Comité économique et social européen
Bruxelles, le 10 janvier 2012
SUITE AUX AVIS
adoptés par le Comité économique et social européen
lors des sessions plénières
du deuxième trimestre 2012
Relevé trimestriel présenté
par la Commission européenne
ACTION TAKEN ON OPINIONS
adopted by the European Economic and Social Committee
at its plenary sessions
in the second quarter of 2012
Quarterly review presented
by the European Commission
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
cc
Rue Belliard 99 — 1040 Bruxelles — BELGIQUE
Tél. +32 25469011 — Fax +32 25134893 — Internet: http://www.eesc.europa.eu
FR
-1-
SUIVI ACCORDÉ PAR LA COMMISSION AUX AVIS DU
COMITÉ ÉCONOMIQUE ET SOCIAL EUROPÉEN
RENDUS AU COURS DU 2ème TRIMESTRE 2012
(avril et mai 2012)
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
-2-
TABLE DES MATIÈRES
PARTIE A : Avis exploratoires
N°
TITRE
RÉFÉRENCES
DG
RESP.
P.
DG
RESP.
P.
RTD
8
none
PARTIE B : Avis rendus sur demande du Conseil ou du PE
N°
TITRE
RÉFÉRENCES
13.
L'éducation à l´énergie
Rapporteur: M. IOZIA (Trav./IT)
Avis demandé Pce DK
CESE 1054/2012
TEN/474
15.
7e programme d´action pour l´environnement et Avis demandé Pce DK
suivi
du 6e programme
d´action pour CESE 1052/2012
l´environnement
NAT/538
Rapporteur: M. RIBBE (Act. Div./DE)
ENV
11
17.
La promotion de la production et de la Avis demandé Pce DK
CESE 1051/2012
consommation durables dans l'UE
Rapporteur: Mme LE NOUAIL MARLIÈRE NAT/537
(Trav./FR)
ENV
15
23.
Le marché numérique - un moteur pour la
croissance
INFSO
17
Rapporteur: Mme BATUT (Trav./FR)
Avis demandé Pce DK
CESE 1313/2012
TEN/477
PARTIE C : Avis faisant l’objet d’une réponse substantielle
N°
Pt 17.
1er trim
2012
TITRE
RÉFÉRENCES
Agriculture and crafts – a winning combination
for rural areas
Avis d´initiative
CESE 483/2012
NAT/530
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
DG RESP.
P.
AGRI
19
.../...
-3Rapporteur :Mr KIENLE (Empl./DE)
Pt 43
1er trim
2012
Pour une perspective citoyenne et humaniste de la
politique du marché intérieur
Rapporteur: M. PEGADO LIZ (Act. Div./PT)
Avis
d´initiative
CESE 466/2012
INT/563
MARKT
22
1.
Cadre de qualité pour les services d'intérêt général
en Europe (communication)
Rapporteur: M. SIMONS (Empl./NL)
COM(2011) 900 final
CESE
1316/2012
TEN/482
SG
27
2.
Évaluation par le CESE du rapport de suivi
2011 sur la stratégie de l'Union européenne en
faveur du développement durable
Rapporteur: M. PALMIERI (Trav./IT)
Avis d'initiative
CESE
1304/2012
NAT/531
SG
30
3.
Proposition de règlement du Conseil fixant le
cadre financier pluriannuel pour la période
2014-2020
Rapporteur: M. PALMIERI (Trav./IT)
Corapporteur: M. KRAWCZYK (Empl./PL)
COM(2011) 398
COM(2011) 500
CESE 1299/2012
ECO/308
final
final
BUDG
32
4.
Niveau sonore des véhicules à moteur (règlement) COM(2011)
CESE
Rapporteur: M. RANOCCHIARI (Empl./IT)
INT/621
856 final
1037/2012
ENTR
34
ENTR
36
5.
Coopératives et restructuration
Rapporteure: Mme ZVOLSKÁ (Empl./CZ)
Corapporteur: M. OLSSON (Act. Div./SE)
6.
Partenariat pour la recherche et l'innovation COM(2011) 572 final
CESE 1291/2012
(communication)
INT/599
Rapporteur: Mme HEINISCH (Act. Div./DE)
RTD
39
7.
"Small Business, Big World – un nouveau COM(2011) 702 final
partenariat pour aider les PME à exploiter les CESE 1293/2012
possibilités
du
marché INT/607
mondial"(communication)
Rapporteur: M. VOLEŠ (Empl./CZ)
ENTR
42
8.
Initiative pour l'entrepreneuriat social
(communication)
MARKT
46
ENTR
52
Avis d´initiative CESE
1049/2012 CCMI/093
COM(2011) 682 final
CESE 1292/2012
INT/606
Rapporteur: M. GUERINI (Act. Div./IT)
9.
La responsabilité sociale des entreprises
(communication)
Rapporteure: Mme SHARMA (Empl./UK)
Corapporteur: M. ETHERINGTON (Act.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
COM(2011)
CESE
SOC/440
681 final
1301/2012
.../...
-4-
Div./UK)
10.
Dispositions générales régissant les Fonds
structurels (règlement)
Rapporteur : M. VARDAKASTANIS (Act.
Div./EL)
COM(2011) 615 fin CESE
1040/2012
ECO/314
REGIO
55
11.
La PAC à l'horizon 2020 (règlement)
Rapporteure: Mme SLAVOVA (Act. Div./BG)
Corapporteur: M. CHIRIACO (Trav./IT)
COM(2011) 625- 626 –
627 – 628 – 630 -631 final
AGRI
60
CESE 1050/2012
NAT/520
12.
Les droits des passagers dans tous les modes de COM(2011) 898 final
transport (communication)
CESE
1314/2012
Rapporteur: M. HENCKS (Trav./LU)
TEN/480
MOVE
62
14.
Feuille de route pour l'énergie à l'horizon 2050 COM(2011) 885 final
CESE 1315/2012
(communication)
TEN/481
Rapporteur: M. COULON (Trav./FR)
Corapporteur: M. ADAMS (Act. Div./UK)
ENER
66
16.
Etablissement d´un programme pour
l´environnement et l´action pour le climat
(LIFE) (règlement)
Rapporteur: M. NARRO (Act. Div./ES)
COM(2011) 874 final
CESE 1053/2012
NAT/547
ENV
70
18.
Substances prioritaires pour la politique dans le
domaine de l'eau (directive)
Rapporteur: Mme LE NOUAIL MARLIÈRE
(Trav./FR)
COM(2011) 876 final
CESE
1307/2012
NAT/550
ENV
78
19.
Piles et accumulateurs portables contenant du
cadmium (directive)
Rapporteur: M. ZBORIL (Empl./CZ)
COM(2012) 136 final
CESE 1309/2012
NAT/558
ENV
80
20.
Le huitième programme-cadre de recherche et de Avis d'initiative
développement: feuille de route concernant le CESE 1290/2012
INT/588
vieillissement
Rapporteur: Mme HEINISCH (Act. Div./DE)
RDT
81
21.
Programme – Projet ITER (2014-2018)
(décision du Conseil)
Rapporteur: M. WOLF (Act. Div./DE)
RDT
83
22.
Réutilisation des informations du secteur public COM(2011) 877
(directive)
CESE 1035/2012
Rapporteur: Mme CAÑO AGUILAR (Trav./ES)
TEN/478
INFSO
85
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
COM(2011) 931 final
CESE 1295/2012
INT/633
final
.../...
-524.
Pas reçu
Mesures contre des pays autorisant une pêche non COM(2011) 888 final
CESE 1306/2012
durable (règlement)
Rapporteur : M. SARRÓ IPARRAGUIRRE (Act. NAT/548
Div./ES)
MARE
25.
Fonds de capital-risque européens (règlement)
Rapporteur: Mme NIETYKSZA (Empl./PL)
COM(2011) 860 fin
CESE 1036/2012
INT/620
MARKT
87
26.
Marchés d´instruments financiers (directive)
Rapporteur : M. IOZIA (Trav./IT)
COM(2011)
CESE
INT/622
656 final
1038/2012
MARKT
89
27.
Comptes annuels et comptes consolidés
(directive)
Audit des entités d´intérêt public (règlement)
COM(2011) 778 final
COM(2011) 779 final
CESE
1035/2012
INT/612-613
MARKT
94
Passation de marchés par des entités opérant
dans les secteurs de l’eau, de l’énergie, des
transports et des services postaux (directive)
Passation des marchés publics (directive)
Attribution de contrats de concession (directive)
Rapporteur : M. CABRA DE LUNA (Act.
Div./ES)
COM(2011) 895 - 896
et 897 fin
CESE 1039/2012
INT/624-625-626
MARKT
29.
Fonds d'entrepreneuriat social européens
(règlement)
Rapporteur: Mme RODERT (Act. Div./SE)
COM(2011) 862 final
CESE 1294/2012
INT/623
MARKT
95
30.
Paradis fiscaux et financiers: une menace pour
le marché intérieur de l'UE
Rapporteur: M. IOZIA (Trav./IT)
Corapporteur: M. HERNÁNDEZ BATALLER
(Act. Div./ES)
Avis d'initiative
CESE 1289/2012
INT/587
MARKT
97
31.
Coordination des dispositions législatives,
réglementaires et administratives concernant
certains organismes de placement collectif en
valeurs mobilières (OPCVM) – (directive)
Rapporteur: M. FRANK VON
FÜRSTENWERTH (Empl./DE)
COM(2011) 746 final
CESE 1296/2012
INT/635
MARKT
98
32.
Reconnaissance des qualifications professionnelles COM(2011) 883 final
et coopération administrative (modification directive CESE 1046/2012
SOC/451
2005/36/CE)
MARKT
99
Rapporteur: M. MORGAN (Empl./UK)
28.
Pas reçu
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
-6Rapporteur: M. METZLER (Act. Div./DE)
34.
Contribution du Fonds européen de
développement régional à l’objectif
«Coopération territoriale européenne»
(Règlement)
Rapporteur: M. PÁLENÍK (Act. Div./SK)
COM(2011) 611
CESE 1043/2012
ECO/317
35.
Fonds de cohésion (règlement)
Rapporteur : M. CEDRONE (Trav./IT)
fin
REGIO
101
COM(2011) 612 fin CESE
1041/2012
ECO/315
REGIO
102
36.
Fonds européen de développement régional COM(2011) 614 fin CESE
(règlement)
1042/2012
Rapporteur: M. BARÁTH (Act. Div./HU)
ECO/316
REGIO
104
37.
Stratégie de l'UE pour la région atlantique
(communication)
Rapporteur: M. PARIZA CASTAÑOS
(Trav./ES)
COM(2011) 782 final
CESE
1298/2012
ECO/306
REGIO
106
38.
L´édition du livre en mouvement
Rapporteure: Mme ATTARD (Act. Div./MT)
Corapporteure: Mme VAN LAERE (Empl./BE)
Avis d´initiative CESE
1048/2012
CCMI/092
EAC
108
39.
Stratégie pour la protection et le bien-être des COM(2012) 6 final
CESE 1305/2012
animaux (communication)
NAT/543
Rapporteur: M. ESPUNY MOYANO (Empl./ES)
SANCO
111
40.
Proposition de règlement relatif aux
mouvements non commerciaux d’animaux de
compagnie;
Proposition de directive concernant les
conditions de police sanitaire régissant les
échanges et les importations dans l’Union de
chiens, de chats et de furets
Rapporteur: M. LIOLIOS (Act. Div./EL)
COM(2012) 89 final
COM(2012) 90 final
CESE 1308/2012
NAT/553
SANCO
114
41.
Code des douanes de l'UE (refonte)
Rapporteur: M. PEZZINI (Empl./IT)
COM(2012) 64 final
CESE 1297/2012
INT/640
TAXUD
117
42.
Approche globale de la question des migrations et
de la mobilité (communication)
Rapporteur: M. PARIZA CASTAÑOS (Trav./ES)
COM(2011) 743 fin
CESE 1057/2012
REX/351
HOME
123
Corapporteure: Mme KING (Empl./UK)
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
-743.
Regroupement familial (livre vert)
Rapporteur: M. PÎRVULESCU (Act. Div./RO)
COM(2011) 735 final
CESE
1300/2012
SOC/436
HOME
129
45.
Ordonnance européenne de saisie conservatoire
des comptes bancaires (règlement)
Rapporteur: M. PEGADO LIZ (Act. Div./PT)
COM(2011) 445 fin
CESE 1034/2012
INT/598
JUST
132
46.
Programme "Droits et citoyenneté" (règlement)
Rapporteur: M. BOLAND (Act. Div./IE)
COM(2011) 758
CESE 1047/2012
SOC 453
final
JUST
135
48.
Règlement général sur la protection des
personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des
données à caractère personnel (règlement)
Rapporteur: M. PEGADO LIZ (Act. Div./PT)
COM(2012) 11 fin
CESE
1303/2012
SOC/455
JUST
136
49.
Accroître l'impact de la politique de
développement de l'UE: un programme pour le
changement (communication)
La future approche de l'appui budgétaire de
l'UE en faveur des pays tiers (communication)
Rapporteure: Mme LE NOUAIL MARLIÈRE
(Trav./FR)
COM(2011) 637 et
638 final
CESE 1318/2012
REX/348
DEVCO
140
50.
Coopération en matière de sûreté nucléaire
(règlement)
Rapporteur: M. ADAMS (Act. Div./UK)
COM(2011) 841 final
CESE 1317/2012
TEN/485
DEVCO
142
DG RESP.
P.
REGIO
144
JUST
144
JUST
144
PARTIE D: Avis faisant l’objet d’un autre type de réponse
N°
TITRE
RÉFÉRENCES
33.
Groupement européen de coopération
territoriale – (règlement)
Rapporteur: M. PARIZA CASTAÑOS
(Trav./ES)
COM(2011) 610
CESE 1044/2012
ECO/318
44.
Vers une politique de l'UE en matière pénale COM(2011) 573 fin
CESE 1045/2012
(communication)
SOC/432
Rapporteur: M. DE LAMAZE (Act. Div./FR)
47.
Politique européenne en matière de drogues
(communication)
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
COM(2011)
689
fin
final
.../...
-8-
Rapporteur: M. TOPOLÁNSZKY (Act.
Div./HU)
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
CESE
SOC/441
1302/2012
.../...
-9-
PARTIE A : Avis exploratoires
Pas d'avis exploratoire demandé par la Commission
PARTIE B : Avis rendus sur demande du Conseil ou du PE
13.
Energy Education
Opinion asked by the Danish Presidency; CESE 1054/2012; TEN/474 - April 2012
Rapporteur: Mr IOZIA (Work./IT)
DG RTD – Ms GEOGHEGAN-QUINN
Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels
Position de la Commission
The Commission welcomes the involvement of
civil society and NGOs, and recognises their role
The European Economic and Social Committee
for achieving the EU's objectives in the field of
(EESC) is aware of the strategic part played by
energy.
energy education. A substantial change in behaviour
is needed to move to the low-carbon economy The Commission agrees that it is essential to
provided for in the Commission's 2050 Roadmap. It mobilise a broad set of actors to tackle energy
is imperative to involve civil society in order to efficiency and that this should be actively
achieve the EU's objectives, in particular its pursued.
medium-term target of a 20% reduction in energy
Changing behaviour in terms of energy saving is
consumption by 2020.
also needed, and many EU Member States have
already made some good progress in this field.
1.4
1.2
NGOs' first-hand expertise in developing energy Agreement has been reached by the Council and
education models and tools is extremely important. the European Parliament at the end of June on the
[…]
proposal from the Commission for a new and
ambitious
Energy
Efficiency
Directive
3.6
(COM(2011) 370 final). This Directive deals
[…] Energy education and training should also with consumer information and empowerment in
include, for instance, how to use smart meters in a an extensive way. The Commission will continue
way that saves energy; consumer's rights and working on these and related activities.
obligations when signing a contract with an energy
supplier; how to calculate one's carbon footprint;
and green labelling. […]
5.2
Energy efficiency is at the heart of the Europe 2020
strategy. […] Energy consumers play a key role in
supporting this process. Everyone, adults included,
must change their behaviour, and so appropriate,
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 10 reliable information on energy needs to be provided.
1.6
The EESC supports the new SET-Plan Energy
Education and Training Initiative, which brings
together bodies from academia, research
institutes
and
industry.
Public-private
cooperation, particularly in the research and
innovation sector, has yielded excellent results
and should continue to be supported in the
future. The EESC urges the Commission to
support these initiatives.
4.1
The European Union can contribute to the
development of quality education and training by
encouraging cooperation between Member States
and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing
their activities (Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty).
Without neglecting the chronic need to raise
education standards in all areas, the European Union
should focus particularly on the need for knowledge
and skills in the field of energy. […] Europe needs
chemists to work on capturing solar energy and
engineers to design and build smart networks, and
that is not all. […]
1.5
The EESC believes it is necessary to develop
innovative education, teaching and training
methods and combine them with existing, proven
methods. Information and communication
technologies will play a key role here.
1.1.1 4.4.1
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
As requested by the EESC, the Commission will
continue to work on defining the SET-Plan
European Energy Education and Training
Initiative. The goal is to work towards a
coordinated approach to assess the current and
future situation with regards to energy skills in
Europe and to engage in actions aimed at
building up and attracting energy expertise. The
deliverable will be an Energy Education and
Training Roadmap with a release date planned
for December this year.
12 main sectors are covered: 'Bioenergy', 'Carbon
Capture and Storage', 'Concentrated Solar
Power', 'Electricity Grids', 'Energy Efficient
Buildings, Heating & Cooling Networks and
Smart Cities Integration Aspects', 'Energy
Storage', 'Fuel Cells and Hydrogen', 'Geothermal
Energy', 'Nuclear Energy', 'Photovoltaics', and
'Wind and Ocean Energy', as well as two
horizontal fields: (technological) 'System
Integration' and 'Coordination of Education and
Training Systems'.
The Commission supports the recommendation
of the EESC concerning the need for innovative
education and training methods. In an evolving
field such as energy technologies, for example,
we need to ensure that academic programmes
correspond to the dynamically evolving needs of
industry and research institutes in this sector.
.../...
- 11 -
1.1.2
The
partnership
between
education
establishments and businesses, which was
supported by the EESC in 20091, is of
fundamental importance. The flexibility typical
of the professional sectors, particularly SMEs,
can make the partnership one of the main
resources for job creation in times of crisis and
considerably boost development of the spirit of
enterprise and creativity. Research and
innovation should be an integral part of this
partnership in order to encourage fast transfer
of new technologies. Professionals (engineers,
architects, etc.) should be given ongoing
education in new developments in the sector in
question. Seminars on energy-saving should
also be held in the workplace.
This requires flexible and quickly adaptable
programmes, which may involve online
education tools and systems.
1.3
The European Commission welcomes EESC's
position and the involvement of all relevant
stakeholders.
The main aims of energy education concern
combating climate change and restoring
harmony between man and nature. We have the
responsibility of looking to the future and
understanding and anticipating what society's
needs will be. This is an extremely important,
decisive time in which the European Union,
national governments, local authorities, schools,
universities, research centres, businesses,
industries, banks, trade union organisations,
NGOs and the media are involved in an
integrated, multi-level approach.
5.5
Sustainable mobility. The growing need to
transport people and goods from one place to
another exacerbates the risk of pollution and
congestion, especially in urban areas. A form of
sustainable, environment-friendly and energyefficient mobility needs to be developed. Co
modality is of the utmost importance in this sector.
1
The need to create links and to build partnerships
within the knowledge triangle (academia,
research institutes and industry) is more
paramount than ever if we are to: transfer quickly
research results into the education environment;
ensure that academic programmes correspond to
the needs of the market; build opportunities for
adequate training on the field; develop mobility
programmes both for academic staff as well as
for
industry/research
stakeholders.
The
recommendations within the SET-Plan Energy
Education and Training Exercise will include
such measures as appropriate.
The European Commission welcomes the
EESC's position which corresponds to the policy
articulated in the White Paper on the future of
transport. The Commission will continue its
support for development of innovative transport
solutions. Ongoing initiatives such as Green
Cars and CIVITAS have demonstrated clean
vehicle technologies and integrated solutions to
sustainable urban mobility. Education, training
and fostering behavioural change at all levels
OJ C 228, 22.9.2009, pages 9-13.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 12 has been key to the success of these mobility
measures.
The European Commission welcomes EESC's
Energy education will be able to help resolve position.
issues related to poverty and energy insecurity.
All citizens must have the right to affordable
energy.
1.7
1.1.3
1.1.4
4.1.1
The EESC considers it essential that when the
Commission establishes the next multi-annual
financial framework, it includes energy
education as an integral part of the European
strategy for achieving the energy and climate
goals that the EU has set itself for 2020 and
2050.
The Commission fully recognises the relevance
of energy education. Currently, energy education
and training can be supported by several
programmes:

The EU's 7th Framework Programme,
incl. Marie Curie Actions2;

The Euratom Programme3;

The Lifelong Learning Programme4
(Comenius for schools; Erasmus for
higher education; Leonardo da Vinci for
vocational education and training, incl.
ECVET scheme5; Grundtvig for adult
education)

Calls within the Intelligent Energy
Europe Programme6;

and others.
In addition, the European Institute of Innovation
and Technology (EIT) as an EU body supports
energy education within its Knowledge and
Innovation Community (KIC) InnoEnergy7.
The Commission will continue to develop and
support these and other programmes. For
example, the Commission's proposal for the next
Framework Programme for Research and
Innovation Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) includes
elements that will support the SET-Plan
2
3
4
5
6
7
http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/euratom-fusion/home_en.html
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/ecvet_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/about/index_en.htm
http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 13 implementation, energy education and capacity
building, and other related activities.8
The Commission welcomes the objectives of
The present opinion stresses the increasing need EDEN. In terms of member participation, the
to support EDEN, a European network of network needs some further development if it is
national forums for energy and environment to reach results throughout Europe.
education based on existing local, national,
European and international initiatives in this
sector.
1.9
15.
Seventh Environment Action Programme and follow-up to the sixth EAP
Opinion asked by the Danish Presidency - EESC 1052/2012 – April 2012
Rapporteur : Mr RIBBE (Var. Int./DE)
DG ENV – Mr POTOČNIK
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
3.3
The question as to why many
environmental problems in Europe remain
unresolved despite many long-running EAPs
has not yet really been investigated and
answered by the EU. One thing is clear to the
EESC: the problem is not a lack of
knowledge or of possible solutions, but often
a lack of will to take decisive action. What is
lacking is putting knowledge, and sometimes
even political decisions, into practice. The
underlying cause of this is probably that there
are often conflicts between necessary action
on the environment and short-term economic
interests, in which the latter prevail.
The Commission notes with appreciation the
exploratory opinion on the future 7th EU
Environment Action Programme and is giving it full
consideration in the process of preparing the
legislative proposal, which it intends to present
before the end of the year.
3.4
Of chief relevance to the EESC at the
end of the period of the sixth EAP, however,
is the observation that the Commission
The Commission agrees with the EESC that a lack of
political will is sometimes a factor preventing
adequate implementation of environment policy
decisions. That is why the 7th EAP will focus on
improving implementation of existing policy and
legislation, and securing Member State commitment
to a limited number of priority objectives to be
attained by 2020.
The Commission also agrees with the EESC on the
importance of ensuring the 7th EAP is strongly linked
8
Horizon 2020 will combine all research and innovation funding currently provided through the Framework Programmes
for Research and Technical Development, the innovation related activities of the Competitiveness and Innovation
Framework Programme (including Intelligent Energy Europe Programme) (CIP) and the European Institute of Innovation
and Technology (EIT).
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 14 appears to have abandoned the Sustainable
Development Strategy, of which the sixth
EAP formed the environmental policy pillar.
3.6
Consequently, previous attempts to
coordinate the three pillars of the economy,
ecology and social cooperation within a
single policy of sustainability have been
suspended. Therefore, the framework in
which the Commission, the Council and the
Parliament wish to coordinate sustainability
and environmental policy in future is now
unclear.
4.3
Without a doubt, Resource-efficient
Europe is understood by the Commission as a
new Environment Action Programme, and the
absence of a draft for a seventh EAP even
though the sixth EAP is set to expire in July
2012 must come down to this understanding.
4.4
It is thus no coincidence that the
European Commission only started working
on a draft seventh EAP after the
(Environment) Council and the EP critically
questioned where the seventh EAP was.
with the Europe 2020 Strategy. However, it does not
share the view that attempts to coordinate the three
pillars of sustainable development have been
abandoned. The Europe 2020 Strategy, contrary to
the Lisbon Strategy, broadly covers all three
dimensions of sustainable development. The
introduction of monitoring provisions, such as the
European Semester, and the Flagship initiatives
developed to ensure implementation of the Strategy
in key areas, are significant improvements.
Sustainable development is a long term objective to
which the Europe 2020 Strategy and its flagship
initiatives contribute, with concrete steps and actions
for the next few years. Moreover, the Commission is
now looking at how to take forward the outcome of
the UN Conference on Sustainable Development
('Rio + 20' summit), including through the 7th EAP
proposal.
The Commission has always made clear that a full
assessment of the 6th EAP would be carried out before
a decision was taken on a possible 7th EAP. The results
of that assessment were published in August 2011, and
work began on a new programme soon after. Lessons
learned from the 6th EAP will serve to inform the
development of the 7th.
While Resource Efficiency is a broad concept that
responds to a fundamental challenge which needs
to be addressed if we are to meet our overarching
environmental objectives, it is clearly not allencompassing.
The Commission considers that a gap between the
6th and 7th EAP is not in itself a cause for
concern. Work will continue without interruption
in numerous areas, including the recently adopted
strategies for biodiversity, resource efficiency, the
low-carbon economy, and on other coming
initiatives such as the Water Blueprint and the air
policy review – all of which will serve to inform
the development of the 7th EAP.
4.7
Thus, among the 20 individual
initiatives that are meant to give life to
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission agrees that more needs to be done
to tackle environment-related health challenges as
.../...
- 15 Resource-efficient Europe, there are a
considerable number of familiar faces from
previous Environment Action Programmes,
such as biodiversity, and water and air quality
policy (including transport policy). However,
the issue of the environment and human
health is not given adequate consideration,
nor are chemicals policy or nanotechnology.
well as risks to the environment and human health
associated with new and emerging scientific and
technological developments. One of the ways the
Programme can add value is by focusing specifically
on environment and health.
4.12 Above all, Europe wants for
implementation. There is serious dearth of
real action for which all levels (EU, Member
States, regions, communities and citizens) are
culpable. In this context, the EESC would
like to state clearly: the Commission can
draw up all the well-intentioned programmes
and make all the announcements it likes, but
the main responsibility for implementation
lies with the political bodies and/or in the
Member States.
The Commission agrees that implementation is a
significant problem. The full and even
implementation of the environment acquis across the
EU is a sound investment for the environment and
human health, but also the economy by ensuring a
level playing field for economic actors operating in
the Single Market.
The European Parliament and the Council both raised
similar concerns about environment and healthrelated issues and have called on the Commission to
address them in the new EAP.
The Commission also agrees that the main
responsibility for implementation lies with the
Member States. In this respect, the Commission
intends to take forward through the 7th EAP a number
of ideas on how to improve implementation set out in
its Communication of March 2012 on Improving the
delivery of benefits from EU environment measures.
One key purpose of a 7th EAP is to secure the
commitment of relevant actors at all levels of
governance to a set of priority objectives to be
achieved in the period up to 2020, and to their
implementation.
4.13 The EESC does not consider
establishing a seventh EAP just to offer a
home to all the environment policy areas that
are not covered by the Resource-efficient
Europe flagship initiative to be a worthwhile
option. The interconnection between such a
seventh EAP with a) the flagship initiative
but also b) the Europe 2020 Strategy would
remain unclear.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission fully agrees with the EESC that the
7th EAP should not simply offer a home to all
environment policy areas not covered by the
Resource Efficient Europe flagship initiative.
Rather, the 7th EAP should highlight how the various
policy areas (Resource Efficiency, biodiversity, lowcarbon economy, health and environment, etc) interrelate and support the achievement of each other's
objectives, and contribute to broader economic and
social objectives including those set out in the
Europe 2020 Strategy.
.../...
- 16 4.14 However, the Committee is open to
the idea of a seventh Environment Action
Programme if it is clear what it is supposed to
achieve, how it can be ensured that it is
ultimately more successful than its
predecessors and – thirdly and most
importantly – if there is clarity as to which
overarching policy area it is supposed to
serve.
4.15 The EESC recommends that the
Commission, the Council and the EP revive
the EU sustainability strategy, choose a
comprehensive, workable seventh EAP as its
environment policy implementation strategy,
include the flagship initiative Resourceefficient Europe with all its individual
initiatives within it, and to ensure close and
careful coordination between environment
and economic policy considerations. This
would give the Europe 2020 strategy,
important as it is, the extremely important
task of preparing and implementing the short
and medium-term economic and finance
policy orientations that are needed on the
road to long-term sustainable development.
4.16 In the view of the EESC, such a
seventh EAP would need to focus on
implementation of absolutely binding
decisions on issues that in many cases have
been live for years.
The 7th EAP, which the Commission is preparing for
adoption before the end of the year, is an opportunity
to develop the environmental aspects of the Europe
2020 Strategy and to set the EU's future environment
policy priorities, also taking forward key aspects of
the Rio+20 agenda and implementing the Green
Economy in the EU.
The Commission considers that the 7th EAP could
bring added value in several ways:
-
first, it should secure agreement between the
Commission, Council and European Parliament
on the priority objectives to be attained by 2020
and the instruments that will need to be
mobilised in support of those objectives;
-
second, it should provide a coherent narrative
that explains how recent policy initiatives on
resource efficiency, biodiversity and the lowcarbon economy, together with the 'traditional'
environment acquis, are essential not only to
achieving environmental objectives, but also the
EU's broader objectives of smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth; while recognising that there are
still some gaps to be filled.
-
third, it should stimulate enhanced action at all
levels – and in all relevant sectors – to reach the
agreed objectives.
While the Programme is still under development
within the Commission, the results of the public
consultation carried out this spring show broad
stakeholder support for a Programme that will
contribute to three core objectives: 1) conserving and
enhancing natural capital, 2) ensuring the EU's
economy is highly resource efficient and low-carbon
emitting, and 3) that the health and well-being of EU
citizens continue to benefit from high levels of
environmental protection.
In the Commission's view, better implementation, a
robust knowledge base and adequate investment to
support our policy are all key ingredients in the
recipe for success and will feature strongly in our
proposal. Concerted and coordinated EU action at
international level will also continue to be vital in
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 17 ensuring that progress made in Europe is not offset
by failure to adequately address global challenges.
The Commission counts on the support of the EESC
and the interest groups it represent in order to ensure
that a focused 7th EAP is duly implemented at all
level of governance and delivers concrete
environmental results on the ground.
17.
Promotion of sustainable production and consumption in the EU
Opinion asked by the Danish Presidency - CESE 1051/2012 - April 2012
Rapporteur: Ms LE NOUAIL MARLIÈRE (Work./FR)
DG ENV – Mr POTOČNIK
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
1.1 The EESC calls for the development of a
renewed, joint vision of the economic model,
including consultations within a specialised forum
with all sectors of organised civil society, in order to
set objectives and targets and update the monitoring
procedure.
The Commission is already working with the
retail sector and the food and drink supply
chain through the European Retail Forum for
sustainability and the European SCP Food
Round Table. At the same time, it is
developing numerous contacts with other
sectors of industry to favour eco-innovation
and new business models.
1.2. The EESC recommends to integrate policies for
promoting sustainable consumption and production
closely with the implementation of the Roadmap to
a Resource Efficient Europe, and to make use of a
range of cross-cutting implementation and incentive
instruments, such as phasing out non-sustainable
products, developing a more equitable tax policy,
promoting green public procurement, phasing out
subsidies that do not take account of negative
impacts on the environment, supporting research
and eco-innovation, internalising environmental
costs, creating other market-based incentives and
encouraging consumers and the workforce to play
an active part in the transition process.
Sustainable Consumption and Production
policies are part of the implementation of the
Resource Efficiency Roadmap. Already, the
Commission has just completed a large public
consultation on several SCP policy options,
results of which will be published by the end of
the summer. This consultation was part of a
broader process of reflection that will feed into
a policy initiative scheduled for adoption
before the end of 2012. The provisional title of
such initiative is "Single Market for Green
Products".
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The initiative is about unlocking the potential
of the EU Single Market for Green Products. It
proposes actions to fill the gaps identified in
the evaluation of the 2008 SCP Action Plan
.../...
- 18 and focuses on areas where public policy action
is needed to correct information, market and
regulatory failures, remove bottlenecks, and
stimulate growth and consumption with lower
environmental impacts.
1.4 It is important to go beyond a strict focus on
energy and greenhouse gas emissions to take
account of other resources and environmental
impacts, such as water management and
conservation, soil use, and air pollution and the
overall impact which products have on the
environment.
The Commission is finalising its work on the
calculation of the environmental performance
of products and companies based on a
comprehensive assessment of environmental
impacts over the life-cycle ('Environmental
footprint'). These methodologies take into
account all the life-cycle impacts of products,
and are not limited to energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions.
1.5 It is advantageous to support improvements in
the production process and in products themselves,
consumers can be provided with the goods and
services that will empower them to enact changes in
behaviour and opinion.
The new methodologies for calculating the
environmental performance of products (PEF)
and of organisations (OEF) will help
companies to reduce their own environmental
impacts and improve the products they put on
the market. They will also empower
consumers by providing better information to
choose more environmentally friendly
products and suppliers.
3.7.1. SCP Policies should focus on food and drink,
housing, and infrastructure and mobility.
The Commission is currently developing two
communications on sustainable food and
buildings that should be finalised in 2013.
Food, housing and mobility are priorities of
the Resource Efficiency Roadmap.
3.9.2. The scope of the Eco-design Directive should
be extended and its implementation speeded up.
The Commission is currently considering the
extension of the scope of eco-design to a
growing number of products under the second
Eco-design Working Plan.
3.10.2. Consumer information should be improved
and Green-washing combated.
Necessity of providing consumers with better
environmental information has been integrated
in the Communication on a "Consumer
Agenda"9 which intends to protect consumers
against
misleading
and
unfounded
environmental claims and to revise the
9
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/consumer_agenda_2012_en.pdf
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 19 guidance on misleading environmental claims.
The Agenda also indicates that the
Commission will develop harmonised
methodologies to assess the life-cycle
environmental performance of products and
companies as a basis for providing reliable
information to consumers.
3.10.5. Educational programmes are important to
bring about sustainable behaviour. They should be
targeted at people at all stages of life and in every
social situation.
23.
The Commission has launched a "Generation
Awake"
campaign
(www.generationawake.eu/)
aimed
at
providing user-friendly information on
sustainable living to a wide range of
consumers.
The digital market as a driver for growth
Opinion asked by the Danish Presidency - EESC 1313/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur: Ms BATUT (Work./FR)
DG CNECT - Mrs KROES
Main points of EESC opinion
Position of the Commission
2.1
Appropriate infrastructures must quickly
cover the whole of European territory, including
overseas territories. Operators must guarantee
universal access for all areas, including isolated
areas. The EESC believes that communication
COM(2011) 942 on building trust in the digital
single market may not be sufficient.
According to 2012 Digital Agenda
Scoreboard
SWD(2012)
180
the
Commission strategy for reaching the DAE
targets is progressing relatively well. The Ecommerce action plan foresees a framework
for action. The mid-term review of the
Digital Agenda and the Single Market Act
II are upcoming opportunities for
complementary follow-up actions.
2.3
ICTs (information and communication
technologies) should be subject to standards defined
with the industry, SMEs and other civil-society
stakeholders , with the aim of ensuring that ICT
applications and services are fully interoperable and
compatible and establishing an ICT standardisation
policy to support the Union's other policies
(European Parliament Resolution of 21 October
2010 , points 69 and 72). The EESC considers
financial aid for SMEs and societal stakeholders
The proposed regulation on Standardisation
COM(2011) 315 which is expected to be
adopted by the Council and Parliament in
the second half of 2012 is providing the
necessary provisions for ICT standards.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 20 participating in standardisation to be useful.
2.9
The EESC considers it essential to ensure
administrative cooperation between Member States
and to open up cross-border e-Government services,
which could be facilitated through the generalised
use of the IMI system (internal market information
system). This could be developed within the
framework of European multilateral governance.
The e-government Action plan 2011-2015
foresees among its 4 key areas the pillar 2 :
"Reinforce mobility in the Single Market".
Some of its actions are targeted to
strengthening cross-border e-government
services.
2.11 Operators and citizens should have easy
access to all information regarding their rights, so
that they can carry out their cross-border operations
with total confidence.
The .eu portal Your Europe is dedicated to
be a single point of information both for
citizens/consumers and for business on their
rights when they proceed to cross-border
operations.
3.2.3 The EESC believes that on-line purchasing
problems need to be resolved urgently, eliminating
discrimination on the grounds of nationality or place
of residence and creating the conditions for equal
access rights for everybody.
In order to reinforce the provision set in this
sense in article 20 of the services directive,
the Commission issued on 8 June 2012 the
"Services Package" including a staff
working document SWD(2012) 146 on the
principle
of
non-discrimination
by
businesses of service recipients on the basis
of nationality or country of residence, with
a view to establishing guidance on the
application of Article 20 (2) of the Services
Directive.
3.2.9 The Committee eagerly awaits the European
consumer agenda (COM(2011) 777 final/2)
announced by the Commission, which will assess
the impact of the digital revolution on consumer
behaviour. A pan-European framework for
electronic identification, authentication and
signature is needed in order to double the volume of
e-commerce and make it a lever for growth
(COM(2011) 942 final).
The Consumer Agenda COM(2012) 225
has been adopted on 22 May 2012. The
proposal for a Regulation COM(2012) 238
"on electronic identification and trusted
services for electronic transactions in the
internal market" was adopted by the
Commission on 4th June 2012.
4.2.8 Cloud computing can help SMEs provided
that data security, which is a major challenge to
both the "giants" of on-line services and the "ISPs"
(internet service providers), is truly guaranteed. The
European Commission should focus on the "cloud"
and its benefits for SMEs, and help them to access it
Cloud computing is one of the important
topics that should be tackled at a EU Level.
The Commission adopted in September
2012 a communication on "Unleashing the
Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe" COM(2012) 529 - " SMEs are a central
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 21 (through training and funding).
concern.
4.3.4.1 With a view to the Commission's future
legislative proposal (2012), the Committee would
insist that organisations representing the rights and
interests in question must be consulted. It would
stress the need for transparency and for monitoring
of bodies managing copyright and related rights.
The Committee believes that the tax on private
copying is unfair since this copying is a clear
example of fair use.
The Commission is planning to draw
conclusions on Private Copy Levies, after
Antonio Vitorino who has been appointed
mediator will render his report, foreseen for
autumn 2012.
PARTIE C : Avis faisant l’objet d’une réponse substantielle
Pt 17. 1er Agriculture and crafts – a winning combination for rural areas
trim 2012 Own-initiative Opinion - EESC 483/2012 - February 2012
Rapporteur :Mr KIENLE (Empl./DE)
DG AGRI - Mr CIOLOŞ
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
1.1.5
1.2 In view of the European
Commission's legislative proposals of
5 and 12 October 2011 on EAFRD
and structural funding for the funding
period 2014-2020,
the EESC
recommends the following:
1.1.6
1.2.1. The proposed SME investment
support in the EAFRD should be
expanded and duly qualified, with a
view to regional cooperation between
rural businesses and to crafts and
agriculture in particular. For this
purpose, regional communication
networks and mentor networks of
entrepreneurs should be initiated and
supported on the ground
The Commission would like to point out that it has
proposed new and improved rural development
measures under the EAFRD for the period 20142020. In particular, the new proposal foresees the
support for setting up networks and clusters, various
co-operation activities as well as from micro to small
rural businesses in general.
1.1.7
1.2.2 EU-led local initiatives in the
EAFRD and the structural funds are
an important opportunity to support
regional crafts, agriculture, tourism
and retailing. However, these
The interests of the economic and social partners
have always been taken into consideration under
LEADER. Moreover, the Commission has in its
proposal the period 2014-2020 aimed at
strengthening the participation of the socio-
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 22 -
initiatives should give priority to the economic actors in the local partnerships by reinterests of economic and social enforcing their inclusion in the decision-making
process of local action groups and calling on
partners
more capacity-building and animation activities.
1.2.3 There should be sustained support for
scientific, information and innovation exchange
amongst SMEs in order to encourage and secure
employment in rural areas as well as to support
resource-efficient
and
climate-friendly
economic activity. Traditional skills and
experience should not be forgotten, but rather
protected and utilised as a valuable resource.
The
Commission
has
foreseen
sufficient
instrumentarium in the EAFRD linked to support for
scientific, information and innovation exchange. This
covers various training and exchange programmes,
provision of advisory services, set up of networks and
clusters, development of SME's non-agricultural and
agricultural activities, etc. Moreover, the Commission
has proposed the setting up of European Innovation
Partnership for agricultural productivity and
sustainability, with own operational groups that could
also benefit from support under rural development.
1.2.4 Regional value chains are a significant
opportunity for crafts, agriculture, tourism,
retailing and the entire rural economy. They
should receive attention particularly as far as
regional umbrella brands and joint processing
and marketing are concerned
The Commission has proposed the appropriate
instruments for processing and marketing activities
under the EAFRD for the period 2014-2020, which
can be implemented at all levels (national, regional,
local).
1.1.8
1.2.5
Crafts
and
agricultural
businesses rely on adequate business
infrastructure. The structural funds, in
particular,
must
create
the
prerequisites for this – though flexible
regional budgets, for example.
The Commission's legal proposal allows Member
States or the Managing Authorities to designate one
or more intermediate bodies including local
authorities, regional development bodies or nongovernmental organisations, to carry out the
management
and
implementation
of
rural
development operations.
1.1.8.1 2.2 …. The Commission's legislative
proposals for the CAP and cohesion
policy post-2013 provide the context.
These expand EAFRD funding to
include all businesses, including
small businesses, in rural areas, which
represents a major change….
The Commission's legal proposal extends the scope
of EAFRD interventions in rural areas. At present,
setting up of micro-businesses is supported, while in
the new proposal this is extended to cover also small
businesses.
1.1.8.2 4. Objectives
1.1.8.3 4.1 The EESC holds that it is
essential for European institutions
and national governments and
administrations to better recognise the
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission welcomes the EESC for stressing
on that objective.
.../...
- 23 -
potential of crafts and agriculture,
take the right policy measures and
thereby help secure the prospects of
rural regions
4.2 The EESC strongly supports the harnessing
of additional value creation potential from crafts
and agriculture.
The Commission supports the expressed opinion.
Answers on the bullets relevant to the Commission's
responsibilities were already provided in the context
of points 1.2.1 – 1.2.5 and 2.2.
5.2 In the EESC's view, specific elements of The majority of the proposed by the EESC elements
future EU structural policy for rural areas are already covered by the Commission's proposal.
include:
 investing in diversification, setting-up,
transfers and further expansion of SMEs in Certain support options do not fall in the scope of the
rural areas;
EAFRD, but are more relevant for other EU Funds
 promoting and establishing cross-sectoral such as the ESF (e.g. support for future workforce
cooperation and platforms (for example, needs).
through the establishment of regular round
table discussions);
 supporting
regional
(traditional)
As regards LEADER, strengthening the participation
economic activity with short transport routes;
of the economic actors in the local partnerships has
 promoting regional umbrella brands for been done by re-enforcing their inclusion in the
joint processing and marketing of regional
decision-making process of local action groups and
products and services;
calling on more capacity-building and animation
 supporting quality and quality control activities.
systems as a key to successfully selling
products;
 encouraging
resource-efficient
climate-friendly economic activity;
and
As regards networking activities of SMEs, the
Commission's legal proposal provides possibilities for
 supporting targeted knowledge and skills
their setting up as well as to support specific actions.
transfer to businesses in the craft and
agricultural sectors, as well as other rural
economic partners;
 promoting
innovation
partnerships
between research and industry, with a
particular focus on application and processoriented innovations for SMEs;
 securing and expanding business
infrastructure in rural areas (especially
broadband);
 supporting measures by economic and
social partners to cover future workforce
needs;
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 24  public relations work in the form of site
visits for schools and the public;
 extending the current LEADER initiative
to include entrepreneurs to a much greater
extent and leverage economic potential in
rural areas;
 supporting existing mentor networks of
SMEs, particularly with a view to guiding
cooperation;
 creating and further developing platforms
for collecting and disseminating best practice
in regional development and cooperation
between rural economic and social partners;
 promoting rural regions by providing
flexible regional funding
Pt 43
1er
trim
2012
Pour une perspective citoyenne et humaniste de la politique du marché intérieur
Avis d´initiative - CESE 466/2012 – Février 20012
Rapporteur: M. PEGADO LIZ (Act. Div./PT)
DG MARKT - M. BARNIER
Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels
Position de la Commission
L'on a assisté une recrudescence des obstacles
législatifs et non législatifs dans la plupart des
États membres, conjuguée à une politique
libérale permissive de la part de la Commission,
qui a contribué dans la pratique à la stagnation
du processus de réalisation du marché intérieur
dans certains domaines particulièrement
importants, notamment celui des services.
La Commission s'inscrit en faux avec l'idée selon
laquelle elle aurait eu une "politique libérale
permissive", notamment dans le domaine des services.
L'ouverture de nombreux marchés, de professions
réglementées, la suppression des barrières injustifiées à
la prestation de services relèvent au contraire d'une
politique volontariste de libération des énergies et de
soutien à la croissance. Cette politique s'est toujours
accompagnée de règles garantissant la cohésion
économique et sociale, la protection des travailleurs, et
la possibilité pour les pouvoirs publics de fournir des
services d'intérêt général de haut niveau.
Cependant, alors que l'on attendait de la
Commission un réel changement d'orientation
politique en matière de marché unique […], c'est
avec une certaine déception que l'on a constaté
qu'en dépit des nombreux mérites qui lui ont été
reconnus, le document sur les "Priorités pour
La Communication "Vers un Acte pour le Marché
unique" avait pour seul objet de lancer un débat au
niveau européen sur les priorités à donner à la relance
du marché unique, tout en insistant sur la nécessité
pour celui-ci de servir à la fois la croissance des
entreprises et la confiance des citoyens, le tout dans
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 25 une économie sociale de marché hautement
compétitive", n'était qu'une énumération de
cinquante mesures éparses, sans ligne
stratégique définie10 […].
une démarche "holistique" telle que prônée par Mario
Monti. Cet objectif a été atteint.
Ces lacunes n'ont pas été comblées par la
communication plus récente de la Commission
sur une sélection de douze "leviers", car on ne
voit pas le fil conducteur de l'orientation
politique de base pour la réalisation du marché
intérieur qui aurait été à l'origine du choix
tactique de ces douze "leviers" de préférence à
d'autres, parmi ceux que le CESE lui-même
avait énumérés par exemple dans son avis11.
L'Acte pour le marché unique d'octobre 2010 répond à
cet objectif. La Commission a été guidée dans le choix
de ses 12 leviers par les résultats de la consultation
initiée par la Communication "Vers un Acte pour le
Marché unique" (résultats disponibles dans le
document de travail des services de la Commission;
n°SEC(2011) 467 final). L'orientation politique soustendant cette communication est de mobiliser les
gisements de croissance du marché unique, tout en
renforçant la confiance des citoyens et des entreprises à
son égard, dans un certain nombre de domaines
prioritaires (mais sans hiérarchie les uns envers les
autres).
Il importe de réaffirmer que dans le cadre des
politiques de l'UE, et conformément aux
principes fondamentaux consacrés aujourd'hui
dans le traité de Lisbonne, l'achèvement du
marché intérieur n'est pas une fin en soi mais un
moyen, un instrument au service de la réalisation
de toute une série d'objectifs politiques dans
différents domaines12
La Commission partage ce point de vue.
Il faut par conséquent avant tout avoir une vision
réaliste des limites du marché intérieur lui-même
et ne pas prétendre vouloir en faire ce qu'il n'est
pas possible d'en faire et ce qu'il ne faut pas en
faire, en imposant par la force des mesures
souvent inutiles et injustifiées, qui ne font que
compliquer le fonctionnement des entreprises et
en particulier des PME13, dont les professions
libérales font elles aussi partie, ou encore des
La Commission poursuit également l'objectif de réduire
la charge administrative. Elle conduit dans chaque
projet de règlementation un test PME et un test de
compétitivité, afin que la législation n'obère pas le
développement des PME. Il faut toutefois se garder de
tomber dans l'excès consistant à exempter
systématiquement les PME de toute la réglementation
européenne, et à ne laisser le bénéfice du marché
unique qu'aux grandes entreprises. Enfin, la
10
11
12
13
JO C 132 du 3.5.2011, p. 47.
JO. C 24 du 28.1.2012, p. 99.
JO C 93 de 27.4.2007, p. 25.
JO C 376 du 22.12.2011, p.51.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 26 mesures d'harmonisation complète qui n'ont pas
lieu d'être, alors que d'autres démarches, visant
par exemple à garantir la qualité, seraient plus
indiquées, comme dans le cas par exemple de
certains aspects des droits des consommateurs.
Commission est très soucieuse du respect du principe
de subsidiarité dans ses propositions, mais celle-ci
trouve également sa limite dans la nécessité de garantir
une égalité de traitement des opérateurs économiques
et des consommateurs dans le marché intérieur.
L'harmonisation complète peut également constituer
une simplification administrative pour de nombreuses
entreprises, leur évitant d'avoir à se conformer à 27
législations différentes.
Il faudra également donner un nouveau souffle
et une grande amplitude au système
d'information du marché intérieur (IMI), en
élargissant sa portée et en améliorant le
fonctionnement de la coopération administrative,
en accord avec les suggestions et les
recommandations que le CESE a eu l'occasion
de formuler à plusieurs occasions14. De même, il
convient de reconcevoir le réseau SOLVIT en
lui donnant un nouveau cadre et des moyens
appropriés.
La Commission a fait une proposition de règlement en
ce sens, afin à donner une base juridique horizontale
plus solide au système d'information du marché
intérieur (COM/2011/522). Concernant le réseau
SOLVIT, la Commission fera avant la fin de l'année
2012 des propositions visant à moderniser la
recommandation relative à SOLVIT ainsi que des
mesures d'appui, comme suite au document de travail
des services du 24 février 2012 (SWD(2012) 33 final).
Il faut établir des priorités de manière
rigoureuse. Il ne s'agit pas toutefois de
sélectionner, plus ou moins arbitrairement,
quelques mesures emblématiques mais plutôt de
procéder selon des critères bien définis inspirés
d'une orientation politique claire, laquelle fait
toujours défaut pour l'Europe, et qui accorde la
priorité absolue aux personnes.
Les actions-clés identifiées par la Commission dans
l'Acte pour le marché unique ne relèvent pas d'un choix
arbitraire, mais de leur capacité à exercer un effet
d'entraînement pour l'ensemble du levier dont elles
étaient le fer de lance, leur dimension concrète, et la
possibilité qu'elles offraient de donner des résultats
rapides au bénéfice des entreprises et des citoyens.
Le secteur des services en général15et des
services financiers de détail en particulier16 doit
figurer au premier rang de ces priorités car c'est
à ce niveau que les lacunes dans l'achèvement du
marché intérieur sont le plus marquées alors que
c'est là précisément qu'il faut être plus innovant,
en ce qui concerne non seulement les mesures
Comme le suggère le CESE, les SIG sont indiqués
comme secteur d'action fondamental dans le levier
consacré à la cohésion sociale dans l'Acte pour le
Marché unique, et la Commission a fait les
propositions correspondantes dans son paquet SIEG du
20 décembre 2011.
14
15
16
Cf. JO C 43 du 15.2.2012, p14, et les avis antérieurs qui y sont cités.
Cf. les avis JO C 221 du 8.9.2005, p. 113, JO C 175 du 27.7.2007, p. 14, JO C 318 du 29.10.2011, p. 109.
Cf. les avis JO C 56 du 24.2.1997, p. 76, JO C 95 du 30.3.1998, p. 72, JO C 209 du 22.7.1999, p. 35, JO C 157 du 28.6.2005, p.
1, JO C 302 du 7.12.2004, p. 12, JO C 221 du 8.9.2005, p. 126, JO C 65 du 17.3.2006, p. 113, JO C 65 du 17.3.2006, p. 134, JO
C 309 du 16.12.2006, p. 26, JO C 318 du 23.12.2006, p. 51, JO C 115 du 16.5.2006, p. 61, JO C 100 du 30.4.2009, p. 84,
JO C 27 du 3.2.2009, p. 18, JO C 100 du 30.4.2009, p. 22, JO C 228 du 22.9.2009, p. 62, JO C 228 du 22.9.2009, p. 66, JO C 218
du 11.9.2009, p. 30, JO C 318, du 29.10.2011, p. 133.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 27 mais également les instruments à utiliser. En
particulier, le CESE plaide auprès de la
Commission européenne pour qu'elle suive la
mise en œuvre de la directive "Services", seul
instrument législatif jusqu'à présent synonyme
d'une ouverture de la libre prestation
transfrontalière de services, et fasse rapport de
façon régulière et ouverte sur ce processus.
La concrétisation dans la pratique d'un marché
intérieur
du
commerce
électronique
transfrontalier mérite une attention particulière
[...].
La Commission y attache beaucoup d'importance.
Outre la stratégie numérique, la Commission a lancé de
nombreux travaux visant à mettre en place un réel
marché intérieur numérique, avec notamment le Plan
d'action commerce et services en ligne de janvier 2012,
proposition de transition à la passation électronique des
marchés publics, le livre vert sur les paiements par
carte, Internet et portable, ou la gestion collective des
droits.
Il est un domaine auquel il faut consacrer un
effort
supplémentaire
et
dans
lequel
malheureusement l'UE n'a pas obtenu de résultats
convaincants: celui de l'application effective du
droit communautaire, seul moyen pourtant de
garantir effectivement le respect de la loi et
l'efficacité de la réglementation17 et qui ne doit
pas se limiter au cadre étroit d'une simple
"coopération administrative"18. Pour les citoyens
européens, la reconnaissance, sans ambiguïté et
sans atermoiements, du droit à intenter une action
collective au niveau européen revêt une
importance capitale à cet égard car c'est le seul
moyen, en dernier recours, d'établir comme il se
doit les responsabilités en cas d'infraction à la
législation de l'Union européenne et partant,
d'encourager le respect volontaire de celle-ci19.
Dans sa Communication du 8 juin 2012, la
Commission trace les grandes lignes de ses orientations
en matière de gouvernance du marché intérieur, et
notamment visant à mieux faire respecter le droit de
l'Union. Au-delà de la question de la transposition des
directives, la Commission continuera à faire plein
usage de ses pouvoirs d'exécution. Du point de vue des
citoyens, la Commission s'assurera de la mise en place
d'un système efficace et rapide de résolution des litiges,
en particuliers pour les consommateurs. Cela passe par
le règlement extrajudiciaire des conflits, mais
également par des recours juridictionnels plus efficaces
pour chacun, notamment avec la mise en place et
l'utilisation accrue de la procédure européenne de
règlement des petits litiges.
En premier lieu, il faut entamer une réflexion sur
la nécessité d'une politique relative au marché
Telle est bien l'approche de la Commission
européenne, et la raison pour laquelle l'Acte pour le
17
18
19
Cf. les avis JO C 317 du 23.12.2009, p. 67, JO C 18 du 19.1.2011, p. 95.
JO C 128 du 18.5.2010, p. 103.
À juste titre, le CESE a été considéré comme le paladin de la défense des actions de groupes, auxquelles il a consacré plusieurs
avis parmi lesquels il faut citer les suivants: CESE: JO C 309 du 16.12.2006, p. 1, JO C 324 du 30.12.2006, p. 1, JO C 162 du
25.6.2008, p. 1, JO C 228 du 22.9.2009, p. 40, JO C 128 du 18.5.2010, p. 97.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 28 intérieur qui soit clairement dictée par les
principes fondamentaux des objectifs essentiels
de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union
européenne, en particulier ceux qui sont inscrits
aux titres IV et V de ladite charte, avec un
accent particulier sur le renforcement de la
dimension sociale et des droits des
consommateurs.
marché unique identifie comme leviers, notamment, les
consommateurs, la cohésion sociale et l'entrepreneuriat
social.
Par ailleurs, il faut également réfléchir à la
manière d'articuler les politiques sectorielles
autour d'un objectif stratégique commun en
englobant
les
politiques
économiques,
industrielles, commerciales, des transports, de
l'énergie,
de
l'environnement,
des
consommateurs et de la concurrence dans un
cadre juridique global qui stimule l'intégration et
renforce la confiance des partenaires sociaux et
sociétaux (consommateurs, familles, travailleurs,
entreprises, ONG, etc.), ce qui impliquerait de
réévaluer et de relancer la stratégie Europe 2020.
Cette approche englobante, qui sous-tend la
philosophie de la Stratégie Europe 2020 et l'Acte pour
le marché unique, reste en effet d'actualité. Elle
constituera le fondement de la politique de la
Commission en matière de marché intérieur, de
politique industrielle et d'entrepreneuriat.
S'impose également une réflexion sur les
moyens de renforcer et de garantir la liberté de
circulation et la mobilité des citoyens, en
général, et celle des salariés, ou des travailleurs
indépendants et des professions libérales des
professeurs et des étudiants, en particulier, en
garantissant que leurs droits sociaux (sécurité
sociale, protection juridique, assurance accidents
et maladie, retraite, etc.) soient respectés dans
toutes les circonstances, sans discrimination, et
en revoyant le système de reconnaissance des
qualifications professionnelles et des diplômes.
À cet égard, de grandes exigences de qualité en
matière de sécurité et de santé des
consommateurs au sein de l'UE doivent
constituer la règle.
La deuxième étape de l'Acte pour le marché unique
devrait poursuivre la réflexion engagée en ce sens.
Un aspect qui mérite un examen particulier est
celui de la définition, qui se fait toujours
attendre, d'un cadre juridique approprié pour les
entreprises de l'économie sociale en général, et
pour les fondations, les mutuelles et les
Un cadre juridique approprié peut prendre diverses
formes, et pas nécessairement celle d'une règlementation
générale. Il peut également être utile d'adapter diverses
réglementations sectorielles ou thématiques, afin qu'elles
prennent pleinement en compte les spécificités des
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
En outre, l’Année européenne des citoyens 2013 aura
pour objectif de sensibiliser les citoyens de l’Union à
leur droit de circuler librement sur le territoire de
l’Union, de les informer sur les possibilités de
bénéficier concrètement de ce droit, d'identifier les
obstacles en limitant encore l'exercice et de stimuler le
débat sur les effets du droit à la mobilité.
.../...
- 29 associations européennes, en particulier.
entreprises de l'économie sociale. C'est ainsi que la
Commission a proposé une révision des règles des aides
d'Etat applicables au SIEG qui sera plus favorable aux
entreprises sociales. C'est ainsi que la proposition de
révision des directives marchés publics permettra aux
collectivités publiques de travailler plus aisément avec
les entreprises de l'économie sociale (possibilité de
labellisation sociale, de critères sociaux relatifs aux
modes de production, de marchés réservés à certaines
entreprises sociales employant des travailleurs
désavantagés).
Par ailleurs, la Commission a entamé le réexamen du
statut juridique des coopératives européennes. Elle a
également présenté début février 2012 une proposition
de règlement sur le statut de la Fondation européenne.
Concernant les mutuelles, une étude est en cours pour
déterminer les mesures précises qui seraient nécessaires
dans ce secteur. Quant aux associations, leur situation
sera réexaminée lors des débats au sein du Conseil sur le
statut de la Fondation européenne.
De même, il est urgent de se pencher sur la
définition d'un cadre juridique clair pour les
services d'intérêt général et, en particulier, les
services sociaux, en établissant des critères de
qualité pour les services publics essentiels et en
clarifiant les règles applicables aux marchés
publics, à la concurrence et aux aides d'État20.
Ce cadre a fait l'objet d'une communication-cadre
adoptée le 20 décembre 2011, accompagnée de
plusieurs actes législatifs visant à clarifier et simplifier
le régime des aides d'Etat applicables aux SIEG, dans
le sens d'une plus grande différenciation et d'une
proportionnalité accrue.
Par ailleurs, la Commission a soutenu le
développement, sous l’égide du Comité de la protection
sociale, d’un cadre volontaire pour la qualité des
services sociaux fournissant des orientations quant à la
façon d’établir, de superviser et d’évaluer les normes
de qualité.
Comme indiqué dans la Communication du 20
décembre 2011, la Commission déterminera également
s’il convient d’établir les principes et conditions
permettant à des services publics spécifiques de remplir
leurs missions sur la base de l’article 14 du TFUE. Le
respect de la diversité existante des services et des
situations au sein de l’UE continuera de guider son
20
Cf. l'avis du CESE, JO C 161 du 13.7.2007, p. 80.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 30 appréciation.
Enfin, il faut consacrer des ressources et des
efforts communs en faveur d'une politique de
communication effective du marché unique dans
le cadre plus vaste d'une politique de
communication cohérente et intégrée sur
l'Europe, qui associe les citoyens et prenne
dûment en considération l'opinion publique et
les médias sociaux européens de manière à
diffuser des informations fiables auprès des
citoyens européens et en particulier des
consommateurs, dans le respect de la vérité et en
recourant à un usage innovant de la technologie
numérique21.
1.
La Commission prend bonne note de cette
préoccupation, qu'elle partage. Elle a donné aux
célébrations du 20ème anniversaire du marché unique
(lors de la semaine du marché unique pour une
nouvelle croissance, du 15 au 20 octobre 2012) toute la
visibilité nécessaire, en particulier en adoptant une
démarche participative et interactive.
Un cadre de qualité pour les services d'intérêt général en Europe
COM (2011) 900 final – CESE 1316/2012 - May 2012
Rapporteur : Mr SIMONS (Empl./NL)
SG – Président BARROSO
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
It is essential to translate the new primary law
provisions on SGIs into derived sectoral and,
where appropriate, cross-sectoral law.
The Commission agrees that a sectoral approach,
targeting specific problems in different sectors, is
more appropriate at this stage, given the variety of
modes and organisation of SGEI.
The Committee deems the institutional framework
(Article 14 TFEU, Protocol No 26 and Article 36
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) to provide a
good basis for further development, but does not
believe that the communication provides the
coherent, specific approach to services of general
interest that is needed.
The purpose of the Communication on the
Framework is to bring together in a single document
the comprehensive set of actions on SGEI, following
the new legislative context introduced by the Lisbon
Treaty. The Commission is of the view that it
presents a coherent and comprehensive view of the
Commission on-going and future actions in this field.
The Committee considers that providing,
commissioning and funding services of general
economic interest is, and will remain, a matter for
the Member States to deal with by means of
The Commission agrees on this point.
21
Cf. l'avis exploratoire du CESE JO C 27 du 3.2.2009, p.152, et l'avis d'initiative JO C 44 du 11.2.2011, p. 62.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 31 sectoral legislation that allows for tailor-made
solutions, whereas the EU's legislative competence
mainly relates to establishing the economic and
financial framework conditions and checking for
manifest error.
The Committee believes that, when revising sectoral
legislation which includes universal service
obligations, continuous review is necessary, on the
basis of the new provisions of primary law, taking
into account of employment and social and
territorial cohesion, aspects that have so far been
neglected
The Commission agrees that it will be necessary to
conduct a dynamic assessment of the needs of
Europeans, which evolve in line with rapid changes
in society and in social practices. It is important to
underline the role of the impact assessment
procedure in this process. An impact assessment
precedes the adoption of any significant legislative
and non legislative measure. One key element of
this assessment is the employment and social
impact. This scrutiny applies to all legislation
concerning SGEI.
The Committee therefore believes that it is the
Member States that are primarily responsible for
the evaluation of such services at national, regional
or local level, while the role of the European
Commission is simply to share best practices and
to monitor compliance of those services with the
general principles set out in the EU treaties.
The Commission acknowledges the essential role
and the wide discretion of national, regional and
local authorities in providing SGEIs. The
Commission does not intend to interfere with MS
competences and fully respects the principle of
subsidiary.
The Committee considers that the definition of SGI
should do more than just refer to the existence of a
market. It could, for example, make reference to
democratically legitimised political decisionmaking in the Member States. The Committee
recommends that there be broad consultation on
this matter and that a new glossary be produced.
The Commission is currently working on the
revision of the Guide of state aid and public
procurement rules applying to SGEI. This document
will be the place where clarifications and replies to
frequently asked questions will be provided.
Regarding the permanent guarantee of access to
essential services such as postal services, basic
banking services, public transport, energy and
electronic communications, the Committee
believes that there should be a universal right of
access, particularly for vulnerable customers such
as people with disabilities and those living below
the poverty line.
The Commission aims at creating the conditions for
a broad access to SGEI. The Commission regularly
checks existing universal obligations (for example:
postal services, transport and energy). Moreover,
the Commission has recently adopted a
recommendation on basic banking.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 32 Member States will need to make a continuous,
fully substantiated assessment, on the basis of the
legal regime in force and subject to review by the
Commission, of whether to keep these services in
public ownership (or bring them into such
ownership), or hand them over, in whole or in part
and under strict conditions, to the market.
The Treaty is neutral in relation to public and
private ownership. MS are free to decide whether to
privatise or not, in compliance with EU rules.
The Committee feels that more attention should
have been given in the communication to social,
health and labour market services of general
interest. It also calls on the Commission to step up
its work on the definition of social services of
general interest
It is up to the Member States to define what they
consider as social services of general interest
(SSGI): they benefit of considerable discretion
subject to the review of manifest error of assessment
from the Commission and the Court of Justice.
However, in its first Communication on SSGI in
200622, the Commission described SSGI identifying
two broad types of services, statutory and
complementary social security schemes covering the
main risks of life, and services provided directly to
the person, such as social assistance services,
employment and training services, childcare, social
housing or long-term care for the elderly and for
people with disabilities.
Moreover, in 200723, the Commission refined its
analysis of SSGI by identifying a certain number of
objectives and principles of organisation of social
services.
22
23
Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: Social services of general interest in the European Union, COM(2006) 177,
26 April 2006.
See the Commission Communication Services of general interest, including social services of general interest: a new European
commitment, COM(2007) 725 final of 20 November 2007.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 33 The Committee calls on the Commission to put
forward proposals to promote quality initiatives
without delay, particularly for social services of
general interest,
In addition, the Commission should follow up on
the implementation of the Voluntary European
Quality Framework for Social Services at Member
State level.
2.
The Commission encourages Member States to
provide high-quality and efficient social services
notably in the Country Specific Recommendations
addressed to the Member States within the
European Semester and also in more specific ongoing initiatives concerning Active Inclusion and
child poverty.
More specifically the Commission has introduced a
reference to the Voluntary European Quality
Framework for Social Services adopted by the SPC
in 2010 in its 2011 proposal for a new Public
Procurement Directive24. The SPC Quality
Framework could therefore become a source of
inspiration for public authorities in the Member
States when they have to define quality criteria for
the choice of the provider of social services.
Une Europe efficace dans l'utilisation des ressources
Own opinion report –CESE 1304/2012 – NAT/531 – May 2012
Rapporteur : M. PALMIERI (Act. Div./DE)
SG - President Barroso
Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels
Position de la Commission
1.2 No Commission report in 2011 on the EU
SDS.
The Commission underlines that it attaches great
importance to the promotion of sustainable
development both in the EU and internationally.
Rather than publishing a separate report on the EU
SDS, the Commission considers that the
mainstreaming of sustainable development into all
EU-internal and external policies will be better
suited to reach sustainable development objectives
and ensure that concrete policy actions will be
taken to address them. The main tools for
mainstreaming sustainable development are the
Europe 2020 strategy governance, the established
impact assessment process and the follow-up to the
Rio+20 Summit where the EU recently advocated
24
COM(2011) 896 final of 20.12.20011. See:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011PC0896:EN:NOT.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 34 sustainable
actions.
development
goals
and concrete
The Europe 2020 strategy to deliver smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth provides a
comprehensive and operational governance
framework with participation by Heads of State
and Government which, in the Commission's view,
constitutes a significantly improved opportunity to
mainstream sustainable development in the
Union's policies and to report on progress in
mainstreaming sustainable development in policies
for growth while identifying areas for action to
overcome concrete shortcomings in Member
States.
1.3 Need to launch actions to measure sustainable
development more accurately and assess prosustainability measures.
There is a comprehensive process led by ESTAT
to publish biannually a range of sustainable
development indicators. The Commission is also
working on developing indicators to monitor
resource efficiency as a follow-up to the resource
efficiency roadmap.
All new and significant measures and proposals
developed by the Commission must be subjected
to impact assessment with a view to assess their
impacts in terms of the three pillars of sustainable
development. The Court of Auditors has assessed
this impact assessment system and concluded that
it compares favourably to other systems
internationally.
1.4 Activate democratic processes that encourage
public awareness and participation in decision
making.
The EU is a party to the Aarhus Convention on
access to environmental information, participation
in decision making and access to justice. In
addition, and in line with the principles of smarter
regulation, stakeholders including the public must
be consulted for a minimum of 12 weeks on all
new significant proposals.
1.5 Need to reinforce links between the EU SDS
and other policies including the Europe 2020
strategy.
The EU SDS has played an important role in
shaping the Europe 2020 strategy. Consequently,
the Europe 2020 strategy integrates the mid- and
long-term horizons for achieving smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth. Delivery on the
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 35 five headline targets is ensured by 7 flagship
initiatives (amongst which "A resource-efficient
Europe"), which are each followed up by a number
of concrete policy initiatives.
Progress on improving resource efficiency and the
other targets and flagship initiatives will be
monitored within the governance framework of the
Europe 2020 Strategy and the "European
Semester". This will bring together the input of
sectoral Councils, the Member States' national
reform programmes, the opinions of the
Commission as well conclusions of the European
Council. This will result in a strengthened
mechanism to deliver greater integration and
policy coherence in favour of the environment and
sustainable development.
To ensure the highest possible impact and
coherence across the board, the Commission
considers that the relevant elements of the EU SDS
should be integrated into the European Semester
which is the main governance tool of the Europe
2020 strategy.
1.8 More investment in research and innovation
particularly in the field of energy to promote
renewable energy sources and reduced energy
intensity of the economy.
The Commission ensured that its proposals for the
next multi-annual financial framework (including
Horizon 2020, Cohesion policy and the
Connecting Europe Facility) reflect the importance
of improving the efficiency and carbon emissions
of the Union's energy system.
1.11 Should continue development of non-GDP
based indicators.
GDP will remain an important measurement of
economic output. The Commission is working
closely with partners worldwide on other
indicators
that
might
capture
more
comprehensively the development of society.
3.
Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for
the years 2014-2020
EESC 0177/2011- May 2012
Rapporteur: Mr PALMIERI (Work./IT)
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 36 DG BUDG – Mr LEWANDOWSKI
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
The Committee reiterates that the ambitious
challenges facing the EU make it necessary to
increase the size of the EU budget so as to
revitalise economic growth and employment.
Freezing the MFF in real terms at current levels
would mean failing to address many of the
challenges that the EU will have to cope with in
the coming years.
The Commission proposals for the next MFF
represent a credible budget that matches our
ambition while also reflecting the current restraints
in national public finances. It will allow the
European Union and its Member States to respond
to the challenges that we face in the next few years.
While keeping the level of the Financial Framework
constant in real terms based on 2013, it is the
Commission's ambition to spend differently, with
more emphasis on results and performance and by
reallocating resources to growth-oriented spending
areas. While the size of the budget is an important
element of the discussions, so is its design. The
Commission proposals envisage to modernise and
simplify the budget and to make sure that the EU
budget supports the new system of economic
governance and the Europe 2020 goals and delivers
real 'EU value-added'. So, the proposal also puts
more emphasis on increasing the quality,
effectiveness
and
leveraging capacity of
expenditure.
The Committee has previously endorsed
returning to the original spirit of the Treaty of
Rome and thus giving the EU proper financial
autonomy.
The Commission welcomes the Committee's
agreement on the need for the introduction of
genuine EU own resources to partially replace
national contributions. There is a need to re-align
EU financing with the principles of autonomy,
transparency and fairness and to ensure that the EU
is able to achieve its policy objectives, in
accordance with the provisions of Article 311
TFEU.
The Commission welcomes the Committee's support
for the proposed new VAT resource and a new own
resource based on a financial transactions tax.
For the new VAT OR the Commission proposals
incorporate a much simpler and more transparent
structure. While there is obviously a link between
our proposals and the EU VAT policy, it should be
clear that the VAT based own resource does not
require any changes to the VAT legislation at EU or
national level. The Commission agrees with the
The Committee supports the proposal to modify
the VAT own resource insofar as it would
contribute to the development of the EU's
internal market and prevent economic distortions
within the Member States. It points out that the
Commission's proposal is short on specifics as
regards changes to the structure of the VAT
resource and on how this would translate in
monetary terms for the individual Member States.
While reiterating the need to secure global
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 37 application of the FTT, the Committee believes
that introducing an FTT at EU level would help
increase the contribution of the financial sector to
the EU and Member States' budgets and reduce
the economic volatility brought about by purely
speculative actions.
The Committee advocates exploring the idea of
creating innovative financial instruments to cover
those investments requiring vast resources
beyond the provisions of the MFF.
Committee's assessment regarding the advantages of
introducing an FTT at EU level.
We welcome the Committee's approach on
innovative financial instruments. The Commission
indeed envisages greater use of these instruments to
mobilise additional private capital. Thus, in terms of
projects, 1 euro from the EU budget can leverage
several times that amount.
The Committee welcomes the CAP reform.
Achieving the goal of harmonising competitive
conditions for European farmers and increasing
the integration of the new Member States must
involve a careful assessment of the potential
effects on all Member States. In order to avoid
distorting competition, it must be ensured that no
country's direct payments are under 90% of the
average of the 27 EU Member States at the end
of the financial framework for the period 20142020.
