ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Why is there a need for action? What is the problem?

Public sector bodies hold vast amounts of data known as public sector information (PSI), e.g. legal data, traffic data, meteorological data, economic and financial data. Allowing this data to be re-used for other purposes, including commercial ones (e.g. for satellite navigation services, weather apps etc.) can stimulate economic growth, spur innovation and help to address various societal problems, e.g. in healthcare or public transport. Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information (the PSI Directive) created a basic legal framework for re-using PSI in the single market by imposing certain obligations on public sector bodies. In line with Article 13 (review clause) of the Directive, and following up on the commitment made in the mid-term review of the Digital Single Market Strategy, this impact assessment includes an evaluation of the implementation of the current version of the Directive and sets out policy options needed to address four problem areas: 1.Dynamic data: The provision of real-time access to data held by public sector bodies, in particular dynamic data, using adequate technical means (application programming interfaces / APIs) is rare. This means that dynamic data often cannot be re-used to develop new products and services such as real-time travel apps. 2.Charging: Several public sector bodies continue to overcharge for the re-use of public sector data — well above what is needed to cover reproduction and dissemination costs. Such charges are counterproductive from a macroeconomic perspective as they constitute a market barrier for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). As a result, charges tend to strengthen large multinational platforms, to the detriment of SMEs — they cannot afford to purchase public data. Evidence shows that getting rid of charges typically results in a surge in demand for public sector data, which translates into more innovation, more business growth and ultimately higher budget revenues (via taxes) for the public sector. 3.Scope of the PSI Directive: Data generated by the utilities and transport sectors is valuable and has tremendous re-use potential. However, entities active in these sectors are not covered by the PSI Directive. The same is true for research data resulting from public funding, which is another valuable source of data. 4.Lock-in of public sector data: Public data holders sometimes enter into arrangements with the private sector to derive extra value from their data. This creates the risk of excessive first-mover advantage, benefitting large companies and thereby limiting the number of potential re-users of the data in question.
Three options have been considered, ranging from soft law and non-binding solutions to legislative measures. The option that aims to introduce minimal changes to existing instruments (PO1) consists in particular of developing a series of guidelines (soft law) for TEN-T project promoters and better orientation of existing instruments mainly in terms of technical assistance. The option that aims to implement limited binding action at national level (PO2) includes the legal requirement for Member States to introduce a one-stop-shop for TEN-T core network projects and to ensure that they get the most rapid treatment legally possible. Finally, an option which would define an EU framework for authorisation of TEN-T core network projects (PO3) has been considered in two variants — application of EU rules at national level (PO3a) and bringing the granting of permit to the EU level (PO3b). PO2 is selected as the preferred option due to its positive performance in terms of effectiveness and efficiency in comparison with PO1 and its flexibility in comparison with PO3. Moreover, PO2 does not have the drawbacks of PO3 in terms of social impacts and the impacts on legal certainty. PO2 is a balanced and efficient solution to foster the implementation of TEN-T projects and, at the same time, to establish clearer and more inclusive procedures to increase public acceptance of infrastructure projects.
The preferred measures regarding the reduction of compliance costs were selected according to their ability to reduce costs while still upholding a high degree of market integrity. The analysis of options resulted in proposing technical amendments that provide limited reliefs as regards scope, time requirement for disclosing information, and record-keeping obligations resulting in particular from the MAR. It was also decided to enable SMEs to use an alleviated 'transfer prospectus' when moving from an SME Growth Market to a regulated market ('main market').

The preferred policy options were identified based on their respective effectiveness and efficiency to (i) reduce the compliance costs faced by issuers on SME Growth Markets and (ii) increase the liquidity on SME Growth Markets, but at the same time (iii) maintain a high level of investor protection and market integrity. The preferred regulatory adjustments concerning liquidity were chosen based on their ability to effectively improve liquidity while still maintaining sufficient flexibility to tailor them to local market environments. This should help to improve their effectiveness. The analysis demonstrated that the best approach would be to implement a European opt-in regime for liquidity contracts and mandate SME Growth Markets to apply minimum free float requirements without further specifications.

The baseline option in all cases was not to propose any changes in the rules applying to SME Growth Markets and issuers on these markets. While non-legislative policy options can help to further enhance the market environment and contribute to the objectives of the initiative, they were not considered to be effective tools to address the specific problems.
concerning batteries and waste batteries, repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020

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

What is the problem?

This impact assessment looks at a proposal for a regulation that will replace the Batteries Directive. It aims to address three groups of highly interlinked problems related to batteries:

1.the lack of framework conditions providing incentives to invest in production capacity for sustainable batteries, which is linked to potentially diverging regulatory frameworks within the internal market;

2.the sub-optimal functioning of recycling markets and insufficiently closed materials loops, which limits the EU’s potential to mitigate risks to the supply of raw materials;

3.social and environmental risks that are currently not covered by EU environmental law.

What do we want to achieve?

The proposal has three highly interlinked objectives:

1.strengthening the functioning of the EU internal market for batteries;

2.promoting the circular economy by closing the materials loop;

3.reducing the environmental and social impacts of batteries throughout their lifecycle.

What are the options?

·Option 1, business as usual, does not amend the Batteries Directive, which mostly covers the end-of-life stage of batteries. There is currently no EU legislation in place to cover the earlier stages in the batteries value chain and life cycle.

·Option 2, with a medium level of ambition, gradually strengthens the requirements and increases the level of ambition, both for the manufacturing and the end-of-life stages of batteries, and does so mostly in the form of issuing information requirements.

·Option 3, with a high level of ambition, is a bit more disruptive approach, but remains technically feasible. It entails setting limit values and thresholds for compliance within a set deadline.

·Option 4¸ with a very high level of ambition, includes measures that would go far beyond the current regulatory framework and current business practice.

What is the preferred option and why?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The evaluation examined the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of the EU’s reformed agricultural promotion policy, as set out in Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014. It covers the EU-28 and the period 2016 to 2019 (2016-2017 for simple and multi programmes).

The evaluation faced a number of inherent challenges and limitations, given the premature timing, diversity of programmes and own initiatives, lack of comprehensive data, and the difficulty to isolate the specific effect of promotion policy measures from the influence of contextual factors.

The conclusions indicate that the promotion policy had a broadly positive effect in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value, but also identify areas requiring careful attention in view of existing shortcomings and upcoming priorities.

The monitoring and evaluation system for information and promotion programmes did not allow to fully demonstrate the impact of the simple and multi programmes, or the efficiency of Commission own initiatives. For action taken at the Commission’s own initiative, there is room to improve the definition and use of indicators to track performance and help share the lessons learnt.

Despite the limitations, action funded by the promotion policy was considered effective in addressing the objectives. Preliminary data gathered during the programmes indicated that support to simple and multi programmes was effective in raising the awareness and the profile of EU products, quality schemes and production standards, particularly for non-EU markets with the highest growth potential. The measures implemented through the Commission own initiatives were highly effective in paving the way to enter or expand into non-EU markets.

The promotion policy has been implemented efficiently, albeit with differences between the management of simple and multi programmes, as efficiency varies according to the approach to programme management (direct management being more efficient). Standardising the measurement of reporting indicators would make it easier to compare the efficiency of Commission own initiative events.

Overall, the objectives of the policy and its related activities remain relevant, have clear EU added value and there is no major inconsistency between the EU agricultural promotion policy and other EU policies, including the EU health, climate and environmental and development policies. However, promotion of specific product types (e.g. those which in certain circumstances can be considered as harmful to human health), production methods (e.g. those that may have a negative environmental and climate impact) and in certain markets (e.g. developing countries) will need careful attention in light of policy developments, such as the European Green Deal among others.

The evaluation identified room to improve the policy by:

·improving the exchange of knowledge and experience between beneficiaries,

·making greater use of the signature ‘Enjoy! It’s from Europe’,

·exploring links between promotion programmes and Commission own initiatives,

·improving coherence with other EU policies.
on shipments of waste and amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) No 2020/1056

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

Problems

The current rules in the Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) cannot sufficiently ensure that waste shipped to other countries is treated in an environmentally sound manner and in line with the waste hierarchy. Three aspects of this problem were identified.

1.Intra-EU shipment procedures are burdensome and can cause delays that impose costs on waste operators while existing simplification tools are not widely used.

2.The current rules cannot guarantee that exported waste will be soundly managed in a way that addresses the same environmental and health impacts as would treatment in the EU. EU reliance on waste exports makes it vulnerable to global value chain disruptions, including sudden import restrictions and dependencies on the import of secondary materials.

3.Non-comparable resources and insufficient coordination for enforcement lead to large amounts of waste being illegally shipped, within and beyond the EU.

Objectives

The overall objective of the WSR review is to protect the environment by facilitating shipments within the EU, in line with circular economy principles, guaranteeing that waste shipped outside the EU is managed in an environmentally sound manner, and addressing illegal shipments of waste within and outside the EU.

Options

1.Baseline - focus on supporting WSR implementation without legislative changes.

2.Targeted changes - improve WSR implementation through targeted amendments to existing provisions.

3.Structural changes - overhaul of the WSR with simplified rules on intra-EU waste shipments, new mechanisms for the export of waste, and new provisions to address illegal shipments.

4.Far-reaching changes – improve the WSR through targeted amendments to existing provisions and envisaging modernised and digitalised procedures, establish a new framework to ensure sustainable management of exported waste, and strengthen enforcement.

Preferred option

The preferred option is option 4. It is a balanced approach in terms of effectiveness (achievement of the objectives) and cost-efficiency. It also takes into account the EU’s international obligations, and proportionality. It will reduce the burden for intra-EU shipments of waste, and promote waste shipments destined for recycling. It meets the EU’s objective to stop exporting its waste problems by ensuring exported waste is treated in a sustainable manner, while respecting the EU’s international legal obligations. Finally, it contributes to better addressing illegal shipments of waste. This option does not result in excessive costs or major disruption of waste markets. The approaches included in option 4 are listed below by objective.

Intra-EU shipments

·Modernise the WSR through a mandatory shift to an EU-wide digital exchange of data.
The proposed package of options includes: a simplified passporting procedure for cross-border services; establishment of mandatory supervisory colleges; facilitating the provision of banking-type ancillary services; amendments to the settlement discipline regime; and changes to the rules for third-country CSDs. The proposed policy options are legislative, as the operation of settlement services in the EU is governed by CSDR. CSDR has a comprehensive regulatory framework for the settlement of financial instruments in the EU as well as common rules on the organisation and conduct of CSDs to promote safe and efficient settlement. CSDs are systemically important institutions for financial markets and need to operate under a unified regulatory framework to ensure the integrity of the single market for financial services. Indeed, many of the problems stem from the provisions of CSDR. For these reasons, in general, non-legislative options were not considered. A wide range of options were assessed to address the problems identified. Some were discarded at an early stage as inconsistent with the EU legal framework or with the aim to ensure a resilient and efficient market for settlement in the EU, i.e. introducing a requirement for central banks to facilitate CSDs’ access to central bank money or an unlimited use of banks to provide banking-type ancillary services. Others were dismissed as cost inefficient (introduction of EU supervision).
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for EPH: EPH is a utility company engaged in brown coal extraction, electricity and heat production, distribution and supply as well as gas transmission, distribution, and storage. EPH is mainly active in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland and the UK;

— for Centrica Langage: Centrica Langage is a gas-fired power plant located near Plymouth, UK, with an installed capacity for electricity generation of approximately 905 MW;

— for Centrica SHB: Centrica SHB is a gas-fired power plant located near Stallingborough, UK, with an installed capacity for electricity generation of approximately 1 310 MW.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 222/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8273 — Standard/Braas Monier)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 222/02)

On 27 March 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 32017M8273. 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 SEGRO: ownership, asset management and development of modern warehousing and light industrial properties located around major conurbations and at key transportation hubs across a number of EU countries,

— for PSPIB: investment of net contributions to the pension funds of the federal Public Service, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Reserve Force. It manages a diversified global portfolio including stocks, bonds and other fixed-income securities, and investments in private equity, real estate, infrastructure, natural resources and private debt,

— for Morgane Portfolio: a logistics assets located in Nîmes, France.
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.8468 — Norgesgruppen/Axfood/Eurocash, to the following address:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8484 — Gasunie/Vopak/Oiltanking/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 226/01)

On 6 July 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 32017M8484. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
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.8541 — Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc./Patheon N.V., to the following address:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8456 — Ineos/Forties Pipeline System)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 236/01)

On 14 July 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 32017M8456. 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 VIMNI: part of Viacom group, active in the development of television programs, motion pictures, short-form content, applications, games, consumer products, social media experiences and other entertainment content,

— for DeA Editore: part of DeAgostini group, active in publishing, media and communications, gaming, and financial investment services,

— for the JV: development of a thematic channel and its related website.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/20

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8258 — Advent International/Morpho)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 250/03)

On 19 April 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32017M8258. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 271/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8551 — Advent International/Faerch Plast Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 271/01)

On 2 August 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 32017M8551. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
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.8572 — Pamplona Capital/Parexel, to the following address: