PDGD_Suite aux avis 2ème trim 2012 · Web view9. A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility COM (2011) 681 final - EESC 1301/2012 - May 2012 Rapporteur :

Rue Belliard 99 — 1040 Bruxelles — BELGIQUETél. +32 25469011 — Fax +32 25134893 — Internet: http://www.eesc.europa.eu

FR

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 OPINIONSadopted by the European Economic and Social Committee

at its plenary sessionsin the second quarter of 2012

Quarterly review presentedby the European Commission

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI cc

- 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.

none

PARTIE B : Avis rendus sur demande du Conseil ou du PE

N° TITRE RÉFÉRENCES DG RESP.

P.

13. L'éducation à l´énergie Rapporteur: M. IOZIA (Trav./IT)

Avis demandé Pce DKCESE 1054/2012TEN/474

RTD 8

15. 7e programme dáction pour lénvironnement et suivi du 6e programme dáction pour lénvironnement Rapporteur: M. RIBBE (Act. Div./DE)

Avis demandé Pce DKCESE 1052/2012NAT/538

ENV 11

17. La promotion de la production et de la consommation durables dans l'UE Rapporteur: Mme LE NOUAIL MARLIÈRE (Trav./FR)

Avis demandé Pce DKCESE 1051/2012NAT/537

ENV 15

23. Le marché numérique - un moteur pour la croissance

Rapporteur: Mme BATUT (Trav./FR)

Avis demandé Pce DK CESE 1313/2012 TEN/477

INFSO 17

PARTIE C : Avis faisant l’objet d’une réponse substantielle

N° TITRE RÉFÉRENCES DG RESP. P.

Pt 17. 1er trim

2012

Agriculture and crafts – a winning combination for rural areas

Avis dínitiative CESE 483/2012 NAT/530

AGRI 19

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 3 -

Rapporteur :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 dínitiative CESE 466/2012INT/563

MARKT 22

1. Cadre de qualité pour les services d'intérêt général en Europe (communication)Rapporteur: M. SIMONS (Empl./NL)

COM(2011) 900 finalCESE 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 durableRapporteur: M. PALMIERI (Trav./IT)

Avis d'initiativeCESE 1304/2012 NAT/531

SG 30

3. Proposition de règlement du Conseil fixant le cadre financier pluriannuel pour la période 2014-2020Rapporteur: M. PALMIERI (Trav./IT) Corapporteur: M. KRAWCZYK (Empl./PL)

COM(2011) 398 final COM(2011) 500 final CESE 1299/2012ECO/308

BUDG 32

4. Niveau sonore des véhicules à moteur (règlement)

Rapporteur: M. RANOCCHIARI (Empl./IT)

COM(2011) 856 final CESE 1037/2012 INT/621

ENTR 34

5. Coopératives et restructuration Rapporteure: Mme ZVOLSKÁ (Empl./CZ) Corapporteur: M. OLSSON (Act. Div./SE)

Avis dínitiative CESE 1049/2012 CCMI/093

ENTR 36

6. Partenariat pour la recherche et l'innovation (communication)Rapporteur: Mme HEINISCH (Act. Div./DE)


RTD 39

7. "Small Business, Big World – un nouveau partenariat pour aider les PME à exploiter les possibilités du marché mondial"(communication)Rapporteur: M. VOLEŠ (Empl./CZ)


ENTR 42

8. Initiative pour l'entrepreneuriat social (communication)

Rapporteur: M. GUERINI (Act. Div./IT)


MARKT 46

9. La responsabilité sociale des entreprises (communication)

Rapporteure: Mme SHARMA (Empl./UK)

COM(2011) 681 final CESE 1301/2012 SOC/440

ENTR 52

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 4 -Corapporteur: M. ETHERINGTON (Act. 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

CESE 1050/2012NAT/520

AGRI 60

12. Les droits des passagers dans tous les modes de transport (communication)Rapporteur: M. HENCKS (Trav./LU)

COM(2011) 898 final CESE 1314/2012 TEN/480

MOVE 62

14. Feuille de route pour l'énergie à l'horizon 2050 (communication)Rapporteur: M. COULON (Trav./FR)Corapporteur: M. ADAMS (Act. Div./UK)

COM(2011) 885 finalCESE 1315/2012 TEN/481

ENER 66

16. Etablissement dún programme pour lénvironnement et láction 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 finalCESE 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 développement: feuille de route concernant le vieillissement Rapporteur: Mme HEINISCH (Act. Div./DE)

Avis d'initiativeCESE 1290/2012 INT/588

RDT 81

21. Programme – Projet ITER (2014-2018) (décision du Conseil)Rapporteur: M. WOLF (Act. Div./DE)

COM(2011) 931 finalCESE 1295/2012 INT/633

RDT 83

22. Réutilisation des informations du secteur public (directive)

COM(2011) 877 final CESE 1035/2012

INFSO 85

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 5 -

Rapporteur: Mme CAÑO AGUILAR (Trav./ES) TEN/478

24.

Pas reçu

Mesures contre des pays autorisant une pêche non durable (règlement)Rapporteur : M. SARRÓ IPARRAGUIRRE (Act. 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 dínstruments financiers (directive)Rapporteur : M. IOZIA (Trav./IT)


MARKT 89

27. Comptes annuels et comptes consolidés (directive)Audit des entités díntérêt public (règlement)

Rapporteur: M. MORGAN (Empl./UK)

COM(2011) 778 final COM(2011) 779 final CESE 1035/2012 INT/612-613

MARKT 94

28.

Pas reçu

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 finCESE 1039/2012INT/624-625-626

MARKT

29. Fonds d'entrepreneuriat social européens (règlement)Rapporteur: Mme RODERT (Act. Div./SE)


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)


MARKT 98

32. Reconnaissance des qualifications professionnelles et coopération administrative (modification

COM(2011) 883 finalCESE 1046/2012

MARKT 99

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 6 -

directive 2005/36/CE)Rapporteur: M. METZLER (Act. Div./DE)

SOC/451

34. Contribution du Fonds européen de développement régional à l’objectif «Coopération territoriale européenne» (Règlement)Rapporteur: M. PÁLENÍK (Act. Div./SK)

COM(2011) 611 fin CESE 1043/2012ECO/317

REGIO 101

35. Fonds de cohésion (règlement)Rapporteur : M. CEDRONE (Trav./IT)

COM(2011) 612 fin CESE 1041/2012ECO/315

REGIO 102

36. Fonds européen de développement régional (règlement)Rapporteur: M. BARÁTH (Act. Div./HU)

COM(2011) 614 fin CESE 1042/2012

ECO/316

REGIO 104

37. Stratégie de l'UE pour la région atlantique (communication)Rapporteur: M. PARIZA CASTAÑOS (Trav./ES)

COM(2011) 782 finalCESE 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 dínitiative CESE 1048/2012

