment to the ‘transfer of training entitlements during professional transitions’ should enhance mobility. To do so the EESC stresses the need to safeguard decent existence during training wherever the training takes place. Instruments used in some EU Member States, such as grants, loans, collective agreements on paid training leave or other provisions should also be examined with a view to making good practice in the area of minimum standards regarding entitlements to educational leave standard practice in the other Member States. The Committee welcomes the new wording in Guideline 6 on the recognition of non-formal learning and increasing the take up of flexible continuing vocational training and enhanced action for adult learners. Some work has been done on broadening the provisions of Guideline 6 on barriers to female employment to more groups and making the provisions more gender neutral. The Committee urges a certain caution in this regard in case any specific focus on gender equality might be lost. The work-life balance provisions are welcome and are to a degree already in train. In this respect the EESC reiterates its support of the Commission’s legislative proposal on work-life-balance, including paid family and care leave, as expressed in a recent opinion The referencing of technological and environmental change inis welcome; more detail about the potential for green growth would also be worthwhile. Similarly the new commitment to the ‘transfer of training entitlements during professional transitions’ should enhance mobility. To do so the EESC stresses the need to safeguard decent existence during training wherever the training takes place. Instruments used in some EU Member States, such as grants, loans, collective agreements on paid training leave or other provisions should also be examined with a view to making good practice in the area of minimum standards regarding entitlements to educational leave standard practice in the other Member States. The Committee welcomes the new wording in Guideline 6 on the recognition of non-formal learning and increasing the take up of flexible continuing vocational training and enhanced action for adult learners. Some work has been done on broadening the provisions of Guideline 6 on barriers to female employment to more groups and making the provisions more gender neutral. The Committee urges a certain caution in this regard in case any specific focus on gender equality might be lost. The work-life balance provisions are welcome and are to a degree already in train. In this respect the EESC reiterates its support of the Commission’s legislative proposal on work-life-balance, including paid family and care leave, as expressed in a recent opinion ( 29 ) (this is missing in the final paragraph of Guideline 6).The Committee believes the specific reference to the European Social Fund should remain in Guideline 6.
3.2.4.

As users are at the centre of design and service, the data they generate should also be considered crucial, with appropriate regulations laid down concerning ownership of the data and the right of the user him/herself and other parties to use them. The questions that should be raised are ‘who owns the data?’, ‘who has the right to use them?’, ‘under what conditions can other parties providing services use the data?’, ‘can the user freely use the data?’, etc. In this regard, an important distinction should be made between data types: raw data, on the one hand, and data generated by algorithms and artificial intelligence services, on the other. If another party generates new aggregate data using proprietary algorithms, how should ownership of the information be managed? How are business models designed to handle the presence of multiple stakeholders, each providing a fundamental part of the service? A distinction should also be made between business models based on services only (more traditional, e.g. support with activities of daily living (ADL)), and those based on patient-centred data with the possibility of developing new services in terms of tele-health (e.g. services for prevention, treatment support and adaptation).
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC as regards the equivalence of field inspections carried out in Brazil on fodder plant seed-producing crops and cereal seed-producing crops and on the equivalence of fodder plant seed and cereal seed produced in Brazil, and as regards the equivalence of field inspections carried out in Moldova on cereal seed-producing crops, vegetable seed-producing crops and oil and fibre plant seed-producing crops and on the equivalence of cereal seed, vegetable seed and oil and fibre plant seed produced in Moldova

(COM(2017) 643 final — 2017/0297 (COD))

(2018/C 367/26)

Consultation Council of the European Union, 18.6.2018 Legal basis Article 43(2) 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) 166/0/4

On 18 June 2018, the Council decided to submit for consultation to the European Economic and Social Committee the compromise text 9299/18 approved by the Permanent Representatives Committee at its meeting of 27 April 2018, following the amendment of the legal basis to refer to Article 43(2) TFEU.

Since the Committee had already set out its views on the contents of the original proposal in opinion EESC 2018/00043 (NAT/726), adopted on 14 February 2018 (*1), it decided at its 536th plenary session, held on 11 and 12 July 2018 (meeting of 11 July), by 166 votes to none with 4 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the abovementioned document.

Brussels, 11 July 2018. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Luca JAHIER

(*1) OJ C 227, 28.6.2018, p. 76.
4.2.

There are also species such as sea bass ( Dicentrarchus labrax ) and whiting ( Merlangus merlangus ) in area IXa, which are not subject to a system of TACs and quotas, thus the Committee considers that reference to them should be deleted. For other species such as cod ( Gadus morhua ), whiting ( Merlangus merlangus ) in area VII or haddock ( Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) some Member States have very little quota, and so these species can clearly be limiting for certain fleets. They are therefore considered to be choking species. The Committee also considers it necessary for them to be removed from the list.
4.1.1.

The EESC is a strong supporter of the requirement for the EU to guarantee maximum safety standards for the European food chain, by working via EFSA to provide risk managers with the best scientific advice possible, communicating clearly and transparently with the general public about risks, and cooperating with the Member States and other stakeholders to guarantee a consistent and reliable food safety system. It would be beneficial to: — review the arrangements for authorisation procedures, with a view to making them more consistent and efficient and speeding up market access; — review exemptions and simplified rules for micro-enterprises, in line with a high level of protection of human health; — reassess the impact of existing authorisations which exacerbate EFSA’s workload; — simplify processes to ensure greater transparency.
3.8.

The EESC considers that other administrative documentation or information requirements could also benefit from the right of submission in electronic form. Examples of this are for instance posting notifications and information to be provided in the context of posting of workers, or information provided to prove compliance with the provisions on driving and resting time. In the EESC’s view, the scope of the proposal could be widened by adding the words ‘and other provisions concerning’ between the words ‘conditions for’ and ‘the transport of goods’ in Article 1(2). The EESC considers that it is important to send a general signal in this sense, without prejudice to existing or future dedicated provisions.
1.7.

The EESC hopes that the social partners and civil society will be involved as a matter of course in the implementation of the digital innovation hubs. They should be given access to the digital innovation hubs. As non-governmental organisations, they can make the impact of the innovation hubs more visible and enhance their acceptance. The EESC would, right from the outset, like to avoid a possible social imbalance in the implementation of the programme. As digitalisation affects all people and all areas of life, it is of the utmost importance that everyone in the EU can benefit from it. The EESC therefore considers it important to design the programme such that the advantages and opportunities of digital Europe can be seized by all parts of European society. Digitalisation in Europe must be made inclusive. People must not be excluded from digital progress on account of factors like gender, social status, education level, skills, digital capabilities, origin, age or disability. The resultant ‘digital dividend’ must be distributed fairly, by means of appropriate policy measures. It must not only benefit a small number of stakeholders. Measures to implement the programme must take account of the principle in the EU that individuals are the owners of their data and will remain so.
4.3.

In particular, the EESC stresses that to implement the ITER project, support is needed from the JET project. The JET facility is located in the United Kingdom and is funded by Euratom. Parts of the ITER facility currently under construction are tested using the JET project, and, from a scientific point of view, ITER is the successor to the JET project. This facility is the only one of its kind worldwide and cannot be replaced. For this reason, the Committee considers it important that JET remain operational (as an EU project or as a joint EU-UK project) until the ITER project comes into operation.
4.6.3

The EESC hopes that the Member States will, without delay, incorporate penalties for these new and constantly-changing types of offence in their national criminal law systems, that they will take coordinated and targeted judicial measures against them, and that they will disrupt and where possible shut down the flows of profits obtained by force. The broader socio-economic context in which these offences are committed needs to be examined, areas of poverty, discrimination and vulnerability need to be identified and the social policy tools (strategic, legislative, financial, educational, research-related and other) with which to remedy them need to be deployed in a coherent way.
1.3.

The EESC considers that the participation of civil society in all kind of agreements is indispensable. On the one side, that participation responds to the need for monitoring, as well as a way to convey proposals and to put forward legitimate issues that have an impact on all parts of society. On the other side, it is a key element in order to effectively achieve the strategic aspirations that are currently part of agreements, aspirations that cannot be developed only through relations between institutions and governments. The EESC considers that participation in all kind of agreements has to be done through a single civil society participation body that has to be a joint one, comprising both sides in the agreement. In the EESC’s view, DAGs should be advisory, consultative, institutionalised, competent to cover all provisions in the agreement, made up of a balance membership of all three sectors, representative, responsible and independent role in monitoring and evaluating EU agreements. All these criteria are essential to the empowerment civil society, its visibility and its capacity to draft structured proposals that can effectively influence the decision-making.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 as regards certain rules on direct payments and support for rural development in respect of the years 2019 and 2020’

(COM(2018) 817 final — 2018/0414(COD))

(2019/C 159/12)

Referral European Parliament, 13.12.2018 Council of the European Union, 14.12.2018 Legal basis Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment Adopted at plenary session 23.1.2019 Plenary session No 540 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 175/1/5

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 540th plenary session of 23 and 24 January 2019 (meeting of 23 January), by 175 votes to 1 with 5 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
3.2.

The modifications in Article 11(2) and Article 3(d) of the proposal on the change of company are welcome since they now introduce the liability of the former owner, which was much needed for cases where a change of company has taken place within a reporting period. The definitions of ‘company’ and ‘reporting period’ and also the attribution of monitoring and reporting obligations in case of ‘changes of company’ are now more aligned with the UN IMO DCS parallel provisions. Nonetheless, the newly introduced description seems not to be precise enough to regulate the relation between an ‘old’ and ‘new’ company. In order to have maximum legal clarity, the new owner could be legally liable from the day when the completion of the change takes effect. The proposed Article 11(2) (new) could be amended as follows: ‘2. Where there is a change of company, the previous company shall submit to the Commission and to the authorities of the flag state concerned, as close as practical to the day of the completion of the change and no later than three months thereafter, a report covering the same elements as the emissions report but limited to the period corresponding to the activities carried out under its responsibility. The new company shall ensure that each ship complies with the requirements of this Regulation from the day of the completion of the change. ’
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 as regards certain rules relating to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund by reason of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union’

(COM(2019) 48 final — 2019/0009 (COD))

(2019/C 190/10)

Referral European Parliament, 30.1.2019 Council of the European Union, 6.2.2019 Legal basis Articles 43(2) 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 session 20.2.2019 Plenary session No 541 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 159/0/2

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 541st plenary session of 20 and 21 February 2019 (meeting of 20 February), by 159 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.