ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
38.

regrets that the Commission communication only scratches the surface when it comes to ‘the sharing economy’ and does not contain any proposals for a coordinated approach to the rules applicable to it in order to ensure free and fair competition, i.e. same conditions with regard to regulation and framework as for traditional businesses, consumer safety and employment conditions, with particular regard to taxation on income generated by trading platforms. The Committee also notes with some concern that structural changes are taking place when it comes to commercial activities in the ‘sharing economy’, with entrepreneurial risks often remaining with local or regional actors, but, as a result of the immense network effects of platforms and intermediaries, value creation being transferred out of the region. In this connection, the complex interaction between growth options with new customers in the digital single market and negative structural changes in the regions needs to be closely monitored;
32.

calls for EU initiatives, in close cooperation with the Member States and the regional and local authorities, to tackle neighbourhoods and regions where various forms of organised crime are rife. These specific areas should be identified on the basis of consultations, and prioritised and given additional support on the basis of quantitative and qualitative criteria; illegal networks where money can be laundered and where the rule of law is undermined should be tackled effectively by the police and the judicial system. This will prevent the development of neighbourhoods where the rule of law is absent, where lawlessness and a lack of moral standards prevail, and where the foundations of democracy and the rule of law are no longer a visible part of people’s social reality and individual lives. This vacuum gives extremist networks every opportunity to obtain financial resources from illegal activities, to recruit, and to undermine the legitimacy of democracy and the rule of law;
5.

It should, however, be noted that rural areas can be very diverse in terms of their characteristics and challenges. Some areas are suffering from rural exodus and an ageing population, together with low population density and dispersed centres of population, while others that are closer to urban areas are under increasing pressure due to a rising demand for building plots and demographic developments. Decreased agricultural activity means that some areas are struggling with an economic downturn; others are meeting with increasing success due to the attributes of their natural surroundings or other qualities related to their living environment, tourism, and/or an influx of people coming to live in those areas. Some areas have a relatively well developed road network and good information and communications infrastructure, while others are relatively isolated. Some areas are located on the mainland and others in island regions, which have to cope with the handicaps characteristic of islands. What they all have in common is that the level of development in rural areas is lower than that of the EU, particularly compared with development levels in urban areas — and the gap is widening.
34.

Lack of consistency in audit methodologies at national and European level is perhaps the biggest challenge for the ESIF implementation process. Managing authorities and different European and national audit authorities frequently arrive at different interpretations of the same rules, while at the same time they are not in any way liable for the audits that are carried out. ESIF projects should be subject to a single audit system (a one-stop shop) at Member State and EU level that will issue a binding opinion — including on public procurement and be accountable for it. The final beneficiary himself should also have the right to request audits so that he can be sure that implementation has been carried out properly and no danger looms in the future — or so that he can make corrections. This also requires a more flexible approach to data sharing and integrated IT solutions such as electronic forms and databases as a precondition to developing a one-stop shop that reduces the form filling burden for beneficiaries and managing authorities. Making a ‘user-friendly’ electronic system standard practice will minimise the documents to be scanned and downloaded. Priority should therefore be given to IT applications that enable the beneficiary’s administrative records to be retrieved directly from the source (such as employees, turnover, fulfilment of tax and social obligations). However, this requires a prior risk assessment on what and which data can be shared and also requires the involvement of the Commission, national and regional audit bodies as well as the European Court of Auditors from the outset, perhaps developing a common Audit Vademecum, to avoid audit issues further down the line. As things stand, auditing is seen as a punitive enforcement measure. As a rule, audits only address the administration of the project and compliance with the procedures laid down and any deviation is severely punished, even if carried out to improve the effectiveness of the project, due to unforeseeable circumstances, or to save money. The CoR therefore proposes that auditors focus on the real cost efficiency and take into consideration the financial seriousness of the mistake and the particular situation (more proportionality in audits). Proportionality should be added to the inspections and compliance rules by enabling higher tolerance levels to minor infractions. We should move towards a more proportionate (with less on-the-spot checks for better performing programmes or delivery bodies) and an outcome-based approach to inspections (so that more than one type of inspection can be carried out on a single visit, something which is particularly important for multi-fund programmes and operations), as well as a more proportionate audit focusing less on penalties and more on improvement and in ensuring the broader outcomes of Cohesion Policy. The auditor should be looked upon as a partner in solving problems and searching for the most effective way to identify and rectify mistakes. This requires a very different attitude from auditors.
45.

proposes that the future European agriculture policy after 2020 should be structured around the following objectives, which are widely shared: a) continuing to be viewed as a key policy for the European project; b) pursuing the objectives set out in the TFEU and being endowed with an adequate financial package; c) developing sustainable and prosperous agriculture anchored in the diversity of rural areas; d) guaranteeing the food security of the European population at fair prices; e) providing a healthy, nutritious, varied and high-quality diet, promoting the development and consolidation of local chains and paying particular attention to social solidarity and to measures preventing food waste; f) applying the principles of the circular economy and the bioeconomy to permit economically profitable activity in rural areas; g) stabilising markets and strengthening the position of farmers on the markets; h) ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers, in particular through a fair and sufficiently stable income; i) guaranteeing the renewal of the largest possible number of farms, which underpin the dynamism of rural areas, and supporting young farmers in particular; j) guaranteeing access to funding, knowledge transfer, vocational training and fewer administrative obstacles; k) not destabilising the agricultural economies of third countries; l) ensuring that all agricultural production methods are based on practices that take care of the health of both farmers and consumers, while also protecting agricultural genetic resources and the environment, including the aquatic environment, by enhancing biodiversity both in the wild and on farmland, and that uphold animal well-being and reduce global warming; m) maintaining and protecting agricultural soils over time in quantitative terms by resolutely tackling the soil consumption rate, and improving its quality, fertility and biodiversity by promoting appropriate agricultural practices; n) promoting products of designated origin (PDO, PGI) or other quality systems that would generate added value for the chain and the area, making it possible to keep local production systems alive and contribute to promoting rural identity and cultural and gastronomic heritage; o) distributing the public funds of the common agricultural and food policy (CAFP) more fairly among farms and Member States according to objective, non-discriminatory criteria, based on their ability to contribute to the EU’s sustainable development objectives, (including accelerating the equalisation of direct payments across the Member States); p) applying the proportionality principle to the monitoring system to which farmers are subject; q) strengthening the second pillar of the CAP, which aims to improve living conditions in rural areas and to improve the competitiveness of rural areas as a whole; r) promoting economic, social and environmental development of all rural areas; s) addressing the challenge of depopulation and ageing across many rural areas as a consequence of the lack of living and working opportunities, especially for young people and women;
41.

is of the opinion that, aside from regulating, the following particular measures at European level are essential in order to introduce C-ITS and achieve the ultimate goals of introducing sustainable automated transport, mobility as a service and door-to-door transport: — coordination: there is a need for greater coordination between the various inter-related packages of EU measures and between the Commission and local and regional authorities; — facilitating deployment and experimentation: while the current developments towards C-ITS are heavily market- and technology-driven, they require additional initiatives by public authorities at all levels to bring about C-ITS in different traffic situations and transport modes; — research: for example on the necessary changes to physical infrastructure and the outlining of scenarios in order to develop long-term visions, despite the considerable uncertainties. — monitoring and evaluating: for the way forward after 2019 it is necessary to establish at this stage how the implementation of the measures in the first and second phases will be monitored and evaluated, and how monitoring and evaluating will proceed with regard to market and public acceptance, technical development, and the state of play in different types of regions (urban and rural), different types of infrastructure ((inter)national, regional and local) and modes (road, rail and air) and in the area of goods transport and passenger transport; — monitoring should be ongoing in order to make it possible to identify which of the possible scenarios is unfolding; — communication: targeted communication, together with feedback, is needed both with regional and local authorities in order to achieve interoperability between regions, and — with their help — with the general public in order to win public support;
27.

calls for urgent steps to be taken to create appropriate and flexible ad hoc financing instruments to promote interregional cooperation meeting the needs of the three layers mentioned in the previous point. These instruments could take the form of combinations of financing (including combinations of credits and loans, and public and private funding at different levels) with the innovative use of funds to support experimental pilot projects for interregional cooperation networks that establish direct contact with industry and have a marked impact: — with regard to the initial costs of activities related to the configuration of demonstration infrastructure (layer 1), calls for existing EU funds to complement public-private investment in innovation infrastructure, in the framework of interregional cooperation projects. The Committee also recommends that more flexible use be made of Interreg to support the creation of industrial value chains. It also recommends the extension of the Digital Innovation Hubs approach to other industrial and technological areas; — with regard to the operational expenditure of demonstration activities based on the development of specific projects (layer 2), it recommends that countries/regions that so wish could set aside resources to develop a system of vouchers that can support their businesses in participating in interregional projects. The purpose of these vouchers would be to compensate for the costs incurred in preparing the draft interregional cooperation project (visits to demonstration facilities in other regions, complementarity studies, drawing up of studies and project plans etc.). The interregional voucher system could be complemented by co-financing mechanisms (for example the European Investment Fund) to facilitate companies’ access to services and infrastructure outside the region. The EU would play a catalysing and support role for the regional managing authorities (e.g. for the jointly agreed certification systems or for the evaluation and audit of extra-regional expenditure); — with regard to investments or necessary expenditure related to the possible industrial production or access to the market of the product or service developed (layer 3), recommends the expansion of instruments such as InnovFin;
15.

suggests launching a ‘European Sea Tech’ scheme to link regional innovation ecosystems, by establishing a number of cooperation networks: — to invigorate sub-sectors and build European value chains; — to better identify and support the challenges of industrial change, including with regard to the environment, energy and digitalisation; — to develop new services, products and economic models that are more integrated and better equipped to face global competition. The Commission would launch calls for expressions of interest in setting up thematic networks, and each regional (or inter-regional) ecosystem could apply to join a number of networks in line with the region’s smart specialisation strategies. Ecosystems combining multiple competences and bringing together several networks would form the ‘central ecosystems’ of the European Sea Tech scheme. Each network would aim to be as inclusive as possible, involving all the competences of the various European regions. Within the networks, the issues of sustainable development, R & D, industrial performance, financing and skills would be systematically addressed. These networks would be more effective than a centralised European platform in providing a foundation for developing intra-regional cooperation and for setting up operational projects of relevance to the EU’s various policies. The role of European Sea Tech would also be to boost the transfer of technology, experience and skills between the various networks and sectors of the maritime industries;
31.

recommends that the European Commission steps up its efforts to reduce regional disparities, which are one of the major causes of brain drain. The cohesion funds play a crucial role in supporting our regions and areas that suffer from such disparities. Tailored policies and instruments that directly tackle these disparities between eastern/southern Europe and the western countries, as well as in between regions within Member States are essential in eliminating one of the main causes of brain drain. The political commitment of the Commission ( 4 ) to a fair minimum wage is very relevant, especially in sending regions, as this would tackle the issue of living standards and working conditions, and have a direct impact on quality of life. The EU’s cohesion policy for 2021-2027 should be a long-term policy of investment for all regions, focused on overcoming economic, social and regional divides and in line with the partnership principle and a place-based approach. Cohesion policy should be better coordinated with other EU policies so that there is a level playing-field. Vertical coordination of different funding sources should be improved at EU level in the governance of post-2020 cohesion policy and programmes, so as to guarantee more coherence of agendas at different governance and planning levels in the short to medium term ( 5 )
20.

points out that the Communication does not envisage a situation in which the measures provided for in the strategic frameworks have no meaningful effect. In the light of the experience of the previous cycle, the possibility that some Member States might not implement the national strategic frameworks remains a matter of serious concern for the Committee. Urges, therefore, the Commission to closely monitor progress at Member State level, enforce the application of the relevant EU legislation and swiftly assess the necessity for further legislation since the absence of sanctions risks delaying even further the Roma integration and inclusion process. Invites the Commission to consider the creation of a European advisory board, consisting, inter alia, of experts in Roma policies and involving also representatives of local and regional authorities with tangible experience on Roma issues on the ground. Further insists on the need to improve the representativeness of Roma people in the design and implementation of the national Roma strategic frameworks;
23.

welcomes the European Commission’s presentation in November 2020 of the first EU equality strategy for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, non-binary, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people. One of the four pillars of this Commission strategy is to ensure LGBTIQ people's safety. However, the phenomenon of violence against LGBTIQ people has not yet been evaluated on the basis of representative data, which would make it possible to move on to delivering relevant approaches for combating violence in the future. Although the findings of the online survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) ‘A long way to go for LGBTIQ equality’ provide valuable information about LGBITQ people’s experiences of discrimination and violence, participation was voluntary and the survey therefore not statistically representative, i.e. not based on a random sample. The Committee of the Regions consequently calls on the European Commission as part of its LGBTQ strategy to set up and fund on a regular basis an anonymous and representative study of experiences of violence not officially reported, including domestic violence, against LGBTIQ people in the EU that would be carried out and interpreted independently for all the EU Member States;
4.

points out that the EU extracts or produces less than 5 % of global critical resources, whereas around 20 % of the global consumption of these resources is accounted for by EU industry. The EU is particularly dependent on imports of critical resources that have a key role for future technologies and are important, for example, in the form of rare metals and elements for innovative technical applications. They will thus be needed for production and value creation in those areas where the European economy seeks to be a major global leader. This applies, for example, to the use of raw materials set out in the European Green Deal for the transition to secure, clean and affordable energy from renewable sources, the path to a clean and more circular economy, and also for their use in mobility and construction in a more energy- and resource-efficient way;
underlines that the European Commission should systematically perform a cross-check against the application of the Charter prior to granting EU funds, using a clear and transparent procedure. Compliance with Article 2 TEU, which encapsulates the Union’s values, should constitute a conditionality for eligibility for EU funds. Regulation (EU) 2020/2092 of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget ( 1 ) recalls that ‘in its conclusions of 21 July 2020, the European Council stated that the financial interests of the Union are to be protected in accordance with the general principles embedded in the Treaties, in particular the values set out in Article 2 TEU’. The same regulation stipulates that whenever Member States implement the Union budget, respect for the rule of law, which is intrinsically linked to respect for democracy and for fundamental rights, ‘is an essential precondition for compliance with the principles of sound financial management enshrined in Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)’.
While i t is necessary to ensure that tax avoidance practices are discouraged, adverse impacts on smaller MNEs in the internal market should be avoided. For this purpose, this Directive should only apply to entities located in the Union that are members of MNE groups or large-scale domestic groups that meet the annual threshold of at least EUR 750 000 000 of consolidated revenue. This threshold would be consistent with the threshold of existing international tax rules such as the country-by-country reporting rules. Entities within the scope of this Directive are referred to as constituent entities. Certain entities should be excluded from the scope based on their particular purpose and status. Excluded entities would be those that are not profit-driven and perform activities in the general interest and which are, for these reasons, not likely to be subject to tax in the Member State in which they are located. In order to protect those specific interests, it is necessary to exclude from the scope of the Directive governmental entities, international organisations, non-profit organisations and pension funds from the scope of this Directive. Investment funds and real estate investment vehicles should also be excluded from the scope when they are at the top of the ownership chain, since, for those so-called flow-through entities, the income earned is taxed at the level of the owners.

I t is necessary to ensure that tax avoidance practices are discouraged. At the same time, adverse impacts on smaller MNEs in the internal market should be avoided. For this purpose, this Directive should only apply to entities located in the Union that are members of MNE groups or large-scale domestic groups that meet the annual threshold of at least EUR 750 000 000 of consolidated revenue. This threshold would be consistent with the threshold of existing international tax rules such as the country-by-country reporting rules. Entities within the scope of this Directive are referred to as constituent entities. Certain entities should be excluded from the scope based on their particular purpose and status. Excluded entities would be those that are not profit-driven and perform activities in the general interest and which are, for these reasons, not likely to be subject to tax in the Member State in which they are located. In order to protect those specific interests, it is necessary to exclude from the scope of the Directive governmental entities (including local and regional authorities and their associations) , international organisations and non-profit organisations and pension funds .
16.

regrets that the ‘Code of Conduct’ proposed by the European Commission has not been taken up in the Cyprus Presidency; calls on the European Commission to promote and scrutinise the involvement of local and regional authorities in the design of the partnership agreements and the relevant operational programmes, and requests a report on this matter by the end of 2013. In that regard, the Committee of the Regions will follow closely the related negotiations based on the Commission's country-specific negotiation mandates for the CSF Funds for the period 2014-2020, notably in the light of the partnership principle;