ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the early warning report for Member States at risk of missing the 2020 preparation for re-use/recycling target on municipal waste

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.Introduction

This early warning report is part of the Commission's overall implementation report and aims to assist Member States at risk of failing to meet the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste set out in Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC. It builds on previous support provided by the Commission to help Member States comply with EU law in the area of municipal waste management. This resulted in country-specific roadmaps being drawn up for the relevant Member States.

The assessment underpinning the early warning report is based on a collaborative and transparent process involving the Member States concerned and an in-depth analysis of their most recent policy developments. This also involved extensive consultation with the authorities in charge of waste management.

The possible actions identified during this process are based on the existing best practices and aim to help Member States in meeting the 2020 municipal waste preparation for re-use/recycling; they therefore focus on policy measures that can be taken forward in the short term. These actions should be seen as complementary to those recommended in the roadmaps that were drawn up as part of the preceding compliance promotion activities and to the recommendations made in the Environmental Implementation Review.

2.Key findings

In 2016, Romania’s recycling rate (including composting) reported to Eurostat was 13 %, while its landfilling rate was 69 %, one of the highest in Europe. Based on an analysis of existing and firmly planned policies in the area of waste management, Romania is considered at risk of missing the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste.

The assessment that underpins the early warning report concludes that:

·Romania’s separate collection service, including for bio-waste, is not being sufficiently implemented;

·there are not enough economic incentives to move away from disposal;

·extended producer responsibility schemes for packaging are not efficient and do not fully cover the costs of separate collection;

·the necessary infrastructure is still lacking;

·more investment is needed in projects higher up the waste hierarchy (e.g. recycling) that go beyond treatment of residual waste; and

·public engagement in separate collection is very low.

The table below lists possible actions to support Romania’s efforts to improve its waste management.
External power supplies (EPS) are used to supply electricity to, and/or charge built-in batteries of, a vast number of electric and electronic products used in households and offices (primary load products). The individual energy consumption of an EPS is small, but their aggregated consumption is important because of the vast sales figures and widespread usage (around 500 million units sold yearly, with an estimated 2 billion units in use across EU), Regulation 278/2009 currently in force has proven to be effective in reducing the energy consumption of EPSs, with estimated energy savings of around 10 TWh/year. However, its effectiveness may now by hindered by: (i) outdated ecodesign requirements on energy efficiency, and (ii) outdated scope. Additional energy savings of 4.3 TWh/year by 2030 could be achieved by end-users if the regulation would be updated for taking stock of the technological progress and evolving regulations in other countries and markets. By doing so, GHG emissions could also be further reduced and a level playing field would be ensured for manufacturers of EPSs of a specific type (multiple voltage output EPSs). An additional issue to be addressed would be to make information on EPSs and their performance readily available to consumers and market surveillance authorities in Member States.
The financial sector extensively relies on information and communication technologies (ICT). The current COVID-19 pandemic is likely to accelerate this, given the benefits in ensuring continuous remote access to financial services. Reliance on digital technologies come with concerns though; firms need to be able to withstand potential ICT disruptions so that digital incidents and threats are addressed and services maintained. In a highly interconnected financial sector that deploys cross-border vital services on which the real economy depends, vulnerabilities stemming from ICT dependence, while applicable to all economic sectors, are particularly pronounced because of (1) the deep and broad use of ICT, and (2) the potential for the effects of an operational incident at one financial firm or financial sub-sector to quickly spread to other firms or parts of the financial sector and ultimately to the rest of the economy. Despite the financial sector being very advanced in its market and regulatory integration and thriving on a single set of harmonised rules – the EU single rulebook –, the EU response to increased operational resilience needs at both horizontal and sectorial level has been either: -based on minimum harmonisation, thus leaving room for national interpretation and fragmentation in the single market, or -too general and of limited application, addressing overall operational risk to a varying extent, partially regulating some components of digital operational resilience (e.g. ICT risk management, incident reporting and ICT third party risk) while leaving others out (testing). EU intervention so far has not addressed operational risk in a way that corresponds to financial firms’ needs to withstand, respond and recover from ICT vulnerabilities, nor does it provide financial supervisors with the tools to fulfil their mandate to contain financial instability stemming from those ICT vulnerabilities. The current gaps and inconsistencies have led to a proliferation of uncoordinated national initiatives (e.g. on testing) and supervisory approaches (e.g. to ICT third party dependencies), which translate either in overlaps, duplications in requirements and high administrative and compliance costs for cross-border financial firms or in ICT risks remaining undetected and unaddressed. Overall, the financial sector stability and integrity are not guaranteed and the single market for financial services remains fragmented, with the consequence that consumer and investor protection are weakened.
Impact assessment on Proposal for a Revision of the Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR)

The MiFIR review tackles three problems that prevail in the Union’s capital markets: (1) liquidity and trade execution risk for all capital market participants; (2) high cost in consolidated market data; and (3) the absence of business case for the consolidation of data. Due to the MiFID which opened to competition in trading on financial instruments (like shares, bonds and derivatives), many platforms now trade identical financial instruments. This makes the trading cheaper but also scattered across over 400 trading markets across the Union. This fragmentation entails that the market data needed by investors to base their trading decisions upon is also scattered. Only the most sophisticated market professionals (high frequency traders and major investment banks) have the means to buy. Most ordinary investors and their brokers have no comprehensive view of EU trading markets and often take investment decisions based on a partial view of the market.

Although MiFIR already includes a basic framework for a consolidated tape (CT or tape), no provider of a consolidated tape has emerged for any asset classes because there is no commercial rewards, a need to conclude individual licensing arrangements and there is insufficient transaction data quality. The Commission intends to amend MiFIR to achieve the effective creation of a CT that aims to reduce liquidity and trade execution risk for all market participants. To this end, the new framework should aim at improving market data quality and paving the way for market data consolidation on the one hand. It should on the other end facilitate market data licensing and provide a business case of consolidation of market data.

What is the value added of action at EU level?

A tape consolidates core market data for a given financial instrument that is traded across several venues in the Union. A CT is therefore designed to increase transparency and confidence in the Union’s market and to democratise access to core market data. Because of the direct applicability across the Union, the set-up of a tape would be swifter and more efficient than if similar initiatives were undertaken on Member State level.

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred option or not? Why?
President von der Leyen said in her State of the Union speech in September 2020 that ‘If you are parent in one country, you are parent in every country.’ With this statement the President referred to the need to ensure that parenthood established in one Member State is recognised in all other Member States. The Commission has been made aware through citizens’ complaints, petitions to the European Parliament and judicial proceedings that families may encounter difficulties in having the parenthood of their children recognised in cross-border situations within the EU. The causes of the problems with the recognition of parenthood are: (i) the diverging Member States’ rules on the establishment of parenthood in domestic situations (substantive rules) and in cross-border situations (applicable law rules); (ii) the diverging Member States’ rules on the recognition of parenthood established abroad; and (iii) the absence of rules on the recognition of parenthood in existing EU legal instruments and at international level. The case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) requires Member States to recognise the parenthood established in another Member State for the purposes of rights derived from EU law, in particular the rights that a child enjoys under EU law on free movement, including Directive 2004/38/EC. However, under the case law of the CJEU, Member States are currently not obliged to recognise the parenthood of a child for other purposes. The non‑recognition of parenthood for other purposes can have significant adverse consequences for children in cross‑border situations. Such non-recognition interferes with the fundamental rights of children, in particular the right to an identity, the right to non-discrimination and the right to respect for a private and family life. The rights that children derive from parenthood under national law may also be denied. For instance, children may lose, as regards one of their parents, their right to maintenance, succession or custody, or the right to have either of their parents act as their legal representative in another Member State in matters such as schooling, medical treatments, the opening of a bank account or the management of their property. The non‑recognition of parenthood sometimes prompts families to start litigation to have the parenthood of their child recognised in another Member State. However, these proceedings involve significant costs, time and burden and have uncertain results. In addition, the non-recognition of parenthood has a negative effect on the well-being of children and their families. Ultimately, the lack of recognition of parenthood may deter children and their families from exercising their right to free movement for fear that the parenthood of the child will not be recognised in another Member State for all purposes.
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Deere: manufacture and sale of agricultural, construction, and forestry machinery, industrial diesel engines and certain other components as well as lawn care equipment. Deere also offers financial services for its own equipment mainly. Deere is active globally and listed among the S&P 500 on the NYSE.

— for Wirtgen: manufacture and sale of construction machinery equipment incorporating the product brands Wirtgen, Vögele, Hamm, Kleemann, Benninghoven and Ciber, including sales and service companies. Wirtgen is active globally.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 222/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8314 — Broadcom/Brocade)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 222/04)

On 12 May 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 32017M8314. 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 218/17

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8490 — Blackstone/CPPIB/Ascend Learning)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 218/08)

On 20 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 32017M8490. 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 232/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8508 — Engie/CDC/SolaireCorsica 1-2-3)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 232/01)

On 4 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 French 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 32017M8508. 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 224/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8515 — CPPIB/BPEA/Nord Anglia Education)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 224/01)

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 32017M8515. 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 242/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8500 — Central/SIGNA Prime/JVCo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 242/01)

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 32017M8500. 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 234/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8550 — USSL/Goldman Sachs/Redexis Gas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 234/01)

On 13 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 32017M8550. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8521 — Segro/PSPIB/SELP/CAT Site)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 253/03)

On 11 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 32017M8521. 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 SIA: passenger and cargo transport, engineering services related to air transportation and airport terminal services,

— for SIAEC: provision of maintenance, repair and overhaul services for aerospace sector,

— for Moog: design, manufacture and sale of precision motion control products and systems for aerospace, defence, industrial, energy, marine and medical sectors,

— for MSPL: provision of maintenance, repair and overhaul services,

— for JV: provision of maintenance, repair and overhaul services for Moog’s products.
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for CTDI EU: provision of repair and maintenance in relation to telecommunications network infrastructure equipment as well as other electronic products,

— for Regenersis EMEA: provision of repair and maintenance services with regard to electronic products, including mobile phones, smartphones, set-top-boxes as well as other media and entertainment devices, office devices such as laptops, electronic payment systems, industrial applications and medical devices.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 255/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8431 — Omers/AIMCo/Vue/Dalian Wanda Group/UCI Italia/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 255/06)

On 18 May 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 32017M8431. 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 282/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8251 — Bite/Tele2/Telia Lietuva/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 282/02)

On 19 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 32017M8251. 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 278/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8483 — Bain Capital Investors/Cinven Capital Management/Stada Arzneimittel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 278/01)

On 29 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 32017M8483. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.