ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.8.

The main features of the proposed Regulation stipulate that: — Providers must be authorised by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and will be recorded in a central register, while national authorities will continue to supervise providers. The EIOPA will monitor the market and national supervisory regimes with a view to achieving convergence. This will oblige national authorities to supervise providers operating under different national frameworks (i.e. compartments). However, it is unclear how this would work in practice, considering in particular that personal pension products are largely defined at national level and that specific knowledge of each national market may be required for adequate supervision. — Providers must observe transparency in costs and fees and meet other disclosure requirements in the form of a Key Information Document (before a contract is entered) and provide standardised periodic benefits statements. — PEPPs will offer up to five savings options with a default low-risk investment option with a limited guarantee ensuring recovery of the capital investment. Consumers can waive the advice requirement in relation to the latter subject to providers enquiring as to the knowledge and experience of the saver. — Individuals will have the right to switch providers domestically and cross-border every five years at a capped cost. — Providers may invest in a range of options subject to the ‘prudent person’ principle and the best long-term interest of the saver. — PEPPs will allow continued contributions where members move between Member States and allow the transfer of accumulated assets without liquidation. — A range of pay-out options will be available. PEPPs shall privilege annuities where the pay-outs to the policyholder are fixed and guaranteed. — User-friendly complaint and dispute resolution procedures must be provided.
4.3.

There is an urgent need for EU wide consultation to develop and maintain an independent baseline evaluation of Access to Justice at a Member State level. This needs to look at both levels of awareness among civil society, and what is happening in the courts and in administrative reviews. Critically, it must establish what cases are being taken, are not being taken or are hindered in being taken because of Access to Justice issues. The EESC can play a role in using its network of organised civil society to reach a wide audience and is also willing to have a follow up role in communicating the findings of such an evaluation. The evaluation itself must be independent and objective.
2.4.

In order to make progress towards achieving the targets, the Commission established four high-level groups to accelerate infrastructure development in four specific regions. 2.4.1. Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan The policy priority is synchronisation of the Baltic States’ electricity grid with the continental European network and ending the isolation of gas networks as well as dependence on one gas source in the Baltic States and Finland. The EESC fully supports a political agreement to boost the completion of the gas PCIs by 2021, both the Estonia-Finland interconnection and the Poland–Lithuania interconnection. 2.4.2. Iberian peninsula (Madrid Declaration) Regrettably, despite the approval of the Bay of Biscay line, the interconnections between the Iberian peninsula and the rest of Europe fall short of the targets in place for 2020, and far short of those set for 2030. The level of interconnection between Spain and Portugal does not solve the underlying problem of the lack of connections between the Iberian peninsula and France, as the only way to connect the peninsula to Europe and integrate it into the internal market is via France, with interconnections with this country currently around 2,8 %. This low share of interconnections contributes to making electricity prices in the Iberian peninsula among the highest in Europe and means that the cost for the system of integrating renewables is also very high, with a need for large back-up power capabilities and the implementation of procedures making it possible to manage high volatility in the energy generation mix. The recent statements by President Macron show key political support for the two interconnections across the Pyrenees that are — still — in their infancy. 2.4.3. Central South Eastern energy connectivity This region is vulnerable to supply disruptions and pays a higher gas price than the rest of the EU, despite its geographical proximity to its gas supplier. The main objectives are the launch of the Bulgaria-Serbia interconnector, the start of investment in the Krk liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal (in the first half of 2018) and the start of construction of the Romanian part of the Bulgaria-Austria corridor. 2.4.4. North Seas energy cooperation The main objective has focused on combining renewable generation and transmission, as well as on establishing a legal and regulatory framework that is conducive to such projects in an area with a wind generating potential of between 4 % and 12 % of the EU’s consumption, by 2030.
Corrigendum to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the role of Domestic Advisory Groups in monitoring the implementation of Free Trade Agreements [COM(2018) 329 final — 2018/0164 (CNS)]

( Official Journal of the European Union C 159 of 10 May 2019 )

(2019/C 190/12)

On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 38:
4.1.2.

In the absence of relevant data, self-sufficiency in the supply of raw materials is measured. Self-sufficiency in itself is not an indicator of a circular economy (see 3.4). The split between virgin raw materials and secondary or tertiary raw materials should be clarified. It would also be useful to monitor the developments in a more disaggregated way, for example by measuring the use of renewable vs. non-renewable resources, the recovery of critical resources, such as rare metals as well as the impacts of production, imports and exports (see 2.8).
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 1343/2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area

(COM(2018) 143 final — 2018/0069 COD)

(2018/C 283/13)

Referral European Parliament, 16.4.2018 Council of the European Union, 12.04.2018 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 23.5.2018 Plenary session No 535 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 187/3/10

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 535th plenary session of 23 and 24 May 2018 (meeting of 23 May), by 187 votes to 3 with 10 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

Proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax as regards the period of application of the optional reverse charge mechanism in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud and of the Quick Reaction Mechanism against VAT fraud

(COM(2018) 298 final — 2018/0150(CNS))

(2018/C 367/24)

Consultation Council of the European Union, 11.6.2018 Legal basis Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion Adopted at plenary 11.7.2018 Plenary session No 536 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 175/1/3

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion on the ‘VAT — derogation — reverse charge’ (1) adopted on 31 May 2017, it decided, at its 536th plenary session of 11 and 12 July 2018 (meeting of 11 July 2018), by 175 votes to one with three abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and 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 288, 31/08/2017, p.52
4.6.

Article 24(2) specifies that masters of Union fishing vessels under 12 metres in total length shall, at least four hours before the estimated time of arrival at the port, notify the competent authority of the Member State of a number of pieces of information. In view of the problems that this requirement may cause for the small-scale fleet at certain times, the EESC proposes adding a sentence allowing the Member State to amend the notification period of four hours in exceptional cases. For example, a wording similar to the one used in Article 31(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1627 on the bluefin tuna recovery plan could be applied: ‘Where Member States are authorised under applicable Union legislation to apply a shorter notification period than that referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the estimated quantities of bluefin tuna retained on board may be notified at the thus applicable time of notification prior to arrival. If the fishing grounds are less than four hours from the port, the estimated quantities of bluefin tuna retained on board may be modified at any time prior to arrival.’
4.11.

The European Commission will have to carry out a careful evaluation of the effects of AI on the labour market. This is a major concern for many European workers who are advanced in their careers, but still far from retirement age and who look upon the changes taking place with mistrust and fear. The examination must take into account both the possible replacement of some workers by electronic devices or robots and the fact that certain functions, while not being fully automated, will be profoundly changed by new technologies. This examination and evaluation should be focused, therefore, not only on the inevitable and expected changes to production lines, but also on rethinking organisational processes and business objectives following a proper social dialogue with workers.
4.4.

More broadly, the EESC shares the view that re-treading C3 tyres would permit savings in raw materials and energy to be made around the world. It should, however, be noted that only the three parameters currently appearing on the label can be applied to re-treaded tyres, and only on a limited basis. In the case of data on life expectancy and abrasion, the division of responsibility for quality between the manufacturer of the tyre carcass and the re-treader is even less clearly defined. Including these parameters on the label is therefore not recommended. In view of their negligible market share, it is unreasonable, from an economic and environmental point of view, to include re-treaded C1 and C2 tyres within the scope of the TLR. On the other hand, consideration should be given to voluntary labelling by manufacturers of re-treaded C1 and C2 tyres, to meet the demand for buyers wanting minimum label performance.
2.10.

In relation to this same objective, while storing a copy of the bio-page of the applicant’s travel document in the VIS is acceptable and necessary, building this new data tool to support return procedures, as stated in the proposal, is questionable. The EESC does not consider that the proposed changes would necessarily lead to the return of third-country nationals. Instead, it should be a tool which encourages the Member States to act with due regard for both the legality of stay and the interest and wellbeing of the individuals concerned. The third-country nationals should be encouraged and assisted by the authorities to regularise their stay and consider returning to their place of origin.
3.3.

The EESC sees two fundamental benefits from the introduction of Invest EU that financing from the EU budget and the use of financial instruments have not so far managed to achieve to the same extent: hitherto unlinked programmes will be merged into one, thus boosting effects of synergy between them; at the same time, there will be greater stress on the efficacy of resources invested from the EU budget thanks to the need to undergo market testing. The EESC sees the strengthening of an instrument based on guarantees in itself as a unique opportunity to secure enough sources to make investments in the public interest that could in no way have been achieved using the EU budget as at present. This principle looks very promising for the long term. The EESC sees the overall approach of InvestEU as an important expression of European added value.
4.10.

The EESC notes that according to the proposal, in the event that measures are taken, the Member State shall remain responsible for distributing the funds in question. The EESC considers that while legally sound, this would do little to prevent a Member State in practice from refusing to distribute the funds in question and apportioning blame to the Commission for political gain. As the public are unlikely to appreciate the finer workings of EU legislation, Member States would be able to make a direct link between funding cuts and a Commission decision. This would create a situation where the Commission could be deterred from taking measures against a Member State because of the potential backlash in public opinion. This is a particular risk in those Member States where the government has control or influence over public and private media, which tends to be the case in Member States that suffer from serious deficiencies as regards the rule of law.
3.5.1.

The right to set the time is a national competence. According to the new proposal for a directive, the principle of subsidiarity means that each country is free to keep summer or winter time throughout the year. The risk is that if there is not unanimous time alignment by all countries, ensuring the same level of harmonised implementation as at present, the costs arising from different times between countries would have a serious impact on the internal market (fragmentation), generating more problems than benefits. The Commission recognises this problem in its impact assessment and the Committee considers necessary to achieve a wider consensus in advance, before the official presentation of the Commission proposal.
5.4.

The responsibility for ensuring food safety standards, which in general are set by the EU with reference to the General Food Law Regulation, lies, as is appropriate, with the Member States. The proposed regulation will ensure that where water is reused for irrigation of food crops consumer safety is paramount. Agricultural imports from third countries are included in the necessity to comply with EU food safety laws though presently there are no specific requirements concerning irrigation practices in third countries. It is argued that common EU standards could serve as a model for third countries, and in particular our bilateral trade partners, though this will be subject to negotiation at international level. Already there is significant use of both untreated and treated waste water for irrigation worldwide, including many countries from which the EU imports agricultural produce.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down provisions for the continuation of ongoing learning mobility activities under the Erasmus+ programme in the context of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (‘‘United Kingdom’’) from the European Union’

(COM(2019) 65 final — 2019/0030 (COD))

(2019/C 190/09)

Referral European Parliament, 30.1.2019 Council of the European Union, 12.2.2019 Legal basis Articles 165(4), 166(4) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship Adopted at plenary 20.2.2019 Plenary session No 541 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 152/0/1

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 2019), unanimously, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
5.1.

One of the main problems concerning cohesion policy is the lack of effective communication that all too often surrounds projects funded by the same policy. Whilst acknowledging the various communication guidelines in force by the Commission it is clear that these do not go anywhere near being enough. It is often the case that there is little or no awareness that certain projects have taken place and/or that they are in fact funded by the EU. This results in no or little appreciation of cohesion policy. The EESC calls on the Commission to continue its efforts of reviewing the current publicity obligations and to upgrade them significantly taking into consideration the modern means of digital communication channels. A stronger use of best practice projects should be used as practical examples to encourage a stronger and better uptake of funds.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/501 and Regulation (EU) 2019/502 as regards their periods of application’

(COM(2019) 396 final — 2019/0179 (COD))

(2020/C 14/21)

Referral European Council, 13.9.2019 European Parliament, 16.9.2019 Legal basis Articles 91(1) and 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society Adopted at plenary 25.9.2019 Plenary session No 546 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 115/0/3

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject of both regulations in its earlier opinions TEN/689 and TEN/690, adopted on 20 February 2019 (*1), it decided, at its 546th plenary session of 25 and 26 September 2019 (meeting of 25 September 2019), by 115 votes with 3 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 25 September 2019. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Luca JAHIER

(*1) EESC Opinion on Ensuring basic air connectivity after Brexit (OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 42), and on Ensuring basic road freight connectivity after Brexit (OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 48).
4.15.

The Committee is aware that certain airlines forbid membership of a trade union that they do not approve of, and sometimes even dismiss employees on the grounds of trade union membership, so workers have to defend their rights in court. The Committee would remind the Member States concerned that the right to set up or join a trade union, to negotiate collective agreements and to go on strike, among others, are human rights guaranteed at international, European and national level, and must be complied with absolutely. The right to information and consultation should be guaranteed. To address issues related to the application of social standards at national level, a mediation body could be set up at the EU level, to help resolve disputes which are related to the application of the Regulation.
3.17.

Circular lifestyle or circular behaviour change can be a complementary indicator to measuring the systemic circular economy transition, and show the influence of the circular economy infrastructure, business and policy on the citizen level. It is important for us European citizens to be able to consider what and how we are using, repairing and disposing of today rather than what and how we used, rented, repaired and disposed of before. Tools such as ‘living labs’ should be created at city level. Living labs are real-life settings, such as households, organisations and even city quarters, in which circular solutions and interventions can be prototyped, tested in reality and inform circular economy strategies. Premature obsolescence should be tackled more decisively, as the EESC recommended in its opinion ‘Towards more sustainable consumption: industrial product lifetimes and restoring trust through consumer information’. In particular, an extension of warranty at least to five years should be considered. The Consumer Insight Action Panel, in collaboration with business, NGOs and consumer organisations, is looking into solutions and models to foster lifetime warranty models.
1.1.

The EESC is of the view that control, conservation and management measures adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) need to be transposed into EU law, the aim being to ensure that they are uniformly and effectively implemented within the EU. The transposition should adhere strictly to what has been agreed in the IATTC, without imposing any new obligations on European vessels. The Committee therefore supports the proposal for a regulation.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax as regards the identification of taxable persons in Northern Ireland’

(COM(2020) 360 final – 2020/0165 (CNS))

(2021/C 10/11)

Council referral 28.8.2020 Legal basis Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion Adopted at plenary 29.10.2020 Plenary session No 555 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 209/0/9

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the common system of value added in its earlier opinions on the VAT package I, adopted on 14 March 2018 (1) and the VAT package II, adopted on 23 May 2018 (2), it decided, at its 555th plenary session of 27, 28 and 29 October 2020 (meeting of 29 October 2020), by 209 votes with 9 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the abovementioned documents.

Brussels, 29 October 2020. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Christa SCHWENG

(1) OJ C 237, 6.7.2018, p. 40.

(2) OJ C 283, 10.8.2018, p. 35.
4.6

The EESC would like the Commission and the Member States to consider registration and validation of fish parts, even without the validation of caging, in order to maximise value and avoid waste. At present, when tuna die after arriving at the farm, they may not be sold because the caging has not yet been validated. Caging depends on an assessment made with stereoscopic cameras, which takes about two months, so these specimens must be frozen or destroyed. This goes against the Commission's initiatives on food losses and food waste.