ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

A number of policy options have been considered, both legislative and non-legislative. The following options were retained for an in-depth assessment: 1.Baseline scenario - Collaborative Option - assumes the continuation of the current approach to building cybersecurity industrial and technological capacities in the EU through supporting research and innovation and related collaboration mechanisms under Horizon Europe Programme; 2.Option 1: Cybersecurity Competence Network with a European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre entity empowered to pursue measures in support of industrial technologies as well as in the domain of research and innovation; 3.Option 2: Cybersecurity Competence Network with a European Cybersecurity Research and Competence Centre limited to research and innovation activities only; The options discarded at an early stage included 1) No action at all; 2) Network of existing competence centres only and 3) Using an existing agency (ENISA, REA, or INEA). In view of the general commitment already made by the Commission for the present initiative as well as in view of the important role to be played by Member States, the main distinction between the two policy options analysed in detail lies in their scope as reflected in their legal base: an entity only based on article 187 TFEU (Option 2) would limit the initiative to the sphere of research and innovation, and would typically presume a financial contribution from private actors. On the other hand, an entity based on a double legal base - art. 187 TFEU and art. 173 TFEU (Option 1) - would mean a broader mandate covering also, inter alia, deployment and industrial support and creating stronger synergies with cyber defence. It would also give a more prominent role to Member States – both in terms of their role in the governance as well as in their role as potential procurers of cybersecurity technology. The analysis showed that Option 1 is best suited to achieve the goals of the initiative while offering the highest economic, societal, and environmental impact and safeguarding the Union’s interests. The main arguments in favour of this Option included the flexibility to allow different cooperation models with the community and the network of competence centres to optimise the use of existing knowledge and resources; ability to structure cooperation of the public and private stakeholders coming from all relevant sectors, including defence; ability to create a real cybersecurity industrial policy by supporting activities related not only to research and development but also to market deployment. Last but not least Option 1 allows as well increasing coherence by acting as an implementation mechanism for cybersecurity-related funding from the Digital Europe Programme and Horizon Europe, and enhancing synergies between the civil and defence dimensions of cybersecurity in relation to the European Defence Fund.
Reccomendation for a Council Decision to authorise the Commission to open negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the conclusion of a Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement and protocol with the Islamic Republic of Mauritania

The Council Conclusions on the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy adopted on 19 March 2012, calls for an ex-post and ex-ante evaluation to be carried out by the Commission before negotiating a new protocol to the SFPA This stems from Article 31(10) of the Basic CFP Regulation. Ex-ante and ex-post valuation studies aim to inform decision makers, before the negotiation directives by the Council are adopted. The fishing opportunities negotiated under the SFPAs are in line with the best available scientific advice, and there is no negative impact on fish stocks, neither competition with the local artisanal fishermen.

Under the existing Protocol between EU and Mauritania, that expires on 15 November 2019 and thus has to be renegotiated, the EU fleet is allowed to fish in Mauritanian waters for shrimp, demersal fish, tuna and some pelagic fish, up to a total of 287 050 tonnes a year. In addition to the fees paid by the European fleet (tonnage fees and para-fiscal taxes), the EU pays a financial contribution of (EUR) 61,625 million per year for this partnership, comprising (EUR) 59,125 million for access to waters and (EUR) 4,125 million for supporting local fishing in Mauritania and improving fisheries governance.

In accordance with the Better Regulation guidelines, the Staff Working Document (SWD) and its executive summary present the results of a retrospective (ex-post- evaluation carried out by an independent contractor and a forward-looking (ex-ante) evaluation in view of a possible renewal of the Protocol.

The contractor has fully addressed the evaluation questions and provided the Commission with concrete, reliable and credible results. Based on these observations, the contractor has drawn conclusions based on objective analysis and made specific and relevant recommendations for future negotiations on the new protocol between the EU and Mauritania.

Therefore, from all options considered the renewal of the Protocol at the end of its implementation period (15 November 2019) clearly appears as the preferred option. Any other option would not bring the same benefits, including the option of not renewing the Protocol. A future Protocol should retain a similar technical and financial approach with some technical adaptations aimed at improving the implementing conditions of its access and sectoral support components. The Protocol can be broadly described as a positive agreement addressing the identified needs of the different stakeholders.

To sum up, the Commission generally supports the conclusions of the assessment made by the contractor.
The purpose of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) is to address major societal challenges by improving the innovation performance of the EU through the integration of the knowledge triangle of research, education and innovation. The EIT was established in 2008 by Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 (the “EIT Regulation”) . The EIT Regulation establishes the mission, objectives and budget allocated to the EIT, and therefore it needs to be in line with the applicable Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. The Commission proposal establishing Horizon Europe, the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation for the period 2021-2027, sets out the proposed budget for the EIT for the next period as well as its rationale, added value, areas of intervention, broad lines of activity and performance indicators. In the proposal, the EIT is one of the main components of the "Innovative Europe" pillar. The Horizon Europe proposal itself does not provide the legal basis for continuing the EIT operations beyond 2020. Therefore, the EIT Regulation needs to be amended. Furthermore, Article 17 of the EIT Regulation requires that every seven years the Commission submits to the European Parliament and the Council a proposal for a Strategic Innovation Agenda that lays down the strategic, long-term priorities and financial needs for the EIT which needs to be in line with the applicable Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. The current Strategic Innovation covers the period 2014-2020 . A proposal for a new Strategic Innovation Agenda of the EIT for 2021-2027 therefore needs to be submitted alongside the proposal to revise the EIT Regulation. The present initiative aims to amend through a recast the EIT Regulation and align the SIA with Horizon Europe. It covers the new priority fields of the EIT as well as its financial needs. It also aims to improve the functioning of the EIT taking into account the lessons learnt from the past years. In particular, the initiative focuses on tackling issues in three main areas. Firstly, it will address challenges related to the EIT funding model, Secondly, it will propose solutions to increase the impact of the education activities of the EIT, i.e. enhance the awareness of the EIT educational brand and support entrepreneurial and innovation capabilities and skills in higher education institutions. Finally, the initiative will help increase the EIT’s regional outreach through better integration of KICs into local innovation ecosystems. The initiative will also outline the future priority fields for KICs. Furthermore, the initiative will address a number of technical issues in order to increase the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the EIT operations. This includes the KICs openness and transparency, the EIT governance and the contractual provisions of the EIT staff. The issues identified will be addressed through an amendment to the EIT Regulation and the adoption of the Strategic Innovation Agenda of the EIT for 2021 – 2027. The present Impact Assessment builds on the Impact Assessment that was carried out for Horizon Europe.
The problems are a) limited reporting of money earned via digital platforms; b) inefficiencies in cooperation between tax administrations. As the digital economy expands and is expected to grow in the coming years,the problems are expected to grow worse in the absence of EU intervention. The evaluation of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation pointed out that, while the framework is robust overall, not all Member States are exploiting the tools in the same way. Providing clarifications for targeted features of administrative cooperation (foreseeable relevance definition, joint audits, group requests) is expected to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative cooperation. The digital and global nature of the digital platform economy, linked with a fragmentation of income gained through various platforms and differences in reporting requirements across countries, pose a challenge in terms of the proper reporting of money earned through digital platforms. Member States consider that limited reporting is rather frequent. Different implementation and use of information make cooperation inefficient. Digital platforms and tax administrations are the most affected stakeholders.
The EU has committed itself to being one of the most open economies in the world in terms of trade policy. At the same time, some of its trading partners’ industrial policies involve granting subsidies that give beneficiaries a competitive advantage in accessing or strengthening their presence in the EU economy. Such subsidies can distort the internal market and undermine the level playing field in three areas: (i) the acquisition of companies; (ii) public procurement procedures; and (iii) other market situations. While it is already possible to observe such distortions, the impact of foreign subsidies on the internal market is likely to grow. In addition, the current economic crisis is likely to lead to a higher number of subsidised investments in the EU. The main cause of the problem is the existence of distortive foreign subsidies based on the industrial strategies of certain non‑EU countries and the absence of any regulatory mechanism to prevent or remedy their distortive effects. While the granting of support by Member State authorities is subject to EU State aid control, there is no control of the impact of foreign subsidies on the internal market, thereby putting the EU industry at a disadvantage when competing with undertakings that receive foreign subsidies.
Article 194(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which provides the legal basis for proposing measures on energy and in particular to promote energy efficiency and energy saving, one of the goals of the Union’s energy policy, set out in Article 194(1)(c) TFEU. Directive 2012/27/EU (EED), now subject to recast, was also adopted under Article 194(2) TFEU in 2012.

Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive competence as defined in Article 3 TFEU. It is the specific legal basis which determines whether the proposal falls under the subsidiarity control mechanism. Article 4 TFEU sets out the areas where competence is shared between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU sets out the areas for which the Unions has competence only to support the actions of the Member States.

-Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level?

The explanatory memorandum and the impact assessment both contain a section on the principle of subsidiarity and address this issue in the context of the policy analysed, where appropriate.

In addition, nine dedicated stakeholder meetings were organised in the period from September to October 2020 with targeted stakeholder groups on specific topics, and a dedicated Energy Efficiency Directive expert group meeting was held on 10 November 2020. The Commission also launched the internet based public consultation from 17 November 2020 until 9 February 2021, in line with the Commission Better Regulation rules. The survey contained multiple choice and open questions covering a wide range of aspects concerning the ex-post evaluation and options for the revision of the Energy Efficiency Directive. In total 344 replies were received from wide range of stakeholder groups. The largest group of respondents covered was business associations (132 replies), individual businesses and companies (92 replies), followed by NGOs (34 submissions).

The Commission received 189 replies, and 99 stakeholders submitted supplementary statements and information to their replies. The largest number of replies were received from business associations, followed by companies and NGOs.

2.2Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the principle of subsidiarity?
authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the conclusion of an Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius

The 19 March 2012 Council conclusions on the external dimension of the CFP call on the Commission to carry out ex post and ex ante evaluations before negotiating a new protocol to an SFPA. This requirement is based on Article 31(10) of the CFP Regulation. The aim of such evaluations is to inform decision-makers in advance of the Council’s adoption of negotiation directives. The fishing opportunities negotiated under SFPAs are in line with the best available scientific advice and the EU fleet is not in competition with local artisanal fishers.

The first fisheries agreement between the EU and Mauritius dates back to 1989. The current Agreement, valid for 6 years and renewable for additional periods of 3 years, entered into force on 28 January 2014. Under the current 4‑year Protocol (8 December 2017 to 7 December 2021), EU vessels are allowed to fish tuna in Mauritian waters, with an annual reference tonnage of 4 000 tonnes. Access is given to 40 purse seiners and 45 surface longliners. In addition to the fees paid by the EU fleet, the EU pays a financial contribution of EUR 220 000 per year for access, plus specific annual amounts of EUR 220 000 for the support and implementation of Mauritius’ sectoral fisheries policy and EUR 135 000 to support the deployment of maritime policy and ocean economy.

In accordance with the ‘better regulation’ guidelines, the staff working document and its executive summary present the results of a retrospective (ex post) evaluation carried out by an independent contractor and a forward-looking (ex ante) evaluation in view of the possible renewal of the Implementing Protocol to the FPA with Mauritius.

The contractor has fully addressed the evaluation questions and provided the Commission with concrete, reliable and credible results. It has drawn conclusions based on objective analysis and made specific and relevant recommendations for future negotiations.

Of all the options considered, the renewal of the Protocol at the end of its implementation period (7 December 2021) emerges clearly as the preferred option. The current Protocol addresses effectively the identified needs of the various stakeholders. Therefore, the evaluation recommends retaining a similar technical and financial approach in a future protocol, with some adaptations aimed in particular at improving the technical implementing conditions of its access component and the management of sectoral support. It recommends reviewing the EU’s financial contribution for sectoral support, in line with the absorption and execution capacity of the Mauritian ministry in question.

In summary, the Commission generally supports the conclusions of the contractor’s assessment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Staff Working Document presents the evaluation of the Victims’ Rights Directive. The Directive provides victims with a right to information, a right to understand and be understood, a right to access support and protection in accordance with their individual needs, as well as with a set of procedural rights.

The evaluation considers the Directive in light of five evaluation criteria: effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, coherence and EU added value.

This Staff Working Document aims to provide the Commission with a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the Directive’s impact as well as with lessons learned. Based on the evaluation, the Commission will, if necessary, decide on appropriate follow-up actions. This evaluation will form the basis for an Impact Assessment for any future action by the Commission.

Key conclusions and lessons learned:

With regard to effectiveness, the evaluation shows that the Directive has had a generally positive impact. Nonetheless, several challenges have been identified. Some of them are related to: the content and the provision of information to victims of crime; the lack of certain types of specialised support services; the lack of measures for victims’ physical protection.

With regard to relevance, the evaluation study shows that the Directive in general remains relevant and adequate. Nonetheless, several limitations have been identified. For instance, the evaluation found that there is room for improvement of the Directive with regard to the role of the digital space and use of common technologies.

When it comes to efficiency, evidence shows that the aspects which are the most expensive to implement have differed greatly between individual Member States. According to the evaluation, the Directive is internally and externally coherent to a satisfactory level.

Evidence found that the Directive has generated added value. Nonetheless, in certain cases, the added value of the Directive was limited by the lack of specificity of some provisions.

The evaluation presented possible follow-up measures that should not prejudge any decision to review the Directive. For instance, such measures could include: introduction of a requirement in the Directive that victims receive information in multiple formats; extension of free psychological support and medical treatment for as long as needed, at least for vulnerable victims; introduction of measures for victims’ physical protection.
1. Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action?

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative?

Article 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is the legal base for legislative initiatives in the field of direct taxation. Furthermore, given that the information exchanged under the Directive 2011/16/EU (hereinafter DAC) can be also used in the field of VAT and other indirect taxes, Article 113 of the TFEU is also included as a legal base.

In the case of direct taxation as far as the proposal relates to the establishment or functioning of the internal market, the Union’s competence is shared.

-Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level?
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit to it their observations on the proposed operation.

Observations must reach the Commission no later than 10 days following the date of publication of this notification. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8534 — Bouygues Immobilier/Accor/Nextdoor, to the following address:
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for LVMH: production and sale of luxury goods through a portfolio of over 60 luxury brands and over thousands points of sale worldwide,

— for Marcolin: manufacturing and wholesale distribution of eyewear, notably eyeglass frames and sunglasses,

— for NewCo: design, development, and manufacturing of eyewear products worldwide.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 218/16

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8429 — BNP Paribas/Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations/Société Générale/Euronext/Euroclear/S2IEM/CACEIS/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 218/05)

On 30 June 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

— in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8429. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for KKR: global investment firm offering a range of alternative asset management services to public and private market investors and capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and other clients,

— for Selecta: provision of vending services in Europe in both public and private settings, such as the sale or lease of vending machines, the sale of consumables used to stock vending machines and other related supplies, as well as stocking and maintenance of vending machines, for both food and beverage vending,

— for Pelican Rouge: supply, installation and operation of vending equipment and beverage systems and provision of vending ingredients in Europe.
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8582 — Letterone/Holland & Barrett, to the following address:
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for OTPP: administration of pension benefits and the investment of pension plan assets on behalf of approximately 318 000 active and retired teachers in the Canadian province of Ontario,

— for AIMCo: institutional investment manager,

— for Borealis: exclusive infrastructure manager for the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Administration Corporation (OMERS) and owned by OMERS which manages a diversified global portfolio of stocks and bonds as well as real estate, infrastructure and private equity investments for over 470 000 members and retirees on behalf of approximately 1 000 employers across Ontario, Canada,

— for KIA: global investor, with investments in all main geographical areas and asset classes, covering equities, fixed income, treasury, private equity and property,

— for LCY: commercial airport in the City of London.