21.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/1

Rapporteur:

Oliver RÖPKE

1.1

The single market is a major achievement and a key element of the European integration process. It should represent the cornerstone of prosperity in Europe. The introduction of the euro and the Schengen agreement were critical junctures on the path towards completing the single market. However, both are coming under growing pressure, partly due to short-sighted national interests, with a significant part of the population increasingly calling them into question, partly because of real concerns of the European citizens.

1.2

The EESC has always championed moves to bolster the free movement of goods, services, capital, payments and people and to maintain the necessary balance between economic, social and environmental policy. It is essential to keep to the path of economic and social convergence among the Member States.

1.3

With a view to further developing the single market, unnecessary obstacles must be removed to ensure growth, jobs, long-term prosperity and a highly competitive social market economy. Of particular relevance here are market barriers such as insufficient recognition of qualifications and diplomas, technical constraints at local level, regulatory obstacles due to differences in national legislation and inadequate coordination of e-government solutions at EU level.

1.4

The EESC is concerned that the EU’s single market has barely grown since the financial crisis. The economy of the euro area actually shrank by 1,6 % between 2008 and 2015. By contrast, other economic regions such as the USA, Australia and Japan have far outpaced the EU in terms of domestic demand and growth. Active steps are therefore needed to steer Europe back towards the policy objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

1.5

The EESC stresses once again the importance of cross-border mobility for businesses and workers. However, the fact that single market principles enjoy much less support among a significant proportion of the population should not be overlooked. One reason for this is the growing risk of continuing unfair and illegal practices associated with the cross-border provision of services. The high risk of abuse severely undermines workers’ and honest companies’ trust in the single market.

1.6

Decisive action must be taken to counter these trends and it is important to ensure fair competition in the interests of business too. A well-functioning single market requires compliance with European and national legislation when carrying out cross-border activities. This is the reason why the majority of the EESC members therefore supports all efforts to ensure that, in practice, the same work at the same place is remunerated in the same way in the EU, as called for by Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker.

1.7

Although the single market has a strong social basis in the TFEU and EU secondary legislation, consideration should be given to striking a better balance between market freedoms and basic social rights in primary law. The aim of such a move would be to address the discontent of the many people who feel that, increasingly, their social interests and requirements are not properly safeguarded in the single market.

1.8

In principle, the EESC welcomes efforts to check EU law for efficiency. This initiative could have an important role to play in cutting unnecessary regulatory costs which are applied when the same area is subject to different national or regional rules. Harmonised legislation should thus be checked for necessity, specifically in the interests of SMEs. However, the EESC reiterates its opinion that high consumer standards are not an unnecessary burden.

1.9

The EESC underlines its view that the digital single market should be a policy priority given its huge growth potential. Existing legal uncertainties in the areas of employment, the economy and consumer affairs need to be examined and removed without delay. The Commission should implement a clear legal framework for new forms of economy and new business models in the single market, including various forms of the sharing economy, with a view to closing regulatory gaps. Applicable legislation must be fully respected here, with specific efforts to safeguard consumer and worker rights as well as fair competition.

1.10

The creation of a Capital Markets Union should also remain high on the agenda in that the more efficient capital allocation that is associated with it can have a positive impact on the economy and employment, as well as on consumers. Certain recent developments such as Brexit must not unduly delay or compromise the implementation of these plans.

1.11

The EESC reiterates its view that regulatory gaps in taxation policy lead to unfair competition in the single market. It therefore supports moves towards a common consolidated corporate tax base, country-by-country reporting as well as ongoing efforts to tackle tax avoidance and tax havens. The introduction of a common minimum corporate tax rate could provide a useful complement to these initiatives and put an end to the race for the lowest tax rate.

1.12

Public services — also known as services of general interest — play a key role in the social market economy and are essential for the general public. Services of general interest have a place among the EU’s shared values, playing a part in fostering social and territorial cohesion.

1.13

This role of promoting social and territorial cohesion should be taken into account as part of the ‘principles and conditions’ which the EU can establish for these services. In connection with the planned reform of the Services Directive, the EESC highlights protocol No 26 on services of general interest of the EU Treaty, according to which Member States’ national, regional and local authorities are given wide discretion in services of general economic interest.

1.14

A variety of measures are needed to tackle unfair practices in public procurement, which push tenders below a fair standard, sometimes fail to comply with minimum-wage requirements in force in the respective national legal provisions and practices and, in many cases, result in high cost overruns. In particular, there must be transparency on the best tender price and service and any cost overruns that may occur at a later stage. The aim must be to apply the best tender principle, not that of the lowest bid.

2.1

European integration must follow the goal of achieving the necessary balance between economic, social and environmental policies. The free movement of goods, services, capital and payments, and of people, must be complemented by respect for the fundamental social rights incorporated into the EU Treaties through the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Fundamental social rights need to be enforced in the internal market in practice. At the same time, any unnecessary obstacles still present in the single market should be removed to ensure long-term prosperity and a highly competitive social market economy.

2.2

The EESC has repeatedly stated, most recently in its opinion on upgrading the single market (1), that the single market is a centrepiece of European integration, with the potential to deliver directly-felt benefits and to generate sustainable growth for Europe’s economies.

2.3

The single market is a major achievement and should provide the cornerstone of Europe’s prosperity. The launch of the euro in the euro area and the Schengen Agreement were critical junctures on the path towards creating a common single market. However, they are now under severe pressure, illustrating how different the interests of EU Member States are. To some extent, decision-making and oversight still take place at national level.

2.4

The EESC notes that there are still significant market barriers in the form of inadequate recognition of qualifications and diplomas, splitting of curricula, technical local restrictions, regulatory barriers resulting mainly from fragmentation of the single market due to different national legal frameworks, administrative burdens such as compliance with national taxation and customs rules, and a lack of e-government facilities and of coordination of e-government solutions at European level.

2.5

The Commission seeks to implement full harmonisation in some areas, which may result in reducing the existing level of protection in some Member States. The EESC underlines that it has opposed such measures in a number of opinions. Full harmonisation, where it is pursued by the Commission, must be achieved while preserving the level of protection already in place.

2.6

Citizens in the Member States increasingly feel that Europe does little to protect social standards and income or to achieve fair taxation and fair social charges. The single market has a solid social dimension based on TFEU and secondary EU legislation, but a better balance between economic market freedoms and fundamental social rights should be considered.

2.7

Measures presented under the European pillar of social rights should reflect the Union’s founding principles and build on the conviction that economic development should result in greater social progress and cohesion and that, while ensuring appropriate safety nets in line with European values, social policy should also be regarded as a productive factor.

2.8

In spite of the many achievements of the EU cohesion policy, real economic and social convergence between Member States is still a long way off, and there are big differences in wages and social standards. The lower wages currently in place in some Member States are due to historical developments and the natural diversity of the extensive internal European market, and reflect local productivity levels and many other factors including the interests of investors. Despite that, more attention should be given to social dumping, which should be defined as an unfair and illegal practice of not abiding by the rules with regard to work remuneration or the payment of social and health insurance, and thus acquiring an unfair advantage over competitors (2).

2.9

Since the onset of the financial crisis, i.e. in the period from 2008 to 2015, the single market’s growth amounted to 0,4 % — almost zero growth in real terms. In the euro area the single market even shrank by 1,6 %. Most other economic regions have left the European Union far behind in terms of domestic demand (for example, the USA +8,8 %, Australia +17,9 %, Japan +3,8 %) (3). Measures to revive demand in the single market, such as the European plan for investment with the European Fund for Strategic Investment, have still not had the required effect.

2.10

The EESC is worried that the employment and social objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy based on smart, sustainable and inclusive growth cannot be achieved (4). The economic slowdown, the slow implementation of meaningful structural reforms and lack of demand in the single market have so far produced the opposite effect: the employment rate fell from 70,3 % in 2008 to 69,2 % in 2014. It should, however, be 75 % by 2020. Instead of the number of people affected by poverty and social exclusion falling by 20 million by 2020, it had risen by 4,9 million in 2014. In addition, by late 2015, over 6 million more people were unemployed in the European Union than before the crisis.

2.11

Another important aspect in the Europe 2020 strategy is education. The EESC welcomes the fact that the proportion of the population leaving education and training early was reduced from 14,2 % in 2008 to 11 %. Tertiary educational attainment also improved. rising from 31,3 % to 38,7 % between 2008 and 2015. The EESC welcomes the European Commission’s skills strategy and points out that a high qualification level is indispensable in order to attract companies and to create new jobs.

2.12

The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union represents a major challenge to the European single market. The EESC recommends basing the future negotiations on the respect of all the founding principles and values of the single market.

3.1.1

Labour mobility can be important for companies to have access to skilled labour, for the self-employed, and for workers to have the opportunity for good jobs, access to new skills and good working conditions. However, barriers still exist.

3.1.2

A study examining barriers and costs (5) points out that in addition to cost savings for administrative services, citizens and businesses, interoperable e-government services are expected to have a particularly large impact on labour mobility. Improving the recognition of professional degrees is crucial for both companies and workers to move across borders.

3.1.3

In its opinion on the ‘Abuse of the status of self-employed’ (6), the EESC stressed that bogus self-employment could lead to evasion of social security contributions, tax evasion and abuse of labour rights and to undeclared work and should therefore be eliminated. In this respect the EESC welcomes the already established European platform for undeclared work as a step in the right direction (7).

3.1.4

The aim of this platform is to prevent and deter undeclared work through improved cooperation between Member States’ enforcement authorities, such as labour inspectorates, tax and social security authorities. This cooperation includes the sharing of best practices on prevention and deterrence measures, identifying common principles for inspections of employers, promoting staff exchanges and joint training and facilitating joint control actions.

3.1.5

Many workers nowadays are taken on as ‘self-employed service providers’ rather than employees, as was previously the case. These people do not have an employment contract because they work for themselves in line with their self-employed status. In such an employment relationship, in most cases there is no need to comply with national labour law. Clear and binding criteria must be used to assess whether someone is in fact employed or genuinely self-employed. For this reason, the EESC has criticised the Commission’s proposal for a directive on single-member private limited liability companies as being ‘in need of further development’ (8). It puts micro-enterprises, SMEs and the genuine self-employed particularly under pressure.

3.2.1

The 1996 Directive sets the EU regulatory framework for establishing a right and fair balance between the objectives of promoting and facilitating the cross-border provision of services, providing protection to posted workers and ensuring a level playing field between foreign and local competitors.

3.2.2

The 2014 Enforcement Directive (9) provides for new and strengthened instruments to fight and sanction circumventions, fraud and abuses, complementing Directive 96/71/EC and contributing to a more effective complex framework for the posting of workers.

3.2.3

The EESC has recently adopted a separate opinion concerning the Commission’s proposal for a targeted revision of the Posting of Workers Directive and commenting on the main changes and proposals (10) based on the call made by President Juncker in his political guidelines for the next Commission: ‘In our Union, the same work at the same place should be remunerated in the same manner (11)’.

3.2.4

In its opinion on ‘Fairer Labour Mobility within the EU’ (12), the EESC urged the Commission to address unfair practices that lead to social dumping. This problem is becoming increasingly urgent, as practical examples from the Member States show that the risk of wage and social dumping rises sharply in cross-border contexts. Checks by BUAK (13) in Austria revealed that, of the 7 238 Austrian enterprises inspected in 2015, 38 were suspected of underpaying their employees under the law on tackling wage and social dumping. This means that 0,53 % of businesses were suspected of underpaying their employees. In the same period, checks were carried out on 1 481 businesses operating in Austria but based in other EU countries. Of these businesses, 398 were suspected of underpaying their employees, i.e. wage dumping. This amounts to a figure of 26,87 %.

3.2.5

In the case of foreign companies operating on a cross-border basis and using posted workers, the likelihood of wage dumping is 50 times higher than for local suppliers. This is a wake-up call for the (non-)functioning of the single market. The high risk of abuse undermines European workers’ confidence in the internal market enormously.

3.2.6

Another problem is the bogus posting of workers. Cases involving bogus posted workers, i.e. abuse through fake A1 posting certificates, are indicative of the problems caused by attestations, certificates or similar documents issued officially or by public bodies. This makes it increasingly difficult for micro-enterprises, SMEs and skilled workers to hold their own against competitors who act unfairly. The bogus posting of workers must therefore be eliminated.

3.2.7

The Commission has recently proposed a modification to Regulation (EC) No 883/04 on the coordination of social security systems. The EESC will adopt a separate opinion in line with the European Commission’s request expecting the development of a modernised system of social security coordination that responds to the social and economic reality in Member States and respecting the principles of EU law, in particular concerning equal treatment and non-discrimination.

3.2.8

The EESC takes note of the proposal for the services passport (or services ID card), which should eliminate the need for multiple requests for information and documentation already provided to the home Member State, by creating a common electronic repository of documents. The EESC opposes any undermining of the principle of the country of destination. It will develop a separate opinion on this.

3.3.1

In principle, measures to check whether EU law is effective are to be welcomed. An interinstitutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament can provide a useful arrangement to make it easier to achieve the goal of simpler and more effective EU law. In terms of cooperation, however, it must be ensured that EU legal standards offering social or economic policy benefits are protected and not called into question.

3.3.2

SMEs are affected just as much as consumers and workers. According to the principle ‘Think small first’ it is particularly important to avoid unnecessary burdens for SMEs. A consumer protection policy, based on a high level of protection in accordance with Article 169 TFEU, is needed for the proper functioning of the internal market.

3.3.3

REFIT could also have an important role to play in cutting regulatory costs which are applied when the same area is subject to different regional rules. Harmonising legislation could result in significant cost savings and promote growth in EU regions by removing these barriers. It should therefore be examined to see whether it is feasible.

3.3.4

Many of the legislative acts to be reviewed under the REFIT programme to reduce bureaucracy concern legal rules that protect employee and consumer standards and are therefore of considerable socio-political and economic benefit. The EESC reaffirms its view that high consumer standards are not an unnecessary burden.

3.3.5

The EESC refers to its opinion of 14 December 2014 (14) and reiterates its position that smart regulation does not remove the obligation to observe rules on protecting the public, consumers and workers as well as the standards for gender equality or environmental protection rules. In addition, the ‘Think small first’ principle must not result in micro-enterprises and SMEs being exempt from legislation, though the legislation should take their interests and needs into consideration.

