Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the EESC’s recommendations for a solid reform of the European Semester (own-initiative opinion)
Date: 2023-04-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Semester, European Structural and Investment Funds, civil society, economic governance (EU), economic policy, economic recovery, fiscal policy, public consultation, social dialogue (EU), social partners








C_2023228EN.01000101.xml










29.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/1






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the EESC’s recommendations for a solid reform of the European Semester
(own-initiative opinion)
(2023/C 228/01)






Rapporteurs:



Gonçalo LOBO XAVIER


Javier DOZ ORRIT


Luca JAHIER











Plenary Assembly decision


27.10.2022




Legal basis


Rule 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure




 


Own-initiative opinion




Section responsible


Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion




Adopted in section


18.4.2023




Adopted at plenary


27.4.2023




Plenary session No


578




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


226/2/6




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The European Semester, despite its weaknesses, has played an important role in coordinating national economic policies within the EU. However, its procedures have not allowed for the satisfactory involvement of citizens and national political, economic and social actors in the Member States (MS) in its processes and recommendations. The level of participation of organised civil society (OCS) in the Semester is insufficient and of low quality in a majority of MS. Although there has been some improvement in the consultation on the drafting of national Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs), this has not been consolidated and, in some countries, there have been recent setbacks, for political reasons, in commitments to further support this participation.












1.2.


The European Commission’s (EC) communication setting out orientations for a reviewed EU economic governance framework (1), which the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) supports (2), establishes a more flexible and differentiated fiscal policy framework that will require negotiations and agreements between the EU institutions and the MS. For these to be successful, national ownership of the process and of the commitments made is crucial. To achieve this, a reform of the procedures and timetables of the ESis necessary.












1.3.


The EESC considers that ownership by the MS is only possible with the concrete and structural involvement of political, economic and social actors in the European Semester process. The EESC believes that the involvement of social partners and civil society organisations (CSOs) must become one of the pillars of this revised Semester, as well as that of national parliaments and local and regional authorities. The competences of the European Parliament (EP) should be increased to the level of being able to have more co-decision rights on economic policy guidelines and proposals of an European nature.












1.4.


The EESC proposes reforming the European Semester in order to strengthen its transparency and democracy, the involvement of organised civil society and the effectiveness of its operation, in link with the objectives of economic growth and quality employment, social cohesion and convergence between MS, and of accelerating the green and digital transitions. The existing systems of indicators must be reviewed, complemented and made consistent with each other, thus helping to improve evaluation procedures.












1.5.


The EESC believes that the main instruments of the European Semester, in particular the Country-Specific Recommendations (CSRs), should cover a period of three years, with annual evaluations and reviews. This proposal is consistent with the EC’s communication on a reviewed EU economic governance framework and will facilitate the processes of national ownership and organised civil society participation.












1.6.


It is compliance with the CSRs that makes it possible to assess the validity and effectiveness of the European Semester. Therefore, the EESC believes that the most appropriate incentive is to link their implementation to the EU budget and to receive part of the funds from it, along the lines of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).












1.7.


The EESC proposes that the social partners and civil society organisations be involved through a structured formal consultation procedure, both at European and national level, covering both the drafting and decision-making phases, and the implementation, monitoring and evaluation phases. The procedure should take place in a specific body, or in a pre-existing one to which such functions are legally attributed. Existing national economic and social councils should also play a relevant role in this process.












1.8.


The EESC believes that the principles and general characteristics of structured and permanent involvement of organised civil society in the various stages of the European Semester should be defined in an EU regulation, while respecting the fact that it is up to national legislation to further specify the procedures and bodies in which this consultation is carried out, and complying with criteria of openness, transparency and representativeness.












1.9.


In the EESC’s view, this regulation should establish basic criteria and principles concerning, inter alia, the following issues: timetables (linked to those of the RRF and the European Semester), the formality of meetings and public access to documentation in due time and form, minutes, public communication of proposals and government responses and a roadmap for the implementation of agreements.












1.10.


The EESC believes that the debate on the EU’s fiscal capacity and own resources needs to be deepened. In the Committee’s view, the geopolitical, economic, social and environmental challenges facing the EU in the coming years will require the financing of European common goods.




2.   Introduction









2.1.


The purpose of this opinion is to encourage reflection and the formulation of proposals for a solid reform of European Semester procedures in order to make EU economic governance more transparent, democratic and effective and to involve OCS more effectively.












2.2.


Our analysis and proposals take into account the contents of EU economic governance, the EC’s communication setting out orientations for a reviewed EU economic governance framework, as well as the EESC opinion on this communication and the Committee resolutions on the involvement of OCS in the development and implementation of national Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs) (2021 and 2022) (3).












2.3.


As with the preparation of the above-mentioned resolutions, we carried out a broad consultation of OCS representatives, through the national delegations of the European Semester Group (composed of three members from each country — one per group). This consultation took the form of a questionnaire and seven country visits (round tables). The results of the consultation are set out in the annex (4) and are summarised in point 5 of the opinion.




3.   Background









3.1.


After the 2008 crisis, the European Semester was introduced as an instrument of EU economic governance. Initially focusing on the financial stability of MS, it has over time integrated employment and social issues in addition to economic and budgetary policies. Now, it is a semi-annual cycle of economic, employment, social and fiscal policy coordination: MS align their budgets and economic policies with the objectives and rules agreed at EU level. Since its introduction in 2011, it has become a well-established forum for discussing EU countries’ fiscal, economic and employment policy challenges under this common annual timeline. Greater coordination was needed between MS in light of the economic and social repercussions of the pandemic in 2020 and the war triggered by the unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. Therefore, in 2021, the Semester was adapted to take into account the creation of the RRF. The implementation of national RRPs now drives their reform and investment agenda for the years ahead. With its broader scope and multilateral surveillance, the Semester usefully complements the implementation of the national RRPs.












3.2.


According to Article 18(4)(q) of the RRF Regulation (5), to prepare and implement the national RRPs should provide a summary of the consultation process, conducted in accordance with the national legal framework and a brief explanation of how the input of the stakeholders is reflected in the RRP. These stakeholders include local and regional authorities, social partners, civil society organisations, youth organisations and others. However, as highlighted by the EESC in its resolution adopted in May 2022, OCS’s involvement has so far been generally perceived as unsatisfactory, even bearing in mind the natural differences between countries in the existing consultation processes.












3.3.


The four main objectives of the European Semester are: (1) to prevent excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the EU; (2) to ensure sound sustainable public finance (Stability and Growth Pact); (3) to support structural reforms aimed at fostering economic growth, employment and social policies (Europe 2020, Green Deal, Sustainable Development Goals, European Pillar of Social Rights); and (4) to boost investments. Following the COVID-19 crisis and the adoption of NextGenerationEU, the objective is now also to monitor the national RRPs.












3.4.


In November 2022, the EC published a communication setting out orientations for a reformed EU economic governance framework (6), proposing to maintain the reference values of the SGP (3 % of GDP deficit and 60 % debt-to-GDP ratio) and to establish procedures for debt reduction differentiated by country and negotiated with their governments (with national medium-term fiscal path plans). This revised framework would be simpler, more transparent and effective, with greater national ownership and better enforcement. Under this revised architecture, the fiscal plans of the most indebted MS would be established for a period of four years (with a possible extension of three additional years), while following a specific and agreed investment and reform agenda, subject to annual compliance monitoring. This proposal reflects the ‘NextGenerationEU spirit’, as it has been referred to. The ECOFIN Council conclusions of 14 March 2023 (7) contain many areas of convergence of views between MS and areas where further work on a reviewed framework is needed. They provide the political guidance for the preparation of the relevant legislative proposals by the European Commission. In particular, the Council stated that Member States should systematically involve social partners, civil society and other relevant stakeholders in a timely and meaningful manner at all stages of the European Semester and policy-making cycle, as this is key for the success of the economic, employment and social policy coordination and implementation. This was also endorsed by the European Council on 23 March.












3.5.


Through this coordination instrument, the EESC has continuously sought to boost OCS involvement in decisions that may affect it. The purpose of this has been to strengthen civil society’s democratic legitimacy and confidence in the EU institutions and to ensure a more effective implementation of the aforementioned national plans and agendas. This consultation was therefore conducted to identify the recommendations of OCS in the MS, strengthening their role in these processes. The consultation took into account the ongoing changes relating to the European Semester (the implementation of the RRF, the integration of the REPowerEU chapter and the revision of the EU economic governance framework).




4.   Methodology used for this consultation









4.1.


The data and information required for this report were collected between December 2022 and March 2023. In total, 23 national contributions (responses to the questionnaire and/or the holding of a round table) were received (8). Consultations took place on the basis of members’ own knowledge and involved social partners and CSOs. In some countries, national economic and social councils or equivalent bodies were involved, and in others, government representatives were also consulted.












4.2.


This opinion also draws on external sources, such as think tank publications, comparative research studies and national debates. In addition, the questionnaire was sent out to a few European CSOs, parts of the EESC Liaison Group and other representatives of the three groups of the EESC.




5.   Observations on the results of the consultation


Section I: Follow-up to our previous work on the national RRPs

5.1.   Question 1 — State of play of the involvement of OCS in the implementation of the RRP

In general, there have been no major changes. The main obstacles are the lack of political will of governments, the absence of a systematic and uniform approach to monitoring, and the lack of permanent and formal procedures and structures for information and dialogue. OCS proposes the creation of a central platform on the Semester that would include all national information, the creation of standardised consultation and monitoring mechanisms with a more active role for national economic and social councils (and equivalent bodies).

Section II: OCS views on the European Semester

Question 2 — OCS consultation in the framework of the European Semester.
The consultation of OCS in the context of the Semester is generally considered insufficient and/or ineffective, a formality with a low rate of acceptance of its proposals. National stakeholders interviewed propose: a defined and regular consultation cycle, with better access to documentation and greater transparency, publication of the results, a timetable consistent with the Semester cycle, and visibility of the process to the public.
5.2.   Question 3 — Effectiveness and legitimacy of the European Semester as a tool for economic and fiscal policy coordination

A majority of OCS’s representatives value positively the role of the European Semester in the coordination of economic and employment policies, although the shortcomings expressed prevent it from having greater effectiveness and legitimacy, they consider that the interactivity of the process is hampered by the administrative burden and the lack of a structured and uniform consultation method. They also criticise the low rate of adoption of the CSRs and the poor integration of the European Pillar of Social Rights and social indicators in the evaluation mechanisms. A majority proposes that the reform of the Semester should prioritise medium and long-term objectives.
5.3.   Question 4 — Country-Specific Recommendations

A majority of respondents believe that CSRs are consistent with medium and long-term challenges, although they are too general or focused on fiscal sustainability, neglecting issues such as health, education and social inclusion, and only partially reflect the interests of social partners and CSOs. Better compliance with CSRs requires better alignment with government and citizens’ priorities, more transparent and participatory monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and a more effective system of incentives and sanctions.
5.4.   Question 5 — Pillar(s) of the European Semester to be strengthened as a priority

The priority of structural reforms and growth has been reinforced by the pandemic. Structural reforms promote the resilience of the economy and require investment, the second priority of the European Semester. Investments should support economic development and social cohesion. The strengthening of the social dialogue and the participation of OCS in the Semester must be guaranteed by European legislative act. The essential sustainability of public finances must not be opposed to investments that promote upward economic and social convergence.
5.5.   Question 7 — European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs)

The majority of respondents consider that there is a need to strengthen the link between ESIFs and the implementation of CSRs, and political and social dialogues and synergies between national bodies in charge of managing the European Semester and ESIFs to deliver a roadmap for the implementation of CSRs. Greater integration and convergence of national objectives, policies and resources, better linkage of funds with European policies and better use of resources to support the development of less favoured regions should be promoted.

Section III: OCS views on European economic governance

5.6.   Question 6 — Aspects to be strengthened to improve the way European economic governance is implemented

Transparency and accountability are seen as the most important elements to improve the way European economic governance is implemented. It is important to ensure that all stakeholders have access to information on economic policy recommendations and their implementation, to create clear macroeconomic indicators, thresholds and targets to make the EU economic governance framework and the European Semester more detailed, focused and tangible. Next comes the view that the involvement of the European Parliament (EP), national parliaments, social partners and CSOs should be strengthened to ensure that economic policies reflect the needs and concerns of a wide range of stakeholders.
6.   General Remarks


The review of the EU economic governance framework









6.1.


The EESC supports the EC’s proposals for reform of economic governance (9) and calls for their legislative instruments to be adopted swiftly so that they can enter into force in 2024, when the general escape clause of the SGP will also be lifted.












6.2.


The changes contained in the EC’s communication, in particular those aimed at reducing public debt levels in the MS under the principles of differentiation and flexibility (10), will necessarily entail changes to the European Semester procedures. The EESC believes that greater involvement of national political, economic and social players must also be an inevitable consequence in order to safeguard sound democratic representation of the society as a whole. The diverse views and interests, which are particularly represented by social partners and civil society organisations, should be duly considered in this important area of economic policy. The EC stresses the importance of national ownership. In this context, it is essential for national medium-term fiscal path plans to build on and strengthen what has been done in the context of the recovery and resilience plans, i.e. by including an article similar to Article 18(4)(q) of the RRF Regulation, creating an obligation for greater scrutiny of the way in which MS consult and incorporate the demands of OCS in the plans. It is crucial to have the views of the social partners and civil society organisations on the reforms and investments proposed in these plans and their implementation.












6.3.


The EC has just published a communication titled A Green Deal Industrial Plan for the Net-Zero Age (11). It brings together the need to ensure compliance with the objectives of the Green Deal, the implementation of the concept of strategic European industrial autonomy and measures to strengthen the competitiveness of European green industry in the face of the consequences of the Inflation Reduction Act promoted by the US government. One of the proposals of the Green Deal industrial plan is the creation of a European Sovereignty Fund, in the context of the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, to invest in the most innovative technologies in the field of the green and digital transitions ‘thus safeguarding cohesion and the single market against the risks caused by the unequal availability of state aid’ (12).












6.4.


The political and academic debate on the economic governance of the EU includes issues such as building a permanent central EU fiscal capacity and the level and kind of own resources the EU should have. It is not the purpose of this opinion to comment on these issues. The EESC believes that a deep reflection on these issues and on models for further integration of monetary, fiscal and budgetary policies should be urgently carried out by the EU institutions. However, we believe that the Committee speaks for the majority of European organised civil society when it states that finding common European solutions and building common European goods is essential to meet the geopolitical, economic, environmental and social challenges facing the EU and its Member States and to successfully implement the green and digital transformations leading to a more productive, competitive, and environmentally and socially sustainable economic model. In the EESC’s view, closing the technological gap with the USA and China and strengthening value chains requires a common European industrial policy. The strategic autonomy called for by the European institutions, in areas ranging from foreign and defence policy to industrial, technological, trade, health, skills and research and development policies, requires common European solutions and common European goods. We need more than national solutions based on the fiscal capacity of each MS, which could seriously affect the proper functioning of one of the best achievements of the EU: the single market.












6.5.


The EESC believes that in order to finance European common goods properly, we must start by working towards a proper, efficient and effective use of existing financial resources, making the most of all the resources available in the public and public-private investment and financing instruments at the EU’s disposal. To this end, the EESC calls for maximum flexibility in the implementation of programmes and in the synergies and transfer of funds between them, alongside the application of rigorous evaluation and monitoring systems. The participation of civil society can make this process more transparent and effective.












6.6.


Notwithstanding the above, the scale of investment needs, in terms of common goods and support for the investment to be made by the MS, will require additional funding. In addition, the right conditions must also be created to secure the appropriate private investment and ensure the most appropriate regulatory framework for the long term. This was the view expressed by the EESC in the above-mentioned resolution (2022) on the national RRPs, linked to achieving the objectives of the Green Deal and accelerating the energy transition. We must be aware that a necessary condition for progress in this direction is first and foremost the successful implementation of the national RRPs.












6.7.


The EESC believes that good economic and budgetary governance needs to resolve the issue of the EU’s own revenue system as soon as possible, fulfilling the commitments set out in the MFF 2021-2027 and NextGenerationEU and laying the foundations for strengthening the European budget in the long term.





The European Semester and its procedures









6.8.


The European Semester, despite its shortcomings, has played an important role in coordinating national economic policies. However, its procedures do not allow sufficiently clear and regular involvement of citizens and national political, economic and social actors in the MS in its processes and recommendations. During the Great Recession of this century, the Semester was the transmission channel for clearly pro-cyclical policies, derived of course from the political economy principles according to which it was managed. In the very different response the European institutions gave to the COVID-19 crisis, the procedures of the RRF Regulation have replaced those of the Semester. With the positive incentive of its grants and loans, it has shaped, through the national RRPs, a certain model of indicative planning for investments and structural reforms. When the RRF expires, it will not be possible to return to the previous Semester model. Hence the need for the reform which the EESC is proposing.












6.9.


The problems that organised civil society has identified in the functioning of the European Semester and the RRF naturally vary in nature and intensity in the MS. However, most criticised the following aspects in particular:






—


communication with stakeholders and society is not of sufficient quality and transparency;










—


the participation of social partners and OCS rarely reaches a level of quality that allows their usefulness to be recognised;










—


the narrow timeframes for consultation of OCS within the framework of the Semester make it difficult both to involve all national political, economic and social actors and to comply with the guidelines included in the National Reform Plans and Country-Specific Recommendations;










—


In many cases the National Reform Plans and Country-Specific Recommendations are not sufficiently well structured in their objectives and reform proposals and their social content is inadequate;










—


The level of compliance with the Country-Specific Recommendations is deficient in a number of countries and the sanctions mechanism has proved to be ineffective.
















6.10.


The RRF procedures have improved the situation in some respects. Although we are still on the verge of carrying out the mid-term evaluation (13), the consultations carried out for the two abovementioned EESC resolutions and for this opinion have shown a significant level of compliance with the required reforms. This is undoubtedly linked to the positive incentive provided by the receipt of RRF funds. However, the level of implementation of investments is lagging behind. The level of participation of OCS improved in the early stages of implementation of the national RRPs compared to that achieved in the preparation phase and compared to the usual Semester level. However, no improvement was seen in 2022 and serious setbacks have been detected in some countries, due to political changes.












6.11.


A reform of the economic governance framework, as proposed by the EC, clearly calls for an adaptation of the Semester. The revised common fiscal policy framework will offer a more flexible and differentiated framework involving negotiations and agreements between the EU institutions and the MS. It will entail changes in the timetables and procedures of the Semester. In order for it to remain effective and successful, it will have to facilitate national ownership of the process and of the commitments made, which can only be achieved with a broader involvement of political, economic and social actors in the process. For the EESC, the involvement of social partners and civil society organisations must therefore be one of the pillars of the revised Semester. The involvement of national parliaments and local and regional authorities is also essential.












6.12.


The EESC has already called for European legislative act to regulate the involvement of the social partners and civil society organisations in the Semester. Article 18(4)(q) of the RRF Regulation could be seen as an embryo of the rule the EESC is calling for. We propose that it should be a regulation laying down the basic principles and characteristics of consultations with civil society organisations. This way, the regulation would respect national traditions and procedures for social participation, while requiring it to be carried out in accordance with the basic principles and characteristics laid down in the European regulation.












6.13.


The EC has announced the forthcoming publication of a communication on strengthening social dialogue and a recommendation on the role of social dialogue at national level. The EESC believes that, should this initiative result in the enactment of legislation, this should be complementary to the regulation the Committee is calling for.




7.   Proposals for a reform of the European Semester









7.1.


The EESC proposes reforming the European Semester in order to strengthen the following principles, values and trends: transparency, democracy, involvement of the social partners and civil society organisations, efficiency in its operation and for the growth of economies and quality employment, contribution to social cohesion and convergence between the MS, and completion of the green and digital transitions of the EU economy.












7.2.


To this end, the existing indicator systems — economic and employment, social and environmental — must be renewed, supplemented and made consistent with each other, so as to strengthen the evaluation procedures, which should also involve the social partners and civil society organisations.












7.3.


The EESC advocates a European Semester that always takes into account the social dimension of economic decisions when coordinating EU economies and formulating proposals to boost their sustainable growth. The measures promoted by the Semester must give priority both to innovation capacity and productivity growth and to the implementation of just transitions in the green and digital transformations of the European economy and the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights. This is the fruitful balance that has been called the ‘EU Competitive sustainability’, as defined in the last two Annual Sustainable Growth Survey opinions, which the EESC has fully supported.












7.4.


The EESC believes that the main instruments of the European Semester — Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy, National Reform Plans and CSRs — should have a duration of three years, with annual evaluations and reviews. This would also allow for a better process of participation of political, economic and social actors, increase national ownership and foster better implementation of these instruments.












7.5.


Compliance with CSRs in the medium-term perspective which the EESC is advocating will help to assess the validity and effectiveness of the Semester. The consultation carried out in the context of this opinion identified, in particular, the opinions of organised civil society on the value of sanctions for non-compliance and on the most effective types of sanctions. The EESC believes that the most appropriate approach is to provide incentives for compliance in order to meet national commitments by linking them to the EU budget and the receipt of certain funds by MS, along the lines of the RRF model. For these commitments to be balanced and coherent with all the pillars of economic governance, it is essential that the process of national ownership be democratic and involve political and social actors.












7.6.


A more democratic Semester means involving European and national democratic political bodies in its procedures and, in some cases, in its decisions. We refer to the EP and national parliaments as well as local and regional political institutions. It is not the intention of this opinion to propose specific formulas or competences. However, it should be pointed out that the process of national ownership of the Semester’s recommendations and measures, which is so necessary for their effectiveness, requires these national institutions to play an important role both in drawing up plans and recommendations and in their evaluation. Similarly, the competences of the EP should be increased to the point where it has the capacity to co-decide on broad economic policy guidelines and proposals of a European nature.












7.7.


The EESC proposes the involvement of social partners and representative civil society organisations through a structured formal consultation procedure at both European and national level. Participation should take place both at the stage of drafting guidelines, recommendations and measures and at the implementation and evaluation stages. There should be a specific, possibly pre-existing, body that is formally and legally tasked with the a European Semester consultation and with involving civil society in the evaluation of the Semester. National economic and social councils could have a relevant role in the consultation and evaluation of the Semester in many countries. However, this is something that remains within the remit of individual countries, according to the traditions and legislation of each MS. Individual countries also currently decide whether social partners and civil society organisations are involved through the same procedure and body or through distinct processes.












7.8.


The EESC believes that the involvement of the social partners and CSOs in the various stages of the European Semester should be established by means of an EU regulation setting out the values, principles and main characteristics to be respected, leaving it to national legislation to specify the procedures and bodies responsible for implementing them. In the EESC’s view, the main requirements for an effective formal consultation process at national level that should be included in such a regulation are as follows:






—


The process must be permanent and structured and the specifications should be governed by national legislation; for those MS that already have such legislation in place, the legislation should be reviewed and updated in accordance with the provisions of the EU regulation.










—


The process should not be a one-off, limited to a specific period or year, but should be based on an appropriate permanent mechanism of consultation and exchange, covering all the different stages, with adequate structures and methods. Regular reports on the consultation process should be published annually, transmitted to the EC and the national parliaments and made available to OCS and the general public in each MS.










—


The procedures must meet the criteria of openness, transparency and representativeness. Open access to information should cover all documents and statistics relating to the RRF and the Semester, including key data on investment projects and the results of the economic, social and environmental scoreboards. The use of web portals bringing them together in an appropriately structured way should be extended to all MS.










—


The type of body, or bodies, through which the participatory process will be carried out must be specified by each MS, along with the characteristics they should have to ensure the representativeness of their members and the non-interference of politics in their appointment.Formal consultation of OCS should take place both in the drafting phase of the key documents of the Semester — the Annual Sustainable Growth Survey, the Joint Employment Report and the employment guidelines, the national Reform Programmes, Country-Specific Recommendations, etc. — and in the implementation and evaluation phases. The involvement of OCS should also be extended to the reform processes arising from the CSRs and the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure, or the revised EU economic governance model mechanism.










—


The timetables for the consultation process should be sufficiently homogeneous at EU level to allow convergence on a common process and ensure consistency with those already in place and those adapted to the integration of the RRF into the Semester.










—


The meetings will be convened in due time and form, and the necessary documents and information will be sent to the convened social partners and civil society organisations, allowing sufficient time for them to be studied by representatives of OCS. Minutes will be taken at the meetings and will include the proposals made by representatives of OCS.










—


National governments and the EC should respond in a timely manner to the proposals of the social partners and civil society organisations, incorporating the proposals and reasoned responses into the working documents of the Semester, in its different phases. A roadmap for the implementation of proposals that have been accepted should also be included.










—


Participation of OCS through delegates from its representative organisations and through formal structured consultations can be complemented by online, open or semi-open consultations, but never replaced.
















7.9.


The EESC believes that similar criteria should be applied to the social dialogue and civil society dialogue procedures and the bodies that support them at the European level. Obviously, some adaptations would need to be made due to differences in scope, content and timetables.





Brussels, 27 April 2023.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE




(1)  COM(2022) 583 final, Communication on orientations for a reform of the EU economic governance framework.

(2)  EESC opinion on Communication on orientations for a reform of the EU economic governance framework (OJ C 146, 27.4.2023, p. 53).

(3)  EESC Resolutions on Involvement of Organised Civil Society in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans — What works and what does not?, adopted in February 2021 (OJ C 155, 30.4.2021, p. 1) and on Involvement of Organised Civil Society in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans — How can we improve it?, adopted in May 2022 (OJ C 323, 26.8.2022, p. 1).

(4)  Annex to the own-initiative opinion on The EESC's recommendations for a solid reform of the European Semester (europa.eu).

(5)  Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ L 57, 18.02.2021, p. 17).

(6)  COM(2022) 583 final.

(7)  European Semester 2023 — Synthesis report of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union (20.3.2023).

(8)  AT, BE, BG, CZ, IE, IT, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, CY, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK, SE and DK.

(9)  EESC opinion on Communication on orientations for a reform of the EU economic governance framework (OJ C 146, 27.04.2023, p. 53).

(10)  In particular the EESC outlined a proposal for this flexibility in points 3.6 and 3.7 of the above-mentioned opinion.

(11)  COM(2023) 62 final.

(12)  Speaking at the EESC plenary session on 24.1.2023, European Commission Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager reported that of the EUR 677 billion that Member States had allocated to companies since the start of the pandemic, Germany accounted for 50 % and France for 25 %.

(13)  EESC evaluation report on Mid-term evaluation of the RRF (to be adopted in September 2023).