ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 181/199

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards information to the general public on medicinal products subject to medical prescription’

COM(2012) 48 final — 2008/0256 (COD)

2012/C 181/35

On 27 February and 13 March 2012 respectively, the Council and the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 114 and 168 (4)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards information to the general public on medicinal products subject to medical prescription

COM(2012) 48 final — 2008/0256 (COD).

Since the Committee had already set out its views on the contents of the proposal in question in opinion CESE 1022/2009, adopted on 10 June 2009 (1), it decided at its 479th plenary session, held on 28 and 29 March 2012 (meeting of 28 March), by 161 votes to 1 with 9 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 28 March 2012. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Staffan NILSSON

(1) OJ C 306, 16.12.2009, p. 18.
3.4

What has not been addressed is the third reason for the modest use of the EGF, the fact that the Fund does not have a budget of its own. The budgetary authority, in this case the European Parliament and the Council, therefore has to decide separately for each and every application whether it deserves support. Despite the fact that the model, an instrument outside the existing EU structures, made a quick and flexible response possible, the administrative procedure that had to be followed for reasons of accuracy is a very long and bureaucratic one. One must bear in mind the high costs of the approval process, such as translation into 22 languages, meeting rooms, meeting documents, participants' time and interpretation, at the various different stages of the approval process. Every application has been approved and the question arises whether the money spent on the approval process should not be redirected for the benefit of the affected workers. The advantage of the current procedure for the EGF is that the procedure is very transparent and that it makes the EU’s commitment to fighting social exclusion visible. Though transparency and visibility are of utmost importance something has to be done to speed up the procedure and reduce costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/88

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Amendment to the Commission proposal COM(2011) 628 final/2 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy’

COM(2012) 551 final — 2012/0260 (COD)

2013/C 11/26

On 5 October 2012, the European Parliament and on 10 October 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

Amendment to the Commission proposal COM(2011) 628 final/2 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy

COM(2012) 551 final — 2012/0260 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal, it decided at its 484th plenary session of 14 and 15 November 2012 (meeting of 14 November), by 149 votes to 3 with 9 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/77

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 92/58/EEC, 92/85/EEC, 94/33/EC, 98/24/EC and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in order to align them to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures’

COM(2013) 102 final — 2013/0062 COD

2013/C 198/13

On 12 March and 15 March 2013, the European Parliament and the Council respectively decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 92/58/EEC, 92/85/EEC, 94/33/EC, 98/24/EC and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in order to align them to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures

COM(2013) 102 final – 2013/0062 COD).

Since the Committee has already set out its views on the content of the proposal in question in its opinion CESE 493/2008, adopted on 12 March 2008 (1), it decided, at its 489th plenary session of 17 and 18 April 2013 (meeting of 17 April 2013), by 178 votes to 3 with 10 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 17 April 2013. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Henri MALOSSE

(1) EESC opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, and amending Directive 67/548/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 COM(2007) 355 final — 2007/0121 COD (OJ C 204 of 9.8.2008, p. 47–56).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/69

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 89/608/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC as regards references to zootechnical legislation

COM(2014) 4 final — 2014/0033 COD

2014/C 226/14

On 25 February 2014 the European Parliament and on 19 March 2014 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 42 and 43(2) of the TFEU, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 89/608/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC as regards references to zootechnical legislation

COM(2014) 4 final — 2014/0033 COD.

Since the Committee has already set out its views on the content of the proposal in question in its opinions CES4014-2013_00_00_TRA_AC, adopted on 16 October 2013* (1) and CES 1331/88, adopted on 14 December 1988* (2), it decided, at its 497th plenary session of 25 and 26 March 2014 (meeting of 25 March), by 139 votes to 3 with 17 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 25 March 2014 The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Henri MALOSSE

(1) * EESC opinion NAT/611 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material, plant protection products and amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, 1829/2003, 1831/2003, 1/2005, 396/2005, 834/2007, 1099/2009, 1069/2009, 1107/2009, Regulations (EU) No 1151/2012, [….]/2013, and Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC, 2008/120/EC and 2009/128/EC (Official controls Regulation) and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to plant health and plant reproductive material, amending Council Directives 98/56/EC, 2000/29/EC and 2008/90/EC, Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, (EC) No 882/2004 and (EC) No 396/2005, Directive 2009/128/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Council Decisions 66/399/EEC, 76/894/EEC and 2009/470/EC, OJ 2014/C 67/34, page 166 of 6 March 2014.

(2) * ESC opinion AGR/326 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market, on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on intensifying controls on the application of the veterinary rules, and on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1468/81 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs or agricultural matters, OJ 1989/C 56, page 20 of 6 March 1989.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 230/127

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the measures that the Union may take following a report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters (codification)’

COM(2014) 317 final — 2014/0163 (COD)

(2015/C 230/28)

On 20 October 2014, 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, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the measures that the Union may take following a report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters (codification)

COM(2014) 317 final — 2014/0163 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses 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), by 148 votes to 3 with 6 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 332/81

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries

(COM(2015) 121 final — 2015/0063 COD)

(2015/C 332/10)

On 25 March 2015 the European Parliament and on 23 March 2015 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43(2) of the TFEU, on the:

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries’

(COM(2015) 121 final — 2015/0063 COD).

Since the Committee has already set out its views on the content of the proposal in question in its opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing specific conditions to fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the North-East Atlantic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002’, adopted on 13 February 2013 (1), and in its opinion on the ‘Action Plan for a Maritime Strategy in the Atlantic area — Delivering smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, adopted on 18 September 2013 (2), it decided, at its 508th plenary session of 27 and 28 May 2015 (meeting of 27 May 2015), by 173 votes with 10 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the abovementioned documents.

Brussels, 27 May 2015 The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Henri MALOSSE

(1) OJ C 133, 9.5.2013, p. 41.

(2) OJ C 341, 21.11.2013, p. 77.
2.3.

Codification is necessary in order to make EU law simpler, clearer and more transparent, and in doing so render it more accessible and easier to understand for citizens. In this way, they will be given new opportunities and the chance to make use of the specific rights afforded to them.
3.2.

Due regard should be paid to the importance of geopolitics in this area. Indeed, we have seen how the well-intentioned plans relating to the resettlement of much smaller numbers of refugees have unravelled in the EU itself. Displaced people emerge from complex and sensitive conflicts and do not, unfortunately, cease to be subject to these conflicts after becoming displaced. Any change in policy or approach, no matter how well-intentioned or widely supported by donors, may have the potential to have unexpected outcomes or impact in some unexpected way on a conflict itself. This impact may be on surrounding states or regions or on very subtle balances of ethnicity, power or geopolitics. This may particularly be the case if a population which is even nominally ‘temporary’ comes to be seen as ‘permanent’. Already countries like Lebanon and Jordan feel these pressures. Positive examples from the communication such as access to land in Uganda may help in this regard.
1.4.

However, the EESC expresses serious reservations about the new possibility given to operators by the proposal in question to negotiate ‘innovative wholesale pricing schemes’ outside the regulated prices (caps) that would not be directly linked to the actual volumes consumed. Commercial negotiations based on flat payments, up-front commitments or capacity are likely to lead to cartels and abuses of dominant positions by large operators and by those with access to a network that has national coverage, to the detriment of small operators and virtual mobile network operators, which will serve only to bolster the existing oligopolies and bilateral roaming agreements that the Commission considers to be the source of the market’s current failures.
2.1.

The founding regulations of the three agencies — Eurofound, Cedefop and the EU-OSHA — will, through these proposed regulations, be aligned on the common approach on decentralised agencies. This approach was adopted by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission in 2012 and is to serve as the basis for a certain amount of standardisation in the consistency, efficiency, accountability and transparency of the European agencies. According to the common approach, the agencies ‘contribute to the implementation of important Union policies, thus helping all the institutions, in particular the Commission, to concentrate on core policy-making tasks. Agencies also have a role in supporting the decision-making process by pooling the technical or specialist expertise available at European and national level and thereby help enhance the cooperation between Member States and the EU in important policy areas.’ Unlike the other EU agencies, the three agencies in question here share a tradition of tripartite governance, whereby representatives of governments, workers and employers from each Member State are institutionally included in the governance of the agencies. By anchoring the work of the agencies so firmly in the realities of the Member States, the topical and political relevance of their work is ensured. The current task of aligning the founding regulations of the three agencies offers an opportunity to identify and underscore the specific tripartite governance mechanisms which have evolved over time in each agency, and to ensure the continuation of established good practice.
4.3.3

The Committee’s concern arises largely from: (1) the proposal to exclude intellectual property (IP) from the asset key. IP is an economic factor that is easy to shift for profit calculation. The EESC recognises that it is difficult to assess and thus was not part of the Commission proposal, and calls on Member States to reflect on the best way to address this important topic. This is particularly pertinent given that IP is such an important driver of economic value creation and increasingly dictates the direction in which modern economies are moving. The solution is also inconsistent with the Commission’s continued emphasis on the digital single market; (2) the proposal to include a ‘sales by destination’ key. The Committee is concerned that the operation of the proposed sales key will result in many of the smaller exporting Member States losing substantial amounts of taxable income to the larger consuming Member States. The economic and social impact is unknown and the sales key would benefit from quantifying its impact; and if necessary, it should be reconsidered; (3) The introduction of a full EU-wide system of calculation and consolidation of corporate tax would be a major change to the business environment in the EU and has the potential to boost the single market. It should therefore be carefully analysed and national impact assessments are called for. One significant existing set of rules for all major international companies are the international financial and accountancy standards. Any divergence from these in the business planning process would place additional burdens on businesses rather than allowing savings. As the CCCTB’s apportionment formula is developed by the Commission solely for this specific purpose it is prima facie at odds with some of the international accountancy standards; (4) Since clarity and consistency in the use of the terms is crucial especially in the field of taxation, the Committee recommends that all key elements and particularly definitions need to be addressed in the directive.
4.6.

Therefore, we reiterate that it is the view of the EESC that the governance process as set out in this Regulation will not be capable of delivering NDCs without the involvement and support of civil society across Europe. To win the trust and engagement of citizens such a dialogue should be independent of government and the NECP process. It should offer a focus for informing consumers, help energy suppliers to engage and build trust and provide a channel for the many concerns of different groups about energy security, affordability and sustainability. The EESC has stated its willingness to play a part in this process which it has termed the EED by arranging and participating in some aspects of organised national consultations. However, the scope of such a dialogue needs to draw on wider resources and extensive national commitment. In summary, the following steps would be necessary: — A mechanism will be put in place for establishing an independent and non-biased funding pool drawn primarily from stakeholders throughout the energy production and supply chain, supplemented by appropriate EU and MS government support. Overall the EED will be a highly cost effective way of engaging consumers of all types in energy modulation and recognising and stimulating the contribution of prosumers. — In parallel with the guidance on the structure of the national plans, the EED, in consultation with the Commission and all key stakeholders, will develop guidelines on establishing national energy dialogues. — A fully independent coordinating EED structure will be established to encourage action and implementation in each MS. This structure should contribute, inter alia, to the necessary review by the Commission of the content and ambition of national plans as well as their implementation. This will emphasise the contribution that stakeholders can make to policy formation and fulfil the requirement for effective consultation contained in the Regulation. — National plan debate and regional discussions with neighbouring national EED groups will take place. EU level discussions between all energy dialogue groups will follow. These discussions, channelled through the independent coordinating structure, should have advisory status with EU institutions and enhance the cost-effectiveness of the policies of the EU and MS.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 288/129

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Convention Area of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO)’

(COM(2017) 128 final – 2017/0056 COD)

(2017/C 288/18)

Consultation European Parliament, 03/04/2017 Council of the European Union, 10/04/2017 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 31/05/2017 Plenary session No 526 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 181/0/1

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 526th plenary session of 31 May and 1 June 2017 (meeting of 31 May 2017), by 181 votes to none with 1 abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/71

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 as regards the territorial typologies (Tercet)’

[COM(2016) 788 final — 2016/0393 (COD)]

(2017/C 209/13)

Consultation Council of the European Union, 25.1.2017 Legal basis Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion Adopted at plenary 29.3.2017 Plenary session No 524 Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) 223/1/4

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a common classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS)’ adopted on 11 July 2001 (1), it decided, at its 524th plenary session of 29 and 30 March 2017 (meeting of 29 March 2017), by 223 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 29 March 2017. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Georges DASSIS

(1) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001, p. 57.
1.2

However, the use of the reverse charge mechanism, which is a derogation from the established principles on VAT, must not be allowed to harm the internal market and it must be temporary and properly assessed by the Commission in relation to the possible negative effects on the internal market. The EESC is worried about the risk of a possible fragmentation of the VAT system deriving from the proposed measures, also considering the steps envisaged in the first stage of the Commission’s VAT Action Plan, which is currently supposed to apply only to certain supplies of goods and not to services (1).