ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
12.

points out that local and regional authorities (LRAs) are on the front line, directly facing the challenges and problems that may directly affect rule of law procedures and thus the enforceability of certain fundamental rights arising from day to day in many fields — economic problems, unemployment, the environment and climate change, to name but a few. The special role of the LRAs comes also from their expertise, which allows them to identify possible systemic threats to the rule of law at an early stage but also from the fact that they are results-oriented — something that European policy must also constantly keep in mind. This is particularly true in a globalised world where migration and mobility have given rise to new intercultural relations and a pluralistic society with diverse values and religions — which is at its most tangible in local communities. Results on protection of the rule of law and fundamental rights can only be achieved if all political levels work together, are appropriately networked and play their part, based on their competences and responsibilities, and if they coordinate their various contributions. In many areas, there is a growing awareness that ‘evidence-based’ and ‘place-based’ policy is necessary in order to achieve better results. This, of course, also applies to the protection of fundamental rights. Strengthening these rights has a positive impact on social and economic development. Taking decisions at a level as close as possible to the general public strengthens people's trust both in each other and in the community in which they live;
4.

recalls that the European Citizens’ Initiative is a right for European citizens. It should be used to give an answer to the European democratic deficit and to provide a tool for European citizens to bridge the gap between citizens and European policy. With the continuing economic and confidence crisis in the EU, it is crucial to use all opportunities for an open dialogue with citizens and prevent their further disenchantment in the concept of European integration. This is also an occasion to restore and to further rebuild the trust of any young Europeans who may have lost faith in the concept of European integration. Strengthened participatory democracy is the only way to keep the perspective of the destiny of the EU and to get rid of the democratic deficit; notes that the European Citizens’ Initiative aims to involve citizens more directly in the European political agenda and thus give them the right to legislative initiative. Also, the European Citizens’ Initiative, as a transnational tool, has the aspiration of stimulating a Europe-wide debate on issues of concern to European citizens;
9.

The European Commission, together with the Netherlands presidency and involving numerous stakeholders, has started to prepare the Pact of Amsterdam. Its aim is to develop and implement 3-year action plans for integrated policies for key urban problems within the framework of 12 thematic partnerships. They are intended to be one key delivery instrument within the Urban Agenda. They will bring together an increased number of sectoral policies that impact on the EU’s urban areas. It is also crucial for the success of the partnerships and the EU Urban Agenda Board, which will monitor the process, that they move forward in close cooperation with urban, local and regional authorities, Member States, European institutions (including the CoR), and relevant local stakeholders. The CoR advocates for focusing on a limited number of important policy areas which would make it possible to achieve visible results and demonstrate the added value of the EU Urban Agenda. The 12 priority themes set out are not an exhaustive list. Partnerships should also be set up on other issues requiring integrated policy approaches, for example, taking into account the cultural and tourism dimension in urban development, new inclusive forms of participation, innovation and Smart Cities. A comprehensive assessment of the thematic priorities will, however, only be possible when the partnerships have been developed, since only then will it be possible to tell if and how key issues for the European Union such as youth employment are integrated. The CoR welcomes the fact that four pilot partnerships (on air quality, housing, urban poverty and inclusion of migrants and refugees) have already started their work. For the subsequent stages of the partnerships, it is essential to agree a high degree of commitment, for example through biannual reporting to the Commission, the Parliament, the Council and the CoR. The CoR also points out the possibility that the thematic partnerships could provide input in the design of future and the revision of current EU legislation. In relation to the funding of the participation to the thematic partnerships which are expected to count about 15 partners and considering that the Netherlands have already reserved EUR 50 000 to support each partnership, the CoR calls on the Commission to look into the possibility to finance technical assistance in order to facilitate interested local authorities to become partners.
50.

The CoR calls on Member States to abide by their commitment to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies. Moreover, the CoR considers that the ongoing reform of the ETS should result in setting a fair carbon price which will not harm competitiveness of the Member States, and a mechanism enabling regions to support efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The CoR would like to draw the attention of the European Commission and the Council to the successful example of the carbon market set up between California and Quebec. Billions of dollars are now being reinvested in the local economy to support companies, cities and towns and citizens in the transition towards low-carbon economies. The CoR calls for the EU to take inspiration from this example in the allocation of quotas. It also calls on Member States to allow regions to play an active role in the Emissions Trading System (ETS), notably by managing part of the auction revenues and to reinvest them in sustainable projects.
20.

recommends that, in terms of involvement of the sub-national levels of government, the Code of Conduct foresees that: (a) each Member State would put in place standing arrangements for the participation of the local and regional authorities along the whole Semester process commensurate with the competencies of local and regional authorities, taking into account the relevant constitutional provisions and normal practices; each Member State would specify how these arrangements would practically work and their timing, as well as the criteria for identifying the organisations representing the local and regional authorities, analogue to the European code of conduct on partnership adopted in the context of the EU cohesion policy; (b) the standing arrangements mentioned above would give the local and regional authorities, in particular, the opportunity to: review the Country Report and share their conclusions and policy responses; take part in the preparation of the NRP; review and comment on the draft CSRs; (c) such arrangements would also include provisions concerning the involvement of the local and regional authorities in the implementation of the relevant policy measures of the National Reform Programmes and the Country-specific Recommendations; (d) the representative organisations of local and regional authorities identified as interlocutors for the implementation of the Code of Conduct, would meet the European Commission during its country visits and consultations at the beginning of the European Semester; the EU umbrella organisations representing the local and regional authorities would take part in a structured dialogue with the European Commission, analogue to the ‘structured dialogue’ between ESIF Partners (4); (e) the CoR would contribute to monitoring the territorial dimension of the European Semester by providing both territorial analyses of the Semester’s main documents (Annual Growth Survey, Country Reports, Country-specific Recommendations and National Reform Programmes) and political assessments at the beginning and the end of the Semester; (f) the European Parliament, in the political assessments it provides at the beginning and at the end of the European Semester, would take the territorial dimension of the Semester into consideration; the Parliament would also cooperate with the CoR on monitoring the European Semester: to this end, the CoR would be invited to take part in the inter-parliamentary week at the beginning of the year as well as in a hearing before the Parliament issues its final assessment of the European Semester in the autumn;
14.

notes, however, that young farmers’ economic position is best and most effectively strengthened after they have actually taken over the farm. In order to strengthen the economic position of young farmers taking over farms in partnership structures, Article 50(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 should be amended. The Committee of the Regions therefore suggests that, should that Regulation be revised in future, the whole second sentence of Article 50(5) should be deleted so that the text reads as follows: ‘The payment for young farmers shall be granted per farmer for a maximum period of five years’. The Committee also asks the European Commission to find an interim solution that allows young farmers to make the best possible use of these measures;
23.

welcomes the idea of establishing a European Solidarity Corps (ESC) and greatly appreciates the modern way of recruiting people interested in the activities offered by the European Solidarity Corps, based on registration via a dedicated website. It should be possible to complement this means of registration with other tools that ensure and facilitate the participation of all young people, especially those in the most vulnerable situations. This method should serve to disseminate the ideas of the ESC, especially the importance of solidarity as the principal value that binds the European community together. The Committee also stresses the need to find solutions that will ensure that young people can join the ESC regardless of their socioeconomic situation and level of training. Solutions must also be found to enable young people with limited access to the internet to take part in the ESC;
29.

welcomes the fact that the Commission’s report on the EU Urban Agenda (1) echoes its call (2) for a review of Decision 2012/21/EU with the aim of broadening access to social housing beyond ‘disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups’. Such an extension would be in line with giving the Member States more discretion in planning, delivering, financing and organising the construction of social housing and would confirm their autonomy to decide how to use housing policy as a tool to create social mix, avoid ghettoisation and create sustainable communities. This would allow the right to adequate and affordable accommodation to be given more priority, because the inability of the housing market to meet accommodation needs in certain regions affects not just people who have no access to housing at all, but also the occupants of housing that is hazardous to health, inadequate or overcrowded, as well as people who are paying most of their income on rent or their monthly mortgage payments. Believes, therefore, that there would be added value to be gained from establishing criteria for defining decent affordable housing at European level;
12.

notes that AI-driven services, as well as other innovative technologies in data-processing, digitalisation and process automation, have enormous potential to deliver benefits to consumers and service providers, while also presenting challenges in terms of ensuring, in a responsible way, non-discrimination, transparency and explainability of algorithms, liability and the protection of privacy, and therefore stresses that the use of AI and of other emerging digital technologies needs to be structured in a responsible way; also notes that existing liability privileges for market-dominant platforms should be assessed with reference to European values, in particular those platforms whose business strategies are run from non-EU countries, and that for algorithmic systems that are sensitive from the point of view of fundamental rights the EU market location principle should apply;
3.

Highlights that the Rural Agenda should: — ensure that mutually beneficial rural-urban linkages are integrated into all EU policies in line with territorial cohesion objectives by making the most of the strong interdependencies between rural and urban areas; — diversify entry points and mainstream rural issues into all EU policies. The needs of rural areas go far beyond what rural development policy can achieve, but what EU funding currently offers is lacking in terms of both quantity and quality; — harmonise the different regulations and reintegrate the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development in the common provision regulation in order to encourage and facilitate multi-funded projects in rural areas, not necessarily linked with agriculture; — monitor EU spending using a rural proofing approach; — rethink the urban-rural typology to improve the targeting of support; — increase the role of the local and regional levels in the development and governance of rural policies The involvement of local action groups in deploying this type of governance must be increased, due to their capacity to represent local areas and implement development policies tailored to the requirements and needs of areas that are depopulated or at demographic risk by an engagement of rural stakeholders and citizens through bottom-up initiatives like LEADER/CLLD; — combat depopulation and social exclusion by for example promoting the smart villages initiative, the bioeconomy and social innovation and closing the digital divide;
45.

firmly believes that it is necessary to revise the impact analysis model and to carry out full, in-depth impact analyses (by sector and sub-sector, by geographical area — country/region — within the EU, in terms of impact on SMEs and in the social, environmental, climate and human rights sphere) of each existing agreement, together with aggregated impact analyses (based on the same criteria) of all existing agreements, in order to ensure that the EU’s trade policy is conducted to the advantage of all, citizens and businesses; regrets the Commission communication’s shortcomings in this respect; notes that the Commission communication makes provision only for carrying out an ex post evaluation of the impact of the EU’s agreements on key environmental aspects, including the climate, carrying out work to develop a better understanding of the gender equality implications of various parts of trade policy and undertaking further analytical work (without giving any further details) on the impacts of trade policies on employment and different aspects of social development;
26.

agrees that there is a need to improve access to healthcare for persons with disabilities. Also agrees with the Commission's assessment of the inadequacy of social-welfare and socio-health services, the limits of which have been exposed during the pandemic. Highlights the particularly difficult situation in remote and rural areas. Notes that this is the first time segregation has featured in a European document of such importance and welcomes this move. Believes that it is absolutely right to address the question of the segregation of persons with disabilities and their de-institutionalisation, so that they can exercise their right to successful independent living in the community, through development of local services that include health monitoring, digitalisation of support for personal autonomy and personal assistance, with the possibility to choose where, with whom and how to live;
4.

underlines the cumbersome procedures for the approval of the plans and stresses that some regions face problems with the timely planning and execution of projects due to the fact that the bigger part of the total available funds, coming from the RRF, has been programmed for 2021-2023, giving little opportunity for sustainable implementation of projects towards the end of the programming period; regrets that only a fraction of the programmes have been assessed and approved by the European Commission and calls on the Commission to consider extending the spending deadline for those resources for the Just Transition Funds that are financed by the Recovery and Resilience Facility;
19.

recalls that the COP 21 Agreement of December 2015 commits donor countries to support developing countries with USD 100 billion per annum but that a common methodology to account for climate finance has to be agreed upon before the COP 22 in Marrakesh. Asks that against this background the Commission presents a consolidated EU regulatory framework on climate finance and integrates it in its draft budget for 2017 considering that the EU had also agreed that at least 20 % of the 2014-2020 MFF, i.e. EUR 180 billion, should be spent on climate-related actions;
17.

notes that the curtailment of freedom of the press and pluralism, and the manipulation of information which has been facilitated by the development of modern technologies and social media, impact negatively on the exercise of democracy at all levels of government. The ongoing review of the Audio-visual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) is therefore very important. As emphasised by the CoR, this should ensure that: — the independence of national regulatory authorities, both from public authorities, audiovisual actors and political parties, is a cornerstone of the European Audiovisual Media Regulation, which Member States are responsible for ensuring at all costs, and which is the primary guarantee of the diversity of information and a pluralistic media market at European, national, local and regional level; — transparency of media ownership is established; — the role of platform providers in both the AVMSD and the Directive on Electronic Commerce is defined; — general guidelines and recommendations for social media network providers and other public platforms to limit the spread of unreliable and false information from unverified sources, or ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’, as these pose a threat to the democratic process, in particular in the run-up to elections, are set out;
50.

Reiterates the need to involve LRAs in shaping a Health Union, as they have significant responsibilities in the field of public health in most Member States. Welcomes in this context the Commission's intention to reinforce the EU's framework for detecting and responding to serious cross-border health threats, including strengthening the role of existing agencies and establishing a European agency for biomedical advanced research and development; in this respect, welcomes the European Health Union package which aims at strengthening national coordination within the EU and existing structures and mechanisms for better EU-level protection, prevention, preparedness and response against human health hazards. The CoR reiterates the need to include regional and local healthcare providers in those new mechanisms which should also support the provision of medicines, medical and hospital supplies. The CoR also strongly supports the proposal, echoing the CoR proposal of a European Health Emergency Mechanism, to create the possibility for the EU to declare an EU emergency situation that would trigger increased coordination and allow for the development, stockpiling and procurement of crisis-relevant products;
12.

further considers that the aforementioned subsidiarity-related proposals should lead to a review of Article 5(3) TEU, of Protocol No 1 on the role of national parliaments in the EU and Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Such a review should encompass granting the principle of proportionality equal consideration as that for subsidiarity, giving the CoR a role in the ex-ante phase of subsidiarity monitoring, as defined above, and also applying the subsidiarity and proportionality principles to EU governance processes more often and in a better way. In the meantime, the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking in the EU should be adapted to already enhance the role of the CoR in the current institutional framework to help identify which level of governance should have the lead role, taking account of the CoR’s territorial impact assessments, its work on rural-proofing, and its newly enhanced Better Regulation and Active Subsidiarity governance scheme;
Opinion

of the Advisory Committee on concentrations

given at the 71st meeting on 18 November 1999 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case IV/M.1610 - Deutsche Post

(2001/C 106/02)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Deutsche Post has supplied incorrect and misleading information in its notification within the meaning of Article 14(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Deutsche Post has supplied incorrect information in its responses to requests of information within the meaning of Article 14(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Deutsche Post supplied the incorrect and misleading information in the notification and responses intentionally.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed to Deutsche Post in accordance with each of Articles 14(1)(b) and 14(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of factors relating to the nature and gravity of the infringements in setting the amount of fines.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the amount of the fines proposed by the Commission.

7. The Advisory Committee invites the Commission to take into account all the other points raised by the Member States during the discussion.

8. The Advisory Committee recommends publication of this Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Annual report for 2000

(2001/C 218/03)

The European Ombudsman has presented his annual report for the year 2000 to the European Parliament, in accordance with Article 195(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 3(8) of the Decision of the European Parliament on the Regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties.

The annual report is available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 11 official languages at: http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int

Paper copies can be obtained from the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

The European Ombudsman may be contacted at: 1, avenue du Président Robert Schuman BP 403 F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex Tel. (33-3) 88 17 23 13 Fax (33-3) 88 17 90 62 E-mail: euro-ombudsman@europarl.eu.int