3.3.6

The Commission’s refusal to continue with the planned legislative initiative on hairdressers, even though there is agreement among the European social partners on this matter, is completely incomprehensible. The Commission’s approach is at odds with the principles and values of social dialogue, respecting the principle of representativeness, and is extremely short-sighted, because a lack of regulation in the area of occupational health can result in occupational diseases and thus considerable costs for both businesses and the public sector.

3.3.7

The EESC draws attention to the joint declaration of the European social partners on a new start for social dialogue, based on the outcomes of the thematic groups, which mentions the interaction between the EU social dialogue and the better regulation approach.

3.3.8

The EESC welcomes the launch of dialogue in the newly created REFIT platform. In addition to the objective of making it easier to do business and safeguarding standards for workers, both the Commission and the platform’s experts must ensure that consumer rights are protected in their efforts to simplify EU law.

3.4.1

The digital single market should be one of the priorities, given the benefits that can be expected if the single market in this area can be completed. Potential GDP gains from completing the DSM are estimated at EUR 415 billion per year (15).

3.4.2

The EESC agrees with the European Commission that existing legal uncertainties in the employment, economic and consumer fields need to be analysed and addressed. Consideration should be given here to safeguarding existing labour, social and consumer protection standards and ensuring a reliable legal framework for business. There should not be different rules for the ‘all-digital’ world and the ‘non-digital’ world in the digital single market. The Commission should provide legal standards that could be used for the digital and the non-digital single market.

3.4.3

In its opinion on ‘unjustified geo-blocking’ (16), the EESC welcomed the proposal for a regulation on geo-blocking, both for companies and for consumers, as an indispensable element of the Digital Single Market Strategy. It is, however, a small step, not a game-changer. The practice of geo-blocking, i.e. discrimination against consumers in terms of their access to online services on the grounds of residence or their geographical internet address or nationality, must come to an end. Redirecting consumers to a local website with higher prices also constitutes discrimination in the single market. The EESC will deal with the conclusions reached by COMPET in November 2016 on the general approach to the proposed text, stressing clearly the need to distinguish between price discrimination and price differentiation.

3.4.4

In areas such as geo-blocking, cross-border parcel delivery, cross-border insurance, copyright licensing and financial markets, it must be considered that the European Union and Member States are mainly responsible for removing barriers to cross-border trade and ensuring a better functioning of the market.

3.4.5

The free flow of data calls for greater protection of personal data and privacy which will be crucial in the future, and consideration should be given to a coherent policy on big data, cloud services and the Internet of things.

3.4.6

The increasing digitalisation of the economy generates new business models opens up new opportunities, but it also poses new challenges. The EESC has had in-depth discussions about this new phenomenon, resulting in a number of opinions (17).

3.4.7

The Commission should also move forward with its proposal for the Single Digital Gateway, to make this instrument truly effective.

3.4.8

Social and collaborative entrepreneurship is crucial to social cohesion, in order to guarantee Europeans more efficient and sustainable economic growth. The EESC once again urges the Commission to undertake a whole raft of indispensable policy measures in order to ensure that the numerous variations of the sharing economy and the different ways it operates are supported, implemented, and gain credibility and trust at EU level and in the various Member States (18).

3.5.1

In 2015, the Commission announced an action plan on building a European Capital Markets Union. The Committee (19) believes that this union should prioritise economic and financial stability in the EU and lead to better and more efficient capital allocation, with a positive impact on investment and growth, as well as on employment and consumers. At that time, the Committee (20) also expressed its concern that it would take time to achieve the end result, and in the light of certain recent developments such as Brexit and others mentioned above (see point 2), this concern will only increase further.

3.5.2

The action plan comprises at least 33 measures to be implemented in various areas in the short and medium term. Several of these measures make additional funding available, particularly for SMEs and households. The Committee considers (21) that these proposals should be implemented in the short term, taking into account the principles of safety, transparency and enforcement. With a similar concern for safety and stability, the Committee (22) has on a number of occasions stated that shadow banks should be addressed and regulated.

3.5.3

The EU’s regulation of financial markets and the enforcement thereof were not sufficient to prevent the speculative operations, over-indebtedness and irresponsible risk-taking which led to the financial crisis, with serious consequences for the whole of society. The EESC reminds the Commission to bring forward a proposal concerning the debt overload of private households.

3.6.1

As the EESC argued back in 2012 in its report on ‘Obstacles to the European single market’, regulatory gaps in taxation policy lead to unfair competition. The European Commission’s plans for a common consolidated corporate tax base are to be welcomed. The EESC set up a study group on this issue. In order to end the race to the bottom on corporate tax and to achieve a fairer tax policy, the introduction of a minimum corporate tax rate could also be envisaged.

3.6.2

The exchange of tax-related information between Member States and legal steps to block the most common methods used to avoid paying tax should be welcomed. A key demand here is to introduce in each country a reporting requirement for businesses operating across borders without increasing unnecessary administrative burdens.

3.6.3

Action should also be taken against tax havens. At a European Parliament hearing, Joseph Stiglitz, the economist and Nobel prize winner, called for worldwide action against such tax evasion systems (23).The French academic Gabriel Zucman has estimated that financial assets of around EUR 5 800 billion are located in tax havens around the world, 80 % of which are untaxed (24). The Commission is now suggesting measures at international level to deal with tax havens.

3.6.4

As a first step, it must be ensured that mutual assistance agreements are implemented and the automatic exchange of information between individual countries is carried out. An international network of tax audits should be considered for multinational companies. In the case of asset and capital transfers to countries classified as tax havens, obliging the financial institutions to report the transfers they are making is a possible starting point (25).

3.7.1

The EESC has already highlighted existing barriers in the services sector in its 2012 report on obstacles to the single market. The Commission has found that many Member States are not meeting their obligation to notify the EU authorities of regulatory measures, making it difficult for the Commission to assess whether a new rule is justified and proportionate.

3.7.2

The Commission is therefore planning to reform the notification procedure, which should now also apply to the services currently excluded from the scope of the Services Directive. The Commission has to take care that the proposals are not set up such that they bring the sovereignty or the democratic principle of the Member States into question.

3.7.3

Services of general interest play a key role in the social market economy. The availability of housing, water and energy, waste and sewage disposal services, public transport, healthcare, social services, youth and family services, culture and communication is vital for the public. Services of general interest have a place among the EU’s shared values, and play a part in fostering social and territorial cohesion. This role of promoting social and territorial cohesion should be taken into account as part of the ‘principles and conditions’.

3.7.4

In connection with the planned reform of the Services Directive, the EESC highlights protocol No 26 of the EU Treaty concerning services of general interest, that is, the legally binding interpretation of Article 14 TFEU: Member States’ national, regional and local authorities have wide discretion in services of general economic interest because of their cultural, social and geographical differences. As regards these services, which are to be made available according to the needs of the users, a high level of quality, safety, affordability and equal treatment should be ensured and universal access and users’ rights promoted, ensuring their efficiency and proper management at the same time.

3.8.1

As regards public procurement, there are no statistics on the actual costs compared with the costs submitted by the best tenderer in the tendering process. In many cases, there are significant cost overruns (26).

3.8.2

Time and time again, the winners are tenderers operating unfairly, who lower the costs of their tenders below a fair price and use unreliable subcontractors. Subsequently, there are often follow-up costs, which exceed the price of the second or third best tenderer.

3.8.3

In order to curb this practice, several measures are required: the introduction of an electronic procurement process should create a statistical collection capability that should make it possible to identify low bidders and encourage those responsible to behave positively. Within the framework of the statistical survey, the best tender price and the subsequent actual costs incurred must be recorded centrally in order to create transparency with regard to possible cost overruns. Bids based on prices that do not meet minimum requirements as set out in the respective national provisions and practices must be excluded from the tender in order to avoid a possible rush to reduce costs and quality standards.

21.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/10

Rapporteurs:

Jacek KRAWCZYK

Gabriele BISCHOFF

Luca JAHIER

1.1

Following the request from the President of the European Commission to the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) for an EESC contribution to the consultation on a European Pillar of Social Rights (‘EPSR’) (1), the Committee engaged in broad civil society (2) consultations in the 28 Member States. In total, some 116 EESC Members and close to 1 800 other representatives of civil society organisations participated in these national debates.

1.2

The EESC’s opinion on the European Pillar of Social Rights reflects and has integrated the principal conclusions and recommendations of these national debates. The Committee notes the Commission’s intention to ‘… express a number of essential principles to support well-functioning and fair labour markets and welfare systems’ (3) and considers the EPSR to be a very important initiative for the sustainability of the EU. Within this context, this EESC Opinion constitutes a first step in the ongoing process towards the establishment of an EPSR. The Committee states its intention to continue contributing to discussions on this topic, notably subsequent to the adoption of the Commission’s White Paper in 2017.

2.1

In 2017, the European Union will mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome. This landmark anniversary offers an occasion to celebrate the EU’s achievements, but must also be the occasion to address Europe’s major political, economic and social challenges. Citizens’ trust in the European Union has diminished in many Member States. For the first time in its history, the Union will probably see a Member State breaking away.

2.2

Since the shock of the 2008 financial crisis, the European Union has continued to experience a series of subsequent crises. Although situations vary among Member States and there have been different policy responses, today the EU is facing numerous challenges which include: a prolonged period of high unemployment, unacceptable levels of youth unemployment, economic instability and deterioration in the social situation including increased poverty and inequality levels. To this can be added globalisation, demographic developments and digitalisation. The inability of the Union to deal adequately with the influx of asylum-seekers and migrants has added to the general sentiment that the EU can no longer provide both political and practical solutions that work in the interests of all. Eurosceptic, populist and nationalist parties seek to capitalise on these fears by offering simplistic solutions to complex problems, pointing a finger at certain sections of our communities and creating dangerous divisions in society.

2.3

Some of the challenges and divergences among and within the Member States were made worse by the crisis. They result from or are exacerbated by, inter alia, a lack of growth and structural weaknesses in our labour markets and social protection systems, which to a large extent predated the crisis. What will make the difference is the collective capacity of the EU and its Member States to create the conditions for sustainable growth and employment.

2.4

The EESC welcomes the Commission’s initiative of launching a public consultation on a European Pillar of Social Rights, as part of the effort to secure ‘a fair and truly pan-European labour market’ to achieve a ‘triple-A social Europe’ and to serve as a compass for renewed convergence within the euro area. However, there is much uncertainty about what this ‘Pillar’ is ultimately intended to be. Above all, the EESC stresses that the European Pillar of Social Rights must result in a positive project for all. This way it can contribute to regaining trust in the EU’s ability to improve life prospects for current and future generations.

2.5

To this end, the Pillar must also address the specific challenges occurring in the labour market and social protection systems with a view to achieving a fair balance between the economic and social dimension, as well as contributing to the fight against poverty, social exclusion and inequalities.

2.6

The EESC acknowledges that the European economic and social model is based on the shared understanding of the importance of increasing employment, social progress and productivity, as the underlying key factors for sustainable economic growth, which benefits everyone in a fair manner. The process of preparing the Pillar is an opportunity to reaffirm our shared commitment to the European social model, while ensuring that national welfare systems and labour markets are adaptable and fit for the future (4). The EESC emphasises the need for growth and competitiveness in the whole of the EU. In this context, the EESC stresses the necessary interlinkage between economic, employment and social policy (5).

2.7

The EESC is convinced that EU and national policies and actions aiming to achieve economic success and social progress need to become more central in the EU policy debates. Moreover, achieving coherent and mutually reinforcing EU and national policymaking is important. As part of these efforts, a new mindset towards change is necessary.

2.8

Whereas the European Semester process continues, the Europe 2020 Strategy aiming at ‘smart, sustainable, inclusive growth’ has become marginalised and the hopes for achieving its social targets, notably of the objectives of achieving 75 % employment participation rates, or lifting 20 million people out of poverty, have faded away. Similarly, the 2008 Active Inclusion Recommendation (6) has had a limited impact.

2.9

As a starting point, the Pillar should promote the existing EU social acquis and its full and proper enforcement. Where new binding legislative initiatives and instruments are considered, this must be done in line with existing legal bases and procedures. The legal status of the Pillar is yet to be determined, as is also its relationship to the core international human rights instruments (7). However, the EESC stresses that social rights must apply to everyone living in the EU and in all EU Member States, while acknowledging that particular instruments/mechanisms may be needed for the euro area.

2.10

Investment in the future is crucial but Europe continues to suffer from a lack of public and productive private investment. The EESC recognises the efforts made by the ‘Juncker Plan’ for investment (8) and welcomes its extension. In the second phase, greater investment must be targeted towards the countries and regions which need it the most, to boost their economies and growth and avoid even greater divergence between and within Member States. Investment projects in social infrastructure should also be supported sufficiently through the Juncker Plan.

2.11

The discussions on the Pillar are taking place in parallel with other key debates at EU and global level, notably on the future of Europe and the future of work. The discussions on the future of Europe at the Rome Summit in 2017 should take into account the debates surrounding the European Pillar of Social Rights. The EESC emphasises the need for synergy and coherence in these discussions which will shape our common future. The development of the Pillar should take account of the Europe 2020 Strategy and learn from its problematic implementation. It should also be linked to an overarching EU strategy (9) to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations in 2015, with its Sustainable Development Goals. These set out an agenda for global transformational change to end poverty, protect the planet, ensure protection of human rights including the human rights of persons with disabilities as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which EU and Member States are obliged to implement, and guarantee prosperity for all (10). At EU level, effort must also be made to ensure that all EU anti-discrimination and gender legislation (11) is implemented.

2.12

In parallel with the Commission’s public consultation, the EESC launched a series of national debates in the 28 Member States to raise awareness about the initiative beyond Brussels, stimulate debate and openly discuss how the Pillar should be developed. Many of the outcomes of these national debates are reflected in this opinion.

2.13

It is imperative to better define the scope of the Pillar. The EESC is of the view that this initiative should include all citizens, covering all phases of the life-cycle. The EESC is concerned about the lack of reference to asylum-seekers and migrants in the Commission’s communication on the Pillar.

