ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 3.12.2007

SEC(2007) 1631 final

DECLARATION

Joint Tripartite Declaration Establishing a "European Maritime Day"

DECLARATION

Joint Tripartite Declaration Establishing a "European Maritime Day"

Recalling that Europe is a Maritime Continent with almost 70,000 km of coastline,

Recalling that 22 of the European Union’s 27 Member States are coastal or island States,

Recalling that the maritime regions of the European Union account for some 40% of its GDP and of its population,

Recalling that over two thirds of the Union’s boundaries are maritime and that the maritime spaces under the jurisdiction of its Member States are larger than their terrestrial territory,

Recalling the economic importance of, and synergies between sectors as diverse as shipbuilding and shipping, ports and fisheries, offshore energy, tourism, environment and maritime heritage,

Recalling that Europe must enhance its capacity to deal with the major challenges it faces such as globalisation, climate change, energy sustainability and environmental pressures on the coasts and seas,

Recalling the importance of coastal regions, islands and the outermost regions and the relevance of regional and local authorities in shaping and implementing the future European maritime policy,

Recalling the importance of a healthy marine environment both for the sustainability of economic activities on the seas and for the quality of life in coastal regions,

Mindful of the common heritage and the common responsibility of Europeans for the oceans and seas,

Recalling the vastness of the world's oceans and the role which the EU can play in preserving them as a resource for the future of mankind,

Underlining the necessity to increase awareness and visibility of the importance of the oceans, of a vibrant maritime economy and of the rich European maritime heritage the benefits of which should be celebrated each year,

The European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

Approve the establishment of a "European Maritime Day" to be celebrated May 20th each year, around which awareness raising and networking activities will be organised.
EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 26.7.2010 
SEC(2010) 816 final 
  
COMMISSION OPINION 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 
 
Communication of Mr Šef čovič 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION OPINION 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 
 
Communication of Mr Šef čovič 
According to article 302, second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functio ning of the European 
Union, the members of the Committee are appoi nted by the Council, which consults the 
Commission. On 9 June 2010, the Council reque sted the Commission’s opinion on the 
nomination of members of the EESC fr om 18 Member States (see annex). 
The Commission hereby decides to give a positive answer on the proposed appointment.
EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 30.7.2010 
SEC(2010)961 final 
  
COMMISSION OPINION 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 
 
Communication of Mr Šef čovič 
 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION OPINION 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 
 
Communication of Mr Šef čovič 
According to article 302, second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functio ning of the European 
Union, the members of the Committee are appoi nted by the Council, which consults the 
Commission. On 1st July 2010, the Council requested the Commission’s opinion on the 
nomination of members of th e EESC from Greece (see annex). 
The Commission hereby decides to give a positive answer on the proposed appointment.
EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 23.2.2011 
SEC (2011) 210 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 
   
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
  
Evaluation of EU Readmission Agreements 
 
The aggregated data for the chosen categories gathered by the Commission from the MS 
on the basis of a questionnaire  
 
{COM(2011) 76 final} 
{SEC(2011)209} {SEC(2011)211} {SEC(2011)212} 
 
EN 2   EN Country  Year Number of 
applications for 
own nationals Number of 
applications for 
third country nationals Number of 
positive replies Number of 
refusals Number of 
accelerated 
procedures Number of 
effective 
transfers Number of 
applications for 
transit 
2006 188 5 49 9 0 49 4 
2007 219 0 60 12 3 53 5 
2008 213 0 50 6 0 369 2 
2009 184 1 140 40 0 305 0 Albania 
Total 3969 6 3464 67 3 3941 11 
2008 254 0 154 21 0 216 2 
2009 225 0 131 24 0 128 4 Bosnia 
Herzegovina 
Total 507 0 313 45 0 372 6 
2008 1844 10 988 436 249 995 7 
2009 2352 10 1506 727 1 1300 11 Serbia 
Total 4201 20 2499 1163 250 2300 18 
2008 132 3 126 25 0 115 0 
2009 148 6 133 30 1 100 0  
The former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Total 341 9 320 55 1 276 0 
 
EN 3   EN 2008 267 1 106 73 88 52 0 
2009 201 15 126 67 3 71 0 Montenegro 
Total 472 15 236 140 91 127 0 
2007 357 0 116 98 0 62 0 
2008 986 0 420 451 0 388 0 
2009 1428 1 671 518 0 562 2 Russia  
Total 3165 1 1601 1067 0 1406 2 
2008 695 680 1209 40 0 1592 0 
2009 1030 495 1289 82 23 1545 0 Ukraine 
Total 1725 1175 2498 122 23 3137 0 
2008 217 0 134 28 0 456 0 
2009 225 0 111 23 3 446 0 Moldova 
Total 680 0 483 51 3 1140 0 
2005 143 10 21 2 0 16 0 
2006 142 2 18 3 0 8 0 
2007 146 0 4 3 0 4 0 Sri Lanka 
2008 82 0 0 7 0 116 0 
 
EN 4   EN Limitations: 
1. Among the contributions provided by 21 MS the data from the follo wing MS is not included in th e table: LV, S, MT, BG, NL, GR , FI, PT. 
This is due to the fact that those MS did not provide any data or did not use the EURAs at all or the data provided was not suf ficiently specific to 
be used for the analysis.  
2. The total numbers for each third country includes not only the sum of the numbers from all y ears for the specific category b ut includes also 
data from one MS which did not brake its data by the year (UK). 
3. Several MS provided data only for 2008 or 2 009 onwards (also depending on the category).  
4. Due to the fact that statistics for HK and MO normally are in corporated in the overall statistics for China they do not appe ar in the table 
separately. According to MO, no ap plication was addressed from EU . According to HK, 6 readmission applications were addressed f rom the EU. 
For those reasons the data on those two countries are su bject of the analysis in the Communication either.  2009 44 0 35 18 1 80 0 
Total 3800 12 3321 33 1 3467 0
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 19.10.2011 
SEC(2011) 1272 final 
  
COMMUNICATION TO THE COMMISSION 
Main terms of the EFSF financial assistance facility agreement with Ireland 
 
 
EN 1   EN COMMUNICATION TO THE COMMISSION 
Main terms of the EFSF financial assist ance facility agreement with Ireland 
The euro area Member States agreed in May 2010 to create a European Financial Stability 
Facility (EFSF) in order to fina ncially support euro area Member States in difficulties caused 
by exceptional circumstances beyon d their control. The EFSF was incorporated on 7 June 
2010 for the purpose of making stability support to euro area Member States. 
By a decision of the representatives of the gove rnments of the 16 euro area Member States of 
7 June 2010 the Commission was tasked with ca rrying out duties and functions, including i.a. 
providing proposals to the euro area Member States on the lo an facility agreement to be 
signed with the benefici ary Member State(s). 
The EFSF Framework Agreement was signed in June 2010. Amendments to the EFSF 
Framework Agreement were signed in Septembe r 2011 but have not yet entered into force. 
The EFSF Framework Agreement refers to certai n tasks of the Commission in line with the 
decision of the representatives of the governments of the 16 eu ro area Member States of 7 
June 2010. 
On 21 November 2010, Ireland requested financial assistance. On 28 November 2010, the Eurogroup and the EC OFIN Ministers unanimously decided to 
grant financial assistance in response to th e Irish authorities' request. A Loan Facility 
Agreement was signed with  Ireland on 22 December 2010. 
Following the Amendments to the EFSF Framew ork Agreement, a new Financial Assistance 
Facility Agreement should be proposed to Ireland. 
According to the EFSF Framework Agreement the Commission, in liaison with the ECB, 
shall make a proposal to the Eurogroup Worki ng Group of the main terms of the Financial 
Assistance Facility Agreement to be proposed  to Ireland, based on its assessment of market 
conditions. 
The main terms of the EFSF Financial Assistance Facility Agreement shall be: 1. The EFSF shall make available to Irela nd a net loan disbursement amount of 
maximum EUR 3 billion, with a maximum maturity of 15 years.  
2. The financial assistance shall be ma de available until 15 November 2011.  
3. The EFSF financial assistance shall be made available to Ireland in one instalment. 
The instalment may be disbursed in one or several tranches.  
4. Ireland shall pay the actual cost of funding of the EFSF for each tranche. 
5. Interest will be charged annually and principal will be repaid in fine  (bullet loan). 
6. An upfront service fee of 50 basis points shall be charge d to Ireland. After 7 years, 
an annual service fee of 7 basis points shall be charged to Ireland. 
 
EN 2   EN The Commission is invited in line with the tasks assigned to it by the euro area Member States 
referred to above to agree that the proposal  is submitted to the Eurogroup Working Group 
after the entry into force of  the Amendments to the EFSF Framework Agreement signed in 
September 2011.
EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 30.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1503 final 
  
COMMISSION OPINION 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 
 
Communication of Mr Šef čovič 
 
 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION OPINION 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 
 
Communication of Mr Šef čovič 
According to article 302, second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functio ning of the European 
Union, the members of the Committee are ap pointed by the Council, who consults the 
Commission. On 8 November 2011, the Council has requested th e Commission’s opinion on 
the nomination of a German member of the EESC. 
The Commission hereby decides to give a positive answer on the proposed appointment.
However, electricity and gas prices paid by industrial customers are higher than the EU average. Such prices are also higher than the OECD average.

The real unit energy costs in Ireland have remained much lower than in the EU or in the US since 2000. However, no data is available to break down this development into energy price and energy intensity factors.
The concentration of the power generation market is below EU average while the market concentration in gas is above. On the retail level market concentration is high with three main suppliers holding 56% of the market in the electricity and 72% in the gas sector. However the liquidity at the Austrian virtual gas trading point and on the wholesale gas market in general is developing well . Wholesale electricity and gas prices are slightly below while retail prices for households are slightly above EU average, mostly because of high levies and taxes. Being dependent on gas imports, it is essential for Austria to have cross-border transport capacity available to gas traders. The switching rates for electricity and gas consumers are below the EU average. New rules, introduced in 2013, have probably contributed to an increase in the number of consumers who subsequently switched gas and electricity supplier. According to a European survey consumer satisfaction in Austria is high for the electricity but only average for the gas sector. Austria has a plan to roll-out smart gas and electricity meters with all required functionalities. In order to respond to citizens’ concerns about the import of electricity from nuclear and fossil fuels based power plants from other Member States and to enhance the information available to consumers, Austria imposes an obligation of proof of origin for 100% of the energy supply. Possible impacts on cross-border electricity trade with other Member States will need to be monitored, as not all Member States have certificates of origin in place.
Source: European Commission based on ENTSO-E scenario outlook and adequacy forecast 2014 Note: Reference to 2030 target is based on October 2014 European Council conclusions stating that "the Commission will also report regularly to the European Council with the objective of arriving at a 15% target by 2030"

The interconnection capacity for electricity was 7,4% of installed capacity in 2014 for Italy. Italy still has to improve its electricity interconnection capacities with the neighbours as it relies on significant power imports with the risk of serious congestion problems. Overall, Italy has 31 Projects of Common Interest (PCIs), of which 19 are in the electricity sector, with a focus mainly on interconnectors between Italy and France, Switzerland and Austria, and the necessary internal reinforcements. Altogether such investments will ease the grid constraints and reduce differences between price zones. The implementation of these PCIs by 2020 would improve Italy’s interconnection capacities with neighbours to around 12% when completed. 15% by 2030 can be reached with the implementation of new PCIs. The new 1000 MW High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) interconnection line between Villanova (Italy) and Lastva (Montenegro) is also very important. The available interconnection capacity is not always fully exploited. In this regard further capacity on the national network should be important to overcome internal bottlenecks and to take into account the needs of security and flexibility of the system. Italy plays an important role in the creation of a Mediterranean gas hub. The strategy for the diversification of gas supply appears so far to be oriented towards the Southern Corridor. Within the Southern Gas Corridor, the construction of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP, a critical project listed in the European Energy Security Strategy (EESS)), transporting Azeri gas from the Turkish border to the South of Italy through Greece and Albania, is expected to start in 2016 despite a strong opposition from local authorities. Italy has also PCIs ensuring additional reverse flow capacity towards the north western markets by 2018.
All options are assessed in the Impact Assessment and compared against the baseline scenario (Option 0: No further action at EU level) and among each other. As a result of this analysis, option 3 features as the preferred option as it proves to be the most effective in achieving the desired objectives and, given its impacts, also the most efficient as well as consistent with other policy areas.

In order to achieve the desired objectives, up to 4 options have been assessed ranging from an enhanced implementation of the existing Regulation (non-legislative option) to a full harmonisation at EU level of a set of principles and measures to be applied by Member States, including the existing standards. Each option consists of a package of measures combining existing tools, possibly updated and improved, and new tools. In broad terms, options can be presented as follows:

The various options and ideas are based on a weighing of the options and arguments brought forward by all relevant stakeholders in the public consultation and other fora (e.g. workshops). The Impact Assessment provides concrete references, particularly in the section on the description of the options, of stakeholders' support to the different options and even to particular measures within each option. Most supported options, across the whole gas sector (including public authorities), are 2 and notably 3. Overall, the support for option 4 is limited and a majority of stakeholders, notably industry but also a number of Member States, advocate against it.
The Commission has considered non-legislative options such as to formulate 'best practices' to overcome the practical obstacles identified in an ongoing mapping exercise and recommendations to Member States (on a 'comply or explain' basis). However, such options should complement - rather than replace - legislative action. A wide range of regulatory options have been considered to address the identified problems. The preferred options in the relevant areas are selected to strike a balance between achieving the objectives and the possible adverse impacts on market participants, in particular compliance costs. This options include: (i) a prescriptive list of enhanced customer due diligence measures to be applied by obliged entities in combination with an illustrative list of countermeasures, (ii) bring virtual currency exchange platforms and custodial wallet providers under the scope of the Directive in combination with the creation of a system of voluntary self-identification of virtual currency users, (iii) suppressing the anonymity for the online use of reloadable and non-reloadable prepaid cards and a reduction of the existing threshold for anonymous prepaid cards when used face-to-face (from € 250 to € 150), (iv) a clarification of the legal obligations on FIUs as regards their access to and exchange of information held by obliged entities, (v) an automated central mechanism at national level, allowing for the identification of bank and payment accounts, and (vi) measures improving transparency and access to information on beneficial owners of corporate and legal arrangements.
The Impact Assessment shows a preference for a single legislative act on Energy Union governance that replaces the relevant parts of the energy acquis and fully replaces the MMR. A single legislative act on Energy Union governance that replaces the relevant parts of the energy acquis and the relevant parts of the MMR comes close in terms of costs and benefits. The preferred package would also consist of Member States updating Integrated National Energy and Climate Plans twice during 2021 to 2030 and reporting biennially on their implementation through comprehensive Progress Reports. The Commission would annually monitor collective progress through the State of the Energy Union. It is proposed that the Commission should furthermore issue recommendations on National Plans based on a process set in legislation, as part of its monitoring and in order to ensure delivery of the Energy Union objectives.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 1.2.2017

SWD(2017) 26 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT



Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

amending Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers and Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences

{COM(2017) 47 final}

{SWD(2017) 27 final}
establishing a multi-annual plan for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks

PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Impact assessment on a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multi-annual plan for the small pelagic stocks and their fisheries in the Adriatic Sea

A. Need for action

1. Background

There are two main problems concerning small pelagic fish (anchovy and sardine) in the Adriatic Sea:

1) they are severely overfished, due to overcapacity in the fleet, environmental factors (outside the scope of this proposal), and inadequate management measures;

2) the governance framework is ineffective due to the inadequate management measures (limiting the effort that goes into the fishery, which is not adapted to the characteristics of these fish and the fishery) and the complexity and instability of the current rules.

If nothing changes, there is a risk the stocks and the fisheries dependent on them will collapse. This will have negative impacts on predatory fish that eat anchovy and sardine, and negative socio-economic impacts for the fisheries sector and secondary sectors such as the processing industry. The most affected stakeholders are the Croatian and Italian fisheries sectors, and to a much smaller extent, those of Slovenia. The processing sector is a major secondary sector, particularly in Croatia and Italy.

2. Objectives and added value of the initiative

The objectives of this proposal are to:

achieve and maintain maximum sustainable yield for anchovy and sardine by 2020 at the latest;

achieve a sustainable fisheries sector; to provide an effective management framework which is simpler and more stable;

provide stakeholders with greater ownership; and

facilitate the implementation of the landing obligation.

This proposal is expected to ensure recovery of anchovy and sardine stocks by 2020 and to ensure the fisheries sector is sustainable, with improved salaries for fishermen (+4 % on average), and increased profitability for the fishing sector (+8 % on average).

Since anchovy and sardine stocks and the fishing vessels concerned move freely across international boundaries, action at Member State level alone is unlikely to be effective in achieving the abovementioned objectives. For the measures to be effective, these should be taken in a coordinated manner and should apply to the whole area of stock distribution and to all fleets concerned.

B. Solutions

The policy options considered in this impact assessment included:

using non-legislative instruments (soft law);

maintaining the status quo as baseline scenario;
-Option 1: customers continue to purchase goods cross-border VAT-free but changes affect certain transactions (VAT number and simplifications granted to CTPs);

-Option 2: suppliers charge VAT in the MS where the goods arrive (except for CTPs). A One Stop shop (OSS) allows businesses to pay the VAT due in any MS in their home MS;

-Option 3: technical change equivalent to current system (discarded);

-Option 4: alignment with rules on services;

-Option 5: similar to Option 2 but taxation occurs in the MS where the customer is established.

Option 2 is the preferred one (addresses fraud + complexity) combined with Option 1 that allows a soft transition to Option 2.
VAT fraud is a constant concern at EU level with a gap estimated at EUR 160 billion of which 40 to 60 billion would be due to cross-border VAT fraud. The situation finds its roots in the endemic weaknesses of the ‘transitional arrangements’ provided for in the VAT Directive which allow goods and services to be sold VAT-free in intra-EU trade. Three main problems are addressed by the proposal:

·‘missing trader intra-community fraud’ (MTIC also known as ‘carousel fraud’) that occurs when a customer of a cross-border supply purchases goods or services VAT-free and charges VAT without remitting it to tax authorities while his customer can deduct it;

·fraud on sale of second-hand cars where only the margin is taxed instead of the whole amount of sale; and

·fraud in relation to customs procedures No 42/63 under which VAT is not due in the country of import as this is the case under normal VAT arrangements as the goods are delivered to a business in another Member States