CCMI/092

EAC 108

39. Stratégie pour la protection et le bien-être des animaux (communication)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 furetsRapporteur: 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)


TAXUD 117

42. Approche globale de la question des migrations et de la mobilité (communication)Rapporteur: M. PARIZA CASTAÑOS (Trav./ES)

COM(2011) 743 finCESE 1057/2012REX/351

HOME 123

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 7 -

Corapporteure: Mme KING (Empl./UK)

43. Regroupement familial (livre vert)Rapporteur: M. PÎRVULESCU (Act. Div./RO)

COM(2011) 735 finalCESE 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 finCESE 1034/2012INT/598

JUST 132

46. Programme "Droits et citoyenneté" (règlement)Rapporteur: M. BOLAND (Act. Div./IE)

COM(2011) 758 final CESE 1047/2012 SOC 453

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 finCESE 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 finalCESE 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

PARTIE D: Avis faisant l’objet d’un autre type de réponse

N° TITRE RÉFÉRENCES DG RESP. P.

33. Groupement européen de coopération territoriale – (règlement)Rapporteur: M. PARIZA CASTAÑOS (Trav./ES)

COM(2011) 610 fin CESE 1044/2012ECO/318

REGIO 144

44. Vers une politique de l'UE en matière pénale (communication)Rapporteur: M. DE LAMAZE (Act. Div./FR)

COM(2011) 573 fin CESE 1045/2012SOC/432

JUST 144

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 8 -

47. Politique européenne en matière de drogues (communication)Rapporteur: M. TOPOLÁNSZKY (Act. Div./HU)

COM(2011) 689 final CESE 1302/2012 SOC/441

JUST 144

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 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

1.2

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is aware of the strategic part played by energy education. A substantial change in behaviour is needed to move to the low-carbon economy provided for in the Commission's 2050 Roadmap. It is imperative to involve civil society in order to achieve the EU's objectives, in particular its medium-term target of a 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2020.

1.4

NGOs' first-hand expertise in developing energy education models and tools is extremely important. […]

3.6

[…] Energy education and training should also include, for instance, how to use smart meters in a way that saves energy; consumer's rights and 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,

The Commission welcomes the involvement of civil society and NGOs, and recognises their role for achieving the EU's objectives in the field of energy.

The Commission agrees that it is essential to mobilise a broad set of actors to tackle energy efficiency and that this should be actively pursued.

Changing behaviour in terms of energy saving is also needed, and many EU Member States have already made some good progress in this field.

Agreement has been reached by the Council and the European Parliament at the end of June on the proposal from the Commission for a new and ambitious Energy Efficiency Directive (COM(2011) 370 final). This Directive deals with consumer information and empowerment in an extensive way. The Commission will continue working on these and related activities.

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. […]

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'.

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 4.4.11.1.2 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

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. This requires flexible and quickly adaptable programmes, which may involve online education tools and systems.

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

1 OJ C 228, 22.9.2009, pages 9-13 .

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:228:SOM:EN:HTML

- 11 -

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.

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.

1.3

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.

The European Commission welcomes EESC's position and the involvement of all relevant stakeholders.

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 energy-efficient mobility needs to be developed. Co modality is of the utmost importance in this sector.

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 has been key to the success of these mobility measures.

1.7

Energy education will be able to help resolve issues related to poverty and energy insecurity. All citizens must have the right to affordable energy.

The European Commission welcomes EESC's position.

1.1.3 4.1.11.1.4 The EESC considers it essential that when the

Commission establishes the next multi-annual financial framework, it includes energy

The Commission fully recognises the relevance of energy education. Currently, energy education and training can be supported by several programmes:

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 12 -

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 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 implementation, energy education and capacity building, and other related activities.8

1.9

The present opinion stresses the increasing need to support EDEN, a European network of national forums for energy and environment education based on existing local, national, European and international initiatives in this sector.

The Commission welcomes the objectives of EDEN. In terms of member participation, the network needs some further development if it is to reach results throughout Europe.

2 http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/ 3 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/euratom-fusion/home_en.html 4 http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/index_en.htm 5 http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/ecvet_en.htm 6 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/about/index_en.htm 7 http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/

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

http://eit.europa.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/cip/

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020

http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/about/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/ecvet_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/index_en.htm

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/euratom-fusion/home_en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/

- 13 -

15. Seventh Environment Action Programme and follow-up to the sixth EAP Opinion asked by the Danish Presidency - EESC 1052/2012 – April 2012Rapporteur : 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 14 -

the UN Conference on Sustainable Development ('Rio + 20' summit), including through the 7th EAP proposal.

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.

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 all-encompassing.

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 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.

The Commission agrees that more needs to be done to tackle environment-related health challenges as 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.

The European Parliament and the Council both raised similar concerns about environment and health-related issues and have called on the Commission to address them in the new EAP.

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

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 15 -

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.

level playing field for economic actors operating in the Single Market.

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.

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, low-carbon economy, health and environment, etc) inter-relate 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.

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,

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;

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 16 -

include the flagship initiative Resource-efficient 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.

- second, it should provide a coherent narrative that explains how recent policy initiatives on resource efficiency, biodiversity and the low-carbon 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 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 EUOpinion asked by the Danish Presidency - CESE 1051/2012 - April 2012 Rapporteur: Ms LE NOUAIL MARLIÈRE (Work./FR)

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 17 -

DG ENV – Mr POTOČNIK


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".

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 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 18 -

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 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.

9 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/consumer_agenda_2012_en.pdf

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/consumer_agenda_2012_en.pdf

- 19 -

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.

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.

23. The digital market as a driver for growthOpinion asked by the Danish Presidency - EESC 1313/2012 – May 2012Rapporteur: 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 E-commerce 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 participating in standardisation to be useful.

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.

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

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 20 -

framework of European multilateral governance.

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 (through training and funding).

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 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

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 21 -

copying is unfair since this copying is a clear example of fair use.

PARTIE C : Avis faisant l’objet d’une réponse substantielle

Pt 17. 1er trim 2012

Agriculture and crafts – a winning combination for rural areasOwn-initiative Opinion - EESC 483/2012 - February 2012Rapporteur :Mr KIENLE (Empl./DE) DG AGRI - Mr CIOLOŞ


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 2014-2020. 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 initiatives should give priority to the interests of economic and social partners

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-economic actors in the local partnerships by re-enforcing their inclusion in the decision-making process of local action groups and calling on 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

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,

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 22 -

resource-efficient and climate-friendly economic activity. Traditional skills and experience should not be forgotten, but rather protected and utilised as a valuable resource.

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 non-governmental 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 potential of crafts and agriculture, take the right policy measures and thereby help secure the prospects of rural regions

The Commission welcomes the EESC for stressing on that objective.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 23 -

5.2 In the EESC's view, specific elements of future EU structural policy for rural areas include:

investing in diversification, setting-up, transfers and further expansion of SMEs in rural areas;

promoting and establishing cross-sectoral cooperation and platforms (for example, through the establishment of regular round table discussions);

supporting regional (traditional) economic activity with short transport routes;

promoting regional umbrella brands for joint processing and marketing of regional products and services;

supporting quality and quality control systems as a key to successfully selling products;

encouraging resource-efficient and climate-friendly economic activity;

supporting targeted knowledge and skills 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 process-oriented 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;

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;

The majority of the proposed by the EESC elements are already covered by the Commission's proposal.

Certain support options do not fall in the scope of the EAFRD, but are more relevant for other EU Funds such as the ESF (e.g. support for future workforce needs).

As regards LEADER, strengthening the participation of the economic actors in the local partnerships has been done by re-enforcing their inclusion in the decision-making process of local action groups and calling on more capacity-building and animation activities.

As regards networking activities of SMEs, the Commission's legal proposal provides possibilities for their setting up as well as to support specific actions.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 24 -

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 dínitiative - CESE 466/2012 – Février 20012Rapporteur: M. PEGADO LIZ (Act. Div./PT)DG MARKT - M. BARNIER


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 une économie sociale de marché hautement compétitive", n'était qu'une énumération de cinquante mesures éparses, sans ligne stratégique définie10 […].

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 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

L'Acte pour le marché unique d'octobre 2010 répond à cet objectif. La Commission a été guidée dans le choix

10 JO C 132 du 3.5.2011, p. 47.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:132:0047:0052:FR:PDF

- 25 -

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.

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 sous-tendant 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 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.

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 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 La Commission a fait une proposition de règlement en

11 JO. C 24 du 28.1.2012, p. 99.12 JO C 93 de 27.4.2007, p. 25.13 JO C 376 du 22.12.2011, p.51.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:093:0025:0030:PT:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:024:SOM:FR:HTML

- 26 -

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.

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 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.

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.

La concrétisation dans la pratique d'un marché intérieur du commerce électronique

La Commission y attache beaucoup d'importance. Outre la stratégie numérique, la Commission a lancé de

14 Cf. JO C 43 du 15.2.2012, p14, et les avis antérieurs qui y sont cités.15 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 . 16 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 -

transfrontalier mérite une attention particulière [...].

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 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.

Telle est bien l'approche de la Commission européenne, et la raison pour laquelle l'Acte pour le 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

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

17 Cf. les avis JO C 317 du 23.12.2009, p. 67, JO C 18 du 19.1.2011, p. 95.18 JO C 128 du 18.5.2010, p. 103.19 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 -

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.

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.

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.

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 associations européennes, en particulier.

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 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 29 -

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 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

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.

20 Cf. l'avis du CESE, JO C 161 du 13.7.2007, p. 80.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI


- 30 -

recourant à un usage innovant de la technologie numérique21.

1. Un cadre de qualité pour les services d'intérêt général en EuropeCOM (2011) 900 final – CESE 1316/2012 - May 2012Rapporteur : Mr SIMONS (Empl./NL)SG – Président BARROSO


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 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 Commission agrees on this point.

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

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 -

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 decision-making 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.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 32 -

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.

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.

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 on-going 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.

22 Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: Social services of general interest in the European Union , COM(2006) 177, 26 April 2006.

23 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.

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

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011PC0896:EN:NOT

- 33 -

2. Une Europe efficace dans l'utilisation des ressources Own opinion report –CESE 1304/2012 – NAT/531 – May 2012Rapporteur : M. PALMIERI (Act. Div./DE) SG - President Barroso


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 sustainable development goals and concrete actions.

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 pro-sustainability 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 34 -

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 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 35 -

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 2012Rapporteur: Mr PALMIERI (Work./IT)DG BUDG – Mr LEWANDOWSKI


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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 36 -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 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 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 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 Committee's assessment regarding the advantages of introducing an FTT at EU level.

The Committee advocates exploring the idea of creating innovative financial instruments to cover those investments requiring vast resources beyond the provisions of the MFF.

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

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 37 -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 2014-2020.

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 applying macroeconomic conditionality to the disbursement of cohesion policy funds.

The Commission is aware of the Committee's opposition to the application of macroeconomic 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-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 2012Rapporteur : M. RANOCCHIARI (Empl./IT) DG ENTR - M. TAJANI


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

La Commission est en faveur d'une approche intégrée, qui a été actée dans le rapport du groupe à

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 38 -

notamment du bruit généré par la chaussée ou les pneumatiques.

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 -

5. Cooperatives and restructuringOwn initiative opinion - EESC 1049/2012 – April 2012 Rapporteur: Ms ZVOLSKÁ (Empl./ CZ); co-rapporteur: Mr OLSSON (Var. Int./ SV) DG ENTR - Mr TAJANI


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 identifying specific instruments. The intermediation role of EIB financial instruments for smaller cooperative banks should also be made

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 cooperative banks in CY and EL have been already chosen for national respondents27.

25 COM (2004) 18 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V5&T2=2004&T3=18&RechType=RECH_naturel&Submit=Search26 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/industrial-competitiveness/industrial-policy/consultations/index_en.htm

27 Central Cooperative Bank (Cyprus) and Pancretan Cooperative Bank (Greece). See also Key Action 2 of SBI.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/industrial-competitiveness/industrial-policy/consultations/index_en.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V5&T2=2004&T3=18&RechType=RECH_naturel&Submit=Search

- 40 -

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).

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.

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.

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.

28 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/reform_proposals_en.htm29 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/sgei.html

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/sgei.html

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/reform_proposals_en.htm

- 41 -

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.

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

30 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_fr.cfm

31 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

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/regulation/pdf/2014/proposals/regulation/general/general_proposal_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/regulation/pdf/2014/proposals/regulation/general/general_proposal_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_fr.cfm

- 42 -

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 InnovationCOM (2011) 572 final – CESE 1291/2012 - May 2012Rapporteur : Ms HEINISCH (Var.Int./DE)

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 43 -

DG RTD - Mrs GEOGHEGAN-QUINN


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 well-accepted 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 Public-Public 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 44 -

(Commitment 27-B of the Innovation 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.

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 Communication34 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.

32 Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation COM(2011) 80833 Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union COM(2010) 54634 A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth COM(2012) 392

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 45 -

Including third countries in R&I partnerships should continue to be supported in order to make Europe more attractive to global players.

The Commission is fully in agreement with the recommendation by the EESC on 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.

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.

7. Small Business, Big World – a new partnership to help SMEs seize global opportunities

35 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

- 46 -

COM (2011) 702 final – EESC 1293/2012 - May 2012Rapporteur : Mr VOLEŠ (Empl./CZ) DG ENTR - Mr TAJANI


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

- 47 -

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 country- and 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

- 48 -

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.

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, business-relevant 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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 49 -

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

- 50 -

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.

8. L'Initiative pour l'entrepreneuriat socialCOM (2011)682 – CESE 1292/2012; INT/606 ; mai 2012Rapporteur M. Giuseppe GUERINI (Act. Div./IT) DG MARKT, avec la DG ENTR et la DG EMPLM. BARNIER avec MM. TAJANI et ANDOR

Points de l'avis du CESEestimés essentiels

Position de la Commission

1.1. Le Comité économique et social européen (CESE) accueille favorablement l'initiative de 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.

La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note de ce soutien.

1.4. Le CESE accueille favorablement l'action prévue par la Commission d'élaborer des outils 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.


36 JO C 24 du 28.1.2012, p. 1.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 51 -1.5. Il y a lieu de saluer et d'approuver les 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.

La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note 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.

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.

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/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/reform_proposals_fr.htm

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.

La Commission partage ce sentiment. C'est pourquoi elle crée, au sein du GECES, un sous-groupe qui travaillera sur l'impact social des 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

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 52 -convient de mettre l'accent sur cet aspect dans le cadre des prochaines initiatives de l'UE en la matière.

concerne les seules entreprises sociales), l'autre sur la RSE (qui concerne potentiellement toutes les entreprises).

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.


4.2. Il existe en effet une tendance générale à ne pas vouloir reconnaître la valeur "entrepreneuriale" et la viabilité économique des entreprises sociales.

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.

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.

La Commission partage ce sentiment. C'est pourquoi elle crée, au sein du GECES, un sous-groupe 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.

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.

Ceci sera étudié dans le cadre du sous-groupe du GECES sur l'impact social.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 53 -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.

Ceci sera étudié dans le cadre du sous-groupe du GECES sur l'impact social.

4.6. Il est utile de vouloir améliorer 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.

La Commission remercie le CESE et prend note de ce soutien aux actions déjà entamées par elle, ainsi que de cette invitation faite au co-législateur. 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.

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

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.

37 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0072:FIN:FR:HTML38 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/social-economy/co-operatives/index_en.htm39 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/eufoundation/index_en.htm

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/social-economy/co-operatives/index_en.htm

- 54 -système de sécurité sociale inclusive.4.12. Les organisations favorisant la création et le développement de réseaux d'entreprises 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 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.

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.

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,

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

40 http://www.fair.bg/en/photoalbum/NewGallery110427034323/41 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

http://fr.euronews.com/2012/06/01/des-cooperatives-sociales-et-competitives

- 55 -étant donné que les modèles nationaux pourraient nécessiter – ou non – des cadres réglementaires adaptés aux situations et traditions propres à chaque pays.

des entreprises sociales en Europe, que la Commission lancera dans les toutes prochaines semaines (action clé 5).

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 participative, comme c'est le cas des banques de crédit coopératif ou des banques poursuivant un objectif éthique et social.

C'est la raison pour laquelle des représentants de ce secteur participent au GECES.

4.20. Il y a lieu de soutenir des lignes d'action telles que le microcrédit (action clé 2)

L'instrument de micro-financement PROGRESS et le Code de conduite sur la fourniture du micro-crédit (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 possibilités de soutenir l'innovation sociale, 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


CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 56 -favorablement.4.23. Il serait utile de revoir de manière moins restrictive la règle "de minimis" pour les entreprises sociales (action clé 11), en particulier les entreprises d'insertion professionnelle, même lorsque les aides publiques sont allouées directement à l'entreprise et non pas aux travailleurs. Cette 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 sociale de cette initiative.

C'est l'objet du Règlement (UE) n°360/2012 de la Commission du 25 avril 2012 relatif à l’application des articles 107 et 108 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne aux aides de minimis accordées à des entreprises fournissant des services d’intérêt économique général.

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.

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.

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.

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

42 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/reform_proposals_en.htm43 COM(2011)896: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0896:FIN:EN:PDF

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0896:FIN:EN:PDF

- 57 -compatibles avec les règles de l'UE44.

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 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.

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/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=6013).

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.

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_business/docs/expert-group/050612-minutes-final_en.pdf).

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.

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_business/expert-group/index_fr.htmS'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.

9. A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility

44 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/sgei.html

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/expert-group/index_fr.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/expert-group/index_fr.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/docs/expert-group/050612-minutes-final_en.pdf



- 58 -

COM (2011) 681 final - EESC 1301/2012 - May 2012 Rapporteur : Ms SHARMA (Empl./UK) Corapporteur: M. ETHERINGTON (Var. Int./UK) DG EMPL – Mr ANDOR


1.3: The definition of enterprise. 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 definition.

1.3: Voluntary activities….mandatory reporting.

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 59 -

does not exclude social economy organisations. The Communication is underpinned throughout by consultation and ongoing work with stakeholders, including NGOs.

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/gender-decision-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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-decision-making/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-decision-making/index_en.htm

- 60 -

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.

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 1083/2006COM(2011) 615 final –EESC 1040/2012 - April 2012Rapporteur : Mr VARDAKASTANIS (Var. Int./EL)DG REGIO - Mr HAHN


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 multi-level governance approach.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 61 -

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 European level.

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 macro-economic conditionality should not have effects on the beneficiaries from the SFs.

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

The Commission welcomes the Committee's support to greater use of conditionality, which is an essential element of its proposal.

The Commission's position is to maintain the macroeconomic conditionalities (Article 21) in view of maximising the impact of the CSF Funds.

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.

45 Opinion on the Fifth Cohesion Report, OJ C 248/12, 25.8.2011, p. 68.46 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

- 62 -

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 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.

1.1.13 3.2.2. The EESC welcomes the 11 thematic areas. However, the EESC believes that other thematic areas such as (1) enhancing accessibility and (2) capacity building partners as defined in Article 5(1) of the CPR) should be added as well. The EESC calls for their inclusion in Article 9 of the proposed CPR.

The Commission welcomes the support from the EESC on thematic concentration and a better coordination between the funds.

The proposed additional thematic objectives 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 funded under technical assistance, if it is deemed necessary. The Staff Working Document (SWD) on partnership recommends that Member States use part of their technical assistance to ensure that partners in particular small local authorities, social partners and NGOs have the necessary capacity to participate.

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.

4.5.1. The EESC welcomes the inclusion of non-discrimination 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.

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).

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.

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 63 -

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.

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 co-financing. Against this background, the Commission has proposed a number of

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 64 -

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 of simplifying administrative, accounting and auditing procedures, "simplification should become cohesion policy's main objective"47 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.

Cohesion policy is implemented on the basis of the principle of shared management between the European Commission and Member States. Simplifying this policy is 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 delivery and lighter reporting;

-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

- 65 -

11. La PAC à l'horizon 2020COM (2011) 625- 626 – 627 – 628 – 630 -631 final – EESC 1050/2012 - April 2012Rapporteur Mrs SLAVOVA (Var. Int./BG) / Corapporteur: Mr CHIRIACO (Work./IT)

DG AGRI - Mr CIOLOS


In principle, the EESC welcomes the Commission proposals and makes the following comments:

- 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.

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.

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%.


CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 66 -

Pillar II allocation should be based on objective criteria.

The Commission has indicated that Pillar II funds 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 set-aside. 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.


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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 67 -

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.

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.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 68 -

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 co-financing should be addressed.


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.

12. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council –

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 69 -

A European vision for passengers: communication on passenger rights in all transport modes

COM(2011) 898 final; EESC 1314/2012 – May 2012Rapporteur: 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.

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.

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 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 that all carriers should use a standard e-mail address for this purpose (complaints@...),

Whilst the processes through which complaints are managed are a commercial matter for carriers, the Commission

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 70 -

alongside other methods of filing complaints, and that time limits should be set for responding to them.

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.

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.

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 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 circumstance" to be clarified;

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.

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.PRM Guidelines - In concert with industry

49 OJ C 24, 28.1.2012, p. 125-130 .

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://europa.eu.int/cgi-bin/eur-lex/udl.pl?REQUEST=Seek-Deliver&COLLECTION=oj&SERVICE=all&LANGUAGE=en&DOCID=2012c24

- 71 -

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.

All these provisions should also apply to other modes of transport where they do not already exist.

and consumer organisations the Commission issued guidelines on Regulation No 1107/2006 on 14 June 2012 (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passengers/air/doc/prm/2012-06-11-swd-2012-171_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 relation to airline insolvency. However, the Commission intends to publish "best guidelines" to assist NEBs in managing such disruption by the end of 2012 or in early 2013.

4.10 Given that the Commission itself recognises 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.

See response to 1.5

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 rights.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passengers/air/doc/prm/2012-06-11-swd-2012-171_en.pdf



- 72 -

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.

Under no circumstances must the right to redress be linked to the price paid for the journey.

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.

Rights legislation in relation to rail, 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 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.

See response to 1.7

14. Energy Roadmap 2050

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 73 -

COM (2011) 885 final – EESC 1315/2012 - May 2012Rapporteur: Mr COULON (Work./FR)Corapporteur: Mr ADAMS (Var. Int./UK) DG ENER - Mr OETTINGER


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 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'.

The Commission welcomes that the Committee shares views with the Commission as regards the substantial conclusions.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 74 -

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 long-distance 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.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 75 -

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)


CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 76 -

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 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 2012Rapporteur: Mr NARRO (Var. Int./ES)DG ENV – Mr POTOČNIK - DG CLIMA - Mrs HEDEGAARD


1.1 The LIFE Programme is a successful EU The Commission welcomes the EESC support to

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 77 -

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 large-scale 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 sub-programme 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

- 78 -

Development (EAFRD).

3.4.1 The establishment of a specific sub-programme 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 sub-programme 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

- 79 -

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.

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.

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 sub-programmes (Articles 12 and 16). These are intended to increase support to applicants.

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 geographical or similar criteria when it comes

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 80 -

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.

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 co-financing 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.

3.5.2 These will generally be large-scale projects (EUR 5-10 million of Community co-financing) 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 multi-purpose 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.

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 more to involve civil society organisations to

The Commission proposal requires stakeholders' involvement as one of the elements to evaluate in the

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 81 -

facilitate their development and implementation on the ground, preventing 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.

award process of Integrated Projects (Article 19(3) of the Commission proposal).

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.

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

The Commission has carried out several simulations in which it demonstrated that the increase in the co-financing 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 flat-rates and lump-sums, when possible, for all projects.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 82 -

compensate for the non-eligibility of certain 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.

4.1.1 The Commission stresses greater simplification by the use of flat rates and lump sums. This is a positive measure and could eliminate unnecessary red tape.

The Commission welcomes the EESC support to simplification efforts. As to the application of the two-stage 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, since it would imply a prolongation of the selection process.

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.

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 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).

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 83 -

Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the 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 cost-effectiveness 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.

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.

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 sub-programme 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".

4.1.3 The proposal for a regulation substantially improves the complementarity between financial instruments as regards the confused wording of the current Article 9. The EESC supports the principle whereby the

The Commission welcomes the EESC support to the new more positive approach to complementarity with other EU Funds.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 84 -

LIFE Programme should complement other 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 private-sector 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 eco-innovation 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 85 -

abandoned the previous purely bottom-up approach, and instead opts for a flexible top-down approach. The design of the 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.

the new vision and emphasises that the local and regional focus will remain at the heart of LIFE both through traditional and Integrated Projects.

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.

The Commission welcomes the EESC support to NGOs operating grants and will take into account its recommendations when developing the specific selection criteria.

18. Priority substances in the field of water policy COM (2011) 876 final - CESE 1307/2012 – May 2012Rapporteur: Ms LE NOUAIL MARLIÈRE (Work./FR)DG ENV – Mr POTOČNIK


1.1 The EESC welcomes the current draft directive inasmuch as it extends the list of priority substances and priority hazardous substances, applying the most comprehensive option proposed in the impact analysis50.

The Commission welcomes the generally favourable opinion of the Committee.

1.3 The EESC nevertheless recommends that the draft directive include, if only on a

The Commission has recently adopted and published a communication on chemical

50 SEC(2011) 1547 final.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 86 -

trial basis, specific analyses of the following areas that are not yet fully understood:

nanoparticles and, more specifically, their interaction with the priority substances, as there are an increasing number of questions surrounding this subject – raised by the European Environment Agency51;

the effects of chemical combinations of substances present in inland waters, as these combinations can have a significant impact on the aquatic environment even in very weak concentrations.

mixtures (COM(2012) 252 final) and work is on-going on a communication on nanomaterials. This reflects the Commission's commitment to gather more information and take action where necessary in these areas. The list of priority substances has to be reviewed at least every four years. The next review should benefit from the improved knowledge expected to result from the increased attention that nanomaterials and chemical mixture effects are receiving. The watch list mechanism in the current proposal could already contribute to the knowledge base.

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 and involvement are a precondition for the protection of water resources, and for the 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, environmental and economic dimensions to

Member States are required to publish and hold public consultation for a minimum of 6 months on their river basin management plans.

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

- 87 -

be taken into account52.

4.1 The European Commission bases the legislative framework on the notion of 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.

Please see Commission position in relation to point 1.3 above.

4.2 Nickel and lead are on the list of priority substances but have not been included as priority hazardous substances (PHS).

These substances are, however, persistent (nickel in particular shows ubiquitous persistence) and bioaccumulative, which makes them eligible to be on this list according to the European Commission’s definition of priority hazardous substances.

The REACH regulation refers to these substances as being of very high concern and subject to authorisation given that they can be carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction (CMR 1 and 2) and/or persistent and bioaccumulative.

To be consistent with the definition given for PHS and with the REACH regulation, these substances should be classified as PHS, with the objective of stemming their release into water within 20 years.

Please see Commission position in relation to point 1.5 above.

These metals, being naturally occurring elements, are inherently persistent. However, this persistence does not necessarily mean that they are to be equated with other substances classically described as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic.

Under the Water Framework Directive the substances and exposure pathways need to be taken into account specifically in the context of the aquatic environment. REACH may address other environmental compartments and routes of exposure.

The implementation of the water legislation aims to be coherent with that of other relevant legislation where appropriate, and the regular review of the priority substances list allows developments under other legislation to be acted upon accordingly.

19. 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 toolsCOM(2012) 136 final – EESC 1309/2012 – May 2012Rapporteur: Mr ZBOŘIL (Empl/CZ)DG ENV – Mr POTOČNIK

52 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

- 88 -


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 implementing powers on the Commission in the terms and scope set out in the proposal for a directive.

The Commission welcomes the support of the EESC.

20. Horizon 2020: Road maps for ageingOwn initiative opinion - EESC 1290/2012 – May 2012 Rapporteur: Ms HEINISCH (Var. Int./DE) DG RTD - Mrs GEOGHEGAN-QUINN


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

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 89 -

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 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, Public-Public 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 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

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 90 -

technology in many areas of life and European social issues arising from demographic, social and technological change.

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.

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 2012Rapporteur : Mr WOLF (Var. Int./DE)

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 91 -

DG RTD - Mrs GEOGHEGAN-QUINN


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.

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 92 -

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 the Commission's desire for a stronger MFF.

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 experience with large-scale projects of the 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.

The Commission has no plans to establish such a contingency fund.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 93 -

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.

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.

22. Re-use of Public Sector InformationCOM (2011) 877 fin – EESC 1035/2012 –April 2012Rapporteur : 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

- 94 -

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

- 95 -

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-by-case 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 2012Rapporteur : Ms NIETYKSZA (Empl./PL)DG MARKT – Mr BARNIER


CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 96 -

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 over-dependent 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 to SME investments.

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

- 97 -

1.9. Such limitations exclude from the scope of the regulation the possibility that a so-called fund of funds may obtain the EU-wide 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.

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).

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.

1.12. 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 non-professional 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 located in the European Union, as a means to prevent the establishment of funds managed

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

- 98 -

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.

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.

26. 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 2012Rapporteur : Mr IOZIA (Work./IT)DG MARKT – Mr BARNIER


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..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 instrument, subject to ex-post verification, and its consistency with the letter and spirit of the

The Commission thanks the EESC for the appreciation on the legislative proposal, its underlying objectives and its specific provisions.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 Commission would like to underline that the proposal is complemented by the proposed

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 99 -

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.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

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 100 -

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 give the market suitable tools for protecting clients at all levels.

3.11 The system will enable clients to be "educated" by properly trained staff on the spot. Nevertheless, the EESC feels it is quite ambitious to expect a retail client to be able to accurately and correctly assess their own financial abilities,

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 providing patronage to national events promoting financial education. The OECD set up the International Network on Financial Education (INFE) which plays an active role at international level and the Commission closely follows the work of the Network.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 101 -

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.

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.

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 affect consumer end prices, but at the same time the EESC calls for the measures to be carefully balanced and weighed up so as to avoid harmful 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

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 waivers and deferrals in the publication of post-trade information, allow to calibrate the regime to different instruments and situations.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 102 -

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.

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.

27. Annual accounts and consolidated accounts Audit – public-interest entities - Annual accounts and consolidated accounts - Audit - public interest entitiesCOM(2011) 778 and 779 final - CESE 1035/2012 - April 2012Rapporteur : Mr MORGAN (Empl./UK)DG MARKT – Mr BARNIER

Main points of the EESC opinion Commission Position

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

Consideration of the suggestion in the framework of subsequent negotiations with other institutions.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 103 -

new supervisory framework, and not abandoned. (point 3.1.8 of the opinion)

2. Regarding the definition of "public-interest 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)


4. EESC considers that statutory auditors should not provide to their statutory audit clients 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)


6. EESC recommends that audit reform should be integrated with the recommendations on corporate governance. Both statutory auditors and audit committees should improve 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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 104 -

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)


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 re-tendering 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 FundsCOM(2011) 862 final – EESC 1294/2012 – May 2012Rapporteur : Ms RODERT (Var. Int./SE)DG MARKT – Mr BARNIER


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 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

The Commission notes that financing for social enterprises takes many forms, and the Commission's impact assessment of the proposals on Social 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 105 -

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.

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 co-legislators 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 Regulation for the entities invested in, i.e. the social enterprises), such as non-voting shares.

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.

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

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 106 -

and to smaller investments.

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 2012Rapporteur: M. IOZIA (Trav./IT)DG MARKT – M. BARNIER


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 2012-2020 – 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 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 sociétés-écrans anonymes dans des juridictions opaques, notre processus de révision de la directive anti-blanchiment sera un élément clé. La 4ème Directive inclura des mesures visant à accroître la

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 107 -

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 DirectivesCOM (2011) 746 fin - EESC 1296/2012 – May 2012 Rapporteur : Mr FRANK VON FÜRSTENWERTH (Empl./DE)DG MARKT - Mr Barnier


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 agrees with this assessment.

In order to reduce overreliance on ratings other creditworthiness standards than external ratings should also be used by financial market participants.


Existing supervisory rules should be checked and provisions that lead to automatic responses by financial firms should in general be avoided.


Private law contracts which provide for automatic responses to a rating change should be deemed invalid.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 108 -

32. Recognition of professional qualifications and administrative cooperationOpinion – EESC 1046/2012, SOC/451 - April 2012Rapporteur : M. METZLER (Act. Div./DE)DG MARKT – Mr BARNIER

Main Points of the EESC Opinion Commission Position

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."

The Commission appreciates the Committee's approval of its initiative aiming at modernising Directive 2005/36/EC on recognition of professional qualifications.

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.

- Abuse of hard copy cards should be ruled out by placing limits on their validity and taking special steps to protect against forgery.

- The EESC has strong reservations about any provision that sees a European Professional Card deemed valid when a host country fails to issue a decision on the matter. Other forms of legal recourse against unmet deadlines, such as the right to an official decision or compensation, are preferable."

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 pro-active 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.

The EPC should be introduced for specific professions via implementing acts. The Commission notes the recommendation of the Committee and will raise it in the upcoming negotiations with the other institutions. In any event, the interest shown by the stakeholders, the –potential– mobility in the profession as well as the 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 109 -

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."

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 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,

Common training principles should be adopted by the Commission by delegated acts if they fulfil the criteria proposed in Article

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 110 -

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."

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.

34. Proposal for a regulation on European Territorial Cooperation COM (2011)611 final –CESE 1043/2012 - April 2012Rapporteur: Mr PÁLENÍK (Var.Int./SK) DG REGIO - Mr HAHN


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.

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.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 111 -

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. micro-projects) 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 socio-economic interests, can be supported by community-led local development, which can also be implemented in cross-border cooperation programmes.

35. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006COM (2011)612. –CESE ECO/315 – Avril 2012Rapporteur Mr CEDRONE (Work./IT)DG REGIO - Mr HAHN


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 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).

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.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 112 -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:

- 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 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

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, trans-European 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 cross-border, Pan-European investments.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 113 -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 2012Rapporteur : Mr BARÁTH (Var. Int./HU)DG REGIO – Mr HAHN


1.4.4.1 The EESC further welcomes the Commission's proposals for thematic concentration as a means to reduce fragmentation of effort.

1.4.4.2 The EESC nevertheless recommends showing greater flexibility with regard to thematic concentration, largely to make the territorial approach easier to apply and thus to improve the effectiveness of the policy.

1.4.5.3 Guarantees are needed to ensure that 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.

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.

Certain adjustments of the mechanism can be considered to provide greater flexibility where this will lead to a more effective use of Funds in line with Europe 2020 objectives.

3.1.2 The EESC welcomes the explicit obligation to apply an integrated approach in

COM is open to consider the inclusion of only the methodology/criteria for the selection of urban areas to be supported in

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 114 -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.

the Partnership Contract (rather than a list of 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.

COM is ready to move away from the initial proposal limiting the number of cities participating in the urban development platform.

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.

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 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 115 -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.

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.

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.

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.

37. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area COM (2011) 782 final – EESC 1298/2012 – May 2012Rapporteur : Mr PARIZA CASTAÑOS (Work./ES)DG MARE - Mrs DAMANAKI


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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 116 -

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.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 117 -

Reference to smart, sustainable and 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.

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 moveOwn-initiative opinion – EESC 1048/201 – April 2012Rapporteur : 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 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

The Commission agrees that it is important to enhance the role of the book 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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 118 -

by the European Commission in the basket of industries when contemplating strategies for Digital Europe.

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 non-level 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 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.

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 Communications Networks, Content and Technology. There is no requirement for further groups to be established at European level.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/key_documents/communications/com_2011_851_en.pdf

- 119 -

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 e-lending 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.

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.

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 co-legislators in September.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 120 -

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 out-of-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 2012Rapporteur: M. ESPUNY MOYANO (Empl./ES)DG SANCO - Mr DALLI

Points of EESC opinion considered essential Position of the Commission

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 121 -

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

- 122 -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

- 123 -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 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 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 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

- 124 -

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 non-commercial movement of pet animalsProposal 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 ferretsCOM (2012) 89 and COM(2012) 90– May 2012Rapporteur: 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 opinionconsidered 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 non-commercial 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

- 125 -

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.

The Commission will continue to request the necessary guarantees before granting any derogation.

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.

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.

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.

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 126 -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.

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 time of checking, the competent authority of the

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 127 -

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.

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.

41. 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 2012Rapporteur: Mr PEZZINI (Empl./IT) DG TAXUD - Mr ŠEMETA

Points de l'avis du CESE estimés essentiels

(Recommandations / General comments)

Position de la Commission

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 by the European Commission of the

The COM proposal for the Union Customs Code (Recast) foresees the following legal

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 128 -

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.

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 possibility of differing national

The Commission is working towards the goal of uniform interpretation of customs

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 129 -

interpretations of the EU customs rules, which would constitute a major bureaucratic burden for businesses (especially small businesses), and thus damage Europe's competitiveness.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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 change impacts.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 130 -intends)

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.

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)

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).

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

- 131 -

close cooperation with universities and research centres throughout the EU.

Therefore the Committee considers appropriate national and EU financial resources, initiating dedicated programmes such as FISCUS, EU programmes for continuing vocational training focusing partly on language skills and ICT and Jean Monnet Chairs. (4.2, 6th intend)

rules.

The Commission's training and information initiative in the field of customs targets national customs officials as well as economic operators and customs agents, as far as appropriate. In the future, common vocational and higher education 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)

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.

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.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 132 -

4.4.1 With a view to the uniform application of the new regulation, the Committee suggests, as an experiment, setting up a European rapid reaction task force to carry out skilled and burdensome customs work, especially at external borders.

The Commission takes note of the Committee's suggestion. Based on current Community legislation the implementation is not feasible.

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".

The Commission takes note of the statement.

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.

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 non- complying 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.

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.

53 OJ C 120, 16.5.2008, p. 1 .

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:120:SOM:EN:HTML

- 133 -

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.

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.

42. The Global Approach to Migration and MobilityCOM (2011) 743 final - EESC 1057/2012 - April 2012Rapporteur: Mr PARIZA CASTAÑOS (Work./ES)Corapporteure: Ms KING (Empl./UK) DG HOME - Mrs MALMSTRÖM


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.

1.4 The Committee proposes that the EU play a highly active part in carrying forward the UN High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development.

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 Commission underlines that many EU instruments on regular and irregular migration provide far-reaching protection for migrants and often go 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

The Commission considers that the strength of MPs resides exactly in the fact that this instrument is open and flexible.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 134 -

with third countries. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

- 135 -

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.

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 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.

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 self-organisation 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 well-managed migration, taking into account the

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 136 -

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.

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.

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 ACP-EU Migration Dialogue, launched in

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 137 -

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

- 138 -

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 legislate to guarantee the principle of non-

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

- 139 -

refoulement and the rights of third country nationals and stateless persons to request international protection in the EU.

43. The right to family reunificationCOM (2011)735 fin – EESC 1300/2012 - May 2012Rapporteur: Mr PÎRVULESCU (Var. Int./RO)DG HOME – Mrs MALMSTRÖM


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 emphasises the positive role played by the European

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 140 -

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 non-EU 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 partnerships, etc.) and the potential inclusion of

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

- 141 -

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

- 142 -

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.

family reunification under the Directive and rend its effet utile ineffective.

45. 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 mattersCOM (2011) 445 final –CESE 1034/2012 - INT/598 – April 2012Rapporteur: Mr PEGADO LIZ (Act. Div./PT)DG JUST –Ms REDING

Points of the opinion of the EESC regarded as essential

Position of the Commission

Section 3. General comments

Point 3.8 raises subsidiarity concerns.

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 cross-border cases, in order to keep the principle of subsidiarity.

Point 3.8.1 refers to alternative policy options. 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 cross-border debt recovery in the most cost-efficient

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 143 -

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 cross-border 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

- 144 -

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


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

- 145 -

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.

Point 4.8 suggests to replace in Article 25(1) the expression "without undue delay" with "on the next working day".

Point 4.11 suggests deleting Article 44 which stipulates that a court can derogate to time limits in exceptional and justified circumstances.

Point 4.12 calls for a uniform definition of time limits in the proposal.

The Commission will take into account these suggestions in the framework of negotiations with the other institutions.

The proposal already contains many time limits that are harmonised at EU level.

Article 13 provides that the claimant should initiate proceedings on the substance within 30 days.

Point 4.7 suggests to provide in Article 20(1) an obligation for courts to cooperate.


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.


46. Droits et citoyennetéCOM(2011)758 final; CESE 1047/2012 SOC/453; Avril 2012Rapporteur M. BOLAND (Act. Div./IE) DG JUST - Ms REDING

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 146 -


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".

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 recommends a stronger reference to equality, gender equality and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the programme, and to include an objective on combating violence.

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

- 147 -

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

- 148 -

48. General Data Protection Regulation COM (2012) 11 fin – EESC 1303/2012 – May 2012Rapporteur : Mr PEGADO LIZ (Var. Int./PT)DG JUST – Mrs REDING


In general the EESC is very supportive of the reform effort (s. 1.1.).

This is much appreciated by the Commission.

Regulation or Directive?

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.

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.

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.

This is also the reason why some members of the committee prefer a Directive to a regulation (see above).

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.

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…".

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 149 -

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

The empowerments for delegated acts are based on Article 290 TFEU. Each empowerment is to be assessed on its own merits.

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).

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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 150 -

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.

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.

Profiling

4.24 Article 20 – Profiling

4.24.1 The prohibition of profiling should not be limited to "automated" processing .

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.

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.

Profiling in the employment context will be subject to conditions and safeguards according to Article 20(2).

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."

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 151 -

"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.

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.

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.

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 152 -

49. Increasing the impact of EU Development policy: an agenda for ChangeCOM (2011)637 – CESE 1318/2012- April 2012DG 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. (…)

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 (…).

1.3 In this regard, economic and social councils - where they exist - are a valuable resource. (..)

1.4 There should be a better balance during the procedures for consultations with CSOs in the EU and the recipient countries.

1.8 (…) the Committee (…) stresses the need of involving civil society more in the decisions of budgetary support.

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)

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.

The importance of regular dialogue with CSOs and of support to a pluralistic civil society in partner countries was reaffirmed in the Communication Increasing the impact of EU development policy: an agenda for change (Oct.'11 – Council Conclusions May'12), and the Commission is currently preparing a Communication on the future axes of its collaboration with and support to CSOs (adoption foreseen later in 2012). Recognizing the contribution different CSOs can bring, this Communication will set out a proposal for more strategic engagement with CSOs, notably at country level, in developing, neighbourhood and

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 153 -

1.9 The Committee believes that the Commission should boost the direct involvement of civil society in the EU and the recipient countries as much as possible, aiming at a partnership. (…)

enlargement countries.

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.

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 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 2012Rapporteur: Mr ADAMS (Var. int./UK) DG DEVCO - Mr PIEBALGS


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.

1.5 In particular it should be clarified (…) that

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,

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 154 -

the majority of programme expenditure will be directed towards remediation with only a small minority of expenditure applied to safety advisory programmes in emerging economies where political and civil stability can be assured.

1.6 (…) clear criteria should be implemented in the INSC to enable a decision on whether an emerging country meets minimum criteria of national and international stability (…) (see also 4.1 and 4.2)

4.3 The Committee believes that the question of whether the engagement of the EU through INSC offers tacit support (…) for a nuclear programme (…) has not been fully addressed. (…)

4.4. It must be an objective of the EU not to contribute to the development of a nuclear capacity in a third country that could create new risks (…) (see also 4.5)

this was reinforced after the Fukushima accident.

The legislative proposal provides indicative figures of the spending per objective. The priorities will be further specified in subsequent strategy papers and the allocations in indicative programmes to be submitted to the relevant committee.

The number of emerging countries with a 'credible' nuclear power programme to be considered for cooperation is very small and the Commission has already engaged with most of them. The issue was discussed at length in the Council and there is a consensus with the Member States in this respect.

Cooperation with emerging countries is aimed at the regulatory infrastructure, regulatory authorities and waste management. The creation of competent and independent regulators should discourage countries from cutting corners when implementing nuclear programmes, in our view this has nothing to do with promotion, rather the opposite. Placing 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 annex of the regulation but included in the main text (…).

5.9 The Committee notes the flexibility which is created grouping the supported measures and cooperation criteria in the Annex, which itself may be modified in accordance with the examination procedure provided for in the Common Implementing Regulation. However, consideration should be given as to whether key issues of principle relating to international nuclear safety and security should be included in the main body of the regulation.

Discussions with Member States showed that supported measures and cooperation criteria are best placed in the Annex. The Annex has the same legal value as the body of the proposal. Former Art. 5 which allowed for the Annex to be revised, was removed from the original proposal by the Council; the issue remains controversial. The possibility of splitting the Annex in key issues of principle that will not be changed and issues of operational nature that may need a revision was advanced at one time and may have to be reconsidered.

1.9 Only under exceptional circumstances relating to safety assurance should resources be supplied for the acquisition of technical

Cooperation with operators of nuclear power plants has already been scaled down. The new INSC for 2014 – 2020 foresees support to operators only in

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 155 -

equipment. Criteria should be developed by the Commission and be reported. Assistance should not be given to operators.

specific cases in the context of the "stress tests", in particular. Supply of equipment will be excluded in 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/318Rapporteur: 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/432Rapporteur 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

CES145-2013_00_00_TRA_DI

- 156 -

communication "Towards an EU Criminal Policy" as there are no concrete follow-up suggestions 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

Documents

PDGD_Suite aux avis 2ème trim 2012 · Web view9. A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility COM (2011) 681 final - EESC 1301/2012 - May 2012 Rapporteur :