2.14

The role of civil society must be better recognised and reinforced. Civil dialogue needs to be strengthened to ensure that people, including young people (12) and those in vulnerable situations or facing discrimination, feel that they are able to participate in the design, implementation and review of policymaking processes. The social partners have a specific role to play in the elaboration and implementation of policies directly or indirectly affecting employment and labour markets. Social dialogue must be promoted and supported, while respecting the autonomy of the social partners and collective bargaining and increasing the social partners’ capacity to engage in social dialogue. The proper involvement of social partners and civil society in the discussions concerning the Pillar was underlined in many national debates (13). In three debates, the importance of creating a consensual approach and ownership was underlined (14).

3.1

The EESC is convinced that the future of work should be a key priority within the debates about the Pillar, in order to address the major changes taking place in the world of work. The EESC believes that a more consistent and integrated approach is now needed and therefore calls for a coherent European Employment Strategy on, inter alia, the work of the future, addressing:

3.2

The task of shaping and managing the transformations taking place in the world of work is shared among several institutional actors. All relevant stakeholders must work together to ensure that the future of work is fair and inclusive, offering employment opportunities for all and leading to social progress. The EESC is convinced that a well-educated, well-skilled and motivated workforce with a decent income and access to quality jobs is in everyone’s interest. Securing positive future outcomes will depend on the necessary investment to provide people with the tools needed to adapt to these changes, provide adequate safety nets and foster innovation, not least social innovation.

3.3

The changes in the world of work should be used to ‘promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all’ (16). This goal should be addressed by the EU, the Member States and the social partners in their different roles. Civil society organisations representing people distanced from the labour market should also be involved. The preconditions for the creation of more and quality jobs are unevenly distributed among and within the Member States. The EESC urges the institutional actors of the Member States to move rapidly towards a ‘high-road’ strategy combined with an active labour market policy. This should be supported by a revamped and inclusive European Employment Strategy and a coherent and ambitious European Industrial Strategy.

3.4

The EESC has already appreciated rooting the EU agenda for new skills and jobs (17) in the notion of flexicurity and has underscored the need to strike the right balance between internal and external flexicurity in the interests of both a more efficient labour market and the protection of workers. It has also underlined the importance of actively involving the social partners in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of flexicurity policies (18). Moreover, the EESC has underlined that sound macroeconomic policies fostering employment growth as well as a favourable business environment realising and supporting the full growth potential, are important pre-conditions for flexicurity to work. The EESC has also encouraged Member States and the EU to create and maintain a legal framework conducive to adaptability, which is simple, transparent and predictable, as well as to strengthen and uphold employees’ rights and the justiciability, and to promote through the EU a stable legal framework for collective bargaining and social dialogue when implementing flexicurity. It has also underlined that it is important for the social partners to be actively involved in the debate and the decision-making process on flexicurity (19). Balancing flexibility and security (20), as well as the labour market’s ability to adapt to new challenges, was addressed and emphasised in the national debates in a number of Member States (21).

3.5

The framework conditions in labour markets need to support new and more diverse career paths. Different forms of sourcing labour and different forms of working are needed in working life. This requires providing a suitable employment protection legislation environment to provide a framework for fair working conditions and to stimulate recruitment under all employment contracts.

3.6

The changes occurring in the world of work are many and multi-faceted. We must find ways to ensure secure transitions between jobs, statuses and from unemployment to employment, as well as from education to work, for the whole workforce. People’s ability to make the necessary transitions at different stages of their lives and the availability of the frameworks and support mechanisms to enable them to do so will determine the society we live in and our economic prosperity. The EESC proposes to discuss in a holistic manner the frameworks and support mechanisms to support these transitions.

3.7

Rapid technological advances are also shaping the way we live and work. Pro-active policymaking at the EU and national levels can and must ensure that the opportunities provided by digitalisation can be unlocked while the pitfalls are avoided or mitigated (22). In the national debates, digitalisation, along with frequent references to the need for the necessary investment in training and infrastructure (23), was widely identified as one of the main challenges that should be reflected in the Pillar (24). The impact of these developments on the labour market and standards, economy, tax and social security systems and on the living wage must, therefore, be carefully assessed (25).

3.8

The Digital Agenda and the Digital Single Market initiative should be connected to a new overarching approach to the future of work. This must address the economic, employment and social challenges, including the objective of providing the necessary skills and a level playing field. The EESC believes this can best be achieved in accordance with the Treaties through a rights-based approach at the appropriate level, supporting access to, among others, education and social protection and better EU coordination in areas where it has no legislative competence.

3.9

As the EESC has already emphasised, ‘cooperation is key’ (26) when addressing the challenges of digitalisation. In this context, the EESC addresses, in particular, the European Commission and the European governance level as a whole, national governments, the social partners and wider civil society as a whole. The EESC has already recommended that the European Commission, the OECD and the ILO should work together with the social partners at all appropriate levels and wider civil society organisations, to develop appropriate provisions on decent working conditions and the protection required to take account of new forms of work (such as online work, the gig and sharing economies) (27).

3.10

Particular attention should be paid to increasing youth employment levels. As already stated in previous EESC opinions, specific measures to combat youth unemployment should be taken within the national reform programmes (28). Well-functioning apprenticeships and other quality forms of work-based learning (WBL) systems can help young people to make a smoother transition from school to employment (29). The EESC has supported the idea of the establishment of youth guarantee schemes in the Member States being funded through a specific Youth Employment Initiative Fund, within the Multiannual Financial Framework and appreciated its creation (30).

3.11

The role of social dialogue was emphasised in many of the national debates (31). The EESC is concerned that there are a number of countries without an adequate social dialogue (32), as well as countries/sectors where employers and employees are not represented in the social dialogue and not involved in collective bargaining. This should be taken into consideration (33), as well as the need to foster a solution-oriented social dialogue contributing positively to worker protection and the competitiveness of enterprises. Collective bargaining should be promoted at all appropriate levels; and to monitor this, the EESC recommends collecting data on the coverage of collective bargaining throughout Europe, through indicators in the European Semester, while fully respecting national practices and industrial relations systems.

3.12

Technological progress is creating new job opportunities, but jobs will also be destroyed. The extent to which this will occur is disputed and recent outlook studies differ (34).

3.13

In any case, investment in people must be at the core of any future of work strategy. The level of competences and skills, notably digital skills, will be instrumental in equipping citizens and workers for the future. The introduction of a ‘skills guarantee’ (35), supported by the necessary investment, could provide the framework to empower people to acquire the necessary skills, throughout their lives. Access to quality education which is inclusive of all EU citizens, including vocational education, life-long learning, and opportunities for re-skilling and up-skilling will be the foundation for this.

3.14

Technological change can enhance skills development, but may also have the potential to speed up the process of skills obsolescence for workers in many occupations. In addition to educational actors, business, working with trade unions, Cedefop and governments must also play their part in ensuring that competences and skills are developed to match demands in the changing world of work (36), also by increasing the responsiveness of national education and training systems to changing skills needs. This must be done in a coherent way. The development of competence takes time and needs sufficient resources and greater and more efficient investment in education and training is urgently required. The different impacts/outcomes that education and welfare systems have in European countries and regions must also be taken into consideration.

3.15

New forms of work are developing so rapidly that contractual arrangements cannot keep pace, which is why their legal status must be looked at. The EESC has called for urgent clarification of the status of labour market intermediaries and online platforms, as well as an investigation into the contractual status of crowd workers and other new forms of work and employment relationships. Guidelines are also necessary to clarify possible grey zones linked to employment status in relation to taxation and social insurance (37). The overall objective must be guaranteeing fair working conditions for all and aiming to ensure that all workers are covered by fundamental labour standards and adequate social protection.

3.16

The social partners, in particular, are in focus when it comes to promoting negotiated flexibility and stability of work at all appropriate levels, but this needs a commitment of governments and the European governance-level, in addition to improving cooperation between EU institutions, governments and social partners. The EESC has already stated that the EU and Member States, in consultation with the social partners, should consider strategies for adjusting the scope of social and labour standards so that they reflect the conditions of a digitalised working environment (38).

3.17

The ‘sharing economy’ and other new employment models should not be used as a means of avoiding decent wages, or meeting tax and social security obligations (39). The EESC has also already suggested that the EU should consider ways in which the development of EU platforms can be encouraged in such a way that the value created remains in local economies (40).

3.18

Convergence of wages and establishing minimum wages in the Member States were raised by participants in some of the national debates (41). The EESC believes that further efforts are needed in this direction. The ILO study Building a Social Pillar for European convergence  (42) is a useful reference point. It highlights that a range of indicators can be used to compare minimum wage levels, which take into account national circumstances, but the most popular is the ratio of minimum to median (or mean) wages. Further, it states that the adoption of a common approach to minimum wage policy at the EU level could help to limit the extent of poverty in the enlarged Union and limit the proportion of people on low pay within national contexts. It suggests that that a starting point could be a tripartite analysis at the national level of minimum wage coverage, level and compliance such as referred to in ILO instruments. The ILO study also states that the findings of a number of studies highlight the importance of a balanced approach — as emphasised in Convention No 131 — with respect to the elements to be considered when determining the level of a minimum wage that, so far as possible and appropriate in relation to national practice and conditions, include: (a) the needs of workers and their families, taking into account the general level of wages in the country, the cost of living, social security benefits, and the relative living standards of other social groups; and (b) economic factors, including the requirements of economic development, levels of productivity and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment. Further discussions on these issues are needed and should be undertaken in the context of the development of the Social Pillar. The EESC stresses that the key competence and autonomy of the national social partners in regard to wage-setting processes must be fully respected, in accordance with national practices. The need to respect the division of competences and the subsidiarity principle, as well as the role of social partners in setting the level of minimum wages (43) was also referred to in some national debates. Overall, the EESC has already stated that convergence did not occur among euro area Member States, despite the expectations of an endogenous optimal currency area (44).

3.19

In some national debates it was recognised that demographic changes (45) and changing patterns in society are other factors profoundly affecting the world of work. Active labour market policies (ALMP) need to be effective and targeted in order to reach good employment outcomes. In one country, focussing on the possibility of involving private agencies to improve active assistance to job seekers was discussed (46). Employment and labour market policies in Europe must continue to implement tangible measures to put the principle of non-discrimination in the workplace into practice and to ensure equality of all groups of workers (47).

3.20

Gender equality is a central element of securing fair working conditions for all. In addition to having more women in the labour market, ageing populations and longer working lives are likely to entail increased caring responsibilities over the life cycle. Flexibility in working life, working time and a sustainable work-life balance will be of increasing significance to all workers. The EESC has already highlighted that reconciling family and work responsibilities needs coordination across a range of areas such as care provision, parental leave and family-friendly workplaces (48). The EESC calls for an integrated approach between legislative and non-legislative measures to be introduced at the appropriate level to promote work-life balance in the Member States. It is important that sufficient investments are targeted to accessible and affordable care facilities. This will contribute to increasing employment participation overall, notably among women and also for full-time work.

3.21

Particular attention should be paid to the labour market integration of vulnerable sectors of society and minorities. The economic, social and cultural situation of Roma people is not improving in most Member States and, as stated in an EESC report, the Roma Strategy should be consistently included in the European Semester (49).

3.22

Sustainable pension systems are of key importance taking into account the ageing of European societies. The Commission has stated that increasing retirement ages in line with gains in life expectancy combined with efforts to promote active ageing not only allows for a substantial reduction in pension expenditures, but also allows for accruing higher pension entitlements. However, the EESC has previously criticised the Commission’s proposal that the retirement age should be indexed to increasing life expectancy and instead proposed measures that bring the actual retirement age closer to the statutory retirement age (50). As stated by the Social Protection Committee, reducing unemployment and encouraging people to stay in labour markets longer today, including through raising the labour market participation of women, will be crucial for the future sustainability and adequacy of pension benefits (51). For example, a European comparative pension sustainability and adequacy index would be a helpful benchmark to underpin Member States’ efforts to reform their pension systems and to reduce poverty.

3.23

The aim of making people work longer needs to be accompanied by a life-cycle approach encompassing good working conditions, including health and safety and working-time policies, and encouraging people to pursue life-long learning opportunities. A longer working career up to retirement age with a decent income during working years, resulting in a decent pension, and policies that make a smooth transition to retirement for older workers possible is also a requisite: the evolution of the way we work is also a key factor in this respect.

3.24

The standards of social security in the EU differ greatly, depending on the different systems and traditions. The EESC has advocated clearer EU strategic priorities in social policy and to frame general social policy principles as part of a solid work programme. The EESC has also referred to the need to aspire to a binding social protection floor (52) and proposes to define high-level standards at appropriate levels while taking duly into account both sustainability and adequacy requirements. Better exchange of best practices is required for a more inclusive social security net for everyone living legally in the EU. In the context of the challenges of Work 4.0 and the advent of new forms of employment and semi-employment it is essential to reflect and decide how Member States can reform their social security systems so as to develop the unemployment insurances into inclusive employment insurances that can work as a future safety-belt and also facilitate employment and decent work. It is important to ensure that work is a more attractive option than being on benefits, by creating the right incentives for people to be better off working while securing income security for people who do not find work. Benchmarking in this area could add value for Member States to improve, where needed, eligibility conditions, benefits duration and levels.

3.25

As far back as 2009, the EESC emphasised that Europe needs to regain its position as a leader in research and innovation. It underlined that performance in the scientific and technical fields, and their application in a competitive globalised economy would ensure that Europe has a future in the global industrial arena. Furthermore, it emphasised that a social climate that is open to progress is a prerequisite for innovation (53). Creative entrepreneurship that leads to job opportunities also plays a key role in shaping an innovation-friendly environment. Civil society has a key role to play in this process.

3.26

The EESC sees a connection between the capacity for innovation in the workplace and workers’ participation. Moreover, ‘good’ and ‘sustainable’ business management must be built on the internal market’s tried and tested legal structures and practices of employee involvement based on information, consultation and also, where applicable, co-determination (54). Provisions on obligatory employee involvement should be consolidated and applied universally in EU law on the basis of standards already achieved (55).