The Commission fully agrees that there has to be a
more equal distribution of direct support and we
need to move away from historical payment
references. However, the Commission considers that
levels of direct aids can only be brought
progressively closer together between Member
States, taking account of the differences that still
exist in wage levels and input costs. Therefore, it
has proposed that all Member States with direct
payments below 90% of the EU-27 average will by
2018 close one third of the gap between their
current level and 90% of the EU average direct
payments. For this redistribution a transition period
is deemed necessary in order to allow farmers in the
Member States to adjust to changing levels of direct
payments. The proposed redistribution reflects the
objectives of this support in a pragmatic,
economically and politically feasible manner [and
does certainly not preclude further convergence
beyond 2020.]
The Committee is opposed to the idea of The Commission is aware of the Committee's
applying macroeconomic conditionality to the opposition to the application of macroeconomic
disbursement of cohesion policy funds.
conditionality to the disbursement of cohesion
policy funds. The Commission considers
conditionality to be a key element in the new
cohesion policy. The purpose is to ensure that the
effectiveness of cohesion expenditure is not
undermined by unsound macro-fiscal policies.
Therefore, conditionality linked to the new
economic governance should complement the sector
specific
ex
ante
conditionality.
‘Macro-
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 38 conditionality’ will make it possible to bring about
structural reforms much more effectively than in the
past.
4.
Niveau sonore des véhicules à moteur
COM(2011) 856 final – CESE 1037/2012 - Avril 2012
Rapporteur : M. RANOCCHIARI (Empl./IT)
DG ENTR - M. TAJANI
Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels
Position de la Commission
Le rapport du CESE, rédigé par M.
Ranocchiari, soutient l'initiative de la
Commission visant à mettre à jour, sous
forme de règlement, les limites de bruit des
véhicules à moteurs.
La Commission se réjouit de ce soutient.
Le rapporteur, a cependant insisté sur le besoin
d'une approche intégrée tenant compte
notamment du bruit généré par la chaussée ou
les pneumatiques.
La Commission est en faveur d'une approche
intégrée, qui a été actée dans le rapport du groupe à
haut niveau "CARS 21". De plus, sur proposition de
la Commission, le législateur a déjà adopté le
règlement (CE) 661/2009 sur le bruit des
pneumatiques. La proposition de la Commission
traite maintenant du bruit moteur+pneus émis par les
véhicules à 4 roues et plus.
M. Ranocchiari, a également proposé de revoir
la catégorisation des véhicules (tableau Annexe
III), notamment pour les véhicules de sport.
La Commission a maintenu les catégories existantes
pour faciliter la comparaison des limites proposées
par rapport aux anciennes limites. La Commission est
prête à examiner des modifications de catégories, si
celles-ci s'appuient sur les valeurs recueillies lors de
d'homologation des véhicules et si cela ne réduit pas
le niveau d'ambition. La Commission est aussi prête
à étudier le cas spécifique des véhicules de sport. Il
faut noter que, dans la proposition de la Commission,
ces véhicules font déjà l'objet d'une dérogation par
rapport aux autres voitures.
M. Ranocchiari a proposé de réexaminer les
délais de réalisation, et en particulier de
supprimer la première phase de nouvelle limite
(tableau Annexe III)
La Commission est prête à étudier cette proposition,
notamment si cela permet à aboutir à un compromis
entre institutions et si le niveau d'ambition final est
maintenu.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 39 -
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 40 -
5.
25
26
Cooperatives and restructuring
Own initiative opinion - EESC 1049/2012 – April 2012
Rapporteur: Ms ZVOLSKÁ (Empl./ CZ);
co-rapporteur: Mr OLSSON (Var. Int./ SV)
DG ENTR - Mr TAJANI
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
1.4. Cooperatives should therefore be taken into
account in all EU policies contributing to smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth as well as in the
relevant flagship initiatives of the EU2020
strategy. A level playing field between
cooperatives and other forms of enterprises must
be ensured whilst preserving the aims and working
methods of cooperatives.
The Commission’s policy concerning
cooperatives, as expressed in the
communication of 200425 and various
replies to the questions of members of the
European Parliament, is to guarantee that
they can grow and prosper alongside the
traditional companies and to ascertain to
them a level playing field and equal
footing in the implementation of all
European policies.
1.5. In order to high-light the particular
cooperative
experience
in
restructuring
cooperative enterprises should take part in the
aims and actions of EU industrial policy including
the specific Flagship Initiative.
The cooperatives, as all other forms of
enterprise, are covered by the industrial
policy
flagship
initiative.
A
communication reviewing the industrial
policy will be adopted by the Commission
in autumn 2012. In this respect the
Commission invited all citizens and
organisations to contribute to the on-going
public consultation26. (closed on 7
August).
1.6. The EU Commission and the EIB/EIF should
ensure that EU level financial mechanisms –
including the SME financing action plan suggested
in the Single Market Act – must be accessible by
the cooperative enterprises and should make a
special effort together with the cooperative
banking sector to see that this is the case also
The cooperatives are eligible under all
Community programmes for promotion of
SMEs, including access to finance. The
Progress Micro-finance Facility, envisages
increasing the offer of loans up to
25 000 euros for creation or development
of small social economy enterprises. Two
COM (2004) 18 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V5&T2=2004&T3=18&RechType=RECH_naturel&Submit=Search
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/industrial-competitiveness/industrial-policy/consultations/index_en.htm
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 41 identifying
specific
instruments.
The
intermediation role of EIB financial instruments
for smaller cooperative banks should also be made
easier
in
particular
through
simplified
administrative requirements.
1.7. New rules on public procurements and
state aid (Almunia package) should come into
force as soon as possible. These rules and their
implementation in the Member States should
be simplified and incorporate specific measures
in order to improve opportunities for social
cooperatives that employ persons with
disabilities or other disadvantaged groups.
They should also cover the experience of
cooperatives managing properties that have
been confiscated from illegal activities (cf
Italian case of mafia property).
1.8. Measures to facilitate the transfer of businesses
to employees should be introduced following the
EESC proposal of a framework facilitating
Employee
Financial
Participation.
Worker
cooperatives/worker buy-outs should be supported
by a specific EU budget line that also includes
financial instruments.
27
28
29
cooperative banks in CY and EL have been
already chosen for national respondents27.
In December 2011, as announced in the
Social Business Initiative (SBI), key action
10, the Commission adopted proposals on
public procurement, as a part of an overall
programme
aiming
at
in-depth
modernisation of public procurement in the
EU28. The Directives on the revision of
public procurement rules should be
adopted by the end of 2012.
As regards the State aid, the Commission
adopted a new Services of General
Economic Interest (SGEI) package29 in
order to define the conditions under which
State aid in the form of public service
compensation
can
be
considered
compatible with the EU rules. The package
also contains a clarifying Communication
and a de minimis Regulation that
simplifies the treatment of small amounts
of compensation. The new SGEI Decision
takes account of the special nature of
social services and simplifies their
treatment considerably.
Although the Commission supports the
transfer of business to employees notably in
the event of the death of individual owners
with adequate successors, it is difficult in
the current budgetary constraints to dedicate
a specific budget line to support it.
Central Cooperative Bank (Cyprus) and Pancretan Cooperative Bank (Greece). See also Key Action 2 of SBI.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/reform_proposals_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/sgei.html
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 42 1.9. The programmes and funds that are established
for the upcoming EU budgeting period 2014-2020
have to become important instruments for
supporting cooperatives, in particular the Structural
Funds. When defining operational programmes,
priorities and measures should focus on providing
support for sustainable enterprise development and
responsible restructuring and include measures such
as business transfers to employees, social
cooperatives, local development and social
innovation using global grants and other financial
instruments.
30
31
According to the SBI, key action 3, in the
framework of the EU Programme for Social
Change and Innovation, the Commission
has proposed that a 90-million euro
European financial instrument be set up to
facilitate access to funding for start-up,
development and expansion of social
enterprises, including social cooperatives.
The Commission has also proposed an
investment priority for 'social enterprises' to
be introduced in the FEDER et FSE
regulations from 201430. Finally the
Commission proposed to Member States to
organise a partnership with the economic
and social partners, and bodies representing
civil society for the Partnership Contract
and each national operational programme.31
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_fr.cfm
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/regulation/pdf/2014/proposals/regulation/general/general_proposal_en.pdf
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 43 1.10. The EESC asks that a simplified regulation
on the European Cooperative Society be adopted
during 2012. This should be supplemented by an
update of how cooperatives principles are
implemented in national laws.
The Commission published in February
2012 – the UN International Year of
Cooperatives - its report on the
implementation
of
the
European
Cooperative Society (SCE) Regulation. On
this basis a consultation with stakeholders
on eventual simplification is on-going. A
large conference was organised in April
2012 in Brussels in order to consult
cooperatives and their organisations. A
second conference was organised in
September 2012 under the Cyprian
Presidency in order to consult Member
States. In these fora, the Commission
asked stakeholders whether the SCE
Regulation should be simplified and
whether it can be made more independent
of national laws. This action forms part of
the ongoing reflection on the future of EU
Company Law in order to help the
Commission’s assessment on the necessity
and, if appropriate, on the instruments to
be used in order to meet the demand of
business in Europe for a more level
playing field, better regulation and
simplification.
1.13. By their objectives and governance model,
cooperatives are a natural stakeholder in the social
business initiative recently launched by the EU
Commission. The key actions proposed should
therefore also target the cooperative sector. One
urgent issue is to take into account the
cooperatives experience on tailor made financial
instruments also in the recent proposal for
European Social Entrepreneurship Funds.
SBI includes actions addressed to
cooperatives.
In
addition
social
cooperatives can benefit from the proposed
promotional measures as all other social
enterprises. Furthermore the Commission
recently established a group of experts on
social
entrepreneurship
(GECES),
including representatives of cooperative
organisations. The objective of the group is
to support the implementation of SBI key
actions, comprising also proposals for
financial instruments.
6.
Partnering in Research and Innovation
COM (2011) 572 final – CESE 1291/2012 - May 2012
Rapporteur : Ms HEINISCH (Var.Int./DE)
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 44 DG RTD - Mrs GEOGHEGAN-QUINN
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
To ensure that partnerships have a long lifespan
and a sustainable impact, conditions must be put
in place which are geared towards overcoming
challenges relating to management structures,
financing and implementation.
Important conclusions have already been
drawn for the design of partnerships and
potential solutions have been proposed to
meet the existing challenges. In this
connection, the Voluntary Guidelines on
Framework
Conditions
for
Joint
Programming in Research are in the
process of being tested for the
development of Joint Programming
Initiatives. These guidelines aim to
enhance
the
efficiency
and
the
transparency in the evaluation process,
establish a system capable of forward
looking, and propose the creation of wellaccepted mechanisms for monitoring the
programmes and their objectives. They
also ensure that relevant information is
exploited as needed and establish adequate
treatment of IPR issues.
A basic requirement is that partnerships must be
simple, flexible, inclusive and open, steering
groups should be representative and balanced,
and relations between existing initiatives and
instruments must be clarified from the
beginning.
The Commission fully agrees that the
general principle of variable geometry
should be ensured in the context of
partnering in R&I. As regards PublicPublic
Partnerships
(P2Ps),
the
participation must be voluntary and open
to all MS/AS (either as partners or
observers).
As
for
Public-Private
Partnerships (PPPs), they must operate in
an open and transparent set-up (no “closed
shops”), as indicated in point 3.2.9. of the
Communication.
The EESC stresses the importance of social
innovation as a key instrument for creating an
innovation-friendly environment with a view to
encouraging businesses, the public sector, the
social partners and other civil society
organisations to cooperate and thus increase
their innovation and production capacity.
Since 2011, the Commission has been
consistently supporting a significant
research programme on social innovation
through various calls for proposals, in
particular in the Socio-economic Sciences
and Humanities Programme as well as in
the
Health
Programme
of
FP7
(Commitment 27-B of the Innovation
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 45 Union). Additionally, the Commission has
put great importance on social innovation
in its proposal for Horizon 202032, in
particular through devoting a specific
action line to social innovation under
Societal Challenge 6.
32
33
34
In order to take forward the partnership approach,
clarification and ongoing review of the
relationship between the EIP and other political
initiatives is required (point 2.3.2 of the
communication).
This issue is mentioned in point 5.i. of the
Commission’s Communication on the
Innovation Union33, where it is indicated
that the EIP “will streamline, simplify and
better coordinate existing instruments and
initiatives and complement them with new
actions where necessary”.
Facilitating coordinated implementation and
funding of European and national programmes
as a matter of necessity with a view to
addressing societal challenges more effectively
(points 3.1.3 and 3.3.3 of the communication)
should involve an adjustment of Member States'
national administrative procedures, national
development guidelines and funding conditions.
The Commission agrees with the view that,
in order to tackle societal challenges, an
intensified coordination and integration of
existing national research programmes is
needed. This point is specifically addressed
on
the
section
of
the
ERA
34
Communication
dealing
with
transnational co-operation (section 2.2).
Furthermore, the EESC recommends that existing
resources be pooled more closely, that the various
(co-)financing possibilities be categorised more
clearly and thematically more effectively, that
their use be targeted and that information about
them be provided centrally and systematically.
The Commission is fully in agreement with
this recommendation, which is indeed
reflected in the Horizon 2020 proposal. In
fact, Horizon 2020 will include a more
inclusive approach with specific actions to
reinforce partnerships, pool resources and
build more effective programmes.
The EESC also proposes that consideration be
given to all stakeholders and initiatives at national
and European level which can contribute to
appropriate regular follow-up and the future
sustainability of partnerships and to the
implementation of results.
The Commission welcomes the proposal of
the EESC, which will be dealt within the
context of the monitoring system of
Horizon 2020.
Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation COM(2011) 808
Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union COM(2010) 546
A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth COM(2012) 392
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 46 Including third countries in R&I partnerships The Commission is fully in agreement with
should continue to be supported in order to make the recommendation by the EESC on
Europe more attractive to global players.
maintaining the participation of third
countries in R&I partnerships. In fact, some
Joint Programming Initiatives (JPI) have
already started developing an international
dimension.
The
Pilot
JPI
on
Neurodegenerative Diseases (JPND) is
already working with Canada in order to
achieve JPND objectives, while JPI "Urban
Europe - Global Urban Challenges, Joint
European Solutions" is taking steps to build
further links with China. As for the Water
JPI, it has actively contributed to the SFIC
India Pilot Initiative.
Other type of partnerships have an
international dimension too, for example
several ERA-NET projects aim at
coordinating MS research programmes with
third countries such as Japan, China, Russia,
Korea, etc. As well as one of the Article 185
initiatives, the “European and Developing
Countries Clinical Trials Partnership”
(EDCTP), which aims to accelerate the
development of new or improved drugs,
vaccines, microbicides and diagnostics
against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria
in sub-Saharan Africa.
There must be close ties with stakeholders at
national, regional and local level with a view to
taking account of particular national and
regional features. At the same time, the
importance of the global dimension of current
challenges must not be overlooked.
7.
35
Under
the
Multiannual
Financial
Framework 2014-2020 proposal35, the
Commission envisages to continue to
support research and innovation activities
under Horizon 2020 and the Cohesion
Policy Funds. In this way, effective links
with stakeholders could be achieved.
Small Business, Big World – a new partnership to help SMEs seize global
opportunities
Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 COM(2011) 398
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 47 COM (2011) 702 final – EESC 1293/2012 - May 2012
Rapporteur : Mr VOLEŠ (Empl./CZ)
DG ENTR - Mr TAJANI
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
Harnessing the potential of European SMEs to
penetrate third-country markets, especially
fast-growing ones, could become an important
factor in boosting growth and jobs. For this
reason, the internationalisation of SMEs must
be part of all EU policies relating to such
enterprises.
The Commission appreciates the support of the
EESC regarding its strong commitment on
SMEs internationalisation. Furthermore, as
underlined in the Communication, SMEs
internationalisation will be part of all EU
policies relating to such enterprises.
Internationalisation embraces a broad range of
activities, such as exports, imports, foreign
direct investment, subcontracting and technical
cooperation. The Committee regrets that the
communication deals mostly with supporting
exporters and investors.
The Communication besides export also covers
EU level support regarding research, innovation,
training, market access, IPR assistance,
promoting export consortia between Member
States (MS) and cross border cooperation
between cluster and networks.
European support for internationalisation
should take account of that offered at
national level, which it should not
duplicate but complement where this falls
within EU competence, i.e., by opening up
markets,
concluding
bilateral
and
multilateral
agreements,
dismantling
barriers, providing information on customs
issues,
intellectual
property
rights
protection,
investment
protection,
standards, regulations, public tenders, the
fight against corruption and so on.
Complementarity and additionality are two
of the guiding principles of the
Communication. Actions taken at EU level
should be complementary to and not the
duplication of business support activities
that are already carried out by MS and/or
private organisations. In line with the
principle of subsidiarity and an appropriate
division of labour, the Communication
states that EU actions should serve to fill
gaps or reinforce existing support services
where needs are not met — or are not
sufficiently met — by other public or
private organisations.
The EESC calls for better alignment and a
joint management of internationalisation
policy between the Commission's DGs, the
Council, the European External Action
Service, the European Parliament and the
network of national SME Envoys.
The Commission would like to assure the
EESC that the cooperation and joint
management
of
the
SMEs
internationalisation policy fully align the
policies of Commission's DGs, the Council,
the European External Action Service, the
European Parliament, and the network of
national SME Envoys.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 48 -
The proposed web portal could serve its
intended purpose, but only if it covers all
available information sources, links up
with national portals and provides basic
information in every official EU language.
The Commission fully shares the
Committee's opinion and would like to
inform the EESC that it will launch a
content-rich online portal that will integrate
and streamline existing content, provide
third
countryand
sector-specific
information about target markets and give a
detailed overview of all support services
available. This portal will link to online
content of the ‘one-stop shops’ in each
Member State and will not duplicate
existing information. The portal will be
developed gradually and its objective is to
provide information in a user-friendly
manner and in every official language.
The EESC points out the inadequately
harnessed potential of the Enterprise
Europe Network and welcomes the
proposal to change its management
structure. It calls for business associations
that are closest to SMEs to be brought into
managing the network.
The
Commission
appreciates
the
Committee's opinion on giving a new
governance structure to the Enterprise
Europe Network (EEN). The Commission
aims at improving EEN's functioning and
collaboration with hosting organisations and
stakeholders in order to improve the
information for SMEs on the ground.
Appropriate steps have been taken to
prepare grounds for a new governance
model of EEN that will also include a better
integration of business associations.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 49 -
One of the biggest shortcomings of the
current system of European and national
support is that SMEs are scarcely aware of
its existence, the information they need is
difficult to find and couched in
impenetrable language, and access to
practical guidance on procedures is
difficult. The Committee recommends that
SME umbrella organisations, above all,
should be enlisted in information activities.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission agrees that easier access to
information already ‘at home’ for all EU
SMEs would provide them with a better
chance of finding appropriate services
tailored to their needs. This Communication
therefore makes a priority of the SMEs
strategy to develop an online portal,
providing a gateway to first-entry, businessrelevant information on foreign markets and
an overview of available support activities
for markets outside the EU. Further, the
Enterprise Europe Network, with its 600
local partners will give SMEs the
opportunity to establish direct contact on the
ground and to receive professional support
services right at their doorstep. In order to
do so, the Commission will work to improve
collaboration between the Enterprise Europe
Network and all stakeholders in the Member
States, thereby fostering its effectiveness.
.../...
- 50 Access to financing is an important
precondition for SMEs going international,
especially at a time of crisis. The EESC
therefore calls on the Commission to create
new financing instruments to support SME
internationalisation, such as export credit
guarantees, insurance for international
operations and easy provision of loans via
guaranteed credit cards.
The new Programme for the Competitiveness of
Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized
Enterprises (COSME) will run from 2014 to
2020, with a planned budget of €2.5bn. Its
objectives are:





facilitating access to finance for SMEs
creating an environment favourable to
business creation and growth
encouraging an entrepreneurial culture
in Europe
increasing the sustainable
competitiveness of EU companies
helping small businesses operate outside
their home countries and improving
their access to markets
COSME will:



ensure continuity with initiatives and
actions already undertaken under the
Entrepreneurship
and
Innovation
Programme (EIP), such as the
Enterprise Europe Network, building on
results and lessons learnt
continue the many successful features of
the EIP, while simplifying management
of the programme to make it easier for
entrepreneurs and small businesses to
benefit
support,
complement
and
help
coordinate actions by EU member
countries. COSME will specifically
tackle transnational issues that – thanks
to economies of scale and the
demonstration effect – can be more
effectively addressed at European level
Where necessary, top-up schemes of financing
at EU level should be considered, subject to the
future multiannual financial framework, as a
means of facilitating cross-border cooperation
and access to complementary expertise among
service providers, thereby optimising the use of
scarce public funds.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 51 The EESC endorses the idea of convening
an annual forum to evaluate progress in
going international and calls for this to be a
permanent platform in which social
partners and other stakeholders, including
the EESC, are effectively involved.
The Commission appreciates the Committee's
support regarding organising an annual forum to
evaluate progress in going international. The
Commission will take stock of developments,
monitor progress and evaluates the effectiveness
of the approach, at the annual event involving
all major stakeholders to share their experience
and exchange views. Here all participants could
identify possible divisions of labour, the need
for new activities and other experiences to learn
from each other.
L'Initiative pour l'entrepreneuriat social
COM (2011)682 – CESE 1292/2012; INT/606 ; mai 2012
Rapporteur M. Giuseppe GUERINI (Act. Div./IT)
DG MARKT, avec la DG ENTR et la DG EMPL
M. BARNIER avec MM. TAJANI et ANDOR
Points de l'avis du CESE
Position de la Commission
estimés essentiels
1.1. Le Comité économique et social européen La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
(CESE) accueille favorablement l'initiative de de ce soutien.
la Commission, qui intervient opportunément
en présentant cette communication dans
laquelle sont annoncées onze actions clés. Le
CESE note également avec satisfaction que la
Commission s'est inspirée en plusieurs points
de l’avis exploratoire36 sur l'entrepreneuriat
social.
1.4. Le CESE accueille favorablement l'action La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
prévue par la Commission d'élaborer des outils de ce soutien.
permettant d'améliorer la connaissance du
secteur et la visibilité des entreprises sociales,
et soutient l'objectif consistant à développer
des initiatives aidant les entreprises sociales à
renforcer leurs capacités managériales, la
professionnalisation et la mise en réseau de
leurs compétences, ce également afin de
stimuler leur contribution à une croissance
intelligente, durable et inclusive.
1.5. Il y a lieu de saluer et d'approuver les La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
8.
36
JO C 24 du 28.1.2012, p. 1.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 52 objectifs de la Commission relatifs à
l'amélioration de l'accès aux financements et
du cadre réglementaire. Un environnement
économique et réglementaire approprié doit en
effet être recommandé, car il est indispensable
à la promotion de l'entreprise sociale.
1.6. Le CESE soutient l’invitation formulée
dans la communication à présenter des
initiatives destinées à encourager et favoriser
les mesures facilitant l'accès des entreprises
sociales aux marchés publics.
1.8. Afin de soutenir plus efficacement les
actions proposées dans la communication, il
serait utile de promouvoir des mesures
d'évaluation des résultats et des bénéfices
générés par les entreprises sociales.
2.4. Il importe de préserver le concept
d'entreprise sociale en veillant à ce qu'il ne
puisse être confondu avec celui de
"responsabilité sociale des entreprises". Il
convient de mettre l'accent sur cet aspect dans
le cadre des prochaines initiatives de l'UE en la
matière.
3.3. Il y a lieu d'approuver le fait que la
Commission ne donne pas de définition
normative de l'entreprise sociale et tienne
compte des différentes réglementations en
vigueur au niveau national, lesquelles doivent
être respectées, en veillant à éviter toute
utilisation abusive de la définition de
l'entreprise sociale.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
de ce soutien. Elle s'attachera, lorsque c'est
possible et autant que faire se peut, à intégrer une
dimension "entrepreneuriat social" dans toutes les
politiques qu'elle mène (Programmes de
recherche de l'Union, fonds structurels,
programmes éducatifs, etc.).
La politique de la Commission pour les
entreprises sociales a pour objectif de garantir
leur croissance et leur prospérité à côté de celles
plus traditionnelles et de s'assurer de conditions
de concurrence équitable et d'égalité dans la mise
en œuvre de toutes les politiques européennes.
Les entreprises sociales participent aux
programmes européens pour la promotion des
petites et moyennes entreprises comme
ERASMUS pour les jeunes entrepreneurs.
La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
de ce soutien. L'action clé 10 a fait l'objet d'un
texte législatif adopté par la Commission le 20
décembre 2011, qui va dans ce sens.
Cf.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocure
ment/modernising_rules/reform_proposals_fr.ht
m
La Commission partage ce sentiment. C'est
pourquoi elle crée, au sein du GECES, un sousgroupe qui travaillera sur l'impact social des
entreprises sociales.
La Commission partage ce sentiment. C'est
pourquoi le 25 octobre 2011, dans le cadre du
paquet "Entreprises responsables", elle a adopté 2
Communications séparées, l'une sur la SBI (qui
concerne les seules entreprises sociales), l'autre
sur la RSE (qui concerne potentiellement toutes
les entreprises).
La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
de ce soutien.
.../...
- 53 4.2. Il existe en effet une tendance générale à
ne pas vouloir reconnaître la valeur
"entrepreneuriale" et la viabilité économique
des entreprises sociales.
4.3. Pour rendre plus visibles les bénéfices de
l'entreprise sociale, il est essentiel de partir de
l'évaluation des performances sociales autres
que les résultats purement économiques. Il faut
souligner la nécessité de disposer d'instruments
permettant de mesurer et de valoriser l'impact
et la performance sociale des activités des
entreprises sociales.
4.4. Les pratiques en rapport avec la
responsabilité sociale jouent un rôle
fondamental pour les organisations de
l'économie sociale. Il existe divers instruments
permettant de mesurer les résultats – sociaux –
d'une entreprise. Bien qu’ils aient été
principalement
développés
par
les
organisations plus structurées, il conviendrait
d'étudier et de modéliser des instruments qui
puissent également être utilisés par de petites
entreprises sociales. La Commission devrait
lancer une étude afin de comparer les modèles
existants, encourager leur utilisation et
s'efforcer de développer un système ou un code
de conduite européen commun, pouvant être
utilisé par un large éventail d'entreprises
sociales.
4.5. Si l'on veut accroître la confiance dans les
entreprises sociales, il est important de fonder
cette confiance sur la comparaison entre les
"labels" sociaux existant dans l'ensemble de
l'UE. Pour ce faire, l'on pourrait créer une base
de données publique, comme le propose la
Commission dans l'action clé 6, afin de
comparer les systèmes de mesure des
performances sociales et leurs modalités
actuelles d'application.
4.6. Il est utile de vouloir améliorer
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
La Commission partage ce sentiment. C'est
pourquoi la SBI vise à créer l'environnement
européen favorable au développement, à côté des
entreprises traditionnelles, des entreprises
sociales qui ont vocation à être viables
économiquement, tout en participant à la
nécessaire inclusion sociale dans le marché
unique.
La Commission partage ce sentiment. C'est
pourquoi elle crée, au sein du GECES, un sousgroupe qui travaillera sur l'impact social des
entreprises sociales, et notamment l'émergence au
niveau européen d'une méthodologie de mesure
de cet impact social.
Ceci sera étudié dans le cadre du sous-groupe du
GECES sur l'impact social.
Ceci sera étudié dans le cadre du sous-groupe du
GECES sur l'impact social.
La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
.../...
- 54 l'environnement juridique utilisable par
l'entrepreneuriat social européen (action clé 9),
tant en ce qui concerne la simplification du
règlement sur le statut de la société coopérative
européenne, que la proposition de créer un
statut
de
la
fondation
européenne.
L'amélioration de l'environnement juridique de
l'entreprise
sociale
pourrait
également
s'appuyer sur l'utilisation d’orientations
concernant la création de statuts pour les
associations de promotion et de volontariat
dont sont souvent issues les entreprises
sociales. Le Comité invite en conséquence le
Conseil et le Parlement à aller de l'avant dans
l'adoption des dispositions proposées.
de ce soutien aux actions déjà entamées par elle,
ainsi que de cette invitation faite au colégislateur.
La Commission a publié son rapport sur
l'application du règlement sur la société
coopérative européenne en février 201237 en
proposant de consulter les parties concernées sur
la nécessité et la façon de simplifier le règlement.
En conséquence, la simplification du règlement38
fait l'objet de discussions lors de deux
conférences sur les coopératives aidées par la
Commission (la première en avril 2012 à
Bruxelles et la deuxième en septembre 2012 sous
présidence chypriote de l’UE).
En février 2012 la Commission a proposé un
statut pour la fondation européenne39.
La Commission a lancé une étude sur les
mutuelles en octobre 2011. L’objectif est de
présenter la situation des mutuelles dans les 27
Etats membres en général et de faire une analyse
approfondie pour 10 pays. Le rapport est prévu
pour novembre 2012.
4.7. l'engagement pris par la Commission
européenne dans sa communication de lancer
une étude sur la situation des mutuelles dans
tous les États membres, afin notamment
d'examiner leurs activités transfrontalières, est
jugé utile. La redécouverte et la valorisation du
système des mutuelles en tant qu'instrument de
protection sociale offrent sans aucun doute une
perspective majeure pour le maintien d'un
système de sécurité sociale inclusive.
4.12. Les organisations favorisant la création et La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
le développement de réseaux d'entreprises de ce soutien.
sociales contribuent très utilement à
l'innovation en promouvant la participation à
des partenariats et la constitution de
consortiums d'entreprises sociales. D'où
l'importance de la proposition de la
Commission qui, avec l'action clé 5, présente
des mesures destinées à favoriser le
regroupement et les réseaux d'entreprises
sociales qui facilitent l'échange de bonnes
pratiques, les économies d'échelle et les
37
38
39
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0072:FIN:FR:HTML
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/social-economy/co-operatives/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/eufoundation/index_en.htm
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 55 services communs (formation, planification,
administration, etc.).
4.13. Le CESE accueille favorablement les
mesures prévues par la Commission afin de
développer des instruments permettant
d'améliorer la connaissance du secteur et la
visibilité de l'entrepreneuriat social (actions
clés 5, 6, 8). Une meilleure connaissance des
potentialités de ce modèle entrepreneurial peut
utilement favoriser une coopération plus étroite
entre entreprises sociales et entreprises
ordinaires.
4.14. Il importe de développer des initiatives
qui aident les entreprises sociales à renforcer
leurs
capacités
managériales,
la
professionnalisation et la mise en réseau de
leurs compétences. L'idée de promouvoir des
plateformes pour l'échange des bonnes
pratiques peut être utile à cet égard, afin
notamment
de
relever
le
degré
d'internationalisation des entreprises sociales.
4.15. Le CESE estime que la Commission
devrait mettre l’accent sur la comparaison
entre les nouvelles formes juridiques
émergentes d'entreprise sociale en menant une
étude exploratoire à ce sujet. La subsidiarité
devrait néanmoins être le principe directeur,
étant donné que les modèles nationaux
pourraient nécessiter – ou non – des cadres
réglementaires adaptés aux situations et
traditions propres à chaque pays.
4.19. Il conviendrait de prêter une attention
particulière
aux
formes
hybrides
d'investissement qui sont plus adaptées à
l'entreprise sociale car elles combinent des
éléments d'appréciation de type solidaire et de
type financier. Il importe en outre de valoriser,
à côté des entreprises sociales, les meilleures
pratiques de banques et d'établissements de
crédit à forte orientation communautaire et
40
41
La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
de ce soutien. En plus des mesures prévues dans
l'initiative, pour améliorer la visibilité des
entreprises sociales, la Commission a organisé la
première foire européenne des entreprises
sociales40 et financé des reportages par Euronews
– Business Planet41.
La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
de ce soutien.
La Communication IES prévoit cela et les
services de la Commission ont commencé à
travailler pour sa réalisation. Il est prévu que le
GECES soit consulté, le cas échéant, sur cet
aspect.
Cet aspect sera traité dans l'étude de cartographie
des entreprises sociales en Europe, que la
Commission lancera dans les toutes prochaines
semaines (action clé 5).
C'est la raison pour laquelle des représentants de
ce secteur participent au GECES.
http://www.fair.bg/en/photoalbum/NewGallery110427034323/
http://fr.euronews.com/2012/06/01/des-cooperatives-sociales-et-competitives; http://fr.euronews.com/programmes/business-planet/
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 56 participative, comme c'est le cas des banques
de crédit coopératif ou des banques
poursuivant un objectif éthique et social.
4.20. Il y a lieu de soutenir des lignes d'action L'instrument de micro-financement PROGRESS
telles que le microcrédit (action clé 2)
et le Code de conduite sur la fourniture du microcrédit (en phase pilote depuis novembre 2011),
participent de cette action. A noter des
discussions en cours au Conseil pour un nouvel
instrument "micro-crédit" en gestion directe dans
le programme sur le changement social et
l'innovation sociale, et le développement de
l'outil JASMINE-online pour le renforcement des
capacités des Etats membres dans ce domaine.
4.21. Le CESE accueille favorablement les La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
possibilités de soutenir l'innovation sociale, de ce soutien.
l'entrepreneuriat social et l'entreprise sociale,
offertes par les nouveaux programmes des
fonds structurels visés dans les actions clés 3 et
4 ou dans l'initiative pour l'entrepreneuriat
social. Le CESE souligne que les États
membres doivent accorder à ces domaines une
place prioritaire dans les programmes
nationaux de réforme, afin qu'ils puissent être
inclus dans la prochaine période de
programmation du Fonds social européen. De
plus, la proposition de programme pour le
changement social et l'innovation sociale
pourrait également prévoir un soutien
additionnel pour le développement des
capacités et du financement des entreprises
sociales,
mesure
qui
est
accueillie
favorablement.
4.23. Il serait utile de revoir de manière moins C'est l'objet du Règlement (UE) n°360/2012 de la
restrictive la règle "de minimis" pour les Commission du 25 avril 2012 relatif à
entreprises sociales (action clé 11), en l’application des articles 107 et 108 du traité sur
particulier
les
entreprises
d'insertion le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne aux
professionnelle, même lorsque les aides aides de minimis accordées à des entreprises
publiques sont allouées directement à fournissant des services d’intérêt économique
l'entreprise et non pas aux travailleurs. Cette général.
position peut se justifier par le cas récent du
"Big Society Fund" anglais, cofinancé pour
une part importante sur des fonds publics, ce
que la Commission n'a pas considéré comme
une aide d'État étant donné l'évidente valeur
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 57 sociale de cette initiative.
4.24. La volonté de faciliter l'accès des
entreprises sociales aux marchés publics
(action clé 10) est louable. Ces dernières
années, la Commission européenne a joué un
rôle déterminant dans la promotion des clauses
sociales dans les marchés publics. Depuis plus
de dix ans, les institutions européennes se
montrent davantage sensibilisées à la question
de la cohésion sociale et du développement
durable, étant pleinement conscientes du fait
que, si l'on souhaite atteindre l'objectif d'une
société plus prospère et plus juste, il faut que la
croissance économique favorise la durabilité
environnementale et la cohésion sociale.
4.25. La Commission devrait poursuivre avec
détermination
l'action
entreprise
pour
promouvoir
les
critères
sociaux
et
environnementaux
parmi
les
critères
d'adjudication des marchés publics et devrait
recueillir auprès des États membres et partager
les meilleurs modèles, qui tiennent compte des
aspects sociaux et environnementaux dans les
critères d'adjudication. Du reste, la Cour de
justice de l'Union européenne a elle-même
reconnue dans sa jurisprudence l'importance de
dispositions en ce sens.
4.26. Le CESE est favorable à l'action clé 6 de
la Commission visant à créer une base de
données sur les certifications, afin de faciliter
la comparaison entre les différents systèmes.
La Commission devrait en outre réaliser une
étude sur ces systèmes afin de dégager des
synergies et de tirer des enseignements
communs. Dans le cadre de ce travail
exploratoire, le CESE a mis en évidence la
nécessité de statistiques comparables et
42
43
44
La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
de ce soutien. En décembre 2011 la Commission
a adopté des propositions pour le régime des
marchés publics42.
La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
de ce soutien. C'est l'objet des initiatives
(Décision du 20 décembre 2011, Communication
et projet de Règlement) parues aux JOCE du 11
janvier 2012.
Ceci est englobé dans le projet de proposition
législative sur les marchés publics43.
Suite à une consultation publique et un processus
de révision approfondie, la Commission a adopté
un nouveau paquet SIEG, le 20 décembre 2011
afin de définir les conditions dans lesquelles les
aides d'État sous la forme de compensations de
service public peuvent être considérées comme
compatibles avec les règles de l'UE44.
Ce travail est en cours au sein de la Commission.
Cela sera traité dans l'étude de cartographie des
entreprises sociales en Europe que la
Commission lancera dans les toutes prochaines
semaines (action clé 5), et dans celle qui a fait
l'objet d'un appel à propositions il y a quelques
semaines
(Cf.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemd
etail.cfm?item_id=6013).
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/reform_proposals_en.htm
COM(2011)896: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0896:FIN:EN:PDF
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/sgei.html
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 58 consolidées, de recherches et de données
relatives aux entreprises sociales. La
Commission et Eurostat devraient jouer un rôle
central afin de faciliter l'apprentissage mutuel
au sein de l’UE.
4.27. La proposition de créer un point d'accès
unique pour les données (action clé 8) est
favorablement accueillie et devrait être
complétée par des initiatives similaires mises
en œuvre dans les États membres afin d'assurer
la compatibilité et les synergies nécessaires.
4.28. La Commission européenne joue un rôle
fondamental en préservant le soutien apporté à
l'entreprise sociale dans le cadre de l'agenda
politique et en veillant à ce que celle-ci
bénéficie d'une considération appropriée. C'est
pourquoi la proposition de mettre en place un
groupe consultatif sur l'entrepreneuriat social,
chargé d'examiner l'avancement des mesures
envisagées dans la communication, est
importante. La création de structures similaires
dans les États membres également devrait être
encouragée.
9.
La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note
de ce soutien. La Commission travaille sur une
future base de données des initiatives,
multilingues. Des discussions ont eu lieu pendant
la première réunion du GECES, et peuvent être
trouvées en ligne dans le procès-verbal de la
réunion
(http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_busin
ess/docs/expert-group/050612-minutesfinal_en.pdf).
La Commission a mis en place le groupe
d'experts de la Commission sur l'entrepreneuriat
social (GECES), dont la première réunion s'est
tenue le 5 juin dernier à Bruxelles. Les travaux
du groupe peuvent être suivis en ligne à
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_busine
ss/expert-group/index_fr.htm
S'agissant des Etats membres, certains ont déjà
des instances de concertation sur l'économie
sociale et solidaire, voire sur l'entrepreneuriat
social proprement dit, dont la présentation au sein
du GECES pourrait permettre la reproduction
dans encore davantage d'Etats membres.
A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility
COM (2011) 681 final - EESC 1301/2012 - May 2012
Rapporteur : Ms SHARMA (Empl./UK)
Corapporteur: M. ETHERINGTON (Var. Int./UK)
DG EMPL – Mr ANDOR
Main points of the EESC Opinion
1.3: The definition of enterprise.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
Commission Position
As consistently defined by the European Court of
Justice, an enterprise "encompasses every entity
engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the
legal status of the entity and the way in which it is
financed". The concepts used by the Commission
in its Communications are fully in line with this
.../...
- 59 definition.
1.3:
Voluntary
reporting.
activities….mandatory
The Commission's new policy recognises the
appropriate role that legislation can play in
promoting transparency and CSR. Certain
reporting is already required by EU legislation
and national laws in some Member States.
1.3: Specific measures for SMEs.
At a number of points, the Communication makes
reference to SME needs, eg in section 3.1, the
Communication states that for most SMEs the
CSR process is likely to remain "informal and
intuitive", or in section 4, that "the Commission
will at all times take account of the particular
characteristics of SMEs", or section 4.5 –
improving company disclosure – where it is stated
"…which will also include a…..SME test….".
1.4: Commission plans.
The Commission's strategy contains elements that
are new compared to the last Communication in
2006: 1) There is a variety of activity that was not
available in the past (guidance, award schemes,
monitoring of company performance, etc), 2)
there is a more specific thematic focus than in the
past, 3) there is added concentration on the
international aspects of CSR, and 4) Commission
actions will include all sorts of dialogues,
information and training, funding for stakeholder
projects, and legislative proposals.
3.7: Relationship with social economy
Social economy is a separate workstream to CSR,
although the scope of the CSR Communication
does not exclude social economy organisations.
The Communication is underpinned throughout
by consultation and ongoing work with
stakeholders, including NGOs.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 60 3.11: Gender-inclusive leadership.
This subject is being taken up under other
workstreams.
The
European
Commission
recognises the positive correlation between gender
diverse boards and better CSR practices. Improving
gender equality in decision-making is one of the
priorities of the Commission's Strategy for Equality
between Women and Men (2010-2015).
Therefore, the Commission is actively promoting
gender balance on corporate boardrooms:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/genderdecision-making/index_en.htm
4.1.3: New standard for CSR/ISO 26000.
The Commission has no intention of creating a
new CSR standard at EU level, nor of entering
into competition with ISO 26000 or any of the
other international standards. Our aim is to work
towards a more global level playing field, where
the expectations on enterprises are similar
wherever they operate.
4.1.7: SMEs/new ways of doing business
The Communication makes a commitment to
consider the role of business in the 21st century.
4.6.3: Partnership
Encouraging companies and eg civil society
organisations to work together is central to the
implementation
of
the
Communication,
particularly as the needs of partnership are
emerging in the international context.
4.7.2: International instruments
The Commission has committed itself to a
number of actions to promote the social
responsibility of EU companies when they
operate outside the EU. These will be
implemented in a spirit of openness,
complementarity, and in search of synergies with
the international organisations promoting CSR.
4.7.4: Monitoring of CSR commitments.
The Commission has committed itself to an initial
exercise to research the CSR commitments of
large EU enterprises. The results of this exercise
will inform how the issue is addressed
subsequently.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 61 -
10.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying
down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the
European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by
the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the
European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the
Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006
COM(2011) 615 final –EESC 1040/2012 - April 2012
Rapporteur : Mr VARDAKASTANIS (Var. Int./EL)
DG REGIO - Mr HAHN
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
General support.
The Commission welcomes the general
support from the EESC.
1.3. The EESC strongly believes that partnership
which involves all partners as defined in Article
5(1) of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR)
in the preparation, execution and ex-post
evaluation of projects undertaken in the framework
of EU cohesion policy contributes directly to its
success. It welcomes the progress in Article 5 of
the European Commission’s (EC) proposals which
make horizontal partnership a mandatory feature;
it recalls that participation should be real at all
stages of the implementation of the funds,
including these partners with the right to vote in
the monitoring committees. Against this
background, the EESC believes that Article 5 of
the Common Provisions Regulation should be
reviewed and redrafted in such a manner that the
provisions on partnership contained in it, and
notably paragraph 2, be effectively applied at all
administrative levels: national, regional and local.
Member States and regions shall make full
use of the partnerships established in the
framework of the CSF Funds in accordance
with the European code of conduct on
partnership, and in particular with the multilevel governance approach.
1.4. The EESC approves a greater use of ex- ante
and ex-post conditionality in EU Structural Funds
(SFs) with a view to achieving more focussed and
real, sustainable results; the EESC, however, rejects
macro-economic conditionality for penalising
regions and citizens who are not to blame for
macro-economic decisions committed at national or
The Commission welcomes the Committee's
support to greater use of conditionality,
which is an essential element of its proposal.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The extent of involvement of partners will
depend on the individual institutional
framework of each Member State and, in
particular, the legal and budgetary powers of
the different territorial levels with regard to
the scope of the different funds.
The Commission's position is to maintain
the macroeconomic conditionalities (Article
21) in view of maximising the impact of the
.../...
- 62 European level.
CSF Funds.
3.3. Performance framework and conditionality
1.1.9 3.3.1. The EESC believes that the
inclusion of conditionality in the CPR is
an appropriate mechanism to ensure that
common EU goals are indeed achieved.
1.1.10 3.3.2. The EESC welcomes the ex-ante
conditionality as expressed in previous
opinions45 as this approach is
considered to be a way of improving the
quality of EU cohesion policy spending.
Such conditionality should however not
create extra administrative burdens, but
ensure a more coherent and efficient use
of the SFs.
1.1.11 3.3.3. However, the EESC disagrees
with the use of the macro-economic
conditionality46 as a methodology, as it
"punishes" the wrong parties. The EESC
does not support any coercive measure
through cohesion policy (including
suspension of payment) in the next 6th
economic governance package. Any
measure taken in the area of macroeconomic conditionality should not
have effects on the beneficiaries from
the SFs.
The Commission is committed to increase
the performance-orientation of cohesion
policy and has therefore proposed a
performance framework composed of
various instruments, among which are the
macroeconomic conditionality, the ex-ante
conditionality and the performance reserve.
All these elements are important parts of the
architecture.
The Commission expects that constructive
dialogue with managing authorities, carried
out
under
a
reinforced
strategic
programming, will facilitate appropriate
targeting of these instruments, in order to
make the best possible use.
1.1.12 3.3.4. It is essential that the
performance review includes the
participation and acknowledgement of
partners as defined in Article 5(1) of the
CPR
as
real
actors
in
the
implementation of cohesion policy.
1.7. The EESC welcomes the EC's proposals for
thematic concentration as a means to reduce
fragmentation of efforts; in this light the EESC
encourages a strong coordination of efforts between
the various SFs in order to create a single and
45
46
The Commission welcomes the support from
the EESC on thematic concentration and a
better coordination between the funds.
The proposed additional thematic objectives
Opinion on the Fifth Cohesion Report, OJ C 248/12, 25.8.2011, p. 68.
The EESC's Opinion on Regional policy and smart growth, OJ C 318/13, 29.10.2011, p. 82.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 63 unified cohesion policy which can contribute fully
to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives. It
believes that (i) enhancing accessibility and (ii)
capacity building of stakeholders in cohesion policy
(partners as defined in Article 5(1) of the CPR)
should become specific thematic areas.
are already covered by other provisions of
the CPR and the fund specific regulations:
capacity building of stakeholders is covered
by the thematic objective nr 11 "Enhancing
capacity building and efficient public
administration". Support to partners (as
defined in Article 5 of the CPR) can be
1.1.13 3.2.2. The EESC welcomes the funded under technical assistance, if it is
11 thematic areas. However, the EESC deemed necessary. The Staff Working
(SWD)
on
partnership
believes that other thematic areas such Document
as (1) enhancing accessibility and recommends that Member States use part of
(2) capacity building partners as defined their technical assistance to ensure that
in Article 5(1) of the CPR) should be partners in particular small local authorities,
added as well. The EESC calls for their social partners and NGOs have the necessary
capacity to participate.
inclusion in Article 9 of the proposed
CPR.
1.8. The EESC reiterates the importance to amend
Article 7 of the CPR in order to integrate access to
the funds and accessibility for persons with
disabilities in accordance with the United Nations
Convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities.
The Commission considers that current
wording of article 7 of the CPR already
ensures
full
account
taken
and
implementation of this UN Convention.
Specific provisions related to the principle of
accessibility are provided in Article 87.3 (ii)
and Article 100.1 (f).
4.5.1. The EESC welcomes the inclusion of nondiscrimination in the current proposed CPR.
However, it is regrettable that the principle of
accessibility for people with disabilities, present in
Article 16 of the current general regulation, has not
been retained in the proposed future CPR.
1.10. The EESC calls for the Common Strategic
Framework (CSF) to be tabled by the EC allowing
the EU institutions and political bodies to
participate in the negotiation and adoption of the
CSF.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission intends to table an
amended proposal for the CPR splitting the
CSF provisions in two parts: an Annex to
the CPR, which would cover policy
objectives, coordination mechanisms and
mechanisms for coherence and consistency
with economic policies; and a separate
delegated act, which would cover the key
actions, territorial challenges and priority
areas for cooperation activities. This will
feed into the on-going negotiations with EP
and Council.
.../...
- 64 Opinions on the CPR and the CSF by the
other EU institutions will be considered. In
addition to this, stakeholders/ the general
public has been invited to submit comments
on the CSF.
1.17. In accordance with Article 174 of the TFEU,
Cohesion policy is at the heart of the EU, leading to
the strengthening of its economic, social and
territorial cohesion. For Member States, whose
average GDP growth in the period 2007-2009 is
negative and who have demonstrated a good
absorption rate in the current period, the capping
rate will be set at least at the level of current period.
The level of capping for cohesion policy, shall not
apply to the fisheries and rural development funds
For the next MFF the Commission has
proposed a uniform capping rate to ensure
equal treatment among Member States.
This approach is the same as the one
proposed by the Commission for 2007-13.
The Commission considers that 4% of
GDP was an appropriate capping rate in
the context of the economic conditions
governing the Union before the crisis.
These conditions have changed both in
the EU macroeconomic environment and
in single Member States economies. This
has been reflected in the reduction of the
total amount of funding proposed for
2014-20 and in the distribution of
resources to ensure that each Member
States will have a fair opportunity to
benefit from cohesion policy.
In addition, experience with the current
financial framework shows that some
Member States have difficulties in
absorbing large volumes of EU funds over
a limited period of time. Delays in the
preparation of projects, commitments and
spending are responsible for an important
backlog of unused appropriations at the
end of the present financing period.
Finally, the fiscal situation in some
Member States has made it more difficult
to release funds to provide national cofinancing. Against this background, the
Commission has proposed a number of
steps to strengthen absorption of funding,
among which to fix at 2.5% of GDP the
capping rate for cohesion allocations.
3.2.4. The EESC recalls that it has argued in favour Cohesion policy is implemented on the basis
of simplifying administrative, accounting and of the principle of shared management
auditing procedures, "simplification should become between the European Commission and
Member States. Simplifying this policy is
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 65 47
cohesion policy's main objective" and therefore
welcomes the efforts of the current proposal to
include this principle. There is a need to avoid
excessive bureaucracy and more efforts should be
done in order for final beneficiaries to take
advantage of the actions. Simplification should
result in more clarity in eligibility, audit, payments,
and use of ICT. This includes simplifying the text of
the regulation and reducing the number of articles.
thus also a shared responsibility.
When tabling its proposals for the 2014-2020
programming period, the Commission has
introduced a series of measures which intend
to reduce the administrative burden of the
policy48, among which:
-Harmonisation of rules with other CSF
Funds (for example on audit);
-More flexibility in the set-up of programmes
and systems;
-Increased proportionality;
-More efficient
reporting;
delivery
and
lighter
-Reducing the administrative burden for
beneficiaries (by for instance generalizing
one-stop shops).
These measures should be supplemented by
parallel action at the Member States' level, in
order to produce the widest possible impact
on beneficiaries.
47
The EESC's Opinions on the Fifth Cohesion Report, OJ C 248/12, 25.8.2011, p. 68, and Efficient partnership in cohesion policy,
OJ C 44/01, 11.2.2011, p. 1.
48
See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions "A Simplification Agenda for the MFF 2014-2020", COM
(2012) 42.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 66 11.
La PAC à l'horizon 2020
COM (2011) 625- 626 – 627 – 628 – 630 -631 final – EESC 1050/2012 - April 2012
Rapporteur Mrs SLAVOVA (Var. Int./BG) / Corapporteur: Mr CHIRIACO (Work./IT)
DG AGRI - Mr CIOLOS
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
In principle, the EESC welcomes the
Commission proposals and makes the following
comments:
The Commission proposals for the MFF 2014-2020
foresee a 'freeze' of the CAP budget at nominal
levels. This responds to both the emerging
challenges that EU agriculture is confronted with
and the ongoing efforts towards fiscal consolidation
across the EU.
- A strong CAP budget is essential for the
European agricultural model.
- Farmers and foresters should be compensated
for providing services which are not priced in
the free market.
Welcomes the move away from historical
references, but a flat rate per hectare is not the
best instrument. A payment linked to individuals
or jobs is more appropriate.
The proposed architecture makes DP more targeted.
The link to the area results from the policy
development since 1992. It represents the most
effective, manageable and controllable approach to
ensure support to income level and stability, and to
the provision of public goods without hindering the
need to improve productivity growth. Note that
employment is taken into account in applying
degressivity and capping of DP.
Welcomes the redistribution among MS.
Suggests that cost and revenue structures are
taken into account. No MS should receive DP
below 90% of the average at the end of the
period.
The Commission proposal for the redistribution
among MS is ambitious and politically attainable,
limiting the losses of those MS which are called
upon to finance convergence.
Internal convergence needs more flexibility and
a longer transitional period.
The Commission takes note of the suggestion.
Welcomes the flexibility to transfer funds
between pillars. The option to transfer funds
from Pillar II to Pillar I should be increased from
5% to 10%.
The Commission takes note of the suggestion.
Pillar II allocation should be based on objective
The Commission has indicated that Pillar II funds
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 67 criteria.
will be distributed on the basis of objective criteria
and past performance.
Supports the need for a uniform application of
greening to avoid distortions, but a certain
degree of flexibility is important for specific
areas and conditions.
The Commission through the 'Concept paper on
greening' expressed the commitment to examine
ways to enable MS to apply greening in a more
efficient way.
The Commission should examine whether some
Agri-environmental measures correspond to the
requirements of greening or can be considered
equivalent.
The Commission examines how farmers who apply
AEMs which go beyond the greening requirements
could qualify for the greening payment.
7% EFA is unacceptable if it implies a large area
of land would be set-aside. Commission should
enlarge the list of features counting as EFA.
EFA is not the reintroduction of obligatory setaside. The Commission is examining what other
types of EFA could count additionally within the
7%.
Crop diversification should not be obligatory for
livestock farmers, in areas where only a few
crops can be grown and should include
permanent crops.
The proposal on crop diversification does not
concern permanent crops. Additionally, in the
concept paper on "greening", the Commission has
stated the will to exempt farms with a high share of
grassland.
Supports capping, but requests more flexibility
for MS. Salaries, including family labour, should
be subtracted.
The Commission takes note of the suggestion.
Active farmers are those who produce and sell
their produce. More flexibility needed for MS.
Should not exempt beneficiaries of less than
EUR 5000 of DP.
The production criterion cannot be considered, as it
is not compatible with WTO requirements.
Commission takes note of the rest of the
suggestions.
Cross-compliance should not be extended to
include the WFD and restrictions applying to
Natura-2000 areas.
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) will only
be part of CC once it has been implemented by all
MS and the obligations for farmers clearly
identified. The extension of CC makes EU
agriculture more responsive to environmental
challenges.
The delimitation of LFAs needs to be improved.
Using the biophysical criteria will disqualify
many disadvantaged areas.
A common EU-level delimitation of LFAs is a more
transparent system which ensures better targeted
support.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 68 The proposed market measures are insufficient
to tackle extreme price volatility, which has been
exacerbated in the past few years. More needs to
be done to regulate markets, also at the G20
level.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
Factors driving market developments and volatility
are increasingly diverse and external in nature. The
instruments proposed under the CAP post-2013
need to be considered in their entirety, including
better targeting of DP, improved market measures
(including exceptional measures) and a new risk
management toolkit.
.../...
- 69 Policy instruments in addition to competition
law should be considered to rebalance market
power in the food supply chain: Producers'
cooperation, written contracts (obligatory for all
sectors) and tools to increase knowledge of
markets and promote initiatives for short supply
chains and local markets.
The facilitation of producer cooperation aiming to
redress imbalances in the food supply chain is a key
priority of the current reform. In addition, the
Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain
is looking into other means to improve the
transmission of prices.
Supply management instruments should not be
abolished altogether. On sugar, the implications
of postponing the abolition of quota beyond
2015 should be examined. Vine planting rights
should be maintained beyond 2018. The EESC
welcomes the establishment of the High Level
Group on wine.
A key aim of the reform is to increase the market
orientation of agriculture in the EU. Quotas
generate rigidity and are contrary to this aim. On
sugar, the Commission takes note of the suggestion.
On wine, the High Level Group (HLG) will assess
the effects of the end of planting rights.
The crisis reserve should be incorporated in the
MFF and its working clarified.
The new crisis reserve is intended to provide
additional financing in case of major crises
affecting agriculture and in case the necessary
support measures cannot be financed by the
amounts foreseen under Heading 2 of the MFF. The
Commission would have to ask the Budgetary
Authority (Council + Parliament) to mobilise it. If
there is agreement, the financing would be
transferred to the budget lines concerned. The
financing hereof would follow the normal EU
financing rules.
The EGF should not be used to support farmers
affected by trade agreements.
The inclusion of the agricultural sector in the EGF
aims at facilitating the adaptation of farmers to new
market conditions due to trade agreements. Without
the EGF the EU will not be able to finance
measures for farmers affected by trade agreements,
as there is no money for this within Heading 2.
On RD, the difficulties of MS to provide cofinancing should be addressed.
The Commission takes note of the suggestion.
Supports minimum spending for environment
and climate measures (25%). Accordingly for
LEADER.
The Commission welcomes the support of the
EESC and takes note of the suggestion.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 70 12.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council –
A European vision for passengers: communication on passenger rights in all transport
modes
COM(2011) 898 final; EESC 1314/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur: Mr HENCKS (Work./LU)
DG MOVE- Mr KALLAS
Essential EESC's points
Commission's position
1.2 The Committee feels that three additional
rights should be added to the ten specific rights
listed in the communication: the right to safety
and security, including both the technical safety
of the transport equipment and the physical safety
of passengers; and the right to minimum
standards
of
service
quality,
comfort,
environmental protection and accessibility.
The Commission considers that the
additional rights proposed by the
Committee are important factors that
should be considered in the development
of rights legislation. However, these are
issues that are largely captured by
complementary legislation, for example in
relation to technical safety, which is more
suited to addressing the issue.
1.4 This re-examination should pay particular
attention to improving the information provided
to passengers, to the rights and conditions of
disabled passengers and passengers with reduced
mobility, to compensating passengers in the event
of disruption to or cancellation of a journey or
loss of baggage, to clarifying the elements
making up the final price, to the transfer of a
travel contract and the conditions for complaints
and options for redress, and to defining the rights
of passenger organisations, which are best placed
to provide citizens with information and support
in exercising their rights.
Agree. In order for all passengers to
effectively exercise their rights they need
to be provided with transparent, readily
accessible information at appropriate
journey points.
1.5 To make it easier to monitor the effectiveness
and efficiency of transport services, their
responsiveness to changing needs and compliance
with passenger rights, the EESC suggests
establishing an independent evaluation procedure,
in line with the subsidiarity principle. This would
involve drawing up a harmonised evaluation
methodology at EU level on the basis of common
indicators, in dialogue with stakeholder
representatives, in particular organisations
representing passengers (including disabled
passengers and passengers with reduced
mobility).
The collation and publication of
appropriate
statistics
and
related
monitoring information allows issues to be
identified and addressed.
The Commission is considering how this
issue could be addressed as part of the
existing information campaign, which will
continue with a further focussed campaign
due to commence in 2013.
The Commission is currently assessing
what proportionate options might be
available to collate and provide such
information.
It is intended to make
recommendations in relation to air
transport in 2012, with a view to
subsequently extending these principles to
other transport modes.
1.6 With regard to complaints, the EESC suggests Whilst the processes through which
that all carriers should use a standard e-mail complaints are managed are a commercial
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 71 -
address for this purpose (complaints@...),
alongside other methods of filing complaints, and
that time limits should be set for responding to
them.
matter for carriers, the Commission
considers such processes should be made
as harmonised, transparent and accessible
as possible.
Rights legislation in relation to the rail,
maritime and bus/coach sectors places a
timescale obligation on carriers within
which complaints should be addressed.
Consideration is being given to including
similar provisions for air carriers within
the Commission's review of Regulation
(EC) 261/2004. The Commission plans to
issue proposals on this Regulation by the
end of 2012.
1.7 Finally, the EESC proposes that procedures
for alternative dispute resolution be expanded,
without depriving passengers of their right to
institute legal proceedings. It also recommends
that the option of an EU collective legal redress
mechanism be clearly set out in a legislative text
and that the scheme be duly defined.
Agree. In order for passenger rights to be
meaningful there must be a simple and
effective mechanism to allow individual
redress.
4.6 Moreover, there are substantial differences
between the various modes of transport, which
disadvantage users. This is particularly true of air
transport, with regard to which the EESC has
previously noted (in its exploratory opinion on
the subject49) that certain aspects of air
passengers' rights were deteriorating in relation to
provisions in other modes of transport, and called
for:
The Commission's review of Regulation
(EC) 261/2004 will specifically consider
the
provision
of
assistance
and
information. It will also consider ways to
better define the term "extraordinary
circumstances" and how the issue of minor
booking errors might be addressed.
Transferring tickets between third parties
raises a number of practical issues such as
security and may not be practicable.




49
the extent of the right to assistance to be
determined;
information to passengers to be improved,
including during journeys;
the right to information to be extended to
boarding areas;
the scope of the term "extraordinary
The Commission has already proposed
legislation in relation to Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) which will help
address this issue. This proposal is
currently in discussion in the Council and
the Parliament.
Price Transparency - Specific legislation,
Regulation 1008/2008, already covers the
issue of price transparency.
The
Commission is however considering how
the enforcement of this legislation could be
improved this year in relation to the
revision of Regulation (EC) 261/2004.
OJ C 24, 28.1.2012, p. 125-130.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 72 

circumstance" to be clarified;
guidelines to be drawn up, in cooperation
with representatives of people with reduced
mobility, to clarify the definitions in
Regulation No 1107/2006 concerning the
rights of disabled persons and persons with
reduced mobility and to improve the
implementation thereof;
the elements forming the final price to be
specified;
an obligation to be established to compensate
passengers if an airline goes bankrupt, the
principle of "joint and several liability" on the
part of other companies to repatriate
passengers to be implemented, and a
passenger compensation fund to be
established;
the option to be provided of transferring a
travel contract to a third party at no cost.
PRM Guidelines - In concert with industry
and
consumer
organisations
the
Commission
issued
guidelines
on
Regulation No 1107/2006 on 14 June 2012
(http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passengers/ai
r/doc/prm/2012-06-11-swd-2012171_en.pdf)
Airline Insolvency – The Commission is
conscious of the impact that airline
bankruptcy has on flight only passengers.

However, the handling of recent cases
(Malev, Spanair) has proven relatively
satisfactory.
These
failures
were
collectively better managed than previous
cases as a consequence of the proactive
approach taken by national authorities such
as providing information and promoting

other carriers cheap "rescue fares". As a
consequence, the Commission does not
intend to revise or introduce legislation in
All these provisions should also apply to other relation to airline insolvency. However,
modes of transport where they do not already the Commission intends to publish "best
guidelines" to assist NEBs in managing
exist.
such disruption by the end of 2012 or in
early 2013.
4.10 Given that the Commission itself recognises See response to 1.5
in its communication that the publication of
operator performance reviews and passenger
satisfaction surveys would facilitate uniform
monitoring and enforcement by the national
enforcement bodies, the EESC advocates
undertaking such reviews, and considers that
representatives of all stakeholders should be
involved in a requirements analysis and a review
of performance and respect for passenger rights.
4.12 The EESC endorses the Commission's
intention not to restrict itself to sectoral measures,
as has been the case to date, but to try to develop
an intermodal approach that takes account of
users' mobility and travel needs regardless of
which modes of transport they are using or
combining, in order to provide intermodal
continuity. The only way of avoiding distortions
of competition between different transport modes
is to improve the harmonisation of passenger
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission is working toward a
converging approach of passenger rights
across transport modes.
However,
although common principles can be
established individual differences between
each transport sector may prevent total
harmonisation.
.../...
- 73 -
rights.
4.13 The communication refers, in response to
most of the shortcomings and loopholes it raises,
either to the impact assessment for the revision of
the air regulation, which will suggest possible
binding measures, or to voluntary agreements by
carriers. The EESC would have liked to see a
more decisive attitude focusing on binding
measures.
The Commission believes that a
proportionate balance between binding
legislative measures and voluntary
arrangements provides the most flexible
and equitable approach to meeting
passenger and industry's needs.
4.14 The EESC regrets that the communication
makes no mention of the rights and powers of
organisations
that
represent
passengers,
particularly as it is such organisations – including
those representing the interests of disabled people
and people with reduced mobility – that are best
placed to provide people with information and
support in exercising their rights.
Whilst the Communication makes no
specific
reference
to
passenger
organisations, the Commission regards
them as key stakeholders. It consequently
takes a comprehensive approach to
consulting them in the development of
rights legislation.
4.16 The EESC calls for further details to be added to
the communication concerning passengers' options for
appealing to Member State and European level bodies
with decision making powers and powers of
constraint, should their complaints and claims be
rejected.
The Commission does not plan to add to
the Communication and considers that
NEBs and national courts are best placed
to consider individual complaints. The
Commission is however considering how
passenger rights in this area could be
improved.
Under no circumstances must the right to redress be Rights legislation in relation to rail,
linked to the price paid for the journey.
bus/coach and maritime already links the
right of redress to the price of a ticket. The
Commission's review of air passenger
rights will take into consideration the
points made by the Committee in this
regard.
4.17 The EESC points out that, particularly where See response to 1.7
there are small, scattered claims, the right to
compensation is often purely theoretical because
of the obstacles to exercising it in practice. It is
important to ensure that procedures for redress
are not so complex and expensive that they
discourage complainants, and the EESC would
therefore advocate expanding procedures for
alternative dispute resolution (ADR), without
depriving passengers of their right to institute
legal proceedings.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 74 14.
Energy Roadmap 2050
COM (2011) 885 final – EESC 1315/2012 - May 2012
Rapporteur: Mr COULON (Work./FR)
Corapporteur: Mr ADAMS (Var. Int./UK)
DG ENER - Mr OETTINGER
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
The EESC "notes with great interest the
Energy Roadmap 2050". (Point 1.1)
The Commission welcomes the interest of the
Committee about this important document that
aims to contribute to reduce uncertainty about the
long term energy policy.
The EESC recognizes the ten priorities of
immediate action in the Roadmap's
conclusions, in particular the establishment of
concrete and specific milestones. (point 1.4)
The Commission agrees with the Committee on
this regard.
The EESC considers a preliminary review of
the 2020 Strategy (country-by-country and
sector by sector reports on the three main
objectives) as essential before setting up such
a 2030 framework. (Point 1.4)
The Commission takes note of the Committees
ideas on how to proceed to establish a 2030
framework.
The EESC agrees that the approach of
modelling alternative scenarios for 2050 is
appropriate. (Point 4.1)
The Commission welcomes the agreement of the
Committee on this regard.
The EESC supports the Roadmap's main
conclusion that substantial decarbonisation by
2050 is feasible, and that that outcome would,
in the long term, provide Europe with a more
secure and sustainable energy base going
forward than continuing with existing
policies.
The Commission welcomes that the Committee
shares views with the Commission as regards the
substantial conclusions.
The Committee however also refers to 'some
lack of transparency about the modelling
methodology and the assumptions built into
it. More information about this need to be
made available so that other experts can test
the approach and develop other scenarios on
different input assumptions'.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
As to the modelling methodology used
(PRIMES), the Commission has substantially
increased transparency on assumptions and the
basic functioning of the model. Moreover,
PRIMES has been deemed appropriate for
complex energy modelling by recognised experts
in a peer review.
.../...
- 75 The EESC agrees with the Roadmap’s
analysis of the main challenges and
opportunities that need to be addressed at
European level to transform the energy
system, rethink the energy markets, mobilise
investors, engage the public and drive change
at international level. (Point4.5)
The Commission welcomes that the Committee
shares the views of the Commission on this
regard.
The EESC considers that "the price for
carbon emissions that was meant to be
established by the ETS is much too low and
volatile to give a useful signal to investors".
(Point 4.9)
The Commission takes note of the Committee.
The EESC considers it essential that
vulnerable consumers should be protected
from the impact of higher energy prices, that
vulnerable businesses should be protected
from unfair competition from regions outside
the EU not subject to the same constraints.
(Point 4.13)
The Commission notes that internal market
legislation already provides guidance to define
and address the specific situation of 'vulnerable
consumers'.
The EESC considers that managing the
transformation will require determined and
co-ordinated efforts at all levels. (Point 4.16)
The Commission shares the views of the
Committee on this regard.
The EESC favours the early establishment of
an integrated European Energy Community.
(Point 4.17)
The Commission does not support the idea of the
early establishment of the European Energy
Community. This idea opens up for institutional /
constitutional changes that the Commission is
not supporting. The new article for energy in the
Treaty provides new tools that should be fully
used before considering additional institutional
changes.
The EESC considers that oil should continue
to be primarily used for freight and longdistance passenger transport; as for gas, it can
be used as a temporary substitute for the most
polluting sources of energy (such as coal or
oil), yet its primary role in the period up to
2050 should be to act as a transition fuel on
the road towards low-carbon energy sources.
(Point 5.1.5)
The Commission shares the views that oil will
continue to play a very important role in the long
run as regard transport.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
As regards gas, the Commission is of the opinion
that gas will be crucial for the transition of the
energy system until at least 2030 or 2035.
.../...
- 76 The EESC indicates dismay about the extent
to which progress in the EU and some of its
Member States is already falling behind
existing targets. (Point 4.6)
The Commission proposed a new Energy
Efficiency Directive (COM(2011)370) in order to
ensure the objective of achieving 20% primary
energy savings in 2020 and to prepare the way for
new improvements in energy efficiency beyond
that date.
Negotiations between EP, Council and the
Commission took place during the first half of
2012 and led to an agreement in June 2012 on a
common text.
This compromise text was adopted in first reading
by the European Parliament during the plenary
sitting in September 2012.
The EESC considers that the energy transition
will provide an opportunity to breathe new
life into European industry, generate activity
and comprehensively review our modes of
production and consumption; and that
Europe's
competitiveness
must
be
underpinned by research, innovation and a
capacity to bring clean technologies to
market. (Point 5.2.1)
The Commission shares the views of the
Committee.
The EESC stresses the need to pool the
necessary financial resources and to go
beyond national-level support systems which
are ineffective and stifle competition. (Point
5.2.4)
The Commission is overall favourable to the
approach of the Committee on this regard.
The EESC underlines that a major European
drive is needed to reduce energy
consumption, improve how we use it – by
promoting energy-saving behaviour and less
energy-intensive technologies – and trade
energy efficiently. (Point 5.3.1)
The Commission shares the views of the
Committee.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 77 The EESC considers that it could be useful
for groups of Member States from a particular
geographical region to coordinate their
energy mixes, infrastructure and market rules
in order to share the benefits of the various
sources of energy at their disposal. (Point
5.3.4)
The Treaties make clear that the energy mix is a
competence of the Member States. As regards
the need for infrastructure and market
coordination, the Commission has put forward a
new proposal for promotion of infrastructure of
European common interests. The way forward
for internal energy market integration would be
discussed in an upcoming communication the
Commission intends to present before the end of
2012.
The EESC acknowledges that public
acceptance of energy choices (nuclear, CCS
storage, wind farms, high-voltage power lines
etc.) is a challenge for Europe's democracies
today. The EESC, as well as the national
ESCs, consumer organisations and other
NGOs have a central role to play in
promoting clear and transparent information
about these policies and involving the public
more effectively. (Point 5.4.1)
The Commission shares the views of the
Committee.
The EESC suggests launching a broad
information and awareness-raising campaign
to inform the European public about the
various energy transition options, the central
role of infrastructure and the new
consumption behaviour expected of people in
Europe (Point 5.4.2).
The Commission agrees that it is always
important to increase public awareness on the
energy issues mentioned by the Committee as
this contributes to an smother implementation of
energy policies.
16.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)
COM(2011) 874 final - EESC 1053/2012 – April 2012
Rapporteur: Mr NARRO (Var. Int./ES)
DG ENV – Mr POTOČNIK - DG CLIMA - Mrs HEDEGAARD
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
1.1 The LIFE Programme is a successful EU
The Commission welcomes the EESC support to
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 78 programme which, in conjunction with other
funds and initiatives, has produced very
positive results over the last 20 years. It should
therefore be maintained and strengthened to
ensure that protection of the climate and
environment in the European Union can be
taken forward strategically and coherently.
LIFE and the opinion on the necessity to maintain it
and further strengthen it. For this reason the
Commission has made a proposal to continue LIFE,
increasing the budget and strengthening the strategic
focus by creating the Climate action sub-programme,
a new type of projects (Integrated Projects) and
multiannual work programmes.
1.2. The budget increase proposed for the LIFE
Programme (2014-2020) is a positive sign,
although much still needs to be done to include
the environment effectively in European
policies. The EESC calls on the Member
States, who are embroiled in a serious
economic crisis, to give firm support for
investment in the climate and environment in
order to mitigate their effects.
The Commission agrees with the EESC. The new
type of projects, Integrated Projects, aims inter alia to
improve the effective integration of environment and
climate into other policies and stakeholders practice.
3.1.2 The funds account for 0.3% of the total
EU budget. The increased budget is a positive
signal regarding environmental concerns,
although the effect of the economic crisis on
opportunities for financing by private bodies
and local government, particularly for largescale and capital intensive projects, will need
to be assessed. At all events, the EESC
emphasises the need for supporting
environmental and climate protection to
mitigate the effects of the crisis and advocates
that the financing of LIFE must not have a
negative impact on other funds that might
possibly operate in the same area, such as the
EAFRD and the Structural Funds.
The Commission welcomes the EESC support to the
budget increase in LIFE. This increase has not had
any impact on the funds allocated to other EU
funding instruments. It is based on a bottom up
estimation of the resources required to achieve the
Programme's objectives, including objectives under
the new sub-programme for Climate Action, and to
ensure critical mass for both traditional and
Integrated Projects.
1.3 Establishing a Climate Action subprogramme may create a positive instrument
to raise the profile of those initiatives aimed at
adapting and mitigating climate change. For
its part, the Environment sub-programme must
continue to help protect biodiversity and to
finance the Natura 2000 network as a priority,
but without reducing the contribution from
other funds such as those making up the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural
The Commission welcomes the EESC support to the
establishment of the new sub-programme for Climate
Action and its role in achieving climate related
objectives, as well as to the continued focus of LIFE
on Natura2000. Regarding budgetary issues, see
above.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 79 Development (EAFRD).
3.4.1 The establishment of a specific subprogramme to deal with climate-related
issues and their three priorities (mitigation,
adaptation and governance) should give an
impetus to improving implementation of
Community
climate
legislation,
strengthening governance and consolidating
new networks and platforms. The new subprogramme is essential in attempting to
achieve the objectives set out in the Europe
2020 strategy and in the Roadmap for
moving to a competitive low-carbon
economy in 2050.
3.4.3 The EESC considers that the decision
to upgrade the former "climate change"
thematic strand under the Life and
Environment
Policy
and
Governance
component is welcome and appropriate. It is
not merely a question of raising its profile, but
of
appreciating
its
strategic
and
multidisciplinary value.
1.4. Launching a new kind of large-scale
project, the "Integrated Projects", must be
achieved by guaranteeing the involvement of
NGOs and SMEs, ensuring that "traditional
projects" are continued and improving
coordination between national and EU bodies.
In this respect, the EESC suggests that the
Commission should include in the proposal for
a regulation a clear budgetary allocation for
both types of project, stipulate which criteria
are to be used for establishing the geographical
distribution of the integrated projects and make
clear how the multi-annual programmes are to
be drawn up without impairing the
programme's flexibility.
The Commission welcomes the EESC support to
Integrated Projects. The Commission considers that
given this is a new type of projects, maximum
flexibility is needed. This need for flexibility is also
recognised by the EESC. In the Commission
proposal the funds allocated to Integrated Projects
will be decided together with the Member States in
the work programmes (Article 24(b)). Establishing
clear budgetary allocations for both types of projects
may undermine initial targets and will limit the
possibility to make any adjustments in the 7-year
programming period. Traditional projects have been
and will remain the main feature of the LIFE
Programme. The budgetary allocation has been
calculated to ensure that the number of traditional
projects funded will remain similar to today.
For this reason, the Commission does not support the
EESC recommendation to establish budgetary
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 80 allocations for both types of projects.
1.5. The EESC is in favour of projects being
distributed on the basis of merit rather than
geographical
criteria.
Nevertheless,
it
acknowledges that many countries have a very
limited involvement in the LIFE Programme
because they are either lacking in experience or
the necessary means to participate actively. It
is therefore essential for the Commission to
give them easier accesses by providing more
advice and through better institutional
coordination.
The Commission welcomes the EESC support to
selecting projects based on merit and to the
Commission's
assessment
regarding
the
ineffectiveness of national allocations.
As to the need to support specific countries, the
Commission has foreseen technical assistance projects
(Article 2(e)) and has increased the information and
communication activities in the priority area
"Governance and Information" in both subprogrammes (Articles 12 and 16). These are intended
to increase support to applicants.
4.2.1 Indicative national allocations (Article
6 of the current regulation) will be replaced
solely by as yet undefined geographical
balance criteria in the Integrated Projects. The
national allocations did not yield the expected
results and did not provide incentives to
smaller states or those with less experience of
managing these funds. This change seems
logical and is balanced by the Commission's
introduction of geographical criteria for larger
projects (Integrated Projects). Italy, Germany
and Spain are currently the major beneficiaries,
but states with less experience or technical
preparation should be actively encouraged to
participate.
3.5.3 The Integrated Projects will be subject
to a geographical distribution, still to be
determined. The Commission will set
geographical criteria by means of delegated
acts, but it would be a good idea for the basic
regulation to include certain basic guidelines
for how to motivate countries that have
traditionally not been very active in the LIFE
context to be more involved in the programme.
To this end, it will be necessary to provide
these countries with additional advice and
improve coordination with the relevant
national bodies. The EESC believes that merit
criteria should take precedence over
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission has foreseen that the criteria to apply
geographical balance to Integrated Projects will be
established in a delegated act. The Commission
believes that, given the nature of Integrated Projects,
all Member States should benefit at least from one
Integrated Project during the programming period. For
this reason, the Commission believes that some
geographical distribution is needed but without
undermining the quality of projects in the selection
and award process. In fact, only proposals that have
passed the quality threshold would be able to be
considered for award. This is clear in Article 19(1) of
the Commission proposal since only projects that
comply with those criteria are eligible for funding.
.../...
- 81 geographical or similar criteria when it comes
to selecting an Integrated Project. Co-financing
increased to a maximum of 80% of eligible
costs may not be sufficient to encourage the
participation of public and private-sector
operators in the context of a crisis, in which it
is very difficult to mobilise sufficient funds for
such ambitious projects.
3.5.2 These will generally be large-scale
projects (EUR 5-10 million of Community cofinancing) aimed at resolving environmental
problems and improving implementation and
the integration of the environment into other
policies. The priority areas for action are
appropriate (Natura 2000 network, water, air,
waste, etc.) although the Commission should
not marginalise the role of a number of
traditional projects that have generated
innumerable benefits at a minimum cost. The
Integrated Projects will provide a new multipurpose implementation mechanism for
enforcing
environmental
and
climate
legislation, but there are reasonable doubts as
to whether they might make management more
complex in practice and create difficulties in
coordinating the various funds that will operate
simultaneously.
Geographical criteria will only play a role in the award
process to justify the choice between projects
competing at similar quality conditions.
As to incentives, the Commission's proposal has
foreseen technical assistance to support applicants in
the preparation of Integrated Projects, including
establishing the necessary coordination structures at
national or regional level (Article 2(e) of the
Commission proposal) and has increased the cofinancing rate for these projects (Article 20(1) of the
Commission's
proposal).
In
addition,
the
Commission's proposal also foresees a two-stage
selection procedure and simplified reporting for these
types of projects (see explanatory memorandum). The
Commission believes these are enough incentives to
promote this type of projects. However, the
Commission will analyse additional incentives, such
as regular workshops on Integrated Projects.
The Commission agrees with the EESC vision of
Integrated Projects as multipurpose projects that will
provide benefits in several areas.
The Commission emphasises that traditional projects
will remain at the heart of LIFE.
As to the complexities of Integrated Projects, the
Commission emphasises that a few projects of this
type are already taking place on the ground under
LIFE+ and that the survey carried out by the
Committee of the Regions among regional authorities
and organisations (which will likely be the main target
group for Integrated Projects) concluded that these are
feasible in practice. The Commission believes that the
potential complexity of Integrated Projects derives
from the complexity of managing environmental and
climate aspects. Nonetheless, the Commission has
foreseen technical assistance to support applicants in
establishing the coordination structures needed to
submit and implement successfully Integrated Projects
(Article 2(e) of the Commission's proposal).
3.5.4 The Integrated Projects should do The Commission proposal requires stakeholders'
more to involve civil society organisations to involvement as one of the elements to evaluate in the
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 82 facilitate
their
development
and award process of Integrated Projects (Article 19(3) of
implementation on the ground, preventing the Commission proposal).
them from becoming instruments used purely
by government. It is essential to empower civil
society organisations to take part and to
encourage the formation of networks to enable
the exchange of good practices and to pass on
knowledge between their members.
1.6. Increasing the level of co-financing for
traditional and integrated projects can under no
circumstances justify VAT and staff costs no
longer being considered as eligible costs. Not
including these costs would essentially harm
small civil society organisations whose
contribution is very valuable but whose
involvement could be limited or non-existent.
4.1.2 However, the EESC cannot support the
proposal for a revision of eligible costs to
exclude VAT and permanent staff costs (which
generally account for around 30%). If these
costs are excluded, this will create additional
difficulties for projects which are mainly
developed by smaller civil society or local
actors. Simplification should focus on
substantial changes to forms, better advice
during the drafting phase, flexibility in ex-post
budget changes and a prior evaluation phase
(screening). The EESC believes that some
simplification measures specifically framed for
the Integrated Projects should be extended to
traditional projects, as in the case of creating
two phases for selecting projects.
The Commission has carried out several simulations in
which it demonstrated that the increase in the cofinancing rate will compensate applicants for the
ineligibility of VAT and staff costs.
The Commission recalls that permanent staff
specifically seconded to the project on a full time basis
would be considered eligible for funding under the
Commission's proposal.
The Commission also recalls that these are only one of
the elements of the simplification package proposed
by the Commission, which also includes simplified
application and reporting and increased use of flatrates and lump-sums, when possible, for all projects.
4.4.1 The maximum financing percentage
for LIFE projects will be 70% of eligible costs
(previously 50%). For Integrated Projects this
can rise to 80%, a percentage which will also
apply to specific projects in support of
particular needs for the development and
implementation of Union policy or legislation,
in consideration of the strategic value of those
projects. This increase in co-financing is to
compensate for the non-eligibility of certain
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 83 very significant costs like VAT and permanent
staff costs which were previously eligible.
However, in the current period some projects
in the area of biodiversity already benefit from
75% co-financing. It would therefore be
appropriate for the Commission to assess
whether this level of co-financing is sufficient
compensation, or whether a fixed, rather than
maximum, co-financing percentage should be
set
1.7. The introduction of lump-sum payments is
a good simplification measure. The EESC feels
that the Commission should go further by
improving advisory services, simplifying
financial forms and introducing a prior
assessment stage for traditional projects.
The Commission welcomes the EESC support to
simplification efforts. As to the application of the twostage procedure for traditional projects, this possibility
was analysed in the current programming period and
was discussed with the Member States in the LIFE
Committee. The possibility was discarded by the LIFE
Committee as not adequate for traditional projects,
4.1.1 The Commission stresses greater since it would imply a prolongation of the selection
simplification by the use of flat rates and lump process.
sums. This is a positive measure and could
eliminate unnecessary red tape.
1.8. The EESC deems it essential to retain
the Community and European added value
aspects of the LIFE Programme. In this
respect, the Commission should make clear
in advance which measures are to be
adopted via delegated acts, the role of the
Member States in the LIFE Committee and
the new powers of the Executive Agency
for Competitiveness and Innovation.
The Commission has clearly indicated in the
proposal the areas in which delegated acts are
foreseen: additional performance indicators,
additional criteria for EU added value and criteria
for geographical balance (Articles 3(2), 19(1) and
19(3)
of
the
Commission's
proposal).
Consultation with the European Parliament,
Member States, through the LIFE Committee and
other entities is required (see Recital 30).
3.3.2 The
EESC
supports
the
concentration of effort on specific political
priorities and areas of activity related to the
environment and the climate. The
Commission
should
provide
more
information on the operation of the
Committee for the LIFE Programme, and
the use of the delegated acts to establish
the criteria governing admissibility for
projects and geographical balance in the
case of Integrated Projects.
The Commission has also clearly spelled out the
areas in which implementing acts are foreseen
(Article 24 of the Commission's proposal), also
listing the content of the multiannual work
programmes. The examination procedure is
foreseen for these, which implies the LIFE
Committee will need to vote (qualified majority
voting) on the multiannual work programmes. As
a general rule, the Commission can only adopt the
work programmes if the LIFE Committee
supports the Commission proposal. The details of
the procedure are specified in the Regulation (EU)
No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the
Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 84 -
rules and general principles concerning
mechanism of control by the Member States of
the Commission's exercise of implementing
powers.
4.2.3 Managing LIFE has hitherto been
the Commission's sole responsibility, but it
is not clear what role is to be assigned in
the new proposal to the executive agencies,
and
the
European
Agency
for
Competitiveness and Innovation in
particular in the context of traditional
projects. In this connection it would be
appropriate to ask the European
Commission what powers the Executive
Agency will have in selecting projects and
what instruments will be used to strengthen
the national contact points.
The Commission is currently carrying out a costeffectiveness
assessment
regarding
the
externalisation of LIFE. Details of the activities to
be externalised to the Agency and the
Commission's role will be specified in a future
legal act.
In any case, the Commission will
continue directly managing current LIFE+
projects, and future Integrated Projects.
1.9. Despite the LIFE Programme's notable
success, the European Commission must
make further efforts to increase awareness
of the Programme and the active
involvement of civil society organisations.
In this respect, it is essential for projects to
be better publicised and more transparent
as regards their selection and for people to
be made more aware of the importance of
an EU instrument such as the LIFE
Programme and the added value it can
bring to society.
The Commission also believes that more efforts
are needed to increase awareness regarding the
Programme and exchange of best practices. For
this reason, the Commission's proposal has
substantially modified the priority objective
Information and Communication under LIFE+.
The new priority areas "Governance and
Information" (Articles 12 and 16 of the
Commission's proposal) under both subprogramme include as specific objective (b) "to
support communication, management, and
dissemination of information in the field of
climate and to facilitate knowledge sharing on
successful environmental [and climate] solutions
and practices, including by developing
cooperation platforms between stakeholders and
training".
3.1.3 The Commission should prioritise
the need for additional funding for
communication and publicity initiatives
and knowledge transfer. The specific
financing of training and advisory
measures will not only help to make the
Programme easier to manage, but will
primarily boost its effectiveness and
optimise resources.
4.1.3 The proposal for a regulation The Commission welcomes the EESC support to
substantially
improves
the the
new
more
positive
approach
to
complementarity
between
financial complementarity with other EU Funds.
instruments as regards the confused
wording of the current Article 9. The
EESC supports the principle whereby the
LIFE Programme should complement other
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 85 -
EU funding programmes (European
Regional Development Fund, Cohesion
Fund, European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development, etc.), improving
coordination with a view to preventing
double funding.
4.1.4 The new measures for simplifying
the
Programme's
operation
and
management must be accompanied by
more transparent project selection criteria
and a reinforcement of the existing
instruments for providing advice and
guidance to potential beneficiaries.
The Commission believes the current system to be
transparent. All criteria are included in the
Regulation and the guide for applicants, which
clearly specifies the criteria, points awarded to
each criterion and the evaluation questions. The
Commission's proposal increases transparency in
the sense that it has foreseen a delegated act to
specify criteria applicable to each priority area to
evaluate EU added value, as recommended by the
Court of Auditors dedicated report on LIFE
published in 2009. Under LIFE+ these criteria are
the same for all priority areas (or strands).
4.2.2 The
broadening
of
LIFE
Programme's geographical scope seems
appropriate but should not water down the
LIFE Programme's Community character.
Exceptions to the general rule should be
limited to very specific cases and areas,
such as marine or migratory species and
international
cooperation
between
organisations. The EESC agrees that a
minimum of 15% of the programme's
funding should be provided through
transnational projects.
The Commission also believes that the focus of
LIFE should be on the implementation of
environmental and climate legislation and policy
within the territory of the EU as defined by the
Treaty of Functioning of the European Union.
The conditions for the participation of legal
entities in third countries set forth in Article 6 of
the Commission's proposal clearly link this
participation to the achievement of Union
environmental and climate objectives or to ensure
the effectiveness of interventions carried out in
the Member States.
4.5.1 In the current period most
environmental policy or governance
projects have been aimed at the application
of innovative business or management
methods. The impact assessment is very
positive on advances in eco-innovation.
However, the Commission is proposing
limits to private-sector innovation, as it is
already covered by other specific
instruments like Horizon 2020.
The Commission's proposal aims at ensuring
coherence with other EU funding sources. The
Commission proposal does not limit privatesector innovation. It only clarifies the scope of
LIFE to prevent overlaps with Horizon 2020 that
could create confusion among potential
applicants. The area of private sector ecoinnovation excluded from LIFE is mainly market
replication eco-innovation, which was already
excluded in LIFE+, and this applies only to the
environment sub-programme. For more details
see Section 1.5.4 of the Financial Statement
accompanying the Commission's proposal.
4.6.1 The new LIFE Programme has The Commission welcomes the EESC support to
abandoned the previous purely bottom-up the new vision and emphasises that the local and
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 86 -
approach, and instead opts for a flexible regional focus will remain at the heart of LIFE
top-down approach. The design of the both through traditional and Integrated Projects.
Integrated Projects is the result of this
philosophy. The EESC does not reject the
Commission's new vision but would like to
stress the importance of encouraging
projects developed at local or regional
level, which involve small firms and NGOs
but which can produce major results at
minimum cost.
4.7.1 The European Commission uses the
LIFE instrument to finance environmental
NGOs which participate in the European
decision-making process. Traditionally
around 30 organisations have benefited
from this funding, with very positive
results according to the Commission's
analysis. The EESC acknowledges the
work of these organisations, but feels that
it would be appropriate to adapt the
selection criteria for the granting of funds,
so that other organisations making a major
contribution to the environment and
climate may benefit.
18.
The Commission welcomes the EESC support to
NGOs operating grants and will take into account
its recommendations when developing the
specific selection criteria.
Priority substances in the field of water policy
COM (2011) 876 final - CESE 1307/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur: Ms LE NOUAIL MARLIÈRE (Work./FR)
DG ENV – Mr POTOČNIK
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
1.1 The EESC welcomes the current draft The Commission welcomes the generally
directive inasmuch as it extends the list of favourable opinion of the Committee.
priority substances and priority hazardous
substances,
applying
the
most
comprehensive option proposed in the
impact analysis50.
1.3 The EESC nevertheless recommends The Commission has recently adopted and
that the draft directive include, if only on a published a communication on chemical
trial basis, specific analyses of the mixtures (COM(2012) 252 final) and work is
50
SEC(2011) 1547 final.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 87 -
following areas that are not yet fully on-going on a communication on nanomaterials.
understood:
This reflects the Commission's commitment to
gather more information and take action where
nanoparticles and, more specifically, their necessary in these areas. The list of priority
interaction with the priority substances, as substances has to be reviewed at least every four
there are an increasing number of questions years. The next review should benefit from the
surrounding this subject – raised by the improved knowledge expected to result from the
European Environment Agency51;
increased attention that nanomaterials and
chemical mixture effects are receiving. The
the effects of chemical combinations of
watch list mechanism in the current proposal
substances present in inland waters, as these
could already contribute to the knowledge base.
combinations can have a significant impact
on the aquatic environment even in very
weak concentrations.
1.4 The EESC suggests that, in the interests
of implementing the Water Framework
Directive effectively, the draft directive
should refer to best practice regarding river
basin management.
The Commission is currently reviewing the
River Basin Management Plans that have been
submitted by the Member States, and a report
will be published later this year, from which
some conclusions on best practice might expect
to be drawn.
1.5 The EESC considers that lead and
nickel,
being
persistent
and
bioaccumulative substances, should be
classified as priority hazardous substances
(PHS) with the aim of eliminating all
releases within 20 years, even if it is
estimated that this will be very costly.
As noted by the Committee, the latest review of
the priority substances list, which also
considered the existing priority substances,
involved a study group and broad consultation.
The conclusion of the technical discussions
regarding lead and nickel was that their
environmental quality standards should be
revised, but that the currently available evidence
relating to their hazardousness and relevant
exposure pathways did not support changing
their status.
1.6 The EESC believes that public support Member States are required to publish and hold
and involvement are a precondition for the public consultation for a minimum of 6 months
protection of water resources, and for the on their river basin management plans.
identification of both the problems and the
most appropriate solutions, not least
regarding costs. Without popular backing,
regulatory measures will not succeed. Civil
society has a key role to play in the
implementation of a proper water
framework directive (WFD), and in helping
governments to balance the social,
51
European Environment Agency, EEA Technical Report No 8/2011 – Hazardous substances in Europe’s fresh and marine waters An overview.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 88 -
environmental and economic dimensions to
be taken into account52.
4.1 The European Commission bases the Please see Commission position in relation to
legislative framework on the notion of point 1.3 above.
hazard rather than on that of risk; as a
result, the directive includes substances
with set concentration limits, but not the
risks of interaction between substances
present in the aquatic environment even at
low concentration levels.
4.2 Nickel and lead are on the list of Please see Commission position in relation to
priority substances but have not been point 1.5 above.
included as priority hazardous substances
These metals, being naturally occurring
(PHS).
elements, are inherently persistent. However,
These substances are, however, persistent this persistence does not necessarily mean that
(nickel in particular shows ubiquitous they are to be equated with other substances
persistence) and bioaccumulative, which classically
described
as
persistent,
makes them eligible to be on this list bioaccumulative and toxic.
according to the European Commission’s
definition of priority hazardous substances. Under the Water Framework Directive the
substances and exposure pathways need to be
The REACH regulation refers to these taken into account specifically in the context of
substances as being of very high concern the aquatic environment. REACH may address
and subject to authorisation given that they other environmental compartments and routes of
can be carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction exposure.
(CMR 1 and 2) and/or persistent and
The implementation of the water legislation
bioaccumulative.
aims to be coherent with that of other relevant
To be consistent with the definition given legislation where appropriate, and the regular
for PHS and with the REACH regulation, review of the priority substances list allows
these substances should be classified as developments under other legislation to be acted
PHS, with the objective of stemming their upon accordingly.
release into water within 20 years.
19.
52
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending
Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators as regards placing on the market of
portable batteries and accumulators containing cadmium intended for use in cordless
power tools
COM(2012) 136 final – EESC 1309/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur: Mr ZBOŘIL (Empl/CZ)
CESE 988/2008, OJ C 224, 30.8.2008, p. 67 and CESE 204/2007, OJ C 97, 28/4/2007, p. 3.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 89 DG ENV – Mr POTOČNIK
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
1.2. The EESC does not consider that the
Impact Assessment provides sufficient reliable
evidence on which to base the Commission's
proposal on nickel cadmium batteries especially
since Nickel Metal Hydride batteries will not be
used in power tools by 2015 and the only
available technology will be lithium ion once
the exemption for nickel cadmium batteries is
removed.
The Commission takes note of this position, but
reiterates that viable alternatives to the use of
nickel-cadmium batteries in CPT exist.
1.3. The EESC recommends that batteries
containing more than 0,002% of cadmium by
weight can be placed on the market until 31
December 2018 and that spare nickel cadmium
battery packs to be allowed on the market for
five years thereafter.
The Commission takes note of this position
while underlining that it deviates considerably
from its own proposal and that the discussion on
the deadline for the placing on the market of
cadmium batteries for cordless power tools are
still on-going in the Council and the EP.
1.4 The EESC welcomes the application of the
proportionality principle in this decision-making
progress and supports the Commission's
proposal.
The Commission welcomes the support of the
EESC.
1.5 The EESC also recommends conferring The Commission welcomes the support of the
implementing powers on the Commission in the EESC.
terms and scope set out in the proposal for a
directive.
20.
Horizon 2020: Road maps for ageing
Own initiative opinion - EESC 1290/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur: Ms HEINISCH (Var. Int./DE)
DG RTD - Mrs GEOGHEGAN-QUINN
Main points of the EESC Opinion
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
Commission Position
.../...
- 90 The EESC opinion highlights the importance of
interdisciplinary translational research into
ageing in order to meet the major societal
challenges Europe is facing, in particular
demographic change.
It acknowledges the usefulness of research in
this area undertaken in previous Framework
Programmes for Research (5th, 6th and 7th),
Ambient Assisted Living Programme (AAL),
Competitiveness Innovation Programme (CIP)
and ERA-net activities.
The Commission welcomes the opinion of the
EESC and its commending of the Commission's
efforts on research on ageing and demographic
change. It also confirms its intention to give more
emphasis to research and innovation through
Horizon 2020.
The Commission welcomes the support of the
EESC on its past and current research activities in
the field of ageing.
The Commission would also like to mention its
plan to undertake an impact assessment of its
Public Health Research activities funded under
the 6th and 7th Framework Programme for
Research and Development.
Calls for further coordination of Member States
research and infrastructure activities in this area
and recommends the setting up of a European
gerontology research centre, which could ensure
a central coordinating role.
The Commission fully agrees with the views of
EESC on the importance of coordination and
infrastructures support. Horizon 2020 proposes
to foster stronger partnerships with Member
States and aid Joint Programming Initiatives in
the development of their Strategic Research
Agendas. It will also enhance the involvement of
all stakeholders by strengthening the networking
and opening-up of large-scale infrastructures, a
prime example of European added value.
Welcomes the Commission's support for
European Innovation Partnerships, PublicPublic partnerships, Joint Programming
initiatives and research-related roadmaps in the
field of ageing as a tool for strategic
programming and is pleased of the inclusion of
"Health, demographic change and wellbeing" as
one of the societal challenges within Horizon
2020.
The Commission is engaged very actively in
research on active and healthy ageing and
demographic change. Current joint activities
include the European Innovation Partnership on
Active and Healthy Ageing, the Joint
Programming initiatives on "More years, better
lives" and "Neurodegenerative Diseases, in
particular Alzheimer Research".
Horizon 2020 will take a strategic approach to
programming of research and innovation, using
joint actions and based on sound advice, analysis
and foresight.
The "Health, demographic and wellbeing
challenge" places active and healthy ageing at
the core of its activities with an encompassing
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 91 view across the whole lifespan.
Further research on ageing and demographic
change should be pursued, in particular in the
areas of healthy ageing and preserving health,
rehabilitation, longer working lives, learning for
a long life, the impact of the increasing role of
technology in many areas of life and European
social issues arising from demographic, social
and technological change.
The Commission is currently supporting research
on healthy lifestyle strategies and chronic
diseases as well as rare diseases prevention.
Particular efforts are devoted to address the
needs of the elderly population including
rehabilitation strategies, effectiveness of
medications and health literacy.
Current research activities also include
implementation of research evidence in social
rehabilitation of older people to support
adaptation to technological, economic and
environmental changes.
The European Innovation Partnership on Active
and Healthy Ageing has been selected as a pilot
to tackle the challenge of an ageing population.
It sets a target of increasing the healthy lifespan
of EU citizens by 2 years by 2020, and aims to
pursue a triple win for Europe by improving
health and quality of life of older people,
improving the sustainability and efficiency of
care systems and creating growth and market
opportunities for businesses.
Its Strategic Implementation Plan focuses on
actions developed around 3 pillars: prevention,
screening and early diagnosis; care and cure; and
active ageing and independent living.
Through its “Heath, demographic change and
wellbeing” societal challenge, Horizon 2020
intends to improve decision making in
prevention and treatment provision, to identify
and support the dissemination of best practice in
the health and care sectors, and to support
integrated care and the wide uptake of
technological,
organisational
and
social
innovations empowering in particular older
persons as well as disabled persons to remain
active and independent.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 92 -
21.
Proposal for a Decision of the Council on a Supplementary Research Programme for
the ITER Project (2014-2018)
COM(2011) 931 final – EESC 1295/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur : Mr WOLF (Var. Int./DE)
DG RTD - Mrs GEOGHEGAN-QUINN
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
The Committee calls for more investment in
R&D of technologies with the potential for
long-term provision of sufficient, sustainable
and climate-friendly energy.
The Commission welcomes the opinion of the
Committee and its commending of the
Commission's support and emphasis to R&D of
technologies, particularly environment-friendly
energy technologies.
The Committee regards efforts to develop
fusion energy as extremely important. In
particular, the Committee considers ITER as
an important element of energy research and
of the SET-Plan, playing a key role for the
competitiveness of European industry in
developing the most ambitious new
technologies.
The Commission welcomes the support of the
EESC for ITER as an important step towards
producing sustainable energy from fusion in the
future. For the Commission, ITER is a project of
highly strategic importance.
The EESC strongly opposes the Commission's
proposal to remove European commitments in
constructing ITER from the MFF.
In its communication "A budget for Europe
2020" the Commission proposed to foresee the
funding of ITER from outside the MFF after
2013. For this reason, it proposed to set up a
"Supplementary Research Programme for ITER".
The proposal stipulates that all Member States
will contribute to this research programme and
that these contributions be calculated on the basis
of their GNIs.
The Commission considers that the MFF is not
well suited to fund such large and complex
projects and this solution would provide
continuity for the project, in particular vis-à-vis
our international partners. The Commission and
Fusion for Energy would continue to be in charge
of the management of ITER, the current financial
and staff rules would continue to apply and the
Commission would continue to represent
Euratom in the different ITER organs.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 93 The EESC considers the Commission has only
itself to blame for creating a situation that, by
its own admission, makes it difficult to
incorporate the ITER costs within the MFF.
ITER is an ambitious and large-scale project that
ventures into new technological territory. The
structure of the MFF is not well suited for the
funding of such projects, which involve a strong
commitment from governments both within and
outside the European Union.
The Committee regards Europe large-scale
scientific and technical infrastructure projects
like Galileo and ITER as a prototype for joint
community projects within the scope of the
MFF, with considerable added value to
Europe.
The Commission welcomes the EESC's
recognition of the European added value of large
international projects such as ITER and Galileo.
However, the cost of this kind of projects is too
large to be borne only by the EU budget, hence
the decision to ensure their budgets outside the
MFF.
The
Committee
fully
supports
Commission's desire for a stronger MFF.
the
The Commission welcomes the opinion of the
Committee in this matter.
The construction of ITER should be included
as a part/project of the EU's Euratom
Programme for research, technological
development and demonstration activities
during the period 2014-2018 - albeit one that
is independent and separate from other parts
of the programme – within the MFF.
The structures of the EU traditional funding
programmes are not suitable to fund large-scale
project such as ITER. For this reason, the
Commission has proposed the creation of a
Supplementary Research Programme outside of
the MFF beyond 2013.
The Committee recommends drawing on
surplus funds from the MFF that would
otherwise be returned to the Member
States, which is already the approach taken
to funding ITER for 2012-2013. Only if
these measures prove insufficient or
impossible should the existing items in the
MFF be cut by no more than around 0.3%
each.
The Commission estimates that the optimal
approach to fund large scale international
projects with likely high cost overruns is to
establish a funding programme outside the
rigid structure of the MFF.
EESC
urgently
recommends
that The Commission has no plans to establish
experience with large-scale projects of the such a contingency fund.
nature of ITER be better taken into account
by creating an appropriate "contingency" of
e.g. 10%, if need be. The budget for these
funds should be administered separately
from the project management and this
contingency be released according to strict
criteria.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 94 -
For the years beyond 2018, the EESC
supports the Commission's well warranted
interest in creating a stable framework and
a secure, long-term basis for the entire
duration of the ITER project, but that this
should happen within the MFF. Doing so
ought to provide planning security for
inner-European and international projects
and show international partners they can
rely on the EU.
22.
The present proposal for financing ITER
covers only the five-year period 2014-2018, a
limit imposed by the Euratom Treaty. ITER is
a project of highly strategic importance for the
European Union. It is the interest of the
Commission to set up a stable and secure
framework for the entire project lifetime. By
establishing the tailored Supplementary
Research Programme, the Commission's
ambition is to provide long term planning
security for ITER, emphasising the image of
the EU as a reliable international partner.
Re-use of Public Sector Information
COM (2011) 877 fin – EESC 1035/2012 –April 2012
Rapporteur : Mrs CAÑO AGUILAR (Work./ES)
DG CNECT - Mrs KROES
Main points of EESC opinion
Position of the Commission
With respect to the new right to re-use and given
the differences in the PSI Directive's
transposition, the EESC considers that closer
harmonisation is needed, which would require a
proposal for a regulation. (3.2.4)
While the Commission acknowledges the
need for a coherent and harmonised
application of the Directive, it also believes
that the use of regulations in this area is not
necessary. The new right to re-use is
formulated in a way, which will preclude
differences in transposition that may be
prejudicial to the harmonised application of
this provision across the EU. In addition, a
directive is the legal instrument privileged in
the process of harmonisation of MS laws.
With respect to the subject matter covered by
the PSI Directive, there are considerable
differences among MS in their existing legal
and administrative arrangements. As a result,
devising a regulation with the requisite
specificity would be very difficult (if not
impossible, e.g. with respect to the
independent authority). Also, the test of
subsidiarity undertaken by the Commission
indicates that in the case of harmonisation of
re-use of PSI a directive is well suited to
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 95 attain the objective of the initiative.
The EESC believes that the wording of the
proposed amendment to the charging principles
set out in Article 6 needs to be clarified,
expressly stating the exceptional nature of the
principle of cost recovery. (4.1.4.)
The Commission welcomes the EESC's
support in emphasising the exceptional
character of charges higher than the default
principle of 'marginal cost'. At the same time,
the text of the proposal expressly states that
charging above the default marginal costs,
itself capped at cost recovery with reasonable
return on investment, may only be permitted
in "exceptional cases". The Commission is
underlining and explaining the importance of
the exceptional nature of this provision with
both the EP and the Council and is taking
every effort to ensure that cost recovery
remains an exception in Art. 6 as proposed.
In the EESC's view, it would be feasible to
establish the principle that information should be
entirely free of charge, at least in certain cases of
re-use for non-commercial purposes. (4.1.5.)
The Commission considers the EESC's
suggestion laudable. At the same time, it
would like to draw EESC's attention to the
fact that charges are not an obligation. The
proposal allows MS to apply charges where
they believe this is necessary. While in
practice PSI is already available for access,
and some of it for re-use free of charge, it
results from the Commission's impact
assessment that currently not all MS are able
to offer information for re-use entirely free of
charge. In addition, the Commission believes
that introducing a distinction between
commercial and non-commercial re-use
should be avoided as there are instances
where it is difficult to clearly draw the line
between one and the other type of re-use. In
this respect, the proposed principle of
charging based on marginal costs for
dissemination and reproduction, where
charges apply, is a big step forward and a
suitable means to preserve the balance
between encouraging re-use and ensuring the
production of high quality data. However, the
Commission reserves its position on this
point subject to the results of the negotiations
with the Council and the EP.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 96 The proposal does not specify the characteristics
or membership of this "independent authority",
quite rightly leaving these aspects to the
discretion of each Member State. The EESC
considers that such a body does not necessarily
need to be created from scratch; an existing
authority could be appointed to undertake this
task, provided that impartial and independent
decision-making
can
be
guaranteed.
Nevertheless, on the basis of experience since the
entry into force of the PSI Directive – in some
cases the interpretation of the system for
accessing and disseminating public information
has been restrictive – the new paragraph should
also include, following the words "public sector
information", "… especially as regards the scope
of the general principle set out in Article 3 and
whose decisions ...". (4.2.2)
Although the Commission's proposal does not
in fact specify that the independent authority
does not need to be a new authority but that
competencies to oversee the application of
the rules of the Directive and to hear
complaints in first instance can be granted to
a competent existing authority, the
Commission has repeatedly clarified its
intentions in this direction to both the EP and
the Council. The Commission therefore
willingly takes account of the suggestion for
the future negotiations.
The EESC considers that, as indicated by the
Working Party on the Protection of Individuals
with regard to the Processing of Personal Data,
the text should contain the requirement for
public bodies to carry out "a careful and case-bycase assessment in order to strike the balance
between the right to privacy and the right to
public access". (4.4.2)
The current Directive and the Commission's
proposal are without prejudice to the rules on
access to information and on protection of
personal data. This means that these rules
take precedence over the rules on re-use of
PSI wherever access to information is
restricted (irrespective of the reason of the
restriction) or where protection of personal
data precludes re-use of otherwise accessible
information. The Commission believes that
such a formulation guarantees the right
balance and that imposing any concrete
obligation on public bodies in this respect
would put too much of a strain on their
resources.
25.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European
Venture Capital Funds
COM(2011) 860 final – EESC 1036/2012 - April 2012
Rapporteur : Ms NIETYKSZA (Empl./PL)
DG MARKT – Mr BARNIER
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 97 Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
The Commission welcomes the support of the EESC
for the development of a European Venture Capital
Funds passport and the broad support in the report
for the general approach taken to developing such a
passport.
1.3 The Regulation on European Venture
Capital Funds is aimed at attracting
international private investors, including
individuals, to invest in venture capital funds
based in any EU country. It is very important
as the European venture capital sector is overdependent on public funding, with more than
50% of funding provided by public
contributions. The EESC thinks that public
authorities should instead focus on creating a
stable regulatory framework.
The Commission impact assessment work also
underlined that the European venture capital sector
is overly dependent on public funding, and the
Commission believes that the proposed EU-wide
fund passport for VC funds would reduce this
dependency, to the benefit of the sector.
1.4. The regulation establishes uniform
rules on the categories of investors that are
considered eligible. The proposed measures
must be more flexible and address the needs
of private international investors so that they
can conduct cross-border investments. The
EESC thinks the measures should be
attractive to non-European as well as
European investors if we want the pool of
available capital for European SMEs to
increase.
The Commission agrees on the importance of
widening access beyond purely professional or
institutional investors, including on a cross-border
basis. According to the text as currently negotiated
by the co-legislators, this broadened investor base is
maintained.
1.8. However, the EESC draws attention to
several limitations, which may weaken the
anticipated impact such as limiting the scope
of action of the qualifying venture fund,
restricting it exclusively to investments in
equity and quasi-equity instruments issued
directly by an undertaking (e.g. new issue of
shares or other forms of participation). The
EESC proposes to broaden the proposed
regulation to include shares or units of others
EVCFs as well as funds of funds, which may
increase the total amount of capital available
The Commission agrees that in some cases EVCFs
could invest in other EVCFs, thereby aiding the
overall liquidity of the market. The risk is that
chains of such investments might overly dilute the
proportion any single investment dedicated to direct
support of SMEs. A limit therefore on the extent to
which underlying funds in a fund of funds might
themselves invest in funds might be prudent. The
text as currently negotiated by the co-legislators
contains such a limit, but allows for fund of funds.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 98 to SME investments.
1.9. Such limitations exclude from the
scope of the regulation the possibility that a
so-called fund of funds may obtain the EUwide passport.
1.10. The EESC draws attention to the fact
that the single passport does not settle the
issue of tax transparency of investment
vehicles, which is crucial if venture capital or
private equity investments are to be carried
out effectively. The problem of cross-border
tax obstacles in venture capital should be
examined and solutions proposed.
The Commission notes the EESC concerns relating
to the tax treatment of the funds and their investors,
and in particular the possible negative impacts of
double taxation. The Commission services continue
to work on this matter. Given this is a tax issue, it
cannot be addressed directly in this Regulation
under the legal basis for this Regulation.
1.11. The EESC emphasises that the
essence of an effective investment vehicle is
that it should enable different types of
investor to carry out joint investments, while
ensuring tax optimisation, especially as
regards avoiding double taxation (at issue
here is the tax paid on the portfolio
investment and tax on the distribution of
funds back to investors in the fund).
1.12. The EESC asks for a transitional
period relating to the implementation of the
threshold requirements, in order to take into
account different levels of income in different
EU Member States.
The Commission takes note of this. The text as
negotiated by the co-legislators has settled on a
single threshold for the size of investments by nonprofessional investors. The effectiveness of this
threshold for ensuring access to potential investors
will be reviewed by the Commission 4 years after
the Regulation comes into force. The threshold for
authorisation under AIFM-D is addressed in that
Directive.
1.13. The EESC considers that European
venture capital funds should be a closed-end
structure that invests at least 70 % of its
aggregate capital contributions and uncalled
committed capital in assets that are qualifying
investments in order to ensure that their
shares are not redeemable for cash or
securities until they liquidate. Furthermore,
European venture capital funds should be
The Commission takes note; the proposal provided
for closed-ended funds that invest at least 70% in
qualifying undertakings, with the aim of ensuring
long term 'patient' investments. The text as currently
negotiated by the co-legislators places restrictions
on the establishment of the funds to ensure they are
not set up in tax havens.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 99 located in the European Union, as a means to
prevent the establishment of funds managed
by an EU manager in tax heavens for tax
avoidance purposes.
1.14. The protection scheme of investors
should be strengthened by the appointment of
a depositary, which is responsible for
ensuring the safe-keeping of assets, the
monitoring of the cash flow and the oversight
functions. The UCITS directive requires the
appointment of a depositary for collective
investment undertakings.
26.
The Commission takes note. The Commission
proposal did not include a depositary due to the
nature of the investments made by the funds and the
fact these investments would in large part not be
suited to being held in custody. The text as
negotiated by the co-legislators establishes
additional investor protection measures alongside
this, including an enhanced assessment by the
auditor of the fund's assets and ownership over
these.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in
financial instruments repealing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council (Recast)
COM(2011) 656 final - EESC 1038/2012 – April 2012
Rapporteur : Mr IOZIA (Work./IT)
DG MARKT – Mr BARNIER
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
1.3 In the light of the new Treaty, the EESC
believes that the legal basis opted for by the
Commission may be inadequate in that it fails to
fully reflect the implications of the directive.
Consumer protection and consolidation and
development of the internal market, which are a
key part of the directive, are underpinned by
better-defined, more comprehensive legal bases
and ensure a more effective role and
involvement for representative bodies..
The Commission thanks the EESC for the
appreciation on the legislative proposal, its
underlying objectives and its specific
provisions.
1.6 Here, too, the EESC stresses that it is
opposed to excessive, disproportionate use of
delegated acts, as provided for by Article 94,
which should govern limited, well-defined
subjects for a given period of time. It calls on
the European legislative institutions to offer
clarification regarding the proper use of the
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission takes note of the remarks
concerning the legal basis and the use of
delegated acts. Concerning the legal basis, the
proposal is based on Article 53(1) of the TFEU.
The proposed directive would replace Directive
2004/39/EC with regard to the harmonisation of
national provisions for the authorisation and the
provision of investment services and activities,
including cross-border, the authorisation and the
operation of regulated markets and the
respective supervision. For these reasons, the
Commission considers that Article 53(1) is a
proper
legal
basis.
Furthermore,
the
.../...
- 100 instrument, subject to ex-post verification, and Commission would like to underline that the
its consistency with the letter and spirit of the
proposal is complemented by the proposed
Treaties.
regulation on markets in financial instruments
(so called MiFIR), having a different legal basis
(Article 114(1) of TFEU), in the areas where
this was necessary.
Concerning the use of delegated acts, the
Commission considers that the empowerments
for the adoption of delegated acts are fully in
line with the provisions of the TFEU.
3.2 A key point of the directive is the
introduction of independent advice. The EESC
considers that the provision regarding
independent advice has been well drafted.
Under the new rules, intermediaries will have to
make it clear to the saver what kind of advice
they are about to give, whether it is independent
or not, the nature of the advice and various other
information.
3.4 The transparency principle introduced
enables clients to find out who the adviser
works for, ironing out current differences in the
various Member States, increasing transparency,
making the operators involved behave with
more integrity, and therefore, ultimately,
strengthening investor protection.
3.5 In addition, with the exception of the
specific activity of portfolio management, the
directive allows existing networks of advisers
(both employed and independent) to co-exist,
but requires them to declare their nature. The
EESC welcomes this provision in terms of
protection of both competition and investors, as
the directive puts clients in a position where
they can choose what kind of advice they prefer.
3.6 In general, the Commission document
protects clients and paves the way for healthy
co-existence of operators in the financial advice
sector, including banks, financial promotion
networks and fee-only advisers.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission thanks the EESC for the
appreciation concerning the proposed rules on
independent advice and inducements.
Concerning the obligations of advisors, the
Commission agrees with the EESC on the
circumstance that integrity does not depend on
the type of advice provided. In line with this
approach the legislative proposal foresees a
general obligation for intermediaries to act
honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance
with the best interest of their clients. In the case
of advice, irrespective of the type of advice
provided, suitable products have to be
recommended to clients.
Concerning the definition of advice, such a
definition is already included in the proposed
directive. In accordance with the definition, the
provision of personal recommendation to
clients, either upon its request or at the initiative
of the investment firm, in respect of one or more
transactions in financial instruments constitutes
investment advice. This definition ensures that
any firm providing advice is subject to the strict
requirements foreseen for this service.
Concerning the possible distinction between
"sales" and "advice", the Commission consider
that the two activities are not incompatible.
Advice can be provided in the course of the sale
process and, in that case, it should be subject to
the requirements provided for advice.
.../...
- 101 3.7 The EESC proposes that the definition of
advice be clarified and provision of advice made
mandatory in all investment services (including
general investment services). The EESC feels
that restricting the activity to specialists in the
sector could further strengthen the principle of
investor protection.
3.8 It should be made clear that advice consists
of recommending a product that fits a client's
profile, and that the integrity of the behaviour
lies
in
the
appropriateness
of
the
recommendation. The EESC believes that this
provision also has an educational aspect,
whatever the organisational model. Integrity
does not depend, or at least not wholly, on
whether the recommendation takes the form of
vertical or multi-brand integration, or a fee-only
service or brokerage. The number of products
available is no guarantee of whether the
recommendation made to the client is
appropriate.
3.13 The EESC believes that this new payment
scheme will enhance the quality of the service
provided, increase protection and help to ensure
that professionals behave honestly. In this
connection, the EESC suggests making a
distinction between "advice" and "sale"
3.9
The proposal leaves the element of client
self-classification introduced by the old MiFID
largely unchanged (intermediaries classify their
retail clients on the basis of the investment
knowledge and experience they say they have).
ESMA provides a list of guidelines for drafting
the questionnaire to be given to clients. More
specifically, different categories of client are
identified: retail, professional and eligible
counterparty.
3.10 The EESC welcomes the improvement
made, in that intermediaries are now in a
position to classify clients effectively, but points
out at the same time that the directive does not
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The classification of clients is an important
element of the regulatory framework for the
provision of investment services and activities.
The proposal strengthens the treatment of
different categories of clients (from retail clients
to eligible counterparties).
Concerning financial education, due to the fact
that education is the competence of Member
States, the European Commission focuses on
coordination and support of national strategies
and projects in the area of financial education.
The Commission is also active by running a few
projects to facilitate financial education (e.g.
Dolceta, an online tool for teachers) and by
.../...
- 102 give the market suitable tools for protecting providing patronage to national events
clients at all levels.
promoting financial education. The OECD set
up the International Network on Financial
3.11
The system will enable clients to be Education (INFE) which plays an active role at
"educated" by properly trained staff on the spot. international level and the Commission closely
Nevertheless, the EESC feels it is quite ambitious follows the work of the Network.
to expect a retail client to be able to accurately
and correctly assess their own financial abilities,
given, not least, the lack of financial education
and how overdue the financial education
programmes planned at European level are. The
EESC therefore suggests revising the procedures
laid down in the directive, maybe providing for
external support to be brought in to "educate" the
client.
3.16 Another important new element introduced
is the proposed specific stock market segment
for small and medium-sized enterprises, with
lower regulatory compliance requirements. The
EESC welcomes this particular innovation as it
will raise the profile of the segment in question.
3.17 However, the EESC has some doubts
regarding ability to implement the provision. It
is not a new proposal: for over 20 years attempts
have been being made to develop a wider
market for SMEs, but it has never become
operational and effective. The EESC therefore
suggests laying down specific provisions and
measures which will enable it to be
implemented efficiently and effectively.
3.20 With regard to commodity derivatives
MiFID II aims to prevent unbridled speculation
as an end in itself. One way in which the
Commission plans to achieve this objective is to
restrict the number of contracts that an investor
can enter into in a certain period of time. As it
has already reiterated on several occasions, the
EESC believes that speculation is not
necessarily a bad thing for the financial markets,
as it increases their liquidity and boosts their
growth. Measures are certainly necessary to
counter highly-speculative transactions that
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The introduction of SME growth markets is an
important element of the proposal, as pointed
out by the EESC. This proposal, together with
initiatives taken by the Commission in other
areas, will facilitate access of SMEs to funding.
Concerning the EESC suggestion to lay down
further specific provisions, a number of
delegated acts in this area will allow specifying
the provision in the legislative proposal.
Both on commodity derivatives and on
transparency, the EESC recommends taking a
balanced approach which is calibrated and takes
differences into account.
The Commission agrees with this comment. On
commodity derivatives, the proposal foresees
the need to take into account the nature and
composition of market participants as well as
the characteristics of underlying commodity
markets. On transparency, pre- and post-trade
transparency requirements, including pre-trade
.../...
- 103 affect consumer end prices, but at the same time
waivers and deferrals in the publication of postthe EESC calls for the measures to be carefully trade information, allow to calibrate the regime
balanced and weighed up so as to avoid harmful
to different instruments and situations.
effects on the market.
3.22 The EESC is in favour of extending the
transparency principle to pre-trade relating to
securities and structured products. However, it
suggests that the sizeable differences between
the equity and non-equity markets be taken into
account. Pre-trade transparency is more
important for order-driven markets (such as the
share market), while post-trade transparency is
more suited to quote driven markets (such as
bond markets). The EESC therefore believes it
would be advisable to distinguish between
markets when it comes to applying the pre- and
post-trade transparency principle.
3.21 Moreover, the EESC considers that that
although the new regulation pursues the
principle of harmonisation between countries, it
does not seem to propose specific coordination
between Europe and the United States. The
EESC supports the principle of harmonisation
pursued, but at the same time draws attention to
the additional costs that players on the various
markets may have to bear as a result of the
different rules applying, for example, on the
derivatives markets.
27.
The Commission agrees with the EESC about
the importance of coordination at international
level. Indeed, many important parts of the
legislative proposals are the result of G20
commitments. The Commission proposal
introduces a third country regime in the EU
where cooperation agreements between EU and
third country authorities are a necessary
condition for the provision of services from
third country firms. On derivatives, the
Commission and US authorities are in contact to
consider the development of the respective
regulatory frameworks.
Annual accounts and consolidated accounts
Audit – public-interest entities - Annual accounts and consolidated accounts - Audit public interest entities
COM(2011) 778 and 779 final - CESE 1035/2012 - April 2012
Rapporteur : Mr MORGAN (Empl./UK)
DG MARKT – Mr BARNIER
Main points of the EESC opinion
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
Commission Position
.../...
- 104 1.
The EESC supports the establishment
of Member State competent authorities to be
the national independent regulators and
supervisors and to be the national
counterparties to ESMA. However, where
competent independent auditor supervisory
bodies (including chambers of public
accountants and auditors) are already working
well in Member States, the EESC would like to
see these bodies equivalently enclosed into the
new supervisory framework, and not
abandoned. (point 3.1.8 of the opinion)
Consideration of the suggestion in the framework
of subsequent negotiations with other institutions.
2.
Regarding the definition of "publicinterest entity", EESC proposes that market
capitalisation should be used to define SMEs
for statutory audit purposes. Exemptions or
derogations should be permitted for companies
with market capital of up to €120m. Similar
consideration should also be given to financial
SMEs whose activities are unlikely to have a
systemic significance. (point 4.1.1 of the
opinion)
Reservation pending outcome of negotiations with
other institutions.
3.
The EESC proposes that services
related to the audit be part of the audit plan and
priced without arbitrary limits in the context of
the audit overall. (point 4.4.1 of the opinion)
Reservation pending outcome of negotiations with
other institutions.
4.
EESC considers that statutory auditors Reservation pending outcome of negotiations with
should not provide to their statutory audit clients other institutions.
any services which could create a conflict of
interests for the statutory auditor, in other
words, situations where the statutory auditor
would be reviewing its own work. At the same
time, statutory auditors should be free to provide
the full range of non-audit services to non-audit
clients. In addition, the EESC suggests to allow
some flexibility in the list of non-audit services
and to allow their provision in exceptional
circumstances. (point 4.5.2 of the opinion)
5.
The EESC disagrees with the proposal
for audit only firms. The formula to determine
when an audit firm is disbarred from offering
any non-audit services should be discarded.
(point 4.5.4 of the opinion)
Consideration of the suggestion in the framework
of subsequent negotiations with other institutions.
6.
EESC recommends that audit reform
should be integrated with the recommendations
on corporate governance. Both statutory
auditors and audit committees should improve
Consideration of the suggestion in the framework
of subsequent negotiations with other institutions.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 105 stakeholder and shareholder communication.
(point 1.4 of the opinion)
7.
Regarding the additional report to the
audit committee, the EESC considers that it
should be communicated to the company's
social partners, in compliance with the different
national systems for the involvement of
workers. (point 4.13.1 of the opinion)
Rejection of the EESC proposal. The additional
report is to be disclosed only to the audit
committee and not to a broader public. The audit
report (Article 22 of the draft Regulation) will be
publicly available and thus accessible to the
company's social partners.
8.
The EESC suggests two further
responsibilities for the audit committee:
approval of the plan for the audit, including the
provision of audit related services and approval
of the related budgets. (point 4.16.2 of the
opinion)
Consideration of the suggestion in the framework
of subsequent negotiations with other institutions.
9.
The EESC does not support mandatory
audit firm rotation. Since the key audit partner
is to rotate after seven years, the EESC
proposes that the period for mandatory
retendering should also be seven years. The
EESC emphasises that when the mandatory
retender is triggered, the proceedings must be
transparent and that, in the case of credit
institutions, the competent authority must
approve the outcome. (points 4.18.1 and 4.18.2
of the opinion)
Rejection of the EESC proposal. Mandatory retendering could not address the issue of auditor
independence in the same manner as mandatory
external rotation. There is no guarantee that the
audited entity will change its audit firm as it could
decide to continue to engage the same auditors
after completing the tendering procedure for
reasons other than quality or price.
29.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European
Social Entrepreneurship Funds
COM(2011) 862 final – EESC 1294/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur : Ms RODERT (Var. Int./SE)
DG MARKT – Mr BARNIER
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
The Commission welcomes the support of the EESC
for the development of a European Social
Entrepreneurship Funds passport and the broad
support in the report for the general approach taken to
developing such a passport.
1.3.
Improving access to appropriate capital
for social enterprise is a top priority, but the
EESC would stress that this initiative should be
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission notes that financing for social
enterprises takes many forms, and the Commission's
impact assessment of the proposals on Social
.../...
- 106 seen as just one of many much-needed tailored
financial instruments that still need to be
developed.
1.4.
The EESC urges the Commission to
continue to use the definition of social
enterprise set out in the Social Business
Initiative, rather than coining a new definition.
Specifically, the different approach in the
Regulation to authorising the distribution of
profits to owners should be fine-tuned and
clarified in order to highlight the specific
features of social enterprise in comparison with
companies that focus strictly on maximising
profit, as well as the fund's approach relative to
other, more traditional, venture capital funds.
Entrepreneurship Funds supports the view that a
range of different financing instruments should be
encouraged. This is precisely a goal of the
Commission's wider work under the Social Business
Initiative.
The text as currently negotiated by the co-legislators
is largely inspired by the definition developed in the
Social Business Initiative. The Commission agrees
that it is important to recognise the specific features
of social enterprises in respect of profits, and takes
the view that the text as currently negotiated by the
co-legislators on the proposal reflects this.
1.6.
Other features of social enterprise also
need to be taken into consideration. For
example, attention should be paid to the
divestment of holdings in relation to operations
involving work with vulnerable groups, the
impact on social enterprises' estimation of their
independence, their specific governance
models, the need for long-term rather than
short-term investment, and their lower financial
returns.
The Commission agrees that it is vital that financing
offered to social enterprises reflects the needs of
social enterprises themselves. In the Commission's
view, the text as currently negotiated by the colegislators on the proposal strikes a good balance
between measures to provide confidence to investors,
measures to encourage fund managers to develop
funds, and measures to ensure the funds operate in a
sensitive way in relation to social enterprises. The
Commission however would review the impact of the
Regulation after 4 years, to assess the practical
balance between the needs of investors, funds and
social enterprises.
1.7.
To improve the impact of these types of
funds on social enterprise, they might usefully
be seen as one element of a hybrid capital
solution, which is the most appropriate form of
financing for social enterprise. Hybrid capital
combines grants with long-term, "patient" loans
and other instruments whose durability and
long-term nature are underwritten by public
ownership or guarantees. Combination with
other forms of private capital such as grants
and donations should also be considered, along
with more appropriate forms of ownership in
"portfolio undertakings" (the term used in the
The text as currently negotiated by the co-legislators
on the proposal is flexible on such financing, and
does not in the Commission's view stand in the way
of hybrid capital solutions, joint participations
between public and private. The Commission
proposal was deliberately as open as possible in
regards possible participations by the funds precisely
for this reason.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 107 Regulation for the entities invested in, i.e. the
social enterprises), such as non-voting shares.
1.8.
The Regulation proposes that the new
funds should primarily be targeted at
professional investors and high net worth
individuals, with a minimum investment of
EUR 100 000. The EESC would however stress
that such funds should eventually, under secure
conditions, be opened up to the general public
and to smaller investments.
The Commission notes the EESC preference for
broadening the scope of the Regulation to cover retail
access in the future. A review of the Regulation is
foreseen precisely in this respect.
1.9.
The greatest challenge in this proposal
is the need to measure and report on the social
effects and impact on society of portfolio
undertakings. The EESC recommends taking a
joint study and work at EU level as a starting
point, and developing criteria and indicators at
national level in accordance with the form,
approach and objectives of the relevant
activities in cooperation with all stakeholders.
The Commission takes note of this. Further work is
foreseen on social impact measurement and delegated
acts, and the Commission notes the importance of the
widest possible engagement of stakeholders and
experts in this work.
1.11. Investment readiness programmes and
other forms of capacity-building for all parties
should be set up in order to build trust and joint
structures specifically tailored to such social
entrepreneurship funds
The Commission agrees on the value of this wider
work and notes the advice of the EESC on its
importance; the Social Business Initiative was
conceived as a broad initiative precisely for this
reason.
30.
Paradis fiscaux et financiers: une menace pour le marché intérieur de l'UE
Avis d'initiative - CESE 1289/2012 - Mai 2012
Rapporteur: M. IOZIA (Trav./IT)
DG MARKT – M. BARNIER
Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels
Position de la Commission
L'Union européenne doit, par tous les moyens,
renforcer son action au sein du G20, de l'OCDE et
du Groupe d'action financière (GAFI) pour mettre
fin, à court terme, à l'existence de juridictions
opaques en matière de fiscalité et pour obliger ses
États membres à lutter contre la criminalité qui
trouve son origine dans nombre de ces territoires.
La Commission européenne, en tant que membre
fondateur du GAFI, s'est félicitée en avril dernier de
l'approbation du nouveau mandat du GAFI 20122020 – et de l'adoption des nouvelles normes du
GAFI. Ces nouvelles normes, adoptées en février
dernier, permettront de renforcer l'efficacité du
dispositif, réglementaire et opérationnel de lutte
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 108 contre le blanchiment d'argent et le financement du
terrorisme et d'affronter les nouvelles menaces
pesant sur l'intégrité du système financier
international.
En ce qui concerne la lutte contre les sociétésécrans anonymes dans des juridictions opaques,
notre processus de révision de la directive antiblanchiment
sera un élément clé. La 4ème
Directive inclura des mesures visant à accroître la
transparence des personnes morales et des
constructions juridiques et permettra de renforcer
l'efficacité des échanges d'informations et la
transparence à l'échelle mondiale.
31.
CRA III: Amendments on overreliance in UCITS and AIFM Directives
COM (2011) 746 fin - EESC 1296/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur : Mr FRANK VON FÜRSTENWERTH (Empl./DE)
DG MARKT - Mr Barnier
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
EESC supports twin track approach followed by the
Commission consisting of a) preventing automatic use
of external ratings by UCITS and AIF and b) making
ratings as transparent as necessary to provide required
information to market participants.
The Commission takes account of this
favorable opinion.
EESC of the view that UCITS and AIF bear some
responsibility of their own for preventing herd
mentality and chain reactions by carrying out own risk
management.
The Commission takes account of this
favorable opinion.
It is important that delegated acts foreseen in the
Commission’s proposal are properly put in place. The
whole framework needs proper enforcement by
supervisors in order to be effective.
The Commission
assessment.
agrees
with
this
In order to reduce overreliance on ratings other
creditworthiness standards than external ratings should
also be used by financial market participants.
The Commission
assessment.
agrees
with
this
Existing supervisory rules should be checked and
provisions that lead to automatic responses by financial
The Commission
assessment.
agrees
with
this
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 109 firms should in general be avoided.
Private law contracts which provide for automatic
responses to a rating change should be deemed invalid.
32.
The Commission agrees that references to
ratings in private contracts should not lead
to mechanistic responses by financial firms.
However, the Commission also believes
that references to ratings can play a useful
role as a transparency benchmark in the
interest of investors.
Recognition of professional qualifications and administrative cooperation
Opinion – EESC 1046/2012, SOC/451 - April 2012
Rapporteur : M. METZLER (Act. Div./DE)
DG MARKT – Mr BARNIER
Main Points of the EESC Opinion
1.1. The EESC "welcomes the proposal to amend
Directive 2005/36/EC, which should eliminate these
problems recognising professional qualifications by
simplifying procedures and making them more
transparent for EU citizens. The proposal makes a
real contribution to achieving the targets for
increasing EU citizens' mobility set by Agenda
2020."
1.4. The EESC "welcomes the European
Professional Card as a clear simplification of
procedures. However, it considers that certain
stipulations could end up putting the safety and
health of consumers and patients at risk. The
proposed rules for the European Professional
Card, in particular, should therefore be revised:
- The generic and main criteria and procedural
rules governing introduction of the European
Professional Card should be determined in the
Directive itself.
Commission Position
The Commission appreciates the Committee's
approval of its initiative aiming at
modernising Directive 2005/36/EC on
recognition of professional qualifications.
The
Commission
appreciates
the
Committee's support for the introduction of
European Professional Cards (EPC).
The simplification and acceleration of the
recognition procedures achieved by the
introduction
of
the
EPC
are
counterbalanced by the creation of a proactive alert mechanism for health
professionals which guarantees the
protection of patients, and the extension of
the alert mechanism of the Services
Directive for those professionals who are
not covered yet by it.
- Abuse of hard copy cards should be ruled out
by placing limits on their validity and taking
special steps to protect against forgery.
The EPC should be introduced for specific
professions via implementing acts. The
- The EESC has strong reservations about any Commission notes the recommendation of
provision that sees a European Professional the Committee and will raise it in the
Card deemed valid when a host country fails to upcoming negotiations with the other
issue a decision on the matter. Other forms of institutions. In any event, the interest
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 110 -
legal recourse against unmet deadlines, such as shown by the stakeholders, the –potential–
the right to an official decision or mobility in the profession as well as the
compensation, are preferable."
number of the Member States regulating
the profession could be considered as
criteria for the introduction of the EPC.
The EPC should be an electronic certificate
exchanged inside the IMI system. The
possibility of fraud is particularly limited.
A copy of the EPC could be printed and
used
in
contacts
with
clients/administrations. For these cases, the
implementing act introducing the EPC will
also foresee measures making possible the
verification of its validity and its protection
against forgery. The measures necessary to
ensure the integrity, the validity and the
accuracy of the information in the EPC
will be adopted via implementing acts.
Tacit recognition of the qualifications
should intervene only in cases where a
competent authority fails to take a decision
in the given deadlines. According to the
Impact Assessment, delays in the
recognition procedure are one of the major
difficulties professionals face in the
application of the Directive. Tacit
recognition is an efficient instrument
addressing
directly
this
problem.
Protection of patients (and of consumers)
is also safeguarded as the tacit recognition
does not mean direct access to the
profession.
1.5. The EESC "is concerned about overlaps,
conflicting regulations or even contradictions.
The
Directive
therefore
necessitates
clarification of the order of priority of the
Directive on the Recognition of Professional
Qualifications vis-à-vis the instruments of the
European Qualifications Framework and
European
standards.
Moreover,
implementation of the European Credit
Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
needs to be taken further."
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Directive organises the recognition of
professional qualifications except for cases
where other specific legal provisions organise
the recognition of professional qualifications.
The European Qualification Framework and
the
European
Credit
Transfer
and
Accumulation
System
(ECTS)
are
instruments in the educational field and have
no direct effect regarding recognition of
professional qualifications. However, the
Commission proposed taking into account
ECTS points in certain circumstances (for the
.../...
- 111 expression of the duration of training).
European standards might exist for certain
regulated professions. However, they do not
play any role in the recognition of
professional qualifications.
1.6. The EESC "welcomes the increased
opportunities for automatic recognition on the
basis of common training principles. However,
the procedural requirements, the procedures
and the criteria used by the Commission to
determine common training principles should
be stipulated in the Directive. The quorum
must be raised to 50% of Member States + 1."
34.
Common training principles should be
adopted by the Commission by delegated acts
if they fulfil the criteria proposed in Article
49a(2) and 49b(2). The relevant procedure is
also laid down in Articles 49a and 49b.
The Commission however takes note of the
recommendation of the Committee and will
consider if further details are needed in light
of the discussions in the other institutions.
Proposal for a regulation on European Territorial Cooperation
COM (2011)611 final –CESE 1043/2012 - April 2012
Rapporteur: Mr PÁLENÍK (Var.Int./SK)
DG REGIO - Mr HAHN
Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels
Position de la Commission
COM welcomes the overall support from EESC on the proposed regulation for European
Territorial Cooperation.
3.4 The EESC also supports the trend towards
thematically focused intervention and investment
priorities within each cooperation component.
However, flexibility is also important in this area
and the needs of particular countries must be
taken into account in accordance with the
principle of subsidiarity.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
COM welcomes the support from EESC on
thematic concentration.
The principle of thematic concentration is
the key principle underpinning the focus of
Funds on Europe 2020 priorities. In this
context, a viable concentration mechanism
has to be maintained. Concentration
requirements should be ambitious reflecting
ambitious EU 2020 objectives. However,
COM is open to a limited increase in
flexibility to take into account the specific
challenges of ETC.
.../...
- 112 3.7
However, the simplification of the rules
must also be implemented consistently at national
and regional level, so as to avoid excessive
administrative burdens. The EESC recommends
that the European Commission should, within the
limits of its powers and capacities, monitor and
actively reduce the creation of excessive
administrative burdens at national and regional
level.
COM agrees that it is important to reduce
the administrative burden at all levels.
Programmes shall set out arrangements to
ensure the efficient implementation of the
funds, including an assessment of the
administrative burden for the beneficiaries
and the actions planned to achieve a
reduction accompanied by targets.
3.8
An important element when it comes to
monitoring and evaluation is the creation of a
common framework for drawing up the 2017 and
2019 annual reports and their focus on the
outcomes identified in Article 13(3) of the
Regulation on specific provisions for the support
from the European Regional Development Fund
to the European territorial cooperation goal.
COM will provide further guidance and
models on the annual implementation
reports by means of implementing acts.
4.5
In line with the partnership principle, it is
important to focus on supporting civil society
stakeholders with specific projects (e.g. microprojects) that have the potential to increase the
added value of intervention under territorial
cooperation (particularly in the field of cross
border cooperation) and so include smaller civil
society entities in cooperation.
The mobilisation of potential at local level
through local action groups, including
representatives of public and private socioeconomic interests, can be supported by
community-led local development, which
can also be implemented in cross-border
cooperation programmes.
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Cohesion
Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006
COM (2011)612. –CESE ECO/315 – Avril 2012
Rapporteur Mr CEDRONE (Work./IT)
DG REGIO - Mr HAHN
Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels
Position de la Commission
35.
COM welcomes the general support from EESC.
5.2. As regards the selection of projects to be
funded, without prejudice to their
consistency and compliance with the
guidelines adopted by the Parliament and
the Council in this area (trans-European
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
Art. 2 and 3 of the draft Cohesion Fund
Regulation define the field of action of the
Cohesion Fund, which covers 4 of the 11
thematic objectives set out in art. 9 of the
draft Common Provisions Regulation.
.../...
- 113 transport networks, environmental projects
and energy projects), the Committee
considers that the Commission should
indicate both the specific types of activity
eligible to receive Cohesion Fund resources
and the criteria to help the States that
receive this funding to select those projects
best suited to the (overly numerous)
objectives of the Cohesion Fund (eleven in
all).
5.3. The Committee considers in particular
that the resources used by the Cohesion Fund
in previous planning stages have been spread
over too many projects, thus reducing the
intended overall impact on improving
transport infrastructure. Account should be
taken of the specific situation in each Member
State in order to secure a more careful and
concentrated selection of larger projects with
a greater impact, in the transport,
environment or energy sectors. This could
make a more effective contribution to
lessening the infrastructure gaps that still
exist between Member States.
5.4. With regard to the resources allocated
to the Connecting Europe Facility to fund
transport, energy and communication
projects (a total of EUR 50 billion, 10 billion
of which from the Cohesion Fund which is
already
pursuing
these
goals
(proportionality principle)), the Committee
considers that further discussion of this
decision is necessary, in order to explain
why the Commission has chosen to:
Technical Assistance, as provided for in art.
52 of the Common Provisions Regulation,
may be used to improve project selection in
line with Europe 2020 priorities, as well as
the JASPERS facility. In addition, the
European Commission holds a permanent
dialogue with Member States in order to,
among others, help select those projects
which best match the Union's and the MS'
objectives.
Past experience shows that Cohesion
Policy has had a very positive impact on
growth and job creation, but also on
compliance
of
EU
environmental
legislation. The Cohesion Fund has played
a capital role in this respect.
However, recent reports suggest that a
number of investments would be required
in order to fully take advantage of the
Single Market, in particular in the fields of
trans-European energy networks, transEuropean transport networks and ICT. To
this end, the Commission has decided to
propose the creation of a Connecting
Europe Facility, whose investments will
provide better access to the internal
market and terminate the isolation of
certain
economic
"islands".
The
Commission believes that a centrally
managed instrument will be the most
appropriate tool to address major crossborder, Pan-European investments.
 create another fund managed centrally by an
executive agency that will have to coordinate
with all the other strategic programmes
(European and national) in the sector, as well
as with the Common Strategic Framework
for cohesion policy and the partnership
agreements with the Member States. This
will result in an apparently unnecessary
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 114 overlapping of activities and competences;
 earmark resources for the fund that are
substantial, albeit modest compared to the
Commission's estimates of the resources
needed to meet future requirements in terms
of goods and passenger transport (EUR 500
billion by 2020), energy (EUR 1.5 trillion
for the period 2010 to 2030) and
communication (EUR 250 billion). These
resources would be taken either from the
Structural Funds or, to a smaller extent, from
the Cohesion Fund. Such needless
complications would reduce the sum
available for transport and environment
infrastructure. In view of the sheer number
of regions that could have access to this
funding, the impact of these resources could
not have the multiplier effect (new projects
and funding, partly covered by the private
sector) that the Commission is hoping for;
the end result would be further
fragmentation of the funds. In order to
achieve the desired result, the Committee
also advocates drawing on funds from the
private sector and avoiding fragmentation.
36
Proposal for a regulation on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
COM (2011) 614 final –- April 2012
Rapporteur : Mr BARÁTH (Var. Int./HU)
DG REGIO – Mr HAHN
Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels
Position de la Commission
1.4.4.1 The EESC further welcomes the
COM welcomes the support from EESC on
Commission's
proposals
for
thematic
thematic concentration.
concentration as a means to reduce
fragmentation of effort.
The principle of thematic concentration is
the key principle underpinning the focus of
1.4.4.2 The EESC nevertheless recommends Funds on Europe 2020 priorities. In this
showing greater flexibility with regard to context, a viable concentration mechanism
thematic concentration, largely to make the has to be maintained. Concentration
territorial approach easier to apply and thus to requirements should be ambitious reflecting
improve the effectiveness of the policy.
ambitious EU 2020 objectives.
1.4.5.3 Guarantees are needed to ensure that
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
Certain adjustments of the mechanism can
.../...
- 115 excessive concentration, especially the rigid
interpretation of the 11 thematic objectives
and the minimum percentage of resources to
be used on funding certain priority thematic
objectives (e.g. energy efficiency and
renewable energies, research and innovation,
support for SMEs) does not obstruct support
for development-related projects arising from
local and regional differences.
3.1.2 The EESC welcomes the explicit
obligation to apply an integrated approach in
the area of urban development. It nevertheless
considers that the Partnership Contract should
give only an indicative list of the cities to
benefit from aid and the annual distribution of
resources for this objective, in order to allow
each State to manage projects more flexibly,
which may also have a positive impact on
results in beneficiary cities.
3.1.4 The EESC is in favour of establishing a
European urban development platform in the
context of sustainable urban development. The
EESC does not consider it to be necessary that
the right to decide which cities take part in the
platform should fall to the European
Commission; a fixed set of criteria ought to
suffice.
3.2.2 The EESC recommends that a new
European framework for integrated project
concepts of Special European Interest shall be
identified; this framework shall have specific
territorial objectives. The CSF shall be
considered the appropriate document that
refers to this new European framework. The
EESC recommends to consider whether a
need for a formalised "European Territorial
Development Strategy" exists. In addition to
the priorities of the macro-regional strategies,
special attention should be given to the
objectives regarding Europe's urban network.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
be considered to provide greater flexibility
where this will lead to a more effective use
of Funds in line with Europe 2020
objectives.
COM is open to consider the inclusion of
only the methodology/criteria for the
selection of urban areas to be supported in
the Partnership Contract (rather than a list
of cities).
COM is ready to move away from the
initial proposal limiting the number of
cities participating in the urban
development platform.
COM's proposals include various measures
supporting integrated projects. COM
believes that there is no need to identify a
new European Framework or set up a
"European
Territorial
Development
Strategy" as the CSF will provide a
framework facilitating sectoral and
territorial
coordination
of
Union
intervention under the CSF Funds and with
other relevant Union policies and
instruments. The CSF will set out
coordination
mechanisms
and
arrangements to address territorial
challenges and the steps to be taken to
.../...
- 116 encourage an integrated approach.
3.4.2 The EESC also believes that areas such
as education or the development of tourism
are important and remain the focus of ERDF
interventions in accordance with the specific
development needs of certain Member States
or regions.
These types of actions can be supported
provided that they are necessary to achieve
the specific objectives defined by the
Member State/region and contribute to the
investment priorities listed under the
relevant thematic objectives.
Financing of small scale infrastructure,
including those related to culture and
tourism will be possible in all regions
provided that these investments are linked to
the development of endogenous potential of
the region.
3.4.5 This also raises the question as to
whether, when it comes to basic infrastructure,
support for developed regions is not
necessary. Exceptions and a flexible approach
ought to be considered e.g. in cases where the
development of a central, more developed
region is necessary for the development of its
surrounding territories.
3.4.6 As regards the proposed priorities
concerning the support of enterprises and
business competitiveness, the EESC reiterates
the important contribution of social economy
enterprises to territorial and regional
development as the European Institutions have
recognised in several official documents. The
EESC recommends including social economy
in the framework of measures devoted to
business competitiveness, entrepreneurship,
new business models, training, education,
research, technological development &
innovation, promotion of employment,
fostering of energy efficiency and renewable
energy and social inclusion.
37.
COM maintains its original positions and
does not accept funding of basic
infrastructure in more developed regions.
The Commission considers that there is a
limited value added in such investments in
regions which are already well endowed in
infrastructure.
COM believes there is no need to refer
specifically to social economy enterprises
in Articles 3 and 5 as they can be
supported in the same way as other
enterprises. It is, however, open to
including social economy enterprises in the
CSF.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions -
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 117 Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area COM (2011) 782 final –
EESC 1298/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur : Mr PARIZA CASTAÑOS (Work./ES)
DG MARE - Mrs DAMANAKI
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
Support to a macro-regional approach
The mandate given to the Commission by the
June 2010 General Affairs Council was to
develop a maritime strategy for the Atlantic
Ocean area. The Commission cannot prejudge
the future development of the Atlantic maritime
strategy into a macro-regional strategy. Such a
development would require a specific mandate
by the Council.
Overcoming the administrative, regulatory
and financial conditions imposed by the
strategy (the '3 no's' rule of the Baltic
strategy)
The Atlantic maritime strategy is clear on the
fact that the development of the strategy will not
entail additional legal, financial or administrative
burden, reflecting the position of the Member
States. It will however seek to use existing funds
in a more efficient and targeted way.
The territorial dimension needs to be
included (reference to the hinterland).
The Atlantic maritime strategy sets the basis for
the development of 'blue growth' in the EU
Atlantic area. The Commission would like such
development to have implications for growth and
employment on coastal communities as well.
Support to the Atlantic Forum and the
stakeholder approach enabled
The Commission welcomes the positive stance of
the EESC on the Atlantic Forum and the
inclusive bottom-up approach it has enabled. The
Commission intends to follow this line of action
during the workings of the Atlantic Forum.
The strategy must act as a driver for
research, technological development and
production in the marine energy industry.
The development of marine renewable energies
is one of the priorities foreseen by the strategy.
The Commission looks forward to the proposals
made by the Atlantic Forum on this matter.
Emergencies and threats are a major
challenge.
In effect, these are signalled as a major
challenge. The Commission looks forward to the
input of stakeholders on this matter via the
Atlantic Forum.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 118 The EESC regrets that the Commission
plans to dissolve the Forum just at the start
of the operational stage of the projects'
implementation.
The Atlantic strategy indicated that the Atlantic
Forum would be disbanded in 2013. However, as
the implementation of the strategy will take place
during the next financial period (2014-2020)
some kind of follow-up mechanism may have to
be envisaged if EU funding is involved. The
Commission looks forward to the proposals from
the Atlantic Forum on this matter.
Reference to smart,
inclusive growth
The strategy sets the development of 'blue
growth' in the Atlantic along the lines of the 'EU
2020 Agenda' (smart, sustainable, inclusive
growth). The Commission will support this
linkage throughout the Atlantic Forum process.
sustainable
and
Governance structure
The Commission welcomes the views of the
EESC on this matter, and has already adopted
measures that go in that direction (setting-up a
'Leadership Group' which includes all relevant
institutions) and make a direct link with the
negotiation process of the future structural funds
harnessing Community funds linked to sectoral
policies, as suggested by the EESC.
International dimension
The Commission is aware of the important
international relevance the strategy has and has
already had contacts with its international
counterparts in the Atlantic. However, the
international dimension of the strategy will only
be developed at a later stage, once the Atlantic
Forum has done its work and the Action Plan is
adopted.
38.
Book publishing on the move
Own-initiative opinion – EESC 1048/201 – April 2012
Rapporteur : Ms ATTARD (Var. Int./MT)
Corapporteur: Ms VAN LAERE (Empl./BE)
DG EAC - Mrs VASSILIOU
Main points of the EESC opinion
Commission position
1.2. The EESC stresses that at EU level, an
overall analysis of the role of the book
The Commission agrees that it is important to
enhance the role of the book publishing industry
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 119 publishing industry in the social, economic,
cultural, scientific and artistic development
of Europe while addressing the rights and
needs of other stakeholders including
booksellers, writers, scientists, illustrators,
printing and allied industries, libraries and
reproduction rights organisations and
consumers, should be an immediate priority.
The publishing industry needs to be included
by the European Commission in the basket of
industries when contemplating strategies for
Digital Europe.
in the social, economic, cultural, scientific and
artistic development of Europe while addressing
the rights and needs of other stakeholders
including
booksellers,
writers,
scientists,
illustrators, printing and allied industries, libraries
and reproduction rights organisations and
consumers.
1.3 The EESC emphasises the importance of
addressing the need for adequate EU
legislation and policies that have an impact
on the publishing industry: intellectual
property (in particular copyright) and its
enforcement, taxation, information society
and cultural policies.
The Commission agrees with the need to have
adequate EU legislation for the publishing
industry.
1.4. The EESC reiterates the need at EU level
for the elimination of the discriminatory
regime that is currently in place both within
the EU - where online versions of the same
cultural products are currently taxed at
standard rates, creating an unjustified
distortion between comparable content - and
in comparison with the USA where online
publishing is tax-free thus creating a nonlevel playing field and unfair competition.
In its Communication of December 2011 on the
future of VAT, the Commission launched a debate
on the possibility of moving towards convergence
of the VAT rates applicable, on the one hand, to
traditional books and, on the other, to digital
books. The Commission will put forward
proposals by the end of 2013. It is not possible,
however, to ensure convergence without
amending the VAT Directive.
1.7. The EESC stresses that IPR governance
is crucial to the flourishing of European
culture, science, the arts and the quality of life
enjoyed by European citizens, besides being a
key factor for technological and commercial
innovation.
The Commission agrees that IPR are essential to
European culture, science and arts and a factor for
technological and commercial innovation.
1.14. The EESC urges the Commission to
enter into a strategic dialogue with the
European publishing industry to come to
conclusions on strategies that will concretely
address the needs of print books and ebooks
in the digital era thus also strengthening
The Commission already created a "high level"
multi-stake holder group i.e. the Media Futures
Forum that covered such matters and recently
held a round table specifically on e-book
obstacles in the Single Market. A policy reflection
on e-books is underway within DG
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 120 global competitiveness of this sector. The
EESC once more urges the Commission to set
up
a
high-level
group
including
representatives from publishing and the
graphics and paper industries, in order to
assess the investment and employment
prospects available to these sectors in the
context of the multimedia revolution.
Communications
Networks,
Content
and
Technology. There is no requirement for further
groups to be established at European level.
5.7. The EESC supports the proposals of the
2007 Commission report on competitiveness
of the European printing industry; however,
the Committee calls on the European
Commission to set up a European social
dialogue committee for this sector as a whole;
currently formal social dialogue between
employers and trade unions exists at company
and national level only.
The Commission is currently financing a joint
project of the European social partner
organisations of the graphical industry (Intergraf
and UNI Europa Graphical) that should lead to the
creation of a formal Social Dialogue Committee
for this sector by the end of 2012. It will cover the
activities of NACE Rev.2 class 18.1 – Printing and
service activities related to printing. It should be
noted that the book publishing sector (which falls
under NACE Rev.2 class 58.1) will not be covered
by this committee.
6.4. Synergies need to be sought and
encouraged between European Library
Associations and booksellers. Digitisation is
creating a degree of friction between
booksellers’ and publishers’ concerns about
e-book piracy on the one hand, and libraries’
enthusiasm to promote e-book lending on the
other hand. Legal distinctions between
lending (of printed books) and e-lending need
to be highlighted, practised and enforced by
all parties. A setup that combines embedded
anti-piracy safeguards and facilitation of elending for legitimate library lending should
be examined by the stakeholders.
Commission agrees that best practice should be
promoted at national and European level on these
issues, while underlining the importance of
innovative contractual arrangements between
market parties to resolve these issues.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission encourages dialogue between
publishers and libraries in order to find workable
solutions to address the development of e-lending
models whilst ensuring the viable growth of the
nascent but growing e-book market in the EU.
.../...
- 121 8.1 The EESC agrees in general with the
proposed directive for a legal framework
to ensure the lawful cross-border online
access to orphan works.
8.2 Very few Member States have
implemented orphan works legislation,
and even where it exists, it is limiting
access to citizens resident in their national
territories.
The European Parliament and the Council
discussed the Commission's proposal for a
directive on orphan works and reached an
agreement on a compromise text in June 2012.
The proposal will be formally adopted by the colegislators in September.
8.4 In terms of out-of-commerce works,
book publishers initiated a dialogue that
led to the signature of a Memorandum of
Understanding on "Key principles on
digitisation and making available of outof-commerce works" by all stakeholders
involved. As yet, no legal structure exists
for voluntary agreements between the
various stakeholders on out-of-commerce
works to be recognised across borders
The
Commission
is
monitoring
the
implementation of the Memorandum of
Understanding by the stakeholders involved
(publishers, authors, libraries and collecting
societies).
10.4. The EESC supports the European
Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC) for the
recognition of net neutrality as a regulatory
principle. The European Commission
should build on the ongoing work of the
Body of European Regulators for
Electronic Communications (BEREC) and
adopt a binding instrument that will ensure
the coherent and effective protection of net
neutrality across Europe.
The Commission agrees that the results of the
work undertaken by BEREC warrants further
analysis of whether action is required to safeguard
and empower consumers. To this end, the
Commission intends to launch shortly a public
consultation on transparency, traffic management
and switching in an Open Internet, which are key
aspects of the net neutrality debate. On the basis
of the responses to this consultation, the
Commission will envisage policy measures to
address these issues.
39.
European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015
COM(2012) 6 final – May 2012
Rapporteur: M. ESPUNY MOYANO (Empl./ES)
DG SANCO - Mr DALLI
Points of EESC opinion considered essential
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
Position of the Commission
.../...
- 122 In general terms, the EESC agrees with the
animal welfare strategy presented by the
Commission, thereby supporting consumers'
legitimate aspiration for food safety and a
European production strategy geared towards
quality.
The Commission agrees with the EESC.
The EESC notes that there are difficulties in the
implementation of the existing legislation due to
lack of support for their application and the loss
of competitiveness suffered by EU products.
The Commission has no evidence that existing
legislation on animal welfare has created loss
of competitiveness for EU products. The
evaluation on the EU policy on animal welfare
found that it had created additional costs but
they did not affect the economic sustainability
of the sectors concerned. In addition there is
no apparent link between the level of animal
welfare required by the EU legislation and the
level of importations from third countries.
Competitiveness of animal production is
indeed mainly driven by other costs than the
ones influenced by the legislation (feed costs).
1.1.14 Instruments are needed to compensate
for the loss of competitiveness faced
by EU livestock production, since the
additional costs resulting from the
EU's animal welfare policy (EUPAW)
are not absorbed by the market. There
are reasons to fear an even greater loss
of market share in both the internal
market and export markets. There has
been no consideration of the labour
market or of working conditions.
The Commission is not convinced that there is
a need for further financial support for farmers
than the ones provided in the existing
instruments. First, the most costly measures
introduced in the past for farmers were
accompanied with long transitional periods in
order to recover the additional investments.
Secondly, current support measures mainly
under the rural development programmes
remain underused by the majority of Member
States.
The Commission however accepts that there is
further need for better working conditions and
consider in particular the education of persons
working with animals as an important aspect
to be developed in the future.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 123 -
1.1.15 The EESC would again insist that all
imported products should meet the
same production standards as EU
products, taking a reciprocity approach
in trade agreements.
The Commission agrees on the objective of
ensuring fair competition between EU and
imported products. Equivalent standards are
required for animal welfare standards at the
time of slaughter. However, the EU is also
bound by its international obligations
regarding trade. The Commission is
consistently working in including animal
welfare within bilateral trade negotiations as
well
as
in
international
standards
organisations such as the World Organisation
for Animal Health.
On-going animal welfare training for
operators, workers and authorities is a crucial
element of the strategy. The EESC would also
draw attention to the importance of allocating a
proportion of cooperation funds to the training
of third-country authorities, employers and
workers regarding welfare in animal
production.
The Commission fully agrees with the EESC.
A study on education of personnel working
with animals will be launched in 2012 in order
to evaluate the priorities and which initiatives
could be the most appropriate at EU level.
The implementation of EU regulations requires
adjustment of financial resources so that
producers can make the necessary investments
and in order to compensate for additional costs.
The CAP must complement this strategy,
attaching the necessary importance to it.
See previous point (3).
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 124 A communication strategy must be drawn up to
address society's concerns, taking account of
scientific studies and progress in this field and
the various points of view of producers,
workers and consumers. Communication must
not be based solely on obligatory labelling.
There must be coherent consumer information
programmes, which help consumers to make
decisions based on the greatest possible number
of factors. Funds to promote agri-food products
have a key role to play, ensuring that
production sectors play an active part in this
work.
The EESC believes that all social actors and
consumers must participate in the European
network of reference centres, and that it has a
crucial role to play in the development of the
animal welfare strategy:
a.
coordinating the various research centres in
the EU,
b.
facilitating the implementation of the
legislation (the development of practical
indicators, training of operators, workers
and authorities),
c.
helping to assess the impact of the
regulations
in
socioeconomic
and
competitiveness terms,
d.
supporting information and communication
activities.
The Commission agrees with the EESC on the
need to further elaborate a communication
strategy on animal welfare. This is why the
Commission will launch a study on education
and information to citizens and consumers in
order to establish the most appropriate actions
at EU level. Promotion funds already exist in
the context of the CAP.
The Commission agrees with the EESC on the
possible role of a future European network of
reference centre. The detailed mechanisms on
how such network could work will be tested
through an EU pilot project to be launched in
2012. Based on the experience gained the
Commission will consider the necessary
initiatives.
Strengthening the weakest links in the food
chain will lead to a fairer distribution of the
additional
costs
resulting
from
the
implementation of animal welfare standards,
thereby maintaining the productive fabric and
the development of rural areas.
The Commission agrees with the EESC. There
is a need for better informing consumers and
retailers on the current efforts made by
farmers for improving animal welfare.
The Commission's laudable efforts towards
simplification are at odds with the Commission's
intention to extend the scope of application to
more species and further develop existing
provisions.
The Commission is conscious that a balance
should be struck between the public demand
for better animal protection and the risk of
administrative burden. This is why the
Commission has not decided to extend the
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 125 scope of application to more species or further
develop existing provisions. If such initiatives
seem necessary the Commission will in any
case perform an impact assessment with due
consideration for simplification.
40.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the noncommercial movement of pet animals
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending
Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards the animal health requirements governing
intra-Union trade in and imports into the Union of dogs, cats and ferrets
COM (2012) 89 and COM(2012) 90– May 2012
Rapporteur: N. LIOLIOS
(Var. Int./EL)
DG SANCO - Mr Dalli
The Commission welcomes the general support from the EESC.
However, the Commission would like to comment on some of the conclusions of the report and clarify
some misunderstandings regarding certain provisions of the Commission proposal.
Points of EESC opinion
considered essential
Position of the Commission
4.2 The EESC endorses the removal of
unjustified obstacles to movements of pet
animals, provided that validated scientific
information is taken into account and that the
Commission conducts appropriate consultations
with experts before granting derogations so as to
address the specific circumstances of noncommercial movements of pet animals and in
accordance with health requirements and rules
and the form of the accompanying documents.
The Commission agrees to carry out appropriate
consultation during its preparatory work,
including the consultation of experts.
4.3 Given that public health issues are important,
however, the duration of the delegation of powers
should be clearly established, as provided for in
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, so that the Commission surveillance is
more effective and the right to revoke a
delegation of power represents an additional
safeguard.
It is the understanding of the Commission that in
accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union a basic act may empower
the Commission to adopt delegated acts for an
undetermined or determined period of time and
in both cases the delegation of powers may be
revoked at any time by the European Parliament
or by the Council.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 126 In COM(2012)89 proposal, the power conferred
on the Commission to adopt delegated acts
mainly concerns measures necessary to prevent
an imminent risk to public or animal health.
A determined period would not fit with the
unpredictable character of such events.
4.4 When compiling the list of third countries
and territories for which derogations can be
allowed because they apply rules equivalent to
those applied the by Member States, the
Commission should base its decision on
guarantees from the health authorities of those
countries.
4.7 The issuing of identification documents for
non-commercial movements of pets is of crucial
importance. Introducing the method of marking
animals by implanting a transponder is also
important in improving the system for registering
and monitoring animals.
4.8 The transponder must be implanted by a
veterinarian, as the scientific training of the
people performing implants provides an
opportunity to detect and identify diseases in
animals having a transponder implanted and for
the identification document to be completed
accordingly. The information to be entered in the
identification documents is such that it requires
the scientific knowledge of a veterinarian
authorised by the relevant authority to perform
this task.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission will continue to request the
necessary guarantees before granting any
derogation.
The Commission wishes to clarify that the sole
purpose of the transponder is the unequivocal link
between the animal and the identification
document.
Member States may however decide to use the
transponder within a national system of
registering and monitoring pet animals.
COM(2012)89 proposal does not provide that a
veterinarian must implant transponders. It only
provides that Member States shall lay down rules
on the minimum qualifications required for the
persons carrying out the implantation of
transponders in pet animals.
The Commission believes that the person
implanting the transponder must be properly
trained for such an invasive procedure, which may
be disconnected in time from the anti-rabies
vaccination and the issuing of the identification
document.
The veterinarian is qualified for carrying out the
anti-rabies
vaccination
and
issuing
the
identification document after having verified that
the animal is properly marked. This veterinarian
should be in addition authorised by the competent
authority to perform such tasks. Procedures should
be in place in Member States to ensure that
candidate veterinarians have received appropriate
.../...
- 127 training prior to authorisation.
4.9 Consistent implementation by the Member
States of the marking and description procedure
will allow databases to be updated, providing
important
information
on
a
country's
epidemiological status, the progress of
vaccination programmes and the density and
distribution of animals, as well as their
movements.
COM(2012)89 proposal does not provide for any
obligation on Member States to record in a
database the identification number of a marked
animal together with its animal health status and
its movements. It however provides that
authorised veterinarians record the contact
information of the owner together with the
identification number of the animal for which an
identification document was issued.
4.10 Documentary, identity and physical checks
to be carried out on non-commercial movements
of pet animals into a Member State from another
Member State or a third country or territory are
critically important and should be performed in
every instance and by personnel who are
properly informed about the procedure and its
significance.
The Commission would like to clarify that
COM(2012)89 proposal does not foresee checks
to be carried out on non-commercial movements
of pet animals into a Member State from another
Member State in every instance because it is
simply impossible and impracticable, especially
at EU terrestrial borders in the Schengen area.
That is the reason why COM(2012)89 proposal
can only provide for targeted or random checks
for such movements while for movements into a
Member State from a third country or territory,
checks should be performed at a 100% rate at
travellers' points of entry designated by Member
States and by properly trained staff.
4.11 In the event of non-compliance with the
procedures relating to health requirements and
rules on the movement of pet animals, it is
important that, in addition to the procedures laid
down in the proposal for a Regulation, the health
authorities of the territory of dispatch should be
informed with a view to examining the
possibility of non-compliance with the
Regulation in the case in question and other
cases.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
It is the owner's primary responsibility to comply
with the conditions laid down in the Regulation.
The identification document required for the
movement of pet animals from one Member State
into another may be issued by any EU authorised
veterinarian, whatever the Member State of
permanent residence of the owner of the animal
may be.
In the case of non-commercial movements of pet
animals into a Member State from a third country
or territory, the identification document is issued
by the competent authority of the third country of
dispatch. If irregularities concerning this
document, including supporting documentation
such as a laboratory report, are discovered at the
.../...
- 128 time of checking, the competent authority of the
Member State of entry into the Union may in any
case contact the authority of the third country
which has issued such document in order to verify
its validity.
4.12 Putting an animal down on the basis of an
informed opinion that it cannot be returned or
isolated could also be a measure recommended
by specialists who consider that return or
isolation is not only difficult but also entails
additional risks.
41.
COM(2012)89 proposal provides that the
competent authority designated by Member States
to carry out the checks, for example the Customs,
shall decide after consultation with the official
veterinarian and considering the animal health
risks involved.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying
down the Union Customs Code (recast)
COM (2012) 64 final – CESE 1297/2012 – Mai 2012
Rapporteur: Mr PEZZINI (Empl./IT)
DG TAXUD - Mr ŠEMETA
Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels
Position de la Commission
(Recommandations / General comments)
1.1 The Committee considers that an efficient
customs union is a vital prerequisite for
European integration in order to ensure
uniform and EU-wide efficient, safe and
transparent free movement of goods with
maximum consumer and environmental
protection and effective combating of fraud
and counterfeiting.
The Commission very much welcomes the
Committee's support for the Customs Union.
1.2 The Committee calls for a single customs
policy, based on uniform, up-to-date,
transparent, effective and simplified
procedures, which will contribute to the
EU's economic competitiveness at global
level and protect the intellectual property,
rights and safety of European businesses
and consumers.
The
Commission
appreciates
the
Committee's acknowledgement of current
customs policy and its strategic objectives.
1.3+4.2 The Committee welcomes the adoption
The COM proposal for the Union Customs
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 129 by the European Commission of the
proposal for a regulation recasting
Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of 23 April
2008, and calls for binding timeframes for
enacting the implementing provisions in
order to avoid further recasts and delays,
uniform interpretations and widespread
information and training, in addition to
appropriate national and EU funding.
Code (Recast) foresees the following legal
deadlines:
 Entry into force (Art 246): 20 days after
publication in OJ and at the latest on 24
June 2013;
 Date of application (Art 247):
- date of entry into force for
empowering provisions & Art.
46 UCC on charges and costs,
already applied;
- 18 months after entry into
force
for other provisions.
 IT work programme (Art 17(1)) to be
adopted by the Commission within 6
months of the entry into force;
 End-date of transitional periods and
measures (Art. 6(2)(c)) to be applied
pending operational IT systems: 31
December 2020.
The above dates correspond to the
available Customs2020 funding tools to
enable proper implementation and
training both for the customs authorities
as well for the traders.
1.4 The Committee naturally agrees that the
provisions of the code should be aligned with
the Treaty of Lisbon as regards the
delegation of powers and granting of
implementing powers, with due respect for
the balance between the Parliament and the
Council, placing the two institutions on an
equal footing as regards delegated acts.
Indeed, the alignment on Articles 290 &
291 TFEU was one of the purposes of the
recast.
1.5 The Committee also considers that it is vital
and important to introduce modernisation
measures such as simpler customs legislation
and to complete interoperable computerised
customs systems, which will streamline
commercial practices and ensure greater
coordination of prevention and prosecution
activities.
Indeed, the political goal of the
Modernised Customs Code remained the
same.
1.6 + 4.2 The Committee is concerned about the
The Commission is working towards the
goal of uniform interpretation of customs
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 130 possibility
of
differing
national
interpretations of the EU customs rules,
which
would
constitute
a
major
bureaucratic
burden
for
businesses
(especially small businesses), and thus
damage Europe's competitiveness.
rules.
However, following the outcomes of a
recent study the Commission takes the
view that a unified EU customs service is
not a viable option at this point in time.
Therefore the Committee considers uniform
interpretation of the EU's customs rules to be
guaranteed which must act as a single
administration in order to establish single European
customs. (4.2, 2nd intend).
1.7+4.4.1 The Committee therefore strongly
supports the process of centralised clearance
with appropriate electronic systems;
systematic use of standardised working
methods; business process modelling;
dissemination of all initiatives related to
electronic customs; and, as an experiment,
the establishment of a European rapid
reaction task force to support innovation.
1.8 The Committee acknowledges that the
introduction of the code should be
postponed in order to allow time for the
development of harmonised electronic
systems and improvements in the
organisation of customs procedures at the
EU's external borders, and above all to
properly inform and train the workforce,
thus spurring on international trade and the
swift movement of people and goods.
Therefore the Committee considers information
disseminated broadly to be guaranteed among
all interested operators in order to guarantee
standardised and uniform application of the new
rules and IT procedures based on common
standards ensuring full interoperability; and a
high level of training for customs agents and
operators based to be guaranteed on platforms
and European standards with a view to
improving professionalism and accountability,
with the appropriate monitoring, based on
European quality parameters (4.2, 4th and 5th
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
Indeed, centralised clearance as one of the
major political goal of the Modernised
Customs Code remained. However the
introduction of the business process
modelling led to better understanding of
the practical functions of the related
Articles, thus contributing to streamlining
the process.
The Commission routinely links with
Member States to assist with the
dissemination of information to interested
parties and also acts on its own behalf to
provide information.
More precisely, as part of the
Commission's European Customs Training
Initiative (under the current Customs 2013
and future Customs 2020 programme), the
Commission
foresees
to
develop
interactive EU eLearning modules on the
UCC, its implementation provisions as
well as the related IT applications for
both, national customs officials and
economic operators. The EU e-courses
will be designed to inform and/or train
officials and traders on new UCC rules,
procedures and systems. They will thus
help to reach a most consistent
understanding and a most uniform
interpretation of the new legislation as
well as help to avoid typical negative
.../...
- 131 -
intends)
change impacts.
1.9 The Committee considers that closer
cooperation is needed between customs
administrations,
market
surveillance
authorities, Commission departments and
European agencies in order to ensure better
quality control of goods crossing the
borders.
Co-operation between customs and other
authorities is already foreseen in Article
13 of the Community Customs Code
(Regulation No 2913/92). The same
approach is continued in the Commission
proposal for the Union Customs Code (see
Article 40).
Therefore the Committee considers the same
level of control and uniform treatment of
operators throughout the EU customs territory
should be guaranteed, with standardised control
packages, the completion of the single window
and easier access to the status of authorised
economic operator (4.2, 3rd intend)
The Customs 2013 programme provides
the resources for Commission and
Member States to work continuously
towards the proper implementation of this
legal obligation. This is done through
project groups where customs other
competent authorities from different
Member States as well as the different
Commission services are represented.
They develop guidelines, checklists and
other tools that allow for a smooth
collaboration between the different
authorities responsible for controls at the
external border and facilitate Customs
controls in policy areas where Customs as
well as other authorities are involved. The
future Customs 2020 programme should
maintain such tools.
1.10 The Committee emphasises the importance
of improving the quality of services for
economic operators and other stakeholders
and recommends that the Commission, by
means of incentives and simplified
procedures, should encourage operators to
apply for the status of authorised economic
operator.
The UCC has already reflected this. The
benefits as such are (will be) described at the
level of the related Commission acts.
Nevertheless, the provisions for easier access
of the AEOs to simplifications are already in
place and further alignment where appropriate
of the conditions for the various
simplifications on AEO criteria is on-going.
1.11 The Committee highlights the need to
provide appropriate joint information and
training for customs officials, economic
operators and customs agents, in order to
guarantee
uniform
application
and
interpretation of rules and a higher level of
consumer protection, developing Jean
Monnet Chairs in European customs law in
The Commission routinely provides
information to customs officials either
directly through the various working
groups, information workshops and
events, publications or Internet or via
Member States. It consistently aims to
promote best practice and establish
uniform application and interpretation of
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 132 -
close cooperation with universities and rules.
research centres throughout the EU.
The
Commission's
training
and
Therefore the Committee considers appropriate information initiative in the field of
national and EU financial resources, initiating customs targets national customs officials
dedicated programmes such as FISCUS, EU as well as economic operators and customs
programmes for continuing vocational training agents, as far as appropriate. In the future,
focusing partly on language skills and ICT and common vocational and higher education
Jean Monnet Chairs. (4.2, 6th intend)
customs training reference programmes
are planned to be developed and provided
under the future Customs Cooperation
programme Customs 2020.
1.12 The Committee firmly believes in the need to
develop the capacities and capabilities of
individual Member States with the aim of
setting up a European customs training
institute to promote professional excellence
in the customs sector and, ultimately, to
implement single European customs.
Therefore the Committee considers sharing and
pooling of capacities and capabilities between
the Member States and at European level,
leading to the establishment of a European
customs training institute to promote
professional excellence in the customs sector.
(4.2, 7th intend)
4.4 The substantial investments made in setting
up computerised, interoperable customs
systems have not yet ironed out differences in
rules and data use; the timeframe set by the
Commission proposal must be used to press
ahead with harmonisation and to establish a
European body of customs rules which will
act as a basis for the objective advocated by
the Committee: the creation of single
European customs.
4.4.1 With a view to the uniform application of
the new regulation, the Committee suggests,
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission is evenly of the opinion
that all efforts should be taken to help
develop the capacities and capabilities of
single Member States towards a consistently
high performance level throughout the union.
To this end, the Commission – in conjunction
with the Member States – is currently
developing a 'European Competency
Framework for the customs profession
(EUCFW-C)' as foundation and uniform
reference standard for customs performance
within the European Union. The EU customs
legislation represents the natural key
reference base for the definition of European
competencies and performance standard
description. EU and national Training
programmes are meant to be aligned with or
to build up on the EU CFW-C in the future.
Following the outcomes of a recent study
the Commission takes the view that a
unified EU customs service is not a viable
option at this point in time.
The Commission takes note of the
Committee's suggestion. Based on current
.../...
- 133 as an experiment, setting up a European
rapid reaction task force to carry out skilled
and burdensome customs work, especially at
external borders.
4.5 The Committee reiterates that "Community
customs management should be one of the
long-term objectives of the Union; this has
advantages in terms of simplicity, reliability
and cost, as well as the possibility of
interconnecting with other EU and third
country systems".
4.6 The Committee underscores the importance
of up-to-date guidelines for import controls in
the field of product safety, and a public
database of dangerous goods intercepted at
customs.
Community legislation the implementation is
not feasible.
The Commission takes note of the statement.
The Commission fully supports the view of
the European Economic and Social
Committee on the importance of having
guidelines for import controls in the field of
product safety and the gathering of data on
customs interception of dangerous and noncomplying goods.
A number of activities to cater for this are
running under the Customs 2013 programme.
They have already resulted in the
establishment, update and use of such
Guidelines by all Member States.
4.7 The Commission should take into account the
remarks made by the Committee in its
opinion of 13 December 2007 on a common
framework for the marketing of products53
regarding the need to improve coordination
and step up market surveillance activities.
53
The suggestions and opinions expressed by
the EESC do not relate to the proposal for
the Union Customs Code. They could be
taken into account, where appropriate and
adequate, in scope of a future revision of
Directive 2001/95/EC and Regulation (EC)
No 765/2008.
OJ C 120, 16.5.2008, p. 1.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 134 4.8 As regards legal protection in the EU
market, the rules should move towards a new
system for determining the origin and
guaranteeing the traceability of products, so as
to improve information for consumers and step
up prevention of illegal activity and fraud in the
customs sector.
42.
The Commission is examining the
possibility to include in the future
delegated or implementing act clearer and
coherent rules for the determination of
non-preferential origin for imported
goods. This would create more legal
certainty in relation to the origin marking
on goods, thereby guaranteeing correct
information for consumers and ensuring a
more uniform and consistent application.
The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility
COM (2011) 743 final - EESC 1057/2012 - April 2012
Rapporteur: Mr PARIZA CASTAÑOS (Work./ES)
Corapporteure: Ms KING (Empl./UK)
DG HOME - Mrs MALMSTRÖM
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
1.3 The EESC urges the European Commission to
draw up a report on the state of play of the EU debate
on the UN convention. The Commission must create
the conditions for its ratification, and the EESC can
contribute by drawing up a new own-initiative
opinion.
More than 20 years after its adoption and 9 years
after its entry into force, the Convention on the
Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of Their Families has 46 state parties in
the world only. Although in discussion, EU Member
States have taken a reticent position towards the
Convention and none of them has ratified it. Yet the
1.4 The Committee proposes that the EU play a Commission underlines that many EU instruments
highly active part in carrying forward the UN High- on regular and irregular migration provide farlevel Dialogue on International Migration and reaching protection for migrants and often go
Development.
further than provisions of the Convention.
The Commission considers the UN High Level
Dialogue as an important forum for discussion and
constructive exchange on the global level. The
Commission, together will EEAS, will take the lead
in the preparation of a coordinated EU position.
1.6 The Mobility Partnerships (MPs), which are joint
declarations of policy, should be turned into
international agreements. The EESC believes that the
EU can bring great added value to the negotiations
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission considers that the strength of MPs
resides exactly in the fact that this instrument is
open and flexible.
.../...
- 135 with third countries.
1.7 The Committee emphasises the importance of
fostering dialogue with regional institutions,
broadening the content of the current agreements to
include mobility and migration.
2.19 The EESC considers the regional dimension to
be crucial, and consequently proposes that existing
regional institutions, particularly those with which
the EU has concluded association or cooperation
agreements, should also be involved in the Global
Approach.
Designed like that, MPs allow the EU Member
States and the third country to adapt to changing
realities and new challenges. Moreover their "open
structure" foresees the possibility for new
signatories to come on board at a later stage and to
increase MPs effectiveness.
The Commission acknowledges the importance of
regional authorities. GAMM is a general
framework and methodology. It describes how the
EU wants to conduct its migration dialogues and
cooperation, on all levels and involving all
stakeholders: Commission, Member States, EEAS,
EP, regional authorities, municipalities etc, each
according to their own mandates and in line with
their own interests and priorities. Regional actors
will in particular want to intervene on topics where
their actions could bring an added value.
EU instruments (including financial instruments)
are available to support these actions, whenever
they contribute to GAMM's objectives (e.g.
Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum
and geographical financial instruments).
1.8 The Committee considers that MPs should
incorporate the four pillars of the Global
Approach: organising and facilitating legal
migration and mobility; preventing and reducing
irregular migration and trafficking in human
beings; promoting international protection and
enhancing the external dimension of asylum
policy; and maximising the development impact of
migration and mobility.
The Commission agrees. MPs are conceived to be
built up in a balanced manner around the four
pillars of GAMM.
The existing MPs (with Moldova, Cape Verde,
Georgia and Armenia) foresee projects in any of
the GAMM pillars in order to grant a balanced and
comprehensive approach.
7.3 The bilateral agreements to date reveal that
MPs are used to facilitate short-stay visas and
readmission agreements, while the other aspects
of the Global Approach remain in the
background. Any assessment of the MPs must
cover the Global Approach's four pillars.
An extensive evaluation of the Moldova MP is
currently on-going. This evaluation involves
several stakeholders, namely Member States,
Commission Agencies, Implementing Partners and
Moldovan authorities. Such an evaluation takes
into consideration all the GAMM pillars in order to
identify shortcomings, find solutions and to further
strengthen the partnership.
1.11 To ensure that migration does not have a
negative impact on the economic and social
Addressing brain drain and brain waste is one of
the priorities of the Migration and Development
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 136 development of the countries of origin, the
European Union should pay particular attention to
the detrimental effect of the brain drain and
should establish compensation arrangements.
pillar of GAMM. It is part of our dialogue with
countries that are affected by this phenomenon. We
stand ready to support these countries in relevant
policies (retention and/or return of skilled staff,
additional investment in training). We also support
ethical recruitment codes, where appropriate. The
effectiveness and feasibility of compensation
schemes has so far not been demonstrated, but we
are ready to review our position in the light of
possible new evidence.
2.21 In another opinion the Committee concluded
that in the light of some national differences, the
EU needs to have open legislation allowing
immigration for employment purposes through
legal, transparent channels for workers in both
highly-qualified and less-qualified jobs. Many
immigrants will have long-term permits, while
others will be temporary. The MPs must reflect
this state of affairs.
The Commission agrees with this objective and our
legislative proposals aim to work in this direction.
In the context of MPs, circular migration schemes
are considered a very useful instrument, especially
where these schemes are supplemented with
measures in the field of portability of social
security and reintegration of returning migrants.
Moreover, the EU already has a common
immigration policy covering different groups of
migrants, such as researchers and the highly
qualified. The proposals which are currently on the
table of the European Parliament and the Council
address the situation of migrants working
temporarily in the EU: the ICT proposal for
qualified migrants and the Seasonal Workers
proposal.
3.6 The EESC would repeat the call made in
other opinions for improvements to the
arrangements for recognising the qualifications
of immigrant workers and the validation of
diplomas and skills, which must be included in
the MPs.
The Commission agrees on the importance of
advancing on the recognition of qualifications
obtained in countries outside of the EU. The EU
needs to use migrants' talents and promote labour
matching.
1.12 The EU must give its backing to diaspora
organisations, and the EESC proposes the
introduction of a support service for them.
Linking-up with diasporas organizations can
certainly help to maximise the development impact
of migration. The EU is already supporting the selforganisation and networking of diaspora groups
engaged in migration and development (through the
Thematic Programme Migration and Asylum).
Further support to additional initiatives is possible
under existing financial instruments.
1.14 The EU must adopt an open policy towards
admitting immigrants, with a medium-term approach
The Commission promotes a policy of wellmanaged migration, taking into account the
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 137 that looks beyond the current economic crisis and
takes account of the demographic situation. Labour
immigration procedures must be legal and
transparent, and cooperation between the social
partners in the EU and the countries of origin must be
made easier.
contribution that migrants make to economic
growth and the demographic evolution of EU
societies. In its Communication of April 2012
'Towards a job-rich recovery' [COM(2012) 173
final], the Commission proposes to launch, before
the end of 2012, a consultation inviting broad
debate with Member States, social partners and
stakeholders on what the role of EU policies should
be regarding the opportunities of economic
migration.
1.17 The EESC calls for the EU to adopt a common
asylum system with a high level of legislative
harmonisation. It also supports the EU working
together with third countries in order to improve their
asylum systems and comply with international
standards. Agreements between the EU and third
countries must contain procedures guaranteeing an
effective right to international protection for any
person who may request it.
The Commission has presented a package of
legislative measures on asylum with a view to
completing the Common European Asylum System
by the end of 2012. Negotiations are progressing
rapidly between the co-legislators and the
Commission is hopeful that the deadline will be
met.
1.19 The EU must strengthen integration policies and
step up the fight against racism, xenophobia and
discrimination against immigrants and minorities. The
EESC proposes that the EU institutions play an active
part in tackling xenophobia, racism and
discrimination, especially when such behaviour is
promoted by those in Member State governments and
legislatures.
The Commission is concerned about the rise of
populist movements in some Member States. The
Commission promotes more effective integration
policies in the European Agenda for the Integration
of Third-Country Nationals (COM(2011) 455 final)
and monitors the transposition of Council
Framework decision 2008/913/JHA on combating
certain forms and expressions of racism and
xenophobia by means of criminal law, which was
due to be transposed by all Member States by
November 2010. The latest Annual Report on the
Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights also contains a chapter on racism and
xenophobia.
2.21 The EESC proposes that the dialogue with the
ACP countries on migration and mobility be stepped
up, and that dialogues also be established with the
All the geographical areas indicated by the
EESC constitute an important priority for the EU.
The topic is asylum and international protection is
an integrated aspect of the EU's dialogue and
cooperation with third countries in the area of
migration, and is addressed in many partnership
and cooperation agreements between the EU and
third countries.
The ACP-EU Migration Dialogue, launched in
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 138 countries of Central and South America.
The bilateral dialogues with the candidate countries
of Turkey and those in the Balkans must be
strengthened, as must those with Russia, India and
China.
June 2010, will be further deepened. Dialogue
focuses in particular on the subjects of remittances,
visa and readmission, with the specific aim to
strengthen the operational aspects of ACP-EU
cooperation on these topics.
The EU-CELAC Dialogue is currently conducted
according to the action plan 2010-2012, adopted at
the end of the Madrid Sixth Summit in 2010. This
dialogue will continue in coming years.
Bilateral Dialogues with China and India are
currently being intensified. Dialogue with Turkey
is being enhanced. The Readmission Agreement
with Turkey has been initialled in June 2012. The
'common steps' visa dialogue between EU and
Russia is ongoing, in parallel with the migration
dialogue with this country. A visa dialogue with
Kosovo has been launched.
4.8 Although most people under irregular
circumstances in Europe enter legally, others are the
victims of criminal networks. The EU must include
the fight against criminal human trafficking and
smuggling networks in the MPs. Victims must be
guaranteed protection.
Directive 2004/81/EC – on the residence permit
issued to third-country nationals who are victims of
trafficking in human beings or who have been the
subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration,
who cooperate with the competent authorities –
provides for access to treatment and protection for
third-country nationals who are victims of
trafficking. Identified victims can be granted a
temporary residence permit for the length of the
criminal proceedings, conditional to cooperation
with the competent authorities. The Commission is
running a study to analyse the current measures and
schemes of protection for victims of trafficking in
each Member State and to understand whether the
current arrangements hinder a consistent, effective
approach to addressing trafficking in human
beings.
The EU legal framework on smuggling – Council
Directive 2002/90/EC defining the facilitation of
unauthorised entry, transit and residence and
Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA on the
strengthening of the penal framework to prevent
the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and
residence – aims to tackle migrant smugglers
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 139 including by imposing an obligation on Member
States to provide for effective, proportionate and
dissuasive sanctions against them.
4.9
The dialogues must also cover return and
readmission procedures, which must always be based
on respect for human rights. The Committee hopes
that the FRA will draw up a strict code of conduct for
forced returns, based on the twenty principles for
forced return drawn up by the Council of Europe's
Committee of Ministers.
5.2
The principle of non-refoulement at the
border must be guaranteed, and all persons requiring
international protection must be able to submit an
application in the EU. Such applications must be
processed by the competent national authorities.
EU law (the Return Directive – 2008/115) provides
numerous guarantees for respect of the fundamental
rights of irregular migrants subject to return
procedures, including due process in the taking of
return decisions, the right to be offered the
possibility of leaving the EU voluntarily, and
access to basic health care. The Directive places
limitations on the use of coercive measures in
connection with forced returns (including
independent monitoring of removals), and imposes
strict limitations on the use of return-related
detention, including as regards the duration of
detention, which should normally not exceed 6
months. EU Readmission agreements fully respect
the human rights and international protection rules
(including the guarantees provided for by the
Return Directive). No person may be subject to
readmission in breach of those rules. The
Commission further works in order to reinforce the
relevant clauses in the EU readmission agreements
guaranteeing the respect of those rules. The
Commission is also monitoring the practice of the
Member States.
When carrying out border control activities,
Member States must act in compliance with the
provisions of the Schengen Borders Code54 and in
particular its article 6. This means that they must
respect fundamental rights and they must refrain
from taking any measures which would be in
violation of the principle of non-refoulement.
EU law in the form of the Dublin acquis, the
"Qualifications Directive"
2011/95/EU, the
"Asylum Procedures Directive" 2005/85/EC and the
"Reception Conditions Directive" 2003/9/EC
54
Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a community code on the
rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code).
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 140 legislate to guarantee the principle of nonrefoulement and the rights of third country nationals
and stateless persons to request international
protection in the EU.
43.
The right to family reunification
COM (2011)735 fin – EESC 1300/2012 - May 2012
Rapporteur: Mr PÎRVULESCU (Var. Int./RO)
DG HOME – Mrs MALMSTRÖM
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
1.5
Depending on the outcome of this
consultation, the Commission will decide whether
any concrete policy follow-up is necessary (e.g.
modification of the Directive, interpretative
guidelines or status quo).
The Green Paper on the right to family
reunification of third-country nationals living in the
EU was presented on 15 November 2011 in order
to initiate a public debate on family reunification
and to decide, based on the outcome of the
consultation, whether any specific policy follow-up
would be needed. Stakeholders were invited to
react to this European-level public consultation by
1 March 2012. The Commission received 121
replies, which have been published online. A public
hearing was held on 31st May – 1st June 2012 in
the framework of the European Integration Forum.
In line with the overall consensus from the
consultation responses, the Commission does not
intend to reopen or amend the Directive on family
reunification. Instead, it will intensify its efforts to
closely monitor Member States' present legislative
and administrative practice and will act accordingly
to ensure correct implementation of the present EU
rules.
In addition, the Commission will prepare
interpretative guidelines for the Directive to ensure
a better and more coherent application of this legal
instrument in the Member States.
2.4
The EESC appreciates the European
Commission's openness towards civil society and
the academic world, as both sectors have critically
evaluated the content and implementation of the
Directive on many occasions. In this context, it
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission shares the view regarding the
positive role played by the European Integration
Forum. The public hearing on the Green Paper was
organised in the framework of the European
Integration Forum and was very well attended, with
.../...
- 141 emphasises the positive role played by the European
Integration Forum, which facilitates structured
dialogue between the European institutions and
various stakeholders concerned with migration and
integration issues.
very active participation and fruitful discussions.
2.5
The Committee believes that the debate on
the Directive and its impact should focus on the
practical aspects of implementation and that the way
in which action will be taken and the instruments
used should be established during a subsequent
phase, again with the consultation of stakeholders.
The Commission shares the view that the focus
should be on the implementation of the Directive.
To ensure a more coherent application of the
Directive, the Commission will prepare
interpretative guidelines. During the process of
preparing the guidelines, the Commission will be as
inclusive as possible and take into account views of
Member States and other stakeholders.
2.8
Although much data exists on migration, the
Committee notes that in highly sensitive areas such
as fraud and forced marriages, there is not enough
evidence to guide policy-making. The Committee
therefore recommends furthering efforts to collect
information, particularly qualitative data, in such
sensitive and pertinent areas.
Taking note of the growing concern that the right to
family reunification may be misused, the European
Migration Network (EMN) prepared a report to
identify the scale and the scope of misuse of
marriages of convenience and false declaration of
parenthood and to provide clear evidence, to the
extent possible, of these types of misuse and how
best to address them. The country reports as well as
a synthesis report can be found under
www.emn.europa.eu.
3.1.3 The Committee understands the distinction
between highly qualified and less qualified migrants
in terms of the status and protection conferred upon
them. However, it points out that the European
economy needs all of them equally, and unequal
treatment in the area of rights and the protection of
private and family life on the grounds of
qualifications cannot be accepted.
The Commission agrees that European labour
markets need migrants with different levels of
skills. While it is true that the Blue Card Directive
(2009/50/EC) and the Researcher Directive
(2005/71/EC) have more favourable rules on family
reunification, the Family Reunification Directive
applies to all third country nationals residing
lawfully in the territory of the Member States and
confers them a uniform set of rights.
3.3.1 These rules are not broad enough, as there is
no single definition of family which applies in nonEU and EU countries. The EU does not have a legal
basis for defining the family, but it does have
instruments to prevent discrimination. The rules on
family reunification should be flexible enough to
take into account the different types of family
structures recognised at national level (including
same-sex marriages, single-parent families, civil
In accordance with recital (9) and Article 4(1) of
the Directive, family reunification should apply in
any case to members of the nuclear family that is
the spouse and the minor children. The decision
whether or not to admit other family members is
left with the Member States (Article 4(2)).
However, once family reunification is ensured for
them, the rules of the Directive apply.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 142 partnerships, etc.) and the potential inclusion of
other types of relationships.
In the light of the consultation and the discussions
during the public hearing, the Commission does not
consider necessary to adopt a common definition of
"family" at the European level, as this definition
will not easily include the different perceptions and
traditions in all Member States.
3.4.1 The Committee believes that integration
measures are welcome; they should not be
conceived or implemented as obstacles to family
reintegration but should work in favour of the
sponsors and family members. The EESC believes
that the integration measures should be taken by EU
Member States rather than by non-EU countries.
Article 7(2) of the Directive allows Member States
to ask family members to comply with integration
measures. However, these measures should serve
the purpose of facilitating integration and respect
the principle of proportionality. In the case of
measures taken prior to entry to the territory of the
Member States, the admissibility of such pre-entry
measures should be assessed in the light of
fundamental rights and other obligations under the
Directive (such as Art. 5(5) and 17, which ask
Member States to ensure the best interest of the
child and to make an individual assessment taking
into account the individual circumstances of the
person).
3.7.1 The Committee believes that beneficiaries of
subsidiary protection should be subject to the more
favourable rules of the family reunification Directive
and therefore be included in it. Beneficiaries of
subsidiary protection come from countries and areas
recognised as dangerous for their health and
wellbeing. This makes it even more necessary to
move towards harmonising the two statutes.
Under the current wording of the Directive,
beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are not
subject to the more favourable rules that apply for
family reunification of refugees. According to
Article 3 (5) though, Member States can adopt
more favourable rules than those of the Directive
and may grant therefore to the beneficiaries of
subsidiary protection the same rights as for
refugees. Some Member States already made use of
this possibility. Taking into account the similarity
of situations in cases of refugees and beneficiaries
of subsidiary protection the Commission
encourages also the other Member State to
harmonise the provisions applying to these two
categories.
3.11.1 The EESC does not think it would be
legitimate to have different levels of fees. It is
therefore necessary to set financial ceilings which
should not defeat the basic objective of the
Directive. The EESC believes that either a single,
minimum ceiling should be imposed or all the fees
The Directive is silent as to the fees Member States
might impose on third country nationals when
granting them the right to family reunification.
Although setting a certain level of fees falls within
the margin of appreciation of each Member State,
fees should not impede exercising the right to
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 143 should be established on the basis of per capita
income or another indicator in the third country. As
the application is submitted on an individual basis,
another, more preferable alternative would be to
impose a ceiling relating to the income of each
applicant (e.g. proportion of average annual
income). Minors should be subject to minimal fees
or exempted from them altogether.
45.
family reunification under the Directive and rend
its effet utile ineffective.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament ad of the Council creating a
European Account Preservation Order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and
commercial matters
COM (2011) 445 final –CESE 1034/2012 - INT/598 – April 2012
Rapporteur: Mr PEGADO LIZ (Act. Div./PT)
DG JUST –Ms REDING
Points of the opinion of the EESC regarded as
essential
Section 3. General comments
Point 3.8 raises subsidiarity concerns.
Point 3.8.1 refers to alternative policy options.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
Position of the Commission
The Commission takes into account the favourable
opinion. It is pleased that the EESC welcomes its
proposal and the main features of the European
procedure for the preservation of bank accounts.
With respect to the subsidiarity principle, the
Commission refers to the impact assessment
which accompanied the current proposal, ref.
SEC(2011) 937 final. This assessment contains
qualitative data on the effects of the new
European procedure, as well as quantitative data
that were available to the Commission. The
Commission finds that the subsidiarity has been
respected; for example, a harmonisation could
have been used, but this option was rejected in
favour of the European regime limited to crossborder cases, in order to keep the principle of
subsidiarity.
The other options have been carefully examined
by the Commission in its impact assessment – i.e.
status quo or harmonisation as an alternative to
the EAPO-. However it appeared that they would
not reach the same objective of improving crossborder debt recovery in the most cost-efficient
.../...
- 144 way.
Point 3.8.2 states that the crucial issue of exequatur
is settled with Brussels I revision.
The Commission welcomes the progress
achieved on the recast of the Brussels I
Regulation and the suppression of exequatur. The
Brussels I Regulation has a broader scope and it
does not provide common rules to improve the
enforcement of provisional measures in Member
States. That is why the impact assessment of the
EAPO proposal was based on the assumption that
Brussels I Regulation is revised as a status quo. It
showed that only a European procedure is likely
to overcome the difficulties stemming from
different national systems of preservation order.
Point 3.8.3 raises concerns about compliance and
implementation costs.
The Commission has estimated the compliance
and implementation costs of the proposed
European procedure, notably through case
studies. Compliance costs will be limited for the
following reasons: it is an alternative procedure
for cross-border cases only, in addition to
national systems that continue to apply. Further,
EU instrument is inspired by existing national
procedures and conditions are almost the same in
all Member States. Costs of proceedings will also
be limited by way of fixing single scales of fees
for banks and enforcement agents in each
Member State. Finally the whole cost should be
more than largely compensated by the benefits
expected from the measure in facilitating crossborder debt recovery.
Point 3.9 questions why the Commission is moving
ahead primarily (or exclusively) with this proposal
and not another concerning the transparency of
debtor's assets.
The EAPO is a first step to regulate enforcement.
As identified in the Commission Communication
of 1998 "Towards greater efficiency in obtaining
and enforcing judgments in the EU" the approach
proposed by the Commission included three sets
of measures concerning respectively provisional
and protective measures, banking seizures and
transparency of assets. The Communication
proposed to confine reflection initially to the
problem of banking seizures as an efficient tool
existing in all Member States. Accordingly the
EAPO proposal is the first type of measure is this
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 145 field. The EAPO proposal contains key
provisions for the disclosure of debtor's bank
accounts which are based on the ideas presented
in the Green Paper on Transparency.
Point 3.10 expresses regrets that DK does not adopt
the instrument and that UK has opted out.
The situation of Denmark in respect of EU
judicial cooperation is governed by the relevant
protocol annexed to the treaties.
UK, while participating in the discussions in the
Council working party, has expressed the wish to
opt-out after the presentation of the Commission
proposal.
Section 4. Specific comments
Point 4.1 suggests to clarify the exclusion of
arbitration
The Commission will take into account this
suggestion in the framework of negotiations with
the other institutions.
Point 4.2 says that no accounts are exempt, only
certain amounts may be exempt
The Commission rejects this suggestion. There
are two different issues that need to be clarified:
Article 4.2 exempts the central banks' accounts in
the Member States as this exemption exits in
domestic law;
Article 32 exempts certain amounts for the
livelihood of the defendant
Point 4.3 suggests to better define the expressions
"accounts in the name or on behalf of a third party"
in Article 4(1) and 29
The Commission will take into account this
suggestion in the framework of negotiations with
the other institutions.
Point 4.4 calls for a consistency check of the
different linguistic versions of Article 7(1)(a)
The Commission accepts the request that Article
7(1)(a) should read "appears to be well founded".
It will take into account this suggestion in the
framework of negotiations with the other
institutions.
Point 4.5 in the PT version of Article 8(2)(f) there is
a wrong reference to Article 17(1)(b) instead of
Article 7(1)(b)
The Commission accepts the suggested
correction. It will take into account this
suggestion in the framework of negotiations with
the other institutions.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 146 Time limits:
Point 4.6 referring to Article 13 considers that it
should not be left to the Member States to decide
different time periods.
The Commission will take into account these
suggestions in the framework of negotiations
with the other institutions.
Point 4.8 suggests to replace in Article 25(1) the
expression "without undue delay" with "on the next
working day".
The proposal already contains many time limits
that are harmonised at EU level.
Point 4.11 suggests deleting Article 44 which
stipulates that a court can derogate to time limits in
exceptional and justified circumstances.
Article 13 provides that the claimant should
initiate proceedings on the substance within 30
days.
Point 4.12 calls for a uniform definition of time
limits in the proposal.
Point 4.7 suggests to provide in Article 20(1) an
obligation for courts to cooperate.
The Commission will take into account this
suggestion in the framework of negotiations with
the other institutions.
Point 4.9 calls for the extension of electronic means
of communication to all instruments.
The Commission rejects this suggestion as it is
out of the scope of the proposal.
Point 4.10 suggests that in Article 41 national law
may stipulate that provision of a lawyer is
mandatory.
The Commission rejects this suggestion as that
provision was inspired from relevant provisions
in the Payment Order Regulation (EC) No
1896/2006 and in the Small Claims Regulation
(EC) No 861/2007 which aim at alleviating users'
costs. Further Article 41 applies only to the stage
of issuing the order, not to the further stages
(enforcement, review) for which national law
should apply by virtue of Article 45 which is a
fall back clause.
Point 4.13 suggests that the Annexes, translation
(Article 47) and supporting evidence (Article11)
should be assessed.
The Commission will take into account this
suggestion in the framework of negotiations with
the other institutions.
46.
Droits et citoyenneté
COM(2011)758 final; CESE 1047/2012 SOC/453; Avril 2012
Rapporteur M. BOLAND (Act. Div./IE)
DG JUST - Ms REDING
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 147 Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels
Concerning the CESE Opinion on the Rights and
Citizenship Programme 2014-2020, we note that the
Rapporteur expressed some concerns in § 1.11 as
regard the "strict definition of citizenship" which"
could exclude some of the "persons" referred to in the
objectives of the programme". He also indicated in §
4.10 that " the Committee is concerned that the
definition of citizenship as outlined in one of the five
specific objectives of the programme will exclude
people living in the EU, but who may not have
citizenship".
Position de la Commission
The Programme has one general objective
(which is to contribute to the creation of an
area, where the rights of persons, as
enshrined in the TFUE and the Charter are
promoted and protected) and 5 specific
objectives which are:
(a) to contribute to enhancing the exercise of
rights deriving from the citizenship of the
Union;
(b) to promote the effective implementation
of the principles of non-discrimination on
the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin,
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation, including equality between
women and men and the rights of persons
with disabilities and of the elderly;
(c) to contribute to ensuring a high level of
protection of personal data;
(d) to enhance the respect of the rights of the
child;
(e) to empower consumers and businesses
to trade and purchase in trust within the
internal market by enforcing the rights
deriving from the Union consumer
legislation and by supporting the freedom to
conduct business in the internal market
through cross-border transactions.
There is only one objective (under a) which
is dedicated to the rights of EU citizens. The
other objectives of the programme cover
everybody. Therefore, their concerns do not
seem justified.
The Committee
equality, gender
the Rights of
programme, and
violence.
recommends a stronger reference to
equality and the UN Convention on
Persons with Disabilities in the
to include an objective on combating
Regarding the Rapporteur's recommendations
under 1.2 and 1.3, they are being discussed in
the framework of negotiations with the the
European Parliament and Council.
The Committee is concerned about the Commission's
ability to measure the impact of the programme and its
This concern appears to be based on a
misunderstanding. The Commission aims to
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 148 allegedly limited access to information.
improve monitoring and evaluation of its
financial programmes during the next MFF
period, and to that purpose, has included a set
of indicators in the new programme which
will allow to measure the achievement of the
objectives of the programme in an improved
way, compared to the current programme.
The Committee also supports the earmarking of funds
to ensure that no area covered by the Programme will
be disadvantaged.
The Commission believes it requires a certain
flexibility in the management of the funds
under the Programme, that would be lost with
an earmarking of funds. Alternative solutions,
such as the addition of a sentence as proposed
by the Committee, are being discussed within
the context of the negotiations with European
Parliament and Council.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 149 -
48.
General Data Protection Regulation
COM (2012) 11 fin – EESC 1303/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur : Mr PEGADO LIZ
(Var. Int./PT)
DG JUST – Mrs REDING
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
In general the EESC is very supportive of the
reform effort (s. 1.1.).
This is much appreciated by the Commission.
Regulation or Directive?
A Regulation can ensure uniform application of
its provisions throughout the Union, providing
the same high standard of data protection in all
Member States, ending fragmentation and
ensuring free movement of personal data within
the Union, thus promoting the internal market.
1.2
The Committee is divided in its views as
to whether a regulation is the best choice given
the task in hand and calls on the Commission to
do more to demonstrate and justify the reasons
that make this instrument preferable to a
directive, if not indispensable.
Minimum standard or full harmonisation?
1.5
As this is a matter of fundamental rights,
harmonisation by means of a regulation to cover
specific areas should nevertheless leave
Member States free to adopt provisions under
national law in areas not covered, as well as
provisions that are more favourable than those
set out in the regulation.
4.15.1 As this is a matter of fundamental rights,
harmonisation in specific areas should leave
Member States free to adopt provisions under
national law in areas not covered, as well as
provisions that are more favourable than those set
out in the regulation, as is already the case for the
areas covered by Articles 80 to 85.
The Commission's objective is to ensure a
uniform high standard of data protection in the
Union and a level playing field for business. The
proposed Regulation provides already, within the
limits of the Regulation, for Member States a
certain room for manoeuvre, in particular for
determining the public interest for data
processing, for reconciling data protection with
freedom of expression, processing health and
employment data, taking into account the
relevant fundamental rights However, Member
States should be bound on the common standard
of the Regulation and not be allowed to
introduce different standards of protection. This
would backtrack on the current level of full
harmonisation which is already achieved under
Directive 95/46/EC.
This is also the reason why some members of
the committee prefer a Directive to a regulation
(see above).
4.14
Articles 81, 82, 83 and 84
4.14.1 The words: "Within the limits of this
Regulation…" should be replaced with: "… On
the basis of this Regulation…".
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Commission believes that it is not
appropriate to follow the Committee's opinion,
because the fundamental right to the protection
of personal data and the objective of a level
playing field within the Union requires a single
.../...
- 150 high standard of protection, which would be
endangered by different standards merely "on the
basis" of the Regulation (see above).
Sectorial or unified approach?
3.10 The EESC would have liked to see the
Commission adopt an approach that was more
in line with the needs and expectations of the
public and that applied more systematically to
certain fields of economic and social activity
such as, for example, e-commerce, direct
marketing, employment relationships, public
authorities, surveillance and security, DNA etc.,
by differentiating the legal regimes for these
very different aspects of data processing
according to their nature.
The EESC also recommends including
expressive rules governing search engines and
cloud computing (1.10) as well as social
networks (1.11).
Derogations and Exceptions
1.3
However, the Committee regrets the fact
that the stated principles of the right to
protection of personal data are qualified by an
excessive number of exceptions and restrictions.
Delegated Acts
1.6
Furthermore, when it comes to delegated
acts, references to which appear almost
everywhere, the Committee cannot accept those
that do not fall within the express scope of
Article 290 TFEU.
Protection of children
4.19.1 Having defined a "child" as any person
below the age of 18 years (Article 4(18)), in
accordance with the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, it is unacceptable to allow
13 year-old children to "consent" to processing
of personal data under Article 8(1).
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
The Regulation introduces already certain
differentiations within its limits, e.g. for
historical, scientific and statistical purposes, for
the employment context, for health data;
concerning health; basic principles allowing the
adaption of general rules to specific situations,
e.g. the principle of data protection by design;
codes of conducts, allowing sector-specific rules;
further specifications by the Commission. More
detailed rules for specific situations would
endanger the technical neutrality and flexibility
in view of future developments, whereas the
Regulation must provide future-proof basis for
the processing of personal data.
Exceptions and restrictions are necessary to
balance the protection of personal data with
other fundamental rights and also to adjust
obligations under the Regulation to economic
needs, for instance as regards SMEs.
The empowerments for delegated acts are based
on Article 290 TFEU. Each empowerment is to
be assessed on its own merits.
The approach to consider specific needs for the
data protection of children is indeed based on the
18 years' definition of the UN Convention. The
13 year's limit for the consent of a child, as an
exception of this general approach, is limited
only to information society services. This takes
account of the approaches and experiences in
other jurisdiction on this matter (e.g. US).
Article 8 strikes for this limited application the
.../...
- 151 4.19.2 Although the Committee understands
the need to have specific rules for SMEs, it is
unacceptable that the Commission can simply
exempt SMEs from the duty to respect
children's rights by way of a delegated act.
4.20.1 Similarly, in Article 9(2)(a) there is no
reason why children should be able to give their
"consent" to processing of data concerning their
national origin, political opinions, religion,
health, sex life or criminal convictions.
Profiling
4.24
Article 20 – Profiling
4.24.1 The prohibition of profiling should not
be limited to "automated" processing .
Processing in an employment context
In 4.13.1. the EESC recommends to include
performance appraisals in Art. 82 and 20 and to
clarify whether this authorisation also applies to
the provisions concerning DPOs. Profiling in an
employment relationship should be prohibited
and this prohibition mentioned in Art. 33.
Threshold of 250 workers
4.26 Articles 25, 28 and 35 – threshold of 250
workers
In 4.26.1. the EESC suggests to lower that
threshold "…by using for instance the number
of workers applied in general by Member States
for
the
establishment
of
workplace
representation of employee interests. An
alternative approach based on objective criteria
could be envisaged, to be based, for instance, on
the number of data protection files processed
within a time period to be determined,
irrespective of the size of the enterprise or
service concerned."
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
right balance, also without affecting general
contract law.
The empowerment in Article 8 (3) is limited to
the methods for obtaining verifiable consent and
does in no way allow an exemption from the
respect of children's' rights.
The Commission essentially maintains the
approach of Article 15 of Directive 95/46/EC,
whereby only decisions (or measures in the
proposed Regulation) that produce legal effects
or significantly affect an individual – and which
are based solely on automated processing - are to
be prohibited, as a general rule and subject to
certain exceptions.
Profiling in the employment context will be
subject to conditions and safeguards according to
Article 20(2).
The threshold of 250 employees follows the
definition of SMEs as defined in Commission
Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 may 2003
concerning the definition of micro, small and
medium-sized enterprises.
.../...
- 152 "One-stop-shop"
4.27
Article 51 – The "one-stop shop"
4.27.1 While the "one-stop shop" principle is
designed to make life easier for companies and
to make data protection mechanisms more
effective, it could nevertheless lead to a marked
deterioration in data protection for the public in
general, and in the protection of the personal
data of workers in particular, making the current
obligation to ensure that transfers of personal
data are subject to a company-level agreement
and are approved by a national commission for
data protection redundant.
The one-stop shop is framed by the obligation
for DPAs to cooperate and by a mechanism to
ensure the consistency of application within the
Union. The one-stop shop does not affect the
data subjects' rights to address their local DPA ,
which will have to cooperate with the competent
DPA, on the basis of the cooperation and
consistency mechanisms provided by the
Regulation, and inform the data subject on the
outcome. Data subjects will have the right to
bring proceedings before the courts and to oblige
the DPA in their country of residence to act also
in such situation.
4.27.2 In addition, this system seems to conflict
with the aim of locally-based management and
to threaten to prevent individuals from having
their requests dealt with by the closest and most
accessible supervisory authority.
4.27.3 There are therefore reasons in favour of
jurisdiction remaining with the authority in the
complainant's Member State of residence.
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 153 -
49.
Increasing the impact of EU Development policy: an agenda for Change
COM (2011)637 – CESE 1318/2012- April 2012
DG DEVCO – Mr PIEBALGS
Overall the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is positive and
welcomes the proposals made by the Commission. As in several of its previous opinions about
development policy, the EESC is asking for a better involvement of civil society organisations,
especially the ones representatives of social partners, in the European Development Policy.
Points from the EESC opinion:
Position de la Commission
1.1
Involving civil society organisations
CSOs,
which
include
trade
unions,
cooperatives,
NGOs
and
employers'
organisations, each with their own specific
features) not only in setting the general
guidelines, but throughout the whole process of
project selection, implementation and result
assessment, so as to support and complement
the administrative, diplomatic and legal
procedures for monitoring and evaluating the
provision of EU funds. (…)
Based on the results of the Structured Dialogue on
the Involvement of Civil Society and Local
Authorities in EU Development Cooperation which involved a wide variety of stakeholders
including CSOs, local and regional authorities from
Europe and partner countries, the Commission, EU
delegations, the European Parliament and Member
States as well as the EESC - the Commission is
now setting up a space for dialogue with European
and partner countries' civil society organisations
(CSOs) and Local Authorities (LA)
1.2 Involving, instead of simply consulting, the
social partners and the other civil society
organisations would be beneficial because of
the expertise derived from the social, economic
and environmental experience (…).
This headquarter level Policy Forum on
Development will provide a mechanism for
dialogue and consultations with CSOs and LAs,
linked to the launch of new programmes, policies
and initiatives. Forum meetings will serve to give a
follow-up
to
the
Structured
Dialogue
recommendations and to discuss around the main
policy issues.
1.3
In this regard, economic and social
The importance of regular dialogue with CSOs and
councils - where they exist - are a valuable
of support to a pluralistic civil society in partner
resource. (..)
countries was reaffirmed in the Communication
Increasing the impact of EU development policy: an
1.4 There should be a better balance during the agenda for change (Oct.'11 – Council Conclusions
procedures for consultations with CSOs in the May'12), and the Commission is currently preparing
a Communication on the future axes of its
EU and the recipient countries.
collaboration with and support to CSOs (adoption
foreseen later in 2012). Recognizing the
1.8 (…) the Committee (…) stresses the need of
contribution different CSOs can bring, this
involving civil society more in the decisions of
Communication will set out a proposal for more
budgetary support.
strategic engagement with CSOs, notably at country
level, in developing, neighbourhood and
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 154 the enlargement countries.
1.9 The Committee believes that
Commission should boost the direct
involvement of civil society in the EU and the
recipient countries as much as possible, aiming
at a partnership. (…)
1.6
Differentiation between countries or
group of countries must be based on relevant
indicators such as UN Human Development
Index, responding to the poverty reduction. In
any case a gradual phasing out strategy of the
so called "emerging economies" countries
should be established
In relation to budgetary support, the Communication
on The future of EU Budget Support to Third
Countries (Oct.'11 – Council Conclusions May'12),
introduced a new eligibility criterion on
transparency and oversight and emphasizes the
importance of CSOs in this regard.
In the case of the Development Cooperation
Instrument, differentiation proposals
were
established taking into consideration several
indicators among which GDP but also Human
Development
Index
and
the
Economic
Vulnerability Index.
With regard to gradually phasing out, it has to be
noted that:
First, the EU will implement in full its cooperation
commitments resulting from the current financial
instruments. In some cases, this might mean
continuing implementing projects/programmes for
3 to 5 years. Secondly, according to current
European Commission proposals for the future
DCI, "graduated countries" will still be able to
benefit from regional or thematic programmes of
the EU. This will facilitate the transition towards a
new type of partnership.
50.
Increasing the impact of EU Development policy: Proposal for a Council Regulation
establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) COM (2011) 841
- EESC 1317/2012 – May 2012
Rapporteur: Mr ADAMS (Var. int./UK)
DG DEVCO - Mr PIEBALGS
Main points of the EESC Opinion
Commission Position
1.4
It is noted that the views of European
civil society about the development of nuclear
energy in general vary considerably across
Member States and recognition of this should
be more evident in certain aspects of the
regulation.
The proposed regulation makes it clear that safety
and not the promotion of nuclear energy is the
overriding aim and that the aim of the programme
is not to encourage emerging countries to
implement nuclear technology (see general criteria
in the Annex). Member States agree on the need to
continuously improve nuclear safety worldwide,
1.5 In particular it should be clarified (…) that
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 155 the majority of programme expenditure will be this was reinforced after the Fukushima accident.
directed towards remediation with only a small
minority of expenditure applied to safety The legislative proposal provides indicative figures
advisory programmes in emerging economies of the spending per objective. The priorities will be
where political and civil stability can be further specified in subsequent strategy papers and
the allocations in indicative programmes to be
assured.
submitted to the relevant committee.
1.6 (…) clear criteria should be implemented in
the INSC to enable a decision on whether an The number of emerging countries with a 'credible'
emerging country meets minimum criteria of nuclear power programme to be considered for
national and international stability (…) (see cooperation is very small and the Commission has
already engaged with most of them. The issue was
also 4.1 and 4.2)
discussed at length in the Council and there is a
4.3 The Committee believes that the question of consensus with the Member States in this respect.
whether the engagement of the EU through
INSC offers tacit support (…) for a nuclear Cooperation with emerging countries is aimed at
programme (…) has not been fully addressed. the regulatory infrastructure, regulatory authorities
and waste management. The creation of competent
(…)
and independent regulators should discourage
4.4. It must be an objective of the EU not to countries from cutting corners when implementing
contribute to the development of a nuclear nuclear programmes, in our view this has nothing
capacity in a third country that could create new to do with promotion, rather the opposite. Placing
risks (…) (see also 4.5)
over-restrictive criteria on which countries may be
INSC beneficiaries would be contrary to the general
objective of promoting nuclear safety worldwide.
1.7 These criteria should not be part of the Discussions with Member States showed that
annex of the regulation but included in the main supported measures and cooperation criteria are
text (…).
best placed in the Annex. The Annex has the same
legal value as the body of the proposal. Former Art.
5.9 The Committee notes the flexibility which 5 which allowed for the Annex to be revised, was
is created grouping the supported measures and removed from the original proposal by the Council;
cooperation criteria in the Annex, which itself the issue remains controversial. The possibility of
may be modified in accordance with the splitting the Annex in key issues of principle that
examination procedure provided for in the will not be changed and issues of operational nature
Common Implementing Regulation. However, that may need a revision was advanced at one time
consideration should be given as to whether key and may have to be reconsidered.
issues of principle relating to international
nuclear safety and security should be included
in the main body of the regulation.
1.9 Only under exceptional circumstances
relating to safety assurance should resources
be supplied for the acquisition of technical
equipment. Criteria should be developed by
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
Cooperation with operators of nuclear power plants
has already been scaled down. The new INSC for
2014 – 2020 foresees support to operators only in
specific cases in the context of the "stress tests", in
.../...
- 156 the Commission and be reported. Assistance particular. Supply of equipment will be excluded in
should not be given to operators.
future.
1.12 We particularly recommend the inclusion
of support for independent civil society
organisations within or adjacent to beneficiary
states who wish to improve accountability and
transparency of the nuclear safety culture
through specific actions.
4.6 Therefore it is suggested that the
Commission take further steps to clarify the
paramount role of safety in the forthcoming
INSC programme. (…) aid transparency and
encourage accountability (…).
In most countries, the most pressing challenge is to
help regulatory authorities become technically
competent and independent to enforce the
respective national laws and the application of
international standards and conventions. Public
communication (including efforts to improve
accountability and transparency) is sometimes
considered in the support to the regulators. The
interacting with the civil society organizations may
be considered in the programmes for emergency
preparedness and response at national or regional
level.
A significant step has been made by including
criteria for nuclear safety cooperation in the
proposed INSC Regulation. The Commission will
continue to take account the lessons learnt, which
will be reflected in future strategy papers and
indicative programmes. The evaluation reports on
the implementation of the INSC programme will
provide for transparency and accountability on the
execution.
PARTIE D: Avis faisant l’objet d’un autre type de réponse
33.
Groupement européen de coopération territoriale – (règlement)
COM(2011) 610 fin; CESE 1044/2012 ECO/318
Rapporteur: M. PARIZA CASTAÑOS (Trav./ES)
DG REGIO – M. HAHN
The Commission thanks the EESC for its support to the European Grouping of Territorial
Cooperation and will take the EESC suggestions into account in the framework of the negotiations.
44.
Vers une politique de l'UE en matière pénale (communication)
COM (2011) 573 – Cote CESE 1045/2012 ; SOC/432
Rapporteur M. DE LAMAZE (Act. Div./FR)
DG JUST – Mme REDING
The Commission does not consider it appropriate to follow up on the report of CESE on the
communication "Towards an EU Criminal Policy" as there are no concrete follow-up suggestions
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI
.../...
- 157 that would need to be addressed.
47.
Politique européenne en matière de drogues (communication)
COM(2011) 689 final CESE 1302/2012 SOC/441
Rapporteur: M. TOPOLÁNSZKY (Act. Div./HU)
DG JUST – Mme REDING
No follow up necessary. The requests from the EESC concerning a balanced approach to drugs
policy, addressing with equal vigour drug demand and drug supply reduction, are linked to the
content of the next EU Drugs Strategy, which the Cypriot Presidency, and not the Commission, is
drafting. Moreover, on most other issues addressed by the EESC – legislation on new psychoactive
substances, on drug precursors, on confiscation, drug trafficking and drug supply indicators, the
contribution of the civil society to drugs policy making – the Commission is in agreement with the
EESC.
_____________
CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI