ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 228/148

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports

COM(2009) 121 final — 2009/0042 (COD)

2009/C 228/27

On 19 March 2009 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 156 and 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports’

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 452nd plenary session of 24 and 25 March 2009 (meeting of 24 March 2009), by 140 votes to 8 with 14 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/132

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Amended proposal for a Council Directive on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species’

COM(2009) 235 final — 2006/0250 (CNS)

(2009/C 317/25)

On 26 June 2009 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 37 and 94 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Amended proposal for a Council Directive on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (Codified Version)

COM(2009) 235 final — 2006/0250 (CNS).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion, adopted on 15 February 2007 (1), it decided, at its 455th plenary session, held on 15-16 July 2009 (meeting of 15 July 2009), by 185 votes in favour, one vote against and four abstentions to issue an opinion endorsing the proposal and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 15 July 2009. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (codified version) - OJ C 97 on 28.4.2007, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/147

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network’

(Recast)

COM(2009) 391 final — 2009/0110 (COD)

(2010/C 128/28)

On 11 September 2009, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 156 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (Recast)

COM(2009) 391 final – 2009/0110 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 457th plenary session of 4 and 5 November 2009 (meeting of 4 November) to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 18/114

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning European Union financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007-2010)’

COM(2010) 12 — 2010/0004 (COD)

2011/C 18/21

Rapporteur-general: Mr SMYTH

On 19 February 2010 the Council of the European Union and on 18 February 2010, 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 (TFEU), on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning European Union financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007-2010)

COM(2010) 12 — 2010/0004 (COD).

On 16 February 2010 the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion to prepare the Committee’s work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Smyth as rapporteur-general at its 462nd plenary session, held on 28 and 29 April 2010 (meeting of 29 April 2010), and adopted the following opinion by 103 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions.

1. Conclusions

1.1 The EESC notes that the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation governing the European Union’s contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (period 2007 to 2010) has been now based on Articles 175 and 352(1) of the TFEU, thus complying with the decision of the European Court of Justice of 3 September 2009 in case C-166/07.

1.2 The EESC approves the aforementioned proposal.

2. Reasons and recommendations

2.1 The International Fund for Ireland (hereafter IFI) was set up in 1986 by the UK and Irish Governments with a view to ‘promote social and economic advance and to encourage reconciliation between nationalists and unionists on the island of Ireland’. The European Union has been one of the main donors, alongside the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, of the EUR 849 million that has supported over 5 700 projects in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland for over 20 years.

2.2 The EESC has, in its own-initiative opinion The role of the EU in the Northern Ireland peace process (1), underlined the importance of the IFI and supports rapidly rectifying the legal basis upon which the EU’s financial contributions to the IFI are governed for the period 2007-2010 in the light of ECJ court case C-166/07.

Brussels, 29 April 2010. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) OJ C 100 of the 30.4.2009, p. 100, point 6.4.8.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/71

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement Area’

COM(2009) 477 final — 2009/0129 (CNS) (1)

2010/C 354/16

The Council and the European Parliament decided on 19 January 2010 and 5 March 2010, respectively, to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), on the

‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement Area’

COM(2009) 477 final — 2009/0129 (CNS) (1).

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 461st plenary session, held on 17 and 18 March 2010 (meeting of 17 March 2010), unanimously to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 17 March 2010. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) The acronym should read COD.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/142

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services’

(Codification)

COM(2010) 179 final — 2010/0095 (COD)

2011/C 44/23

On 20 May 2010, the Council and, on 6 May 2010, the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services

COM(2010) 179 final — 2010/0095 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 464th plenary session of 14 and 15 July 2010 (meeting of 14 July), by 149 votes to two with three abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/77

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States’

COM(2011) 6 final — 2011/0007 (CNS)

2011/C 107/20

On 26 January 2011 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 148 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States

COM(2011) 6 final — 2011/0007 (CNS).

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion CESE 763/2010, adopted on 27 May 2010 (1), it decided, at its 469th plenary session of 16 and 17 February 2011 (meeting of 16 February), by 119 votes to none with three abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 16 February 2011. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Staffan NILSSON

(1) EESC opinion on Employment policy guidelines, OJ C 21, p. 66 of 21.1.2011.
4.9

This is also relevant to the scope of application of the proposal. The Seveso II Directive applies to around 10 000 named establishments across the EU. Of these, around half are also covered by the newly adopted Industrial Emissions Directive, replacing IPPC, which will cover more than 50 000 sites in all. The so-called ‘Seveso establishments’ include chemicals manufacturing, petroleum refining, consumer products and other downstream manufacturing, and some waste processing sites. There seems to be agreement by the competent authorities in the Member States that the existing definitions capture reasonably well the sites at which a major-accident is at all possible. Certainly all major sites are listed. Any increases in the level of the product classifications to meet the requirements of the GHS without any changes to the actual underlying hazards will merely add smaller sites, with ever decreasing actual risks, or increase, with little justification, the number of sites classified as being of higher risk. There are specific concerns in the case of detergent raw materials where, due to changes in definition, a significant number of Lower Tier sites could be added. Given that, according to Commission statistics, as above, the 5 500 Lower Tier establishments account for no more than five to ten reported accidents per year, this does not seem to be a priority area for further regulatory attention. Indeed, for any one Lower Tier Seveso establishment, a reportable accident every 500-1 000 years (or even for a Higher Tier Seveso establishment, one accident every 100-200 years) suggests that greater personal hazards exist at home or are encountered on the way to work – although these of course rarely have a major consequential impact on others or are treated as being as serious by regulators or the public at large. Ensuring that the SMEs responsible know and comply with the law and that the sites are regularly inspected by the competent authorities brings rapidly diminishing returns. In times of reduced budgets and manpower restrictions, this could increase the likelihood of serious accidents occurring elsewhere.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 229/144

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for an amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling’

COM(2012) 162 final — 2011/0229 (COD)

2012/C 229/29

On 10 May 2012 the European Parliament and on 26 April the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for an amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling

COM(2012) 162 final — 2011/0229 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal, it decided, at its 481st plenary session of 23 and 24 May 2012 (meeting of 23 May 2012), by 154 votes to 1 with 7 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/90

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing’

COM(2012) 332 final — 2012/162 (COD)

2012/C 351/21

On 2 and 10 July 2012 respectively, the European Parliament and the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

COM(2012) 332 final — 2012/162 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal, it decided, at its 483rd plenary session of 18 and 19 September 2012 (meeting of 18 September), by 141 votes in favour, nem. con. and 7 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/86

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 concerning the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms’

COM(2012) 432 final — 2012/0208 (COD)

2013/C 11/21

On 11 September 2012 the European Parliament and on 17 September 2012 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 concerning the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms

COM(2012) 432 final — 2012/0208 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal, it decided, at its 484th plenary session of 14 and 15 November 2012 (meeting of 14 November 2012), by 143 votes to 3 with 7 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
4.2.2

As already mentioned, it is, however, absolutely necessary to foster a culture of entrepreneurship in young people at a very early age. There is a cause-effect relationship within target groups that fosters entrepreneurship and innovation. Young people are motivated to respond well to encouragement from the promotion of a culture and environment that enables them to take responsibility for ‘creating something’ themselves and are enthusiastic about achievements that are truly their own. The earlier young people get involved in projects in which they can learn to be entrepreneurs in a practical way and act as good examples of the culture of entrepreneurship and of cooperation between individuals who share common goals and values, the better future results will be. This is why teachers play a key role in behaviour change and why the EESC supports initiatives that help them to promote the concept. F1 in Schools (3) is a good example of a programme that encourages entrepreneurship and involves teachers. The EESC also recalls the conclusions of the report on Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe, which gives an overview of the different strategies used in Europe to promote entrepreneurship education (4).
4.7

The Commission's provisions also fall short in respect of the recommendations of the FSB and the ESRB. Both these boards, with a view to prudential safeguards within the system, have suggested that the Commission adopt a mechanism for evaluating the funds based on variable net asset value, so that the fund's value adapts to price fluctuations. The regulation, however, has maintained the initially planned mechanism of constant net asset value, merely adding a liquidity buffer to deal with any negative variations in value. The EESC considers that the recommendations of the two market regulators adhere more closely to the principle of safeguarding the stability of the financial system, as illustrated by the table below. Money market funds (MMFs) with Constant Net Asset Value (CNAV) (Article 25) Commission proposal (4 September 2013) Recommendations of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) Recommendations of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) Article 30: Each CNAV MMF shall establish and maintain a NAV buffer amounting at all times to at least 3% of the total value of the CNAV MMF’s assets Requires MMFs to have a fluctuating NAV, General use of fair valuation (recommendation A, point 2, page 3) MMFs that offer stable or constant NAV should be converted into floating NAV where workable (recommendation point 2.2, page 3) Article 31: The NAV buffer shall only be used in case of subscriptions and redemptions to equalise the difference between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share The use of amortised cost accounting is strongly restricted to a limited number of predefined circumstances (recommendation A, point 2, page 3) Table comparing recommendations (7) With regard to the products on offer, the EESC would draw attention to the fact that products already in circulation in the traditional banking system, and thus regulated, have shifted to the parallel banking system in order to avoid the stricter controls which come with bank oversight.
5.1

The proposal provides definitions of some but not all of the key terms used — but does not explain how they should apply to this unusually structured, fast growing, part legal, part criminal, part transparent, part regulated market for products manufactured largely outside the EU. An ‘economic operator’ is not defined — and could presumably be licit (a seller of NPS directly, or via a ‘head’ shop or the internet) or illicit (a dealer in proscribed drugs). What does ‘placing on the market’ mean in the context of globally sourced internet sales? Why should a ‘mixture’ be limited to two or more NPS — rather than for instance one NPS plus varying quantities of tobacco, caffeine, herbs and fillers? Would it be better to focus on ‘users’ as ‘anyone consuming NPS other than under medical supervision’ rather than on the wider group of ‘consumers’ (‘persons acting for purposes outside their trade, business or profession’) who are largely unaffected by this activity? If the proposal is intended to be pro-active rather than reactive, should it not focus also on NPS ‘that might be reasonably expected to emerge, based on scientific assessment and judgement’? Critically, why has the burden of proof shifted from suppliers, who should be required to demonstrate that their products are of ‘low risk’, to the EMCDDA and Commission — who could then be seen as granting approval?
4.12

The EESC welcomes the importance that the Communication rightly attaches to the coordination of the Corridor activities with the Rail Freight Corridors (Regulation (EU) No 913/2010), the NAIADES II programme for inland waterways (COM/2013/0623 final), the ports initiative to improve the efficiency of ports (COM/2013/0295 final) and sustainability development projects, in order to avoid duplication of work and to create synergies. The EESC also regrets that there is no system for this coordination and no legal provision, with the exception of the obligation laid down in the Guidelines for cooperation between the Core Network Corridor and Rail Freight Corridors, where there is also a provision to the effect that relevant rail corridors should be represented in the Corridor Forum. The EESC wonders whether it might not be useful at least to ensure representation in the Corridor Forum of other projects or programmes with projects that are relevant for each Corridor. One example of such a project is ‘Swiftly Green’, which is a Green Corridor type of cross-border project with a geographical configuration that makes it relevant for the Nordic–Mediterranean Core Network Corridor. Given the importance that the Communication attaches to the Motorways of the Sea, this could also be the case with ongoing Motorways of the Sea projects on a given Corridor. In any case, the EESC maintains that work that is already carried out must be considered and existing infrastructures used as far as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 230/117

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the import into the Union of agricultural products originating in Turkey (codification)’

(COM(2014) 586 final — 2014/0272 (COD))

(2015/C 230/18)

On 20 October 2014 the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 207(2) of the TFEU, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the import into the Union of agricultural products originating in Turkey (codification)

COM(2014) 586 final — 2014/0272 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of 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 144 votes to 3 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.