3.27

Climate change presents major environmental and social challenges for Europe and the rest of the world. The future of work will also be shaped by the urgent need to transform our economies, industries and jobs to safeguard the planet. The EESC welcomes the EU’s ratification of the Paris Agreement and has called for a coalition of civil society and subnational authorities to deliver on the COP21 commitments (56). Delivery of these commitments must be in line with EU commitments to reduce poverty. Supporting just transition, decent work and employability will require investment in resources to support communities and workers in sectors that are already being affected by this transition, as well as to anticipate and facilitate future restructuring and transition into a greener and more sustainable economy. The Investment Plan for Europe should support projects in line with the COP21 commitments.

4.1

Both social and economic imbalances pose a threat to the EU. They undermine social cohesion and political credibility, and hamper economic progress. The EESC has previously set out its views on the need to tackle poverty as a priority and to make the fight against poverty and social exclusion one of the Pillar’s major components (57).

4.2

While acknowledging that poverty reduction is primarily the competence of the Member States, the EESC also urges the EU Council to reiterate the commitment to the Europe 2020 Strategy’s poverty reduction target whilst pursuing a more integrated approach. This means that poverty reduction should be systematically addressed through the European Semester process and that the Europe 2020 Strategy should be linked with the 2030 Agenda (58). Economic growth and competitiveness are essential, therefore a macroeconomic policy that helps to create decent jobs is important to reduce inequality and poverty.

4.3

The EESC has previously stated that the longer the savings-oriented policy — primarily focussed on making spending cuts — continues without adequate measures to generate growth, social cohesion and solidarity, it will become increasingly clear that Europe’s economic integration and prosperity is at risk from growing social inequalities (59). The EESC calls for renewed efforts to promote the concept of social investment throughout all relevant policy fields (60). The EESC believes that further consideration needs to be given to how to link the ‘Juncker Plan 2’ with the Social Investment Package objectives. Moreover, it has called for a European Social Investment Pact (61), which would support social reforms and social investments and help to bring about renewed economic, social and territorial convergence.

4.4

The EESC welcomed the Commission’s Social Investment Package, which appeared to signal a paradigm shift towards a stronger focus on social investment, viewed not as a cost but as an investment in Europe’s growth and employment potential (62). The EESC regrets that more has not been done to effectively implement these objectives. Social investment offers economic and social returns over time, in terms of increased employment or labour incomes, improved health, reduced unemployment, better education, less poverty and social exclusion, etc. It also improves individuals’ prosperity and well-being, while boosting the economy by ensuring a more skilled workforce, higher productivity and employment. Such investment, especially when growth-enhancing would also contribute to strengthening people’s skills and qualifications, improve their opportunities in society and the labour market, as well as stimulating the economy, helping the EU to emerge from the crisis stronger and more competitive. Moreover, it would ensure more efficient and effective public spending, leading to savings in public budgets in the medium to long term.

4.5

The EESC has already welcomed the fact that the important role of the social economy, social enterprises, civil society and the Social Partners for implementing the social investment package is expressly recognised by the European Commission (63).

4.6

The EESC has already expressed its view that the establishment of a European minimum income under a framework directive would help to combat social exclusion, ensure economic and territorial cohesion, protect the fundamental rights of the individual, guarantee a balance between economic and social objectives and distribute wealth and income fairly. It reiterates its call for the Commission to examine funding possibilities for a European minimum income and the establishment of an appropriate fund (64).

4.7

The EESC reiterates the view that sustainable, effective and efficient social welfare systems are of the utmost importance for all societies in the EU. They are vital means to maintain social and territorial cohesion, solidarity, stability in society, as well as supporting economic growth. Welfare systems also have an important function as automatic stabilisers, as was evidenced during the crisis. While recognising that the decision on the structure and content of social policies are primarily competencies of the Member States, national and EU initiatives should aim to render more efficient and enhance social protection systems covering social security, social assistance and social services, healthcare and housing provision (65). As indicated by the Council and Social Protection Committee, Member States should maintain their efforts to improve the performance of social protection systems and ensure that they deliver better social outcomes while maximising the positive impact of employment and growth (66).

4.8

National social security institutions and public authorities bear the responsibility for ensuring universal, quality affordable and accessible social services. The State must accredit, invest in and supervise access to the provision of these services, which may be provided by public authorities, non-profit or for-profit actors, as is already the case in several EU countries. Representative civil society organisations, notably the social partners, social enterprises and mutuals play an important role. This role extends to the drafting, implementation, provision and surveillance of social security, health insurance and social assistance schemes. Furthermore, closer cooperation between all actors can contribute to more effective and better use of public resources in the delivery of social policies. This should also include the possibility of making use of partnerships between public authorities and private actors while respecting the features of national systems.

4.9

The EESC is of the opinion that stronger and more transparent dialogue is needed between relevant actors to make and transform social protection systems more sustainable in terms of prioritising resources into effective, efficient and relevant public investment, in the full respect of and with the aim of promoting social rights and, in particular, the fundamental principles of social security systems of the member states.

4.10

The transition to Work 4.0 must be accompanied by a parallel transition to Welfare 4.0. The crisis, slow growth and high level of unemployment, as well as a combination of a growing ageing population and a shrinking workforce, are challenging the sustainability and adequacy of social protection systems. In parallel, social services are increasingly in demand, notably as a result of ageing populations, but the resources to meet this demand are limited. Reforms are therefore essential to put in place effective and economically efficient social protection systems, social policies and services. The Pillar must not only be responsive to capturing the transformations that occur in the world of work but should also aim to support Member States in providing appropriate solutions in response to the important changes occurring regarding welfare systems, social policies and services. The key objectives should be safeguarding their quality, sustainability, accessibility, affordability and adequacy for all who depend on them, through appropriate regulatory frameworks and policies.

4.11

The EESC also recognises that continuous pressure on public budgets, demographic and societal changes and emerging new social challenges have, in many Member States, generated new and innovative forms of organisation for the financing and delivery of benefits and services. This phenomenon, called social innovation, is driven by the necessity to address unmet social needs. It is complementary to the traditional welfare provision by the State, by mobilising various social and economic actors and financial resources working in cooperation with local authorities. However, it must not replace the responsibility and role of the State and its different public components in ensuring universal access to quality, affordable, sustainable and accessible services for EU residents in accordance with national practices. Social innovation creates social capital and strengthens the role of local communities. It is recommended that the European Commission and Member States ensure that major instruments such as public procurement and the European Structural and Investment Funds are effectively employed to support social innovation and social economy enterprises.

4.12

On numerous occasions, the EESC has highlighted the particular and important role played by the social economy, including social enterprises, in delivering economic and social solutions (67). The sector constitutes a key element of the European social model and directly contributes to social and economic cohesion and change, to a fairer income and wealth distribution and active citizenship. More recently, the EESC has called for an EU action plan on the social economy (68).

4.13

In general, and within the sphere of the EU’s competences, the Pillar should aim to provide a common reference framework to benchmark and monitor the necessary national legal and policy framework to secure the right to good quality provisions, in particular of social protection benefits (69), including the availability, affordability and accessibility of social services as well as sustainability and effectiveness. This should apply to all branches of social security (70), as well as to all other social (protection) services.

4.14

In the same vein, the Pillar should aim to create the necessary incentives for the Member States to secure the portability of entitlements acquired in accordance with relevant national criteria thus ensuring free movement. Such acknowledgment could allow for a more adapted support for each individual to organise their professional and private lives. It would provide more respectful and flexible means to adapt to the life cycle of any EU citizen, in particular allowing for smooth transitions into, on and out of the labour market.

4.15

Additionally, the Pillar should be used to set benchmarks concerning the provision of essential services. Implementation strategies by Member States should be developed taking into account the specific socio-economic and fiscal situation of each country. Benchmarks should not be limited to the availability of services and should drive the implementation of the essential principles enshrined in Protocol 26 (universal access, quality, safety, affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of users’ rights). The voluntary European Quality Framework for social services and the European Quality Framework for early childhood education and care should be used as a reference in the development of benchmarks.

4.16

The principle of equal opportunities for all is enshrined in the European Treaties and must be fully and adequately reflected in an inclusive social pillar. As the EU acquis already provides for a common set of minimum standards for workers across Europe, they must be enforced. Equality and non-discrimination must be ensured for men and women and for all groups in our society, including people with disabilities, LGBTI people, people belonging to ethnic minorities and others who face discrimination.

4.17

Achieving higher levels of employment participation of diverse groups in Europe is essential in order to face demographic ageing and a shrinking working-age population. Progress is also needed in the promotion of equality and non-discrimination in other aspects of life, beyond work, such as access to goods and services, education, housing and healthcare. Within this context, it is hoped that the discussions on an EU Equal Treatment Directive on access to goods and services will be rapidly relaunched.

5.1

The EESC organised debates with organised civil society in all Member States between 2 September and 2 November 2016. The debates were coordinated by three EESC members (‘trios’) from the country concerned, often in cooperation with the European Commission (15 debates) or the national Economic and Social Council (7 debates). Participants came from a wide range of employers’ organisations, trade unions and other civil society organisations, as well as, less frequently, academia. Overall, close to 1 800 representatives of civil society organisations participated in the 28 debates.

5.2

A set of key questions was used as a basis for the discussions in the majority of debates. The debates covered a wide variety of issues, reflecting the different national systems, priorities and circumstances. Following the debates, the coordinating trios prepared national reports which, in most cases, included Conclusions and/or Recommendations. The guidance questions were as follows:

5.3

The conclusions/recommendations of the trio Members’ country reports revealed that a number of common themes/topics were raised during the various debates. These are summarised in this section of the opinion.

5.3.1

In relation to the scope and format of the European Pillar of Social Rights:

5.3.2

Key themes raised in the conclusions/recommendations and linked to the European Commission’s preliminary outline of the EPSR:

5.4

The conclusions/recommendations also revealed that the principal point of divergence was whether the EPSR should foresee legislative measures. Participants within and amongst countries were divided on the issue with employers representatives (generally) not supporting the idea of further legislation and the trade union representatives (generally) taking the opposite view.

6.1.1

The European Pillar of Social Rights needs much more clarity concerning the content, processes, concrete initiatives for its implementation, funding and monitoring, in addition to clarity on the role for the different actors. The governance question is of utmost importance, respecting what is foreseen in the Treaties, including the principle of subsidiarity. Citizens have a right to know who is responsible and accountable for each decision.

6.1.2

As for the relevant actors and their role, the EESC emphasises that in labour market issues, a partnership between public authorities and social partners at EU and national levels is the key vehicle to improve policy progress towards broadly supported objectives. In the field of social protection, governments, public/regional/local authorities and different national institutions dealing with the organisation of social security as well as social service providers, play a central role. In addition, also the social partners often have a role and responsibilities in the elaboration and implementation of social protection schemes and in social services. Other stakeholders, such as social agencies can have expertise in particular in social assistance and can play a role and provide safety nets for a fringe of the population at risk of poverty.

6.1.3

The EESC stresses that the Pillar can become a positive project for Europe, and for all but only if its results are visible. In these times of crisis, the Pillar can be a good opportunity to demonstrate that the EU level is still capable of delivering a proper response, where appropriate, to the challenges faced by ordinary people, while fully respecting the division of competences and the principle of subsidiarity. In particular, the Pillar should serve to promote people’s well-being in line with the Treaty obligation for, among other things, ‘a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment’ (Article 3 TEU). In addition, the Pillar should contribute to better-functioning labour markets and social protection systems. At the same time, the EESC is worried about the lack of clarity of the Pillar in regard to its scope. The EESC fears that this can create even more uncertainty and frustration by raising expectations that will not or cannot be met (71).

6.2.1

The Commission proposes that the Pillar should first apply to the euro area, as it has already started a process for further integration and consolidation towards greater convergence. However, social provisions in the EU Treaties (72) cover all EU Member States. Reflecting what was stated in numerous national debates, the EESC is of the opinion that the Pillar should apply to all 28 EU Member States.

6.2.2

In an earlier opinion the EESC noted that socially sustainable macroeconomic policies are a precondition for a stronger economic recovery and for securing social cohesion. Also, a better consideration of economic realities is an essential precondition to achieve productive employment and well-designed social policies at EU and national levels, in a fair way between generations. The Committee welcomes the emphasis placed on the use of flexibility within the rules of the SGP, whereby the Commission will take into account certain public investments when calculating the fiscal deficit, but considers it a limited and partial measure (73).

6.3.1

The European Semester and the National Reform Programmes — which apply equally to non-euro area countries — should become the principal vehicles for the implementation and monitoring of the Pillar. However, given the additional macroeconomic monitoring mechanisms that exist within the European Semester for the euro area countries, it is possible that they may develop additional relevant benchmarks to support national reforms. The link between the Pillar and the European Semester was referred to in a number of national debates (74).

6.3.2

The EESC points out that some of the economic policy goals of economic governance of recent years must be brought more into line with the EU’s social policy objectives policy objectives under Article 4(2) TFEU (75). All measures under the European Semester — in accordance with the horizontal social clause (76) — must be subject to a social impact assessment. These results should be made public and discussed at national and European level (77).

6.3.3

The EESC has previously stated that during the European Semester, employment and social goals should be placed on an equal footing with macroeconomic considerations in the European Semester (78). It has also recommended that there should be comparable and common indicators, e.g. on poverty and inequality, as well as mandatory social impact assessments of all reform agendas proposed by the national reform programmes (NRPs) and the country-specific recommendations (CSRs) (79).

6.3.4

The EESC calls for the rebalancing of the European Semester so that the existing scoreboard of key employment and social indicators are taken into account when formulating the CSRs.

6.3.5

The objective of having more convergence towards improving working and living conditions should be facilitated by specific targets, taking account of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Sustainable Development Goals and guiding the coordination of economic, employment and social policies.

6.4.1

The EESC is extremely concerned about the stability of the EU, since the necessary reforms — with or without treaty change — always occur only at the last minute and under intense pressure. What is needed is to strengthen social, political and economic cohesion in the EU once again and to continue coherent economic and monetary integration as a basis for a properly functioning EMU. A serious debate on a well-founded architecture for the EMU, requiring consensus on economic and social objectives, as well as agreed governance, is therefore unavoidable (80).

6.4.2

Social, political and economic cohesion must be enforced to strengthen the shock-absorption capacity of the Economic and Monetary Union. The EESC points out that divergence in the EMU economies must be given greater consideration and that balanced structural reforms in these countries must be introduced to reflect the requirements of a monetary union and in accordance with national requirements, in order to ensure the necessary convergence.

6.4.3

The EESC has already suggested how the EMU could be better designed and has submitted proposals for developing its democratic and social design, as quickly as possible within the framework of the Community method. This would bolster democratic resilience and meet the social obligations arising from the Treaties (81).

6.4.4

An economically sound EMU is of key importance. As previously stated by the EESC, in this context, the governments of the Member States have an important responsibility for the further development of a democratic and social EMU. The same applies to the social partners, both nationally and at European level, for whom the EMU provides the overarching framework for their respective systems for setting wages and organising labour market and social policy. As economic and social players, they play a key role as regards compliance with the EMU’s common stability target (82). Better involvement of the social partners can contribute to improved EMU governance. Their views on how to organise labour market and social policy should also be considered as part of the debates on the future of EMU (83). A strengthened and structured dialogue with civil society would also help to improve democratic resilience and governance.

6.4.5

The EESC is of the opinion that tackling persisting imbalances, as well as creating trust and confidence across Europe, require more effective and democratic economic governance, notably in the euro area (84).

6.5.1

The European Pillar of Social Rights should aim to contribute to the effective enforcement of the existing legal social acquis anchored in EU primary and secondary legislation in relation to employment and social rights, including in particular social protection and the effective supervision by labour inspection, among others, and the right to an effective remedy and access to justice. International legally binding sources of rights ratified by Member States for EU citizens should be fully respected.

6.5.2

The EESC believes that the Pillar provides for the opportunity to reaffirm the existing social acquis. Moreover, the process of developing the Pillar also gives scope to assess what works and what does not, what is missing and what should be improved in the EU’s and Member States’ approach so as to foster renewed social and economic convergence, sustainable growth and employment creation in the EU.

6.6.1

The European Fund for Strategic Investment and European Structural and Investment Funds are designed to play a crucial role in creating jobs and growth and in promoting territorial and social cohesion. The EESC is of the opinion that a more effective and efficient use of these funds is needed and that EU long-term investment in high-quality social infrastructure and services, including through the European Fund for Strategic Investments and the European Investment Bank should be prioritised and coupled to the implementation of the Pillar.

6.6.2

Within the limits of the Stability and Growth Pact, the EESC has presented different options and proposals. One could be a ‘golden’ or, indeed, ‘silver’ rule (85) for public investment, including in the social sector by Members States to add to EU public investment via a system of commonly agreed parameters which, in combination with the right structural reforms, would foster private investment (86).

6.6.3

Within the context of budgets and reviews of the Multiannual Financial Framework, the EESC believes it necessary to use, as already indicated by the Commission, 25 % of the European Structural and Investment Funds, namely the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund, to promote social investment in social, health, education and housing services and policies. Furthermore, some resources should be set aside at the EU level under the ESF as available funding to strengthen the social partners’ capacities. The European Commission should provide guidance to Member States on how to promote social investment in practice and on how to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the projects.

6.6.4

In 2014, the EESC referred to a redistributive mechanism to be used in the event of asymmetric shocks (87) and pointed out that the Union and in particular the euro area cannot ignore the social consequences of current economic policies by leaving them entirely up to individual countries. It emphasised the need to view education and training budgets as an investment in the future (88). Participants in some national debates discussed whether EU unemployment insurance or an adjustment fund was needed and could be feasible (89). These debates showed that views on this issue differ significantly and that these discussions also need to continue (90).

6.7.1

The reflections on the Pillar should also consider, where appropriate, the global dimension. The latest debates stemming from the ILO, Council of Europe, OECD and IMF are key, particularly in respect of evidence showing that inequality affects the durability of growth and that redistribution does not harm growth. Reflections should also recognise that the sustainability of the European social model is interlinked with improving the global competitiveness of Europe.

6.7.2

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was agreed by all Member States of the United Nations in 2015. As such the attainment of these goals is an obligation for the Member States of the European Union. The EESC believes that the Pillar could significantly contribute to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, especially concerning the goals 1 (No poverty), 3 (Good health and well-being), 5 (Gender equality) and 8 (Decent work and economic growth).

6.8.1

The EESC calls on the Commission to propose a clear and coherent strategy for the Pillar. The EESC agrees with the Employment Committee (EMCO) and the Social Protection Committee (SPC) which have stated that ‘the European Pillar of Social Rights should build on and improve existing instruments, including the European Employment Strategy (EES) and the Open Method of Coordination in the areas of Social Protection and Social Inclusion (social OMC), and on that basis serve as a compass for the process of fostering sustainable upward convergence in terms of employment and social outcomes, while respecting national competences’ (91). Designing new appropriate benchmarks on a limited number of key labour market and social challenges to assess progress can be part of this process. Establishing such a framework of cooperation would help Member States to achieve positive results through reforms (92) and contribute towards increased social cohesion.

6.8.2

Despite the clear risks, the EESC nevertheless still believes that the EU is capable of delivering a better, more democratic and social EU. The EESC will do whatever is necessary to support debates in the Member States and at the EU level to engage citizens ‘for a better future in Europe’. A fair globalisation, which provides a good life, sufficient employment opportunities and fair working conditions for all, can only be achieved if the EU keeps its unity and is able to act. To preserve its model of society, Europe must be able to adapt itself to changing realities to maximise opportunities for all. This is our alternative to protectionism, nationalism and populism.

21.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/27

Rapporteur:

Juan MENDOZA CASTRO

1.1

The EESC welcomes the package of measures to adapt copyright to the requirements of the digital economy.

1.2

The EU lacks an integrated copyright system. To establish such a system, the main objective is to eliminate fragmentation while, at the same time, enhancing protection for creators who are sometimes pitted against technological giants that dominate the markets.

1.3

The area of copyright is a highly complex one, owing to the presence of multiple stakeholders who have different interests but nevertheless need each other. Regulating copyright must serve to strike a balance between the rights of all these parties, avoiding bureaucracy and unnecessary requirements.

1.4

In view of the ‘gradual’ approach taken by the Commission, the EESC suggests revising and consolidating existing legislation, making amendments to other directives, considering whether it would be appropriate to propose measures covering internet search engines and the free broadcasting of content over Wi-Fi networks and regulating certain aspects by means of a regulation.

1.5

The Committee stresses that swift ratification by the EU of the Marrakesh Treaty on copyright in relation to the blind is important and necessary.

1.6

Online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and digital retransmissions of radio and television programmes: in the EESC’s view, the Commission proposal is appropriate and will promote the distribution of European film productions. The ‘country of origin’ principle is not incompatible with the territoriality of law and freedom of contract.

1.7

Adaptation of exceptions to the digital and cross-border environment: although the Commission proposals correctly pinpoint the problems, the EESC suggests making a number of amendments to them to adjust copyright more closely to current requirements. They are as follows:

1.8

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU states that, under certain conditions, the lending of a digital copy of a book has similar characteristics to the lending of printed works (5), satisfying repeated calls by users of libraries and educational institutions.

1.9

The proposal concerning the digitisation, distribution and cross-border use of out-of-commerce works (Title III, Chapter 1) should be welcomed.

1.10

The ‘freedom of panorama’ exception should be harmonised by means of European rules.

1.11

The Committee supports the exclusive related right of publishers to authorise or prohibit the digital use of their press publications for a period of twenty years.

1.12

The Committee agrees with the obligation on information society service providers storing and giving public access to large amounts of copyright-protected works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users to take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders or to prevent the availability on their services of such works or subject-matter ( value gap ).

1.13

In its view, the Commission proposal represents a step forward in the protection of authors’ rights, as authors are entitled to fair remuneration for their creative endeavours, to be associated with the commercial success of their works and to benefit from a high level of protection and funding of works.

1.14

Attention should be drawn to the need for civil society institutions to help raise users’ awareness of the requirement for compliance with copyright laws. The EESC supports the Commission’s efforts to combat piracy and any unlawful use of content protected by law.

2.1

The evolution of digital technologies has changed the way works and other protected subject-matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited. New uses have emerged as well as new actors and new business models. In the digital environment, cross-border uses have also intensified and new opportunities for consumers to access copyright-protected content have materialised.

2.2

Even though the objectives and principles laid down by EU legislation on copyright remain sound, there is a need to adapt the legislation to these new realities. Intervention at EU level is also needed to avoid fragmentation of the internal market.

2.3

Against this background, the Digital Single Market strategy (6) adopted in May 2015 identified the need ‘to reduce the differences between national copyright regimes and allow for wider online access to works by users across the EU’, highlighting the importance of enhancing cross-border access to copyright-protected content services, and also clarifying the role of online services in the distribution of works and other subject-matter.

2.4

In December 2015, the Commission issued a communication (7) outlining targeted actions and a long-term vision, and reflecting the need to press ahead with the single market in this area, update rules in accordance with digital realities, ensure that Europe’s creative industries remain competitive and strike the right balance between copyright and other public policy objectives.

2.5

Further to the recent proposal on cross-border portability (8), the Commission now proposes a set of legislative measures with three objectives:

2.6

First, the proposal for a regulation (9) aims at creating favourable conditions for new online and digital forms of cross-border distribution of television and radio programmes comparable to those applicable to the more traditional transmissions via satellite and retransmissions via cable. The new rules, inspired by those in force under the Satellite and Cable Directive (10), will make it simpler and faster to clear the rights that are needed for certain online services provided by broadcasters and for certain retransmission services. These rules aim to facilitate market development and wider dissemination of European radio and TV productions. This will, in turn, generate more consumer choice and cultural diversity.

2.7

In parallel, the proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (11) introduces a new negotiation mechanism that will make it easier to conclude licensing agreements to make audiovisual works available on video-on-demand (VoD) platforms. It is part of a broader policy drive to address the multiplicity of factors that lie behind the limited availability of European audiovisual works, notably films, across the EU.

2.7.1

Licensing issues and related legal and contractual difficulties hampering the exploitation of European audiovisual works on VoD services will also be addressed in a structured stakeholder dialogue aimed at streamlining licensing practices and facilitating industry agreements conducive to more sustained exploitation and wider availability of European works. The Commission will report on the results of the dialogue by the end of 2018.

2.7.2

Finally, the proposal for a directive also introduces ways of making it easier for cultural heritage institutions to license rights, as required for the digitisation and dissemination of works that are out-of-commerce but hold great cultural value. Access to works in non-commercial settings, such as educational organisations, public libraries or non-theatrical venues, is also very important for nurturing cultural diversity, for educational purposes and to encourage participation in society. Furthermore, the Commission is, together with European Film Agency Directors (EFADs) and the audio-visual industry, exploring the possibility of creating and funding a catalogue of European films for educational purposes in 2017.

2.8

In parallel, two legislative proposals (12) have been adopted for the implementation in EU law of the Marrakesh Treaty, which requires parties to introduce exceptions supporting people with print disabilities to access books and other print material in formats that are accessible to them. The proposal for a directive will establish a mandatory exception and ensure its functioning for the making and exchange of such accessible format copies within the Single Market. The proposal for a regulation will permit the cross-border exchange of such copies between the EU and third countries that are parties to the Treaty.

3.1

The EESC welcomes the package of measures to adapt copyright to the requirements of the digital economy.

3.2

European art has a leading position in the world, but film production, publishing and musical and artistic creation have to address market fragmentation, the immense richness of cultural and linguistic diversity, the digital transition and financial difficulties.

3.3

Simplifying the authorisation system should help to reduce fragmentation, facilitate cross-border access to online content and create more balanced protection of authors, particularly vis-à-vis the business giants controlling digital markets.

3.4

The area of copyright is a highly complex one, owing to the presence of multiple stakeholders who have different interests but nevertheless need each other. Regulating copyright must serve to strike a balance between the rights of all these parties.

3.5

The Commission is adopting a ‘gradual’ approach (13), proposing supplements to the existing rules rather than a comprehensive review. The EESC suggests considering:

4.1.1

In the EU, the radio and television programming and broadcasting sector comprises almost 12 000 companies and employs 255 000 people, with a turnover of EUR 66 500 million (19). Reform is needed because existing mechanisms to facilitate the authorisation of copyright and related rights do not cover online transmission or certain digital retransmissions.

4.1.2

The EESC agrees that the ‘country of origin’ principle should be included, as this is already the case with transmission by satellite (20) and as it is not incompatible with the territoriality of law and freedom of contract.

4.1.3

The EESC thinks that technologically neutral amendment of digital retransmission legislation should simplify the process of clearance of rights for new providers and hence improve access to key content for consumers.

4.1.4

Fittingly, the reform establishes that when difficulties arise in granting licenses, Member States are to ensure that an ‘impartial body’ facilitates agreements on access to and availability of audiovisual works on VOD platforms.

5.1

Europe’s libraries, museums and archives offer a cultural space for people and are fundamental for transmitting knowledge and for learning and research. They also make a major financial contribution in terms of copyright (22).

5.2

Due to the lack of harmonisation, complex laws, geographical barriers and language differences, European researchers are at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts in leading countries such as the US. The reform must therefore achieve three goals: broadening the scope and adapting it to new technological realities, establishing a uniform and mandatory approach and ensuring legal security by regulating exceptions and limitations (23).

5.3

The Hague Declaration (2014) highlights the enormous potential of text and data mining (TDM) for innovation and research. For researchers, SMEs and large technological companies, TDM is a key instrument, one that is underutilised in the EU owing to legal, technological and contractual constraints.

5.4

The Commission is proposing to introduce mandatory exceptions in various areas:

5.5

Although in its view the Commission proposals correctly pinpoint the problems, the EESC is proposing amendments to adjust the rules more closely to current requirements (see the conclusions). Amongst other things, it is important that the established exceptions to copyright are not rendered void by contractual agreements or technological tools. On the other hand, the copyright exception for scientific research for non-commercial purposes (Article 5(3)(a)) should be revised as it is deemed extremely difficult to apply (24).

5.6

The EESC also calls for harmonisation of the exception of ‘freedom of panorama’, allowing private individuals to take and share online pictures of works such as buildings or sculptures located in public areas. Even though it confirms the need for the exception, the Commission has decided to leave the possibility of implementation, on an optional basis, to the Member States.

5.7.1

The Committee stresses that swift ratification by the EU of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, which entered into force on 30 September 2016, is important and necessary. The Treaty will enable many European citizens who are blind or visually impaired to access more accessible works and thus open the door for them to culture, education and employment, hence ensuring effective social inclusion.

5.7.2

The proposals for a regulation (25) and directive (26) will allow the EU to fulfil an international obligation incumbent upon it under the Marrakesh Treaty. This is also consistent with the EU’s obligations under the UN Convention of the rights of persons with disabilities.

5.8

Licensing and wider access to content. As is appropriate, it will be possible to digitise and distribute out-of-commerce works first published in the EU (Article 7) and a licence granted in one Member State will be applicable throughout the EU (Article 8).

5.9.1

According to Article 11(1) and Article 11(4) of the proposed directive (27), Member States must provide press publishers — for twenty years — with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the digital use of their press publications.

5.9.2

The EESC supports this measure as a way of ensuring fair and equitable distribution of value between press publishers producing such information and the online platforms using it.

5.9.3

The EESC points out that while many press publishers — essential for democracy — are experiencing a financial crisis resulting in the closure of publications and huge job losses, the revenue of those who use their information is increasing (28).

5.10.1

Information society service providers that store and provide public access to large amounts of copyright-protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users will, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders in cooperation with the service providers. On the one hand, there will be measures such as ‘effective content recognition technologies’; on the other, these providers will provide rightholders with ‘adequate information’ and put in place complaints and redress mechanisms. Member States will facilitate cooperation between the parties (29).

5.10.2

The measure — one that the EESC considers adequate — aims to close the value gap which currently exists between rightholders and information society service providers, enabling such rightholders to take better decisions on the use of their products. There are examples of advertising-based services which do not provide sufficient reward for the use of copyright-protected material, while subscription-based online services do (30).

6.1

The EESC agrees with the Commission’s assertion that copyright infringements on a commercial scale, with infringers free-riding on the work and investment of others, are today a serious threat for European creators. Without an effective and balanced enforcement system, copyright and other intellectual property rights (IPR) are ill-protected and investment in creativity and innovation is throttled (31).

6.2

Authors are entitled to fair remuneration for their creative endeavours, to be associated with the commercial success of their works, and to benefit from a high level of protection and funding of works (32).

6.3

The proposal — which the EESC deems adequate — establishes measures designed to strengthen authors’ contractual powers. While Member States will have to guarantee the obligation of transparency, alongside contract adjustment and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, the reform strengthens the negotiating capacity of authors and artists (33).

6.4

It is worth pointing out the need for public and private civil society organisations to contribute in the relevant areas to raising users’ awareness of the fact that authors must be remunerated for their work under the framework established by law.

21.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/34

Rapporteur:

Stefan BACK

1.1

The EESC reiterates its support for the 2012 Action Plan for an innovative and competitive Security Industry (the Action Plan) (1).

1.2

The EESC also draws attention to the European Agenda on Security (the Security Agenda) (2) and once again voices its support for the action plan against illicit trafficking and use of firearms and explosives, as well as for the Proposal for a directive on combating terrorism (3)  (4).

1.3

Subject to the remarks below, the EESC now also welcomes the objective of the Commission Proposal for a Regulation establishing a Union certification system for aviation security screening equipment (5) (the Proposal) as a first step in implementing the Action Plan. It commends the Proposal's aim to put in place a type approval system for screening equipment with a one-stop shop certification in order to simplify the introduction of products on the market, reduce costs, increase market volume and improve the competitiveness of the European security product industry.

1.4

The EESC regrets, however, that the Proposal does not introduce a single EU approval authority with an integrated technical service, as this would have made for optimal efficiency and cost reduction. The EESC has serious doubts about the resource efficiency of the proposed option of splitting the technical services and approval authorities.

1.5

The EESC further regrets that the possibility provided in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 300/2008 (6) on common rules in the field of civil aviation security of prescribing more stringent requirements at national level than the basic level provided for under that regulation, which was expressly welcomed by the EESC in its opinion (7) on the proposal for that regulation, is not reflected in the Proposal.

1.6

The EESC deplores the fact that internal market considerations seem to have taken precedence over security concerns, to the point where not even the possibility of allowing additional national security requirements to safeguard vital national interests in accordance with Article 114(10) TFEU has been granted.

1.7

In this respect, the EESC also regrets that the TFEU does not allow dedicated national action to protect essential national interests against terrorist acts, in line with what applies with regard to military equipment under Article 346 TFEU or to public procurement under Article 15 of Directive 2014/24 on public procurement (8).

1.8

The EESC questions the adequacy of the provision in Article 24(3) of the Proposal specifying that the Commission shall chair the coordination committee of the technical services, considering the highly technical and complex nature of the questions that will have to be dealt with by its services.

1.9

In this respect, the EESC also expresses its regret that no consideration seems to have been given to the possibility of including in the Proposal a system for exchange of information and coordination between the different national approval authorities.

1.10

The EESC questions whether the extent to which the proposal authorises the use of delegated acts to modify technical provisions goes beyond the scope of what is authorised under Article 290(1) TFEU. This is in particular the case with respect to Article 27(a) of the Proposal, which sets no limits to the scope or character of the new performance requirements that may be included in Annex I to the Proposal through delegated acts.

1.11

In any case, the EESC points out that if it is to legislate in this field, the Commission will need the technical competence required to ensure the quality of the legislative acts.

1.12

The EESC welcomes in principle the Proposal that the EU should seek to become a full member of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC). However, in view of the fact that the current ECAC Constitution only authorises states as members, that ECAC membership is wider than the EU Member States and that the outcome of any such membership negotiation cannot be taken for granted, it might be more realistic to state that the EU should take the appropriate steps with a view to obtaining membership of ECAC.

1.13

The EESC has taken note of the provision in the Proposal for a maximum average time of six months between submitting a request for a test by technical services and the delivery of the test results to the relevant authorisation authority. The EESC suggests that a better option would be for the technical service to make an initial assessment of a request in order to define the amount of time needed for testing and to inform the applicant within a fixed time limit. If the deadline for testing is subsequently not met, the applicant should be informed and the reasons for the delay explained.

1.14

The EESC notes that the ECAC system for product assessment now works well and that the added value of an EU type-approval system, for operational purposes, may therefore be open to question. This observation is without prejudice to the Internal Market objectives set out in the Proposal.

1.15

For the reasons indicated, the EESC has doubts about the added value of the Proposal as it now stands and would therefore ask the Commission to reconsider its content with a view to taking on board the observations made in this opinion.

2.1

The Proposal is a step towards implementing the Action Plan (9). The objectives of the Action Plan are:

2.2

One important aim of the Action Plan is to end the fragmentation of the security market by introducing EU-wide certification systems for security technologies, starting with airport screening equipment and alarm systems, to be achieved by setting up a one-stop shop system to obtain certification granting market access for the certified product across the entire EU. This would result in simplification, reduced certification costs, increased domestic market volumes and therefore improved competitiveness compared to US and Chinese products that have the advantage of higher volumes on large domestic markets.

2.3

The Security Agenda (10) approves the Action Plan when addressing support actions such as training, funding, research and innovation.

2.4

The Security Agenda contains a wide range of measures comprising counteracting financing of terrorism, illicit trafficking in and use of firearms and explosives and further measures to protect citizens and critical infrastructure, including an action plan against illicit trafficking and use of firearms and explosives and a Proposal for a directive on combating terrorism (11).

2.5

The Proposal introduces a certification system built on common performance requirements, common testing methods and accreditation of testing laboratories (technical services).

2.6

The performance requirements are those laid down under Regulation (EC) 300/2008 (12) on common rules in the field of aviation security and its implementation acts (Article 4 and Annex I to the Proposal).

2.7

The evaluation methods are those developed in the Common Evaluation Process (CEP) approved by the ECAC.

2.8

Each Member State is to have an approval authority with competence for all aspects of approval of equipment (Article 6 of the Proposal). No Member State may make additional requirements on certified equipment (Article 4 of the Proposal).

2.9

The Proposal lays down procedures for dealing with equipment that presents a risk at national level or that is not in conformity with certification (Articles 17-19 of the Proposal).

3.1

The EESC has already welcomed the Action Plan (13), the European Agenda on Security, the action plan against illicit trafficking and use of firearms and explosives, and the Proposal for a directive on combating terrorism (14).

3.2

The EESC now also welcomes the intention of the Proposal to implement the Action Plan through strengthening the European security industry sector by creating a larger domestic market and improving the competitiveness of this industry.

3.3

The EESC welcomes the Proposal's aims to enhance the competitiveness of the EU security industry and simplify administrative procedures by introducing a one-stop shop for certification to reduce costs and create a larger domestic market. The EESC notes the strong focus on the Internal Market and competitiveness, and the fact that security matters are dealt with mainly from the perspective that increasing the industry's competitiveness may improve its possibilities for innovation and new product development.

3.4

The EESC approves the approach taken by the Proposal to legislate on performance requirements and make use of the Common Testing Methods developed by ECAC, and agrees that the classified character of much of the legal material makes this approach necessary. Nevertheless, the EESC is of the opinion that the Proposal could be improved on in a number of important respects.

3.5

The EESC thus regrets that the possibility contained in by Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 300/2008 for a Member State to apply more stringent measures than the common basic standards referred to in the Proposal is not included in the Proposal. Neither the procedures for dealing with equipment presenting a risk at national level nor the union safeguard procedure are suitable for tackling this kind of problem.

3.6

The EESC recalls here that it specifically approved the possibility allowing Member States to take more stringent measures under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 300/2008 in its Opinion on the Proposal for that regulation (15).

3.7

The EESC is aware of the difficulties involved in authorising additional national requirements on products covered by harmonised criteria, but nevertheless draws attention to the possibility offered under Article 114(10) TFEU of authorising national requirements based on the need to protect national security interests, for instance, although only for a limited period of time.

3.8

The EESC takes note of the fact that the parliaments of at least two Member States have, in proposals for reasoned opinions on the question of subsidiarity, one of which has been submitted, referred to the need to be able to adapt security requirements in line with the varying levels of risk exposure in the different Member States (16). This means that it may be necessary to heighten security requirements by introducing additional characteristics and improved performance of equipment, including screening equipment at airports, compared to standard EU requirements.

3.9

The EESC takes the view that, when implementing a policy that seeks to improve protection against terrorist acts, this aim must be seen as the essential element of any measure proposed. An industrial policy agenda related to this aim must be seen as subordinate to the aim of counteracting terrorism.

3.10

There must therefore be clear scope for separate action by Member States to deal with terrorist threats, including by making additional demands on screening equipment at airports over and above the standard certification requirements. Articles 17 and 18 of the Proposal are not related to this problem and do not give sufficient freedom of discretion to Member States to enable them to protect themselves against terrorist threats. The EESC is aware that the TFEU as it now stands contains no specific rules allowing security equipment to be exempt from internal market rules on the grounds of safeguarding vital national interests, since Article 346 TFEU provides for such a possibility only with respect to military equipment and the provisions of Directive 2014/24/EU (Article 15) relate only to public procurement (17).

3.11

The EESC takes note of the fact that the Proposal enables the Commission to adopt delegated acts to amend Annex I to reflect the introduction of new performance requirements for aviation security screening equipment (Article 27(a)) and to amend the annexes to the Regulation to adapt them to the development of scientific and technical knowledge (Article 27(b)). Article 290(1) TFEU limits delegation to non-essential elements of the legal act in question, including updates due to technical developments. The delegation in Article 27(a) of the Proposal appears to go beyond that limit. The EESC therefore questions the compatibility of the delegation proposed in Article 27(a) of the Proposal with the TFEU.

3.12

In any case, if it is to legislate in this field, the Commission will need the technical competence required to ensure the quality of the legislative acts.

3.13

The Proposal provides for an approval authority in each Member State. The EESC questions both the capacity of all Member States to set up such an authority at the time of the entry into force of the Proposal as well as the resource efficiency of such a requirement and its added value, bearing in mind that currently only five Member States have the capacity to test equipment and issue a type-approval. The EESC considers that a single EU approval authority would have been a more efficient solution, in line with the one-stop shop approach.

3.14

In this connection, the EESC also questions the usefulness of splitting the testing and certification functions between the technical services and the approval authorities, meaning that the actual testing of a product's performance is to be carried out by a technical service, which has been certified as to its competence level, while the decision to issue certification (type-approval) is to be taken by the approval authority, which clearly does not need to fulfil any specific criteria of technical competence but will rely entirely on the assessments made by the technical service. Should the reason for this two-tier system be that adequate technical competence is not available in all Member States, the EESC would suggest integrating the two functions in a reduced number of approval authorities or, ideally, as already suggested, setting up one common approval authority for the entire EU.

3.15

The EESC also takes note of the fact that the ECAC common certification test methodology is now working adequately. This brings into question the added value of the system to be created by the Proposal, since the ECAC framework ensures free movement for the products concerned among the ECAC Member States. This observation is without prejudice to the Internal Market objectives of the Proposal.

3.16

The EESC takes note that Article 10 of the Proposal stipulates that the EU shall become a full member of the body responsible for the elaboration of the common testing methodologies, i.e. ECAC. The EESC points out that EU membership of ECAC would require a prior amendment to the ECAC Constitution, as it currently allows only states as full members. Since membership would be the outcome of a negotiation process, the EESC would suggest that the provision be changed to stipulate that the EU should be mandated to start negotiations with a view to obtaining full membership of ECAC.

4.1

The Proposal specifies that the Commission shall establish and chair a sectoral group of technical services to ensure cooperation and coordination between technical services. Bearing in mind that this group is likely to be dealing with highly complex technical matters, the EESC questions the adequacy of this solution.

4.2

The EESC is surprised that no need has been seen to propose an exchange of information and coordination between the various national approval authorities, and between the approval authorities and the Commission, bearing in mind that such a system has been considered useful for the technical services and in other contexts where national authorities exercise decision-making competence that is of relevance for the application of EU law, for instance in the field of competition.

4.3

While the Proposal provides for one approval authority for each Member State, no such requirement applies to the technical services which, as pointed out above, will hold a key role in the planned certification system. This again supports the view that the requirement of one approval authority in each Member State has a merely symbolic value, bearing in mind that type-approval certification and the certificates of conformity issued based on that certification are valid across the whole of the EU. The procedure for dealing with equipment presenting a risk at national level (Article 17 of the Proposal) could be dealt with by a national authority competent in security matters.

4.4

The Proposal specifies that the technical services shall ensure that the average time between a request for a test of equipment and delivery of the results to the approval authority shall at most be six months, except in exceptional circumstances or at the specific request of the manufacturers. The EESC takes the view that a fixed time period of this kind is neither desirable nor realistic. A better option might be an obligation for the technical service to immediately assess the time needed to deal with a request and inform the applicant within a fixed period of time, for example fifteen working days. If the deadline set cannot subsequently be met, the technical service should give a reasoned explanation.

21.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/40

Rapporteur:

Christian MOOS

1.1

calls for a genuine common asylum policy that respects European values. It welcomes the creation of a Union Resettlement Framework;

1.2

calls on the Union to take more responsibility for people in need of international protection, to make more of an effort to take them in than has hitherto been the case, and to show more solidarity with third countries — as well as with EU Member States such as Greece — with regard to the issue of refugees;

1.3

emphasises its call to construct robust integration systems in the Member States;

1.4

calls for the common criteria for resettlement to focus mainly on people’s need for protection, not only on the third country’s effective cooperation on asylum. They must also be non-discriminatory;

1.5

considers the ‘first country of asylum’ and ‘safe third country’ concepts to be open to question due to the current unsafe and unstable situation in the third countries and regions concerned. The EESC is of the opinion that the EU-Turkey Statement is of utmost importance in the current situation. It is in the interest of both the EU and Turkey that the human rights situation is monitored in its implementation;

1.6

calls for the resettlement programme to be uncoupled from partnership agreements that aim to encourage third countries to prevent refugees from fleeing, as this carries the risk of infringing international law and fundamental rights. It emphasises that return agreements or other similar cooperation agreements with third countries must not place conditions on measures undertaken neither in partnership with third countries, nor on development aid more generally;

1.7

calls for UNHCR to play a key role in identifying third-country nationals or stateless persons to be resettled and questions special rights enabling third countries to make a selection;

1.8

welcomes the emphasis on the vulnerability of women as well as children and adolescents, but has reservations about the category of ‘persons with socio-economic vulnerability’. The Commission proposal blends together a variety of legal ways to enter the EU, which in general risks lowering the quantity and quality of resettlement;

1.9

questions, according to the 1951 Geneva Convention, the blanket exclusion of people who have irregularly stayed in, entered, or attempted to enter the territory of the Member States during the 5 years prior to resettlement, as well as of people who have been rejected by Member States during the 5 years prior to resettlement, despite the fact that they otherwise fulfil the eligibility criteria;

1.10

underlines that resettlement must not impinge upon the right to asylum. In general, it must be ensured that fundamental rights under the 1951 Geneva Convention, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are upheld;

1.11

is in favour of ambitious goals when it comes to deciding on the annual number of people to be resettled, and recommends treating the figure to be determined by the high-level committee as a minimum number;

1.12

expects to be involved in the High-Level Resettlement Committee that is to be set up;

1.13

also calls for UNHCR to be permanently involved in the High-Level Resettlement Committee. Broadly speaking, the Commission proposal is not clear as to how, and by means of what procedures, people in need of international protection are to be identified (by UNHCR or by the Member States), nor what role the EU Agency for Asylum will play in these procedures;

1.14

calls for complementary, alternative reception and funding programmes to be examined, along the lines of Canada’s Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program (1). Institutionalising a tripartite approach — one that involves the Member States, UNHCR and private/civil society actors — would be broadly beneficial to an EU Resettlement Framework. However, this must not bring down the quality or quantity of resettlement. Calls on Member States to ensure that civil society is properly informed of resettlement plans and given supports to assist their participation in the process;

1.15

recommends that the EU and its Member States should have a stronger institutional presence in particularly hard-hit countries of origin and transit, and that these countries should be helped by increasing their capacity for local reception and protection.

2.1.1

The EESC welcomes the resettlement of people in need of international protection in the Union. As in its opinion on ‘A European Agenda on Migration’ (2), the EESC stresses the call for robust integration systems to be established in the Member States to support resettlement, and for access to the labour market, recognition of qualifications and the provision of professional and language training to be facilitated.

2.1.2

The EESC supports the measures set out in the Action Plan on the integration of third country nationals  (3) of 7 June 2016 aimed at the early, effective and successful integration of resettled persons. However, these measures are at odds with subsidiary protection status, as Member States must re-examine a person’s protection status, which might lead to this person’s refugee status not being recognised. This means that a person in need of international protection risks being removed or returned to the third country or country of origin.

2.2.1

The EESC supports the flexibility set out in Articles 7 and 8 in determining common criteria to select the regions or third countries from which resettlement is to take place. However, these should not be too exclusive and should not depend on the quality of a third country or region’s effective cooperation in the area of migration and asylum, but rather on people’s vulnerability. The EESC rejects any discrimination based on refugee route, country of origin, race, or religion (Article 3 of the 1951 Geneva Convention).

2.2.2

In terms of creating the conditions for using the ‘first country of asylum’ and ‘safe third country’ concepts in relation to returning asylum seekers, the EESC argued — as early as its opinion on ‘Establishing an EU common list of safe countries of origin’ (4) — that it was still too early for an inclusive list and that it was necessary to agree on a list of safe countries of origin ultimately based on common criteria, as in Directive 2013/32/EU, and to draw on specific, practical and precise indicators, particularly from sources such as UNHCR, the EASO, Council of Europe, ECHR and other human rights organisations when assessing a country. The EESC points out that these concepts may under no circumstances be applied to countries where human rights and the rule of law are being violated. In addition, a third country can only be considered as ‘safe’ when it is ensured that the country complies with the principle of non-refoulement and, more broadly, has fully recognised and implemented the 1951 Geneva Convention, the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 Relating to the Status of Refugees and other relevant treaties.

2.2.3

However, from the EESC’s point of view, the European Union is attempting to use these partnerships to shift the issue of refugees and its responsibility for persons seeking protection onto third countries, as well as attempting to use material incentives to get third countries to stop refugees at their external borders. In this connection, the increased rate of readmission of third-country nationals and stateless persons irregularly staying in the territory of the Member States that results from new agreements should also be examined. Efforts to reduce the number of refugees harbour the risk of third countries impeding, turning away or deporting persons arriving at their borders in search of protection, thereby breaching the prohibitions on refoulement in the Charter, the 1951 Geneva Convention and the ECHR. The EESC therefore calls for a strict application of the principles of international law and the creation of effective control mechanisms.

2.3.1

The EESC calls for the resettlement programme to be uncoupled from partnership agreements; thus the phrase in Article 4(a) (‘and any onward movement of those persons to the territory of the Member States’) should be deleted. The EESC believes that the criteria set out in Article 4(c) and (d) (with the exception of (iii)) jeopardise the right to asylum and protection against refoulement provided for in Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter and, therefore, that they should also be deleted.

2.3.2

In line with UNHCR, the EESC calls for readmission provisions to include a guarantee that the third country or region has fully recognised and implemented the 1951 Geneva Convention, thereby guaranteeing access to a procedure for assessing applications for protection in line with the Convention.

2.3.3

The EESC notes with concern that the return mechanism under the EU-Turkey Statement could turn the hot-spots into detention centres. This would violate the right to freedom and protection against arbitrary detention (Article 5 ECHR and Article 6 of the Charter). The EESC therefore expresses its alarm over the arrests and returns under the EU-Turkey Statement and considers that the current return mechanism must be urgently reviewed in order to ensure proper protection in this and in new partnership agreements.

2.3.4

The EESC strongly supports closer diplomatic relations as well as financial and technical measures in the framework of partnerships with third countries — such as building local capacity for the reception and protection of persons in need of international protection — that help meet the challenges posed by refugees in third countries and regions. Such measures must respect the 1951 Geneva Convention, the ECHR and the Charter. Return agreements or other similar cooperation agreements with third countries must not place conditions on resettlement measures, nor on development aid more generally. Such agreements run counter to the humanitarian goals of these measures.

2.4.1

The EESC welcomes the special emphasis that is placed on the vulnerability of women and girls as well as children and adolescents, including unaccompanied minors, and welcomes the inclusion of people with family links as an extension of the classical resettlement categories. The EESC particularly welcomes the concern for family unity which means that consideration is given to siblings, as ‘family members’. However, these criteria should only apply in cases when existing family reunification measures, such as the 2003 Family Reunification Directive, do not permit family reunification. The EESC underlines that the principles of equality and non-discrimination must be upheld and should be applied without prejudice to (a), (b), (c) or (d).

2.4.2

However, the EESC has reservations about expanding the categories to cover ‘persons with socio-economic vulnerability’ if these people have either a low income, low professional status or a poor level of school education etc. This category does not require protection under the 1951 Geneva Convention, potentially leading to discrimination against those in need of international protection. However, it is imperative that other legal ways to enter the EU and measures are established that cater for persons with socio-economic vulnerability.

2.4.3

Overall, the EESC recommends adopting UNHCR’s long-standing recognition criteria, thereby reinforcing its central role in the identification of people in need of international protection.

2.5.1

The EESC rejects the blanket exclusion of persons under Article 6(1)(d) and (f), since these points conflict with the fundamental right to asylum. Both must be deleted in order to safeguard the integrity and credibility of the institution of asylum.

2.5.2

It is also necessary to ensure that Article 6(1)(c) is only applied in accordance with the principle of proportionality. In addition, vague terms and phrases such as ‘have committed a serious crime’ in Article 6(1)(a)(ii) should be avoided in the context of eligibility and exclusion criteria, due to states’ differing legal systems and interpretations, or else they should be clearly defined.

2.5.3

There must be clear and reasonable evidence to invoke the optional exclusion ground (Article 6(2)), which enables Member States to refuse resettlement of third-country nationals or stateless persons to whom one of the grounds for exclusion in Article 6(1)(a) or (b) applies ‘prima facie’. Otherwise, this should be deleted. A Member State acting on the basis of mere suspicion would be infringing the principle of non-discrimination.

2.6.1

The EESC welcomes the possibility of finding a flexible response to shifting migration flows and evolving international circumstances. However, in accord with UNHCR and other civil society organisations (5), it urges — in contrast to Article 7 — that the number of people to be resettled be treated as a minimum, and calls for the UNHCR annual report (6) to be used as the basis of a forecast of the number of people to be resettled. The EESC believes that a level of at least 25 % of the number of people that UNHCR considers to be in need of resettlement internationally is appropriate for Europe.

2.6.2

The EESC has reservations about the Member States’ involvement in implementing the annual resettlement plan. These doubts are justified by the state of implementation of the Council conclusions of 20 July 2015 to date, and also by the infringement proceedings launched by the Commission for failure to implement the Common European Asylum System (7) and the Commission’s reports on progress made in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement (8).

2.6.3

Article 8 should draw a clearer distinction between the UNHCR resettlement framework on the one hand and resettlement measures and other legal entry routes pertaining to the EU, its Member States or other stakeholders on the other hand. The EESC broadly welcomes a formalised tripartite approach under the EU Resettlement Framework, allowing UNHCR, the EU and its Member States, and private/civil society actors to carry out resettlement.

2.7.1

While the resettlement procedures under Articles 10 and 11 must be based on the consent of third-country nationals or stateless persons, third-country nationals or stateless persons who have refused resettlement in a particular Member State, e.g. for family, social or cultural reasons, should not be excluded from being resettled in another Member State.

2.8.1

The EESC accords a key role to UNHCR in identifying third-country nationals and stateless persons. UNHCR can be supported by a Union Agency for Asylum, the purpose and remit of which the Commission has not yet set out in detail, or by relevant international bodies. The EESC questions special rights — such as in the case of the EU-Turkey Statement — that enable the third country, rather than UNHCR, to choose among those departing; otherwise, it cannot be guaranteed that the fundamental rights under the 1951 Geneva Convention, the Charter and the ECHR are being upheld.

2.8.2

According to the proposal, resettlement should be the preferred avenue to international protection in the territory of the Member States and should not lead to another asylum procedure. Such restrictions may impinge upon the right to asylum of a person in need of protection. There must be a guaranteed option of applying for asylum in a different way in the territory of the Member States, otherwise this could run counter to the right and obligation of those seeking protection to apply for asylum in the first host country in the EU.

2.8.3

The EESC warns that a conflict arises between the integration of resettled persons in a Member State and the granting of subsidiary protection status under the expedited procedure (Article 11). An individual’s refugee status must be re-examined in the Member State in which he or she is to be resettled and may therefore potentially be rejected. Subsidiary protection status should not be granted because the expedited procedure arises due to urgent situations, e.g. an urgent need for medical care. The conditions for fully granting refugee status should be verified under both procedures (9).

2.9.1

The EESC recommends that, beyond just consultation, the Commission’s annual resettlement plan should be drawn up in conjunction with the high-level committee, and its implementation should be mandatory. This committee should be jointly chaired by the Commission and the Parliament, working in close cooperation with civil society. As the voice of civil society, the EESC should also be represented as a member of the high-level committee, or at the very least as a permanent participant with observer or advisory status.

2.9.2

The EESC calls for a Union Agency for Asylum, UNHCR and the IOM to be permanent members of the high-level committee.

3.1.1

The EESC again calls on the EU Member States and the international community to take more responsibility for people in need of international protection, to show more solidarity with third countries and regions where people have been displaced, and to redouble their efforts to resettle and voluntarily admit people on humanitarian grounds.

3.1.2

The Committee calls on the EU and the Member States to fulfil the relocation and resettlement commitments previously made in the Council Decisions of July and September 2015, to pay more attention to the limited capacity of a Member State such as Greece to take in people, and to step up their efforts to establish a solidarity-based Union Resettlement Framework and a Common European Asylum System. In the light of the 65,3 million people seeking international protection worldwide (UNHCR figures), the EESC recommends demonstrating greater commitment and resettling far more than 20 000 persons in need of protection per year.

3.1.3

The EESC recommends that Member States should immediately expand their institutional presence in countries of origin and transit and should enable embassies and consulates, or as yet unbuilt migration centres, to rapidly confirm vulnerability on the basis of UNHCR referrals and to allow resettlement in the Member States. This would represent an additional contribution to building up the infrastructure necessary for the EU’s resettlement plans.

3.2.1

The EESC recommends formally entering into a close partnership with UNHCR, due to its internationally acknowledged expertise. Additionally, similar partnerships can be formed with the IOM and other certified civil society organisations such as the Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME) or the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). The Committee wishes to encourage the Member States to include citizens and civil society organisations at early stages at the local level to gain the support of the local community, thus increasing the prospect of successful integration of resettled refugees.

3.2.2

Alternative admission and funding schemes should also be considered — e.g. those involving individuals, non-governmental organisations, civil society organisations, including social organisations, or other interested parties — so as to create legal ways into the EU. While these schemes can usefully complement the European resettlement plan, they must under no circumstances replace it. In this regard, the EESC would like to single out Canada’s Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program for praise. Civil society, social partners and local authorities play an important role and foster cohesion after a person is resettled; they should therefore be involved at as early a stage as possible in planning and decision-making processes under the Resettlement Framework.

3.2.3

Member States should regularly evaluate private admission schemes to ensure that the fundamental rights set out in the Charter, the ECHR, and the 1951 Geneva Convention are being upheld and that these schemes are not pursuing other aims. Persons to be resettled under private admission schemes must meet the conditions for refugee status. They receive the same legal status in the host country as refugees who have entered under government schemes.

21.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/46

Rapporteur:

Christian BÄUMLER

1.1

In the EESC’s view, the Juncker Commission’s political guidelines are right to emphasise that judicial cooperation between EU Member States must be gradually improved and must keep pace with the fact that there is an increasing number of mobile citizens in the EU, who are getting married and having children.

1.2

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission proposal aims to take greater account of the best interests of children with regard to decisions about returns. The EESC supports children’s rights and stresses that it is of the utmost importance to uphold these rights in all policy areas relating to children. The best interests of children must be paramount.

1.3

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission is proposing several significant changes with the aim of making the procedure of returning an abducted child more efficient. In the EESC’s view, this could include the adoption of common minimum standards, including a uniform enforcement procedure.

1.4

The EESC is of the view that cooperation between central authorities in cases specifically relating to parental responsibility — set out in Article 55 — is essential and supports the reformulation of these provisions.

1.5

The EESC welcomes the fact that Member States are obliged to concentrate jurisdiction in a limited number of courts, in line with the structure of each country’s legal system.

1.6

The EESC welcomes the fact that the proposal specifies the time limits for issuing an enforceable return order and shortens return proceedings to 18 weeks in total.

1.7

The EESC believes that it is reasonable to allow only one appeal in return proceedings.

1.8

The EESC welcomes the fact that the court of origin could declare a decision provisionally enforceable even if this possibility does not exist in its national law.

1.9

The EESC believes that minimum standards for the hearing of a child could help to enhance acceptance of the decision.

1.10

The EESC also supports the abolition of exequatur. In the EESC’s view, however, safeguards should be maintained.

1.11

The EESC welcomes the fact that it should be possible for the court of the Member State of refuge to order urgent protective measures required if the child might be at a grave risk of harm.

1.12

The EESC welcomes the fact that the draft stipulates that the placement of the child in a foster family or institutional care in another Member State shall in every case be conditional on the host country’s consent.

1.13

The EESC considers that the scope of application of the Brussels IIa Regulation needs to be clarified. Even if marriage is defined according to ‘national’ criteria, Member States are required to comply with Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EESC proposes that compliance with Article 21 be mentioned in one of the recitals of the Regulation.

1.14

The EESC considers that there is a need for regulation in cases where one parent does not come from the European Union and encourages bilateral agreements to be signed, in particular with countries that are not parties to the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.

2.1

On 30 June 2016, the European Commission put forward proposals for a reform of the Brussels IIa Regulation, which is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in family matters in the European Union. It establishes uniform jurisdiction rules for divorce, separation and the annulment of marriage as well as for disputes about parental responsibility in cross-border situations. It facilitates the free circulation of judgments, authentic instruments and agreements in the Union by laying down provisions on their recognition and enforcement in other Member States. It has applied since 1 March 2005 to all Member States except Denmark.

2.2

The part of the regulation that deals with legal matters pertaining to parent-child relationships settles international jurisdiction questions relating to parent-child matters within the European Union, and also regulates the recognition and enforcement of judgments on parent-child relationships that have been handed down in other Member States. The regulation also sets out arrangements for the return of children wrongfully removed to, or being wrongfully retained in, another Member State. In this regard, the regulation reinforces the return mechanism under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.

2.3

Several aspects of the regulation — which has already been the subject of 24 judgments of the European Court of Justice — are now to be reformed. This Commission proposal intends to make the regulation even more effective: it focuses on the part of the regulation that deals with legal matters pertaining to parent-child relationships and does not go into the rules relating to divorce procedures.

2.4

In the EESC’s view, the Juncker Commission’s political guidelines are right to emphasise that judicial cooperation between EU Member States must be gradually improved and must keep pace with the fact that there is an increasing number of mobile citizens in the EU, who are getting married and having children.

2.5

In previous opinions (1), the EESC has stressed that the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantee the right to access justice and respect for fundamental rights, namely: the right to property, equality before the law, the principle of non-discrimination, the right to private and family life, the right to marry and to found a family and the right to a fair trial.

2.6

The Commission has assessed the operation of the regulation in practice and considered necessary amendments to the instrument in its application report (COM(2014) 225) (2) adopted in April 2014. This assessment took place as part of the Regulatory Fitness Programme (REFIT).

2.7

The objective of the recast is to further develop the European area of Justice and Fundamental Rights based on Mutual Trust by removing the remaining obstacles to the free movement of judicial decisions in line with the principle of mutual recognition, and to better protect the best interests of children by simplifying procedures and enhancing their efficiency.

2.8

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission proposal aims to take greater account of the best interests of children with regard to decisions about returns. Increasing migration means that more cooperation channels and structures are needed so that children can be protected beyond national borders.

2.9

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission is proposing several significant changes with the aim of making the procedure of returning an abducted child more efficient. In cases of parental child abduction, timing is key to the successful operation of the child return procedure established in the regulation.

2.10

The EESC is of the view that cooperation between central authorities in cases specifically relating to parental responsibility — set out in Article 55 — is essential to effectively support parents and children involved in cross-border proceedings relating to child matters.

2.11

In the EESC’s opinion, the unclear drafting of the article setting out the assistance to be provided by central authorities in cases specifically relating to parental responsibility is a crucial problem. For the national authorities of some Member States, this does not provide a sufficient legal basis on which to act.

2.12

The EESC welcomes the fact that the proposal clarifies who can ask for what assistance or information from whom and under which conditions. It is also made clear that courts and child welfare authorities can request the assistance of central authorities. The recast provides a legal basis for child welfare authorities to obtain the necessary information from other Member States via central authorities.

2.13

The EESC welcomes the fact that Member States are obliged to concentrate jurisdiction in a limited number of courts, in line with the structure of each country’s legal system. Delays in handling cases are caused by a lack of specialisation of the courts dealing with return applications in several Member States. As a result judges are less familiar with the procedures and provisions involved and have less opportunity to regularly liaise with other EU jurisdictions in a way that allows mutual trust to be fostered.

2.14

The EESC welcomes the fact that the proposal specifies the time limits for issuing an enforceable return order and shortens return proceedings to 18 weeks in total.

2.15

The proposal would oblige central authorities to work to a 6-week time limit to receive and process the application, locate the respondent and the child, and promote mediation while making sure that this does not delay the proceedings. Currently, no time limit exists for central authorities.

2.16

A separate 6-week time limit is stipulated to apply to the proceedings before the first instance court and the appellate court. In the EESC’s view, this renders the time limit for courts more realistic with a view to protecting the right of the defendant to a fair trial. The EESC points out that each legal system’s compliance with these time limits must be guaranteed.

2.17

The EESC believes that it is reasonable to allow only one appeal in return proceedings. Most Member States’ constitutions allow only one appeal against public-law decisions.

2.18

The EESC welcomes the fact that the court of origin could declare a decision provisionally enforceable even if this possibility does not exist in its national law. This is useful in systems where the decision is not yet enforceable while it is still subject to appeal. As a result, a parent would be able to have access to the child based on a decision declared provisionally enforceable while the appeal proceedings concerning that decision are being carried out on request of the other parent.

2.19

The EESC supports explicitly inviting judges to consider whether a return order should be provisionally enforceable. Delays after a return decision have a negative impact on parent-child relationships and the best interests of children. The EESC welcomes the fact that the proposal contains a number of clarifications to better implement the current rules. It obliges the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention to conduct a thorough examination of the best interests of the child before a final custody decision, possibly implying return of the child, is given. In this context, when conducting this examination of the best interests of the child, any child who is capable of forming his or her own views has the right to be heard, even if not physically present, using alternative means such as videoconferencing as appropriate.

2.20

The EESC believes that minimum standards for the hearing of a child could help to avoid refusal of recognition, enforcement or ‘exequatur’ of a decision handed down in another EU country and thus could enhance EU citizens’ acceptance (of the decision). Examples include the minimum age at which a child can be the subject of a hearing, but not procedural questions that go beyond this, such as who is to question the child. This ought to continue to be a matter for the Member States. The EESC recommends that judges involved in hearings of children should receive additional socio-educational training.

2.21

The EESC also supports the abolition of exequatur for all decisions taken in a Member State (and for authentic instruments and agreements) on parental responsibility. With regard to enforcement, which as such is a matter for the Member States, the case law of the European Court of Justice holds that the application of national rules for enforcement should not prejudice the useful effect of the regulation.

2.22

In addition, the requirement of exequatur generated average delays of several months per case and costs reaching up to EUR 4 000 for citizens (3).

2.23

In the EESC’s view, however, certain safeguards should be maintained. These certainly include the proper service of documents, the right of the parties and of the child to be heard, especially with regard to contradictory decisions, as well as compliance with certain procedural provisions regarding the placement of a child in another EU country, based on the existing Article 56 of the Brussels IIa Regulation.

2.24

The EESC welcomes the fact that it should be possible for the court of the Member State of refuge to order urgent protective measures required if the child might be at a grave risk of harm or might otherwise be placed in an intolerable situation. For example, the court before which return proceedings are pending can grant access rights to one of the parents which will also be enforceable in the Member State of habitual residence of the child until the court of that country takes a final decision with respect to the access to a child.

2.25

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission proposal stipulates that the placement of the child in a foster family or institutional care in another Member State shall in every case be conditional on the host country’s consent. The requirement for consent ensures that the child will receive targeted care in the host country. The EESC also recommends that accommodating the child within his or her family should be a priority, if this is not possible or not in line with the best interest of the child, alternative foster family or community-based care should be provided.

2.26

The EESC notes that it sometimes takes several months after the application report until it has been established whether, in a given case, consent is required. If consent is required, the consultation procedure must be followed, which is also lengthy as no deadline is set for the response of the authorities receiving the application. As a result, many authorities making applications order placement of the child and send it to the host country while the consultation procedure is still ongoing or even before it is launched, because they consider placement to be urgent and are aware of the length of the procedure. This places the child in a situation of legal uncertainty.

2.27

The EESC considers that the proposal should provide for the introduction of a period of 8 weeks within which the Member State in question must take a decision on the application. Speeding up the procedure will serve the best interests of the child.

2.28

The EESC accepts that, under the Hague Convention, the court of the State in which the child is located has jurisdiction. The EESC points out, however, that in most child abduction cases the competent court will be that of the abductor. The EESC draws attention to the fact that the Brussels IIa Regulation already provides for free counselling arrangements for parents who come from a country other than the child’s current country of residence.

2.29

The EESC voices its overall support for the adoption of common minimum standards including a uniform enforcement procedure, in order to make return proceedings faster.

3.1

The EESC considers that there is a need for regulation in cases where one parent does not come from the European Union. Migration and the global exchange of goods and services are leading to an increase in these cases. The EESC considers that it is particularly crucial to sign bilateral agreements with countries that are not parties to the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.

3.2

The EESC considers that the scope of application of the Brussels IIa Regulation needs to be clarified. It is not clear from the Commission’s proposal whether new forms of marriage and divorce are covered by the Regulation. What is meant by marriage is not defined, but assumed. Even if marriage is defined according to ‘national’ criteria, Member States are required to comply with Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The EESC proposes that compliance with Article 21 be mentioned in one of the recitals of the Regulation.

21.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/51

Rapporteur working alone:

Ulrich SAMM

1.1

The EESC would like to emphasise the fact that digital technology is playing an increasingly important role in our economy and social life. Significant investment in digital infrastructure must be a high priority to remain competitive and allow for new businesses and new jobs, particularly in light of investments by Europe’s main competitors: the USA and Asia.

1.2

The EESC welcomes the communication and the related EU initiatives regarding the European Electronic Communications Code, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), the 5G action plan and the support scheme for public authorities wanting to offer free wifi access (WiFi4EU).

1.3

The fragmentation of network providers in Europe means that EU guidelines are required to achieve coherent, pan-European modernisation in support of the Digital Single Market.

1.4

The EESC notes that the Strategic Objectives for 2025 are ambitious but realistic, although they are largely dependent on national funding (private and public) with EU funding triggering and coordinating projects. In this context, the EESC welcomes the establishment of and support for the EU network of Broadband Competence Offices at regional/national level which will help local administrations to apply and use the Structural Funds.

1.5

The EESC also welcomes the introduction of a voucher system, intended to reduce administrative costs and burdens, particularly for small communities and SMEs.

1.6

The EESC is pleased to note that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are providing considerable funding for high-speed broadband networks. The European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) also plays an important role. The EESC recommends that this role be strengthened by supporting large-scale European projects for high-speed broadband networks, including along the Trans-European Transