ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the conclusion of a Sustainable Ficheries Partnership Agreement and a Protocol with the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland

The Council conclusions on the external dimension of the CFP (19 March 2012) call for the Commission (pursuant to Article 31(10) of the CFP Regulation) to carry out ex post and ex ante evaluations before negotiating a new protocol to a sustainable fisheries partnership agreement (SFPA). The aim is to inform decisionmakers before the Council adopts negotiation directives. The fishing opportunities negotiated under SFPAs are in line with the best available scientific advice and there is no negative impact on fish stocks or competition with local artisanal or smallscale operators.

The current EUGreenland protocol (which expires on 31 December 2020 and thus has to be renegotiated) allows the EU fleet to fish in Greenlandic waters for cod, pelagic and demersal redfish, Greenland halibut, shrimp, grenadier and capelin, for indicative annual fishing opportunities of 42 726 tonnes. In addition to fees paid by the EU fleet, the EU pays Greenland annual financial compensation of EUR 13 168 978 from the EU budget as annual compensation (calculated on the basis of reference prices for each species), including a financial reserve of EUR 1 700 000 for potential additional quantities. The EU budget also provides for an amount of EUR 2 931 999 to support Greenland’s sectoral fisheries policy.

In accordance with the ‘better regulation’ guidelines, the staff working document and executive summary present the results of an ex post evaluation study by an independent contractor and an ex ante study in view of the possible renewal of the agreement and protocol.

The contractor fully addressed the evaluation questions and provided the Commission with concrete, reliable and credible results. It drew conclusions based on objective analysis and made specific and relevant recommendations for future negotiations. Consultations were held with all stakeholders involved.

The protocol can be broadly described as a win-win arrangement, in that it addresses the identified needs of the various stakeholders. Renewal of the agreement and the protocol (at the end of its implementation period, i.e. 31 December 2020) emerges clearly as the preferred option. No other option, including that of not renewing the protocol, would bring the same benefits. The future agreement should take the form of a reviewed and updated SFPA. The future protocol should be based on a similar technical and financial approach, with some technical adaptations to improve the conditions for implementing its access and sectoral support components.
For crypto-assets not covered by EU financial regulation, two options have been assessed: an EU opt-in regime and a fully harmonised regime for crypto-asset issuers and service providers that would benefit from an EU passport to expand their activities cross-border. While the first option could be less burdensome for small issuers and service providers that can decide not to opt-in, the second option would ensure a higher level of legal certainty, investor protection, market integrity and financial stability and would reduce market fragmentation across the Single Market. Therefore, the second option is the preferred option. For crypto-assets that qualify as MiFID II financial instruments (i.e. security tokens), three options have been considered: 1) non-legislative measures; providing guidance on whether and how existing legislation applies to crypto-assets; 2) targeted legislative changes removing provisions acting as a barrier to the issuance, trading and post-trading of security tokens and the use of DLT-based solutions; and 3) a pilot regime (for a three-year period) creating a new DLT market infrastructure allowing for the trading and/or settlement of security tokens. While soft-law measures would assist in clarifying the application of EU law to security tokens and related activities, they cannot remove legal obstacles embedded in existing legislation. Targeted legislative adjustments provide legal certainty and remove legal hurdles but would be applied only in limited areas that have been identified in recent assessments. While the third option can provide a clear experimental framework for the trading and/or settlement of security tokens, its benefits could disappear if the experimental regime is not extended after the three-year period. As these options complement each other, the preferred approach would be to proceed cautiously by way of a combination of the three options. This would be consistent with the need for a gradual regulatory approach in the context of a nascent market and the vast difference between fully permissionless and persmissioned networks where some control is centralised. For ‘stablecoins’, Commission services envisaged three options: 1) bespoke legislative measures on ‘stablecoin’ issuers; 2) regulating ‘stablecoins’ under EMD2, as some ‘stablecoins’ are close to the e-money definition and are used as payment instruments; 3) measures aimed at limiting issuances and services related to ‘stablecoins’ in the EU (except if they comply with existing frameworks). By following a strict risk-based approach, the first option would address vulnerabilities to financial stability, while supporting innovation. By contrast, the second and third options might not adequately address significant risks to consumer protection (for example those raised by wallet providers). Furthermore, option 3 could leave some financial stability risks unaddressed, if EU consumers widely use ‘stablecoins’ issued in third countries. Therefore, the preferred option as regards ‘stablecoins’ is a combination of option 1 and 2.
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

Several legislative and non-legislative options were explored, leading to the following preferred options on five key dimensions: -Scope: the scope of the information accessible via the ESAP will include all entity, product and other relevant information published by entities under the scope of the EU financial services legislation, with a phased approach from 2024 till 2026; -Formats: the ESAP will accept information/documents prepared in an open and widely used data extractable format, and enable the further development of machine readable formats in the long run, on a case by case basis, together with common minimum set of metadata; -Collection points: the collection of information will be organised on a decentralised basis, building on existing national bodies such as the Officially Appointed Mechanisms, or EU bodies such as the European Supervisory Authorities. All the collection points will enable the ESAP to access that information via application programming interfaces; -Open data: the ESAP will foster an open data policy based on open terms of use fully enabling re-use, free access to information and widely used open formats; -Governance: the ESAP will be governed by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why? Maximum 14 lines

Option D is the preferred option, as the analysis has shown this is the best way to achieve the objectives.

·Option E - repealing the Regulation: The Regulation would be repealed, products would rely on mutual recognition between Member States.

– sub-option D3 – a hybrid solution between D1 and D2 (keeping the core elements of each).

·Option D - improving the Regulation: Building on Option B, requirements dealing with product-inherent characteristics may also be introduced, to protect health, safety and the environment. Such product-specific requirements can be formulated via 3 sub-options, (D1 and D2 can be combined):

– sub-option C1 – limiting the Regulation’s application to assessment methods – sub-option C2 – limiting its scope to core areas – sub-option C3 – making the common technical language optional for manufacturers.

·Option C - focusing the Regulation: including all the elements described in option B, as well as the following 3 sub-options, which can be combined:

·Option B - repairing the Regulation: clarifying and streamlining its scope, ensuring consistency with other EU legislation and addressing environmental aspects of construction products.

·Option A – baseline scenario: no change to the Regulation but improving implementation through guidance and other soft law measures.

The repeal option (E) is strongly rejected by all stakeholders groups.

Option B is preferred by the EU citizens who responded, whereas option D is preferred by NGOs (in both cases, by around a third of the respondents in each group).

Among public authorities, a little less than half prefers this option. However, feedback from EU countries in the course of the consultations showed a preference for a revision.

Many stakeholders are in favour of maintaining the current Regulation (baseline option A), although, at the same time, these stakeholders wished for action to be taken that requires a revision. Both among business associations and companies there is majority support for option A.

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines
Executive Summary Sheet

Impact assessment on an initiative to strengthen existing rules and expand the exchange of information framework in the field of taxation so as to include crypto-assets.

A. Need for action

Why? What is the problem being addressed?

The main problem addressed by the initiative is that tax authorities lack information to monitor the proceeds obtained using crypto-assets. The under-reporting of data related to revenues and income gained by crypto-asset users severely limits the ability of tax administrations to ensure that due taxes are effectively paid. Crypto-assets are currently not within the scope of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (Council Directive 2011/16/EU (DAC)), which provides for automatic exchange of information between Member States for tax purposes.

Internet-based products, services and applications, in particular those that take advantage of distributed networks, such as crypto-assets, are easily traded cross-border. This creates tax challenges in terms of access to information, which can only be solved through strong administrative cooperation between countries.

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

As a general objective, the proposal aims at ensuring a fair and efficient functioning of the single market by increasing overall tax transparency. This would benefit not only tax authorities but also users and service providers. This initiative also aims at safeguarding Member State tax revenues by extending and clarifying the reporting obligations concerning crypto-assets within the European Union. The current proposal (DAC8) should more specifically improve the ability of Member States to detect and counter tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance. It should also deter non-compliance.

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

Member State actions do not provide an efficient and effective solution to problems that are transnational in essence. An EU approach appears preferable to avoid a patchwork of reporting requirements unilaterally implemented by some or all Member States. Action at EU level ensures coherence, reduces administrative burden for reporting entities and tax authorities, and is more robust in relation to potential loopholes due to the volatile nature of the assets concerned.

B. Solutions

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 214/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8499 — Goldman Sachs/Caldic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 214/02)

On 23 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 32017M8499. 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 222/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8519 — Santander/SAM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 222/01)

On 3 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 32017M8519. 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.8439 — Wärtsilä/CSSC/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 218/07)

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 32017M8439. 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 232/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8341 — Lone Star Fund/Xella International)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 232/03)

On 29 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 32017M8341. 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 223/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8482 — ABB/B&R)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 223/01)

On 3 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 32017M8482. 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 240/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8470 — DAAM/InfraVia/FIH/AI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 240/01)

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 32017M8470. 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.8551 — Advent International/Faerch Plast Group, to the following address:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8509 — LVMH/Marcolin/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 252/02)

On 27 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 32017M8509. 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:

— Total Outre-Mer: Total Marketing Services' activities in Africa; the Total group is active worldwide in the exploration, production, transport, storage and sale of oil and natural gas; the group is also present in the sectors of refining petroleum products and the retail and wholesale sale of refined products; the group is developing its activities in the field of renewables both by producing solar panels and by generating energy from renewable energy sources,

— Worldline: a subsidiary of the Atos group, active in the payments and transaction services sector, including merchant acquiring, acquiring processing, online banking, issuing processing and payment software licensing, provision of point of sale terminals and related services, mainly in the EEA,

— InTouch Corp: specialised in payment aggregation and digital services via mobile platforms in Mauritania, Senegal, Côte d'Ivoire, Kenya and Cameroon, and

— InTouch SAS: payment aggregation solutions in Africa and certain countries of the Middle East.
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for BNPP: banking group with domestic and international operations. Its two core businesses are: (i) Retail Banking & Services, and (ii) Corporate & Institutional Banking,

— for Starwood: wholly-owned subsidiary of Marriott. Marriott is a diversified hospitality company which acts as a manager and franchisor of some 6 080 hotels and timeshare properties worldwide,

— for the Hotel Portfolio: two hotels located in Italy (the Westin Palace in Milan and the Westin Europa & Regina in Venice) currently indirectly managed by Marriott.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 255/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8539 — KPS/Dexko)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 255/05)

On 10 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 32017M8539. 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 to it their observations on the proposed operation.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of publication of this notification. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 229 64301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.8589 — SCOR/MutRé, to the following address:
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.8596 — Colindale/Goldman Sachs/JRE, to the following address:
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.8616 — Partners Group/Civica, to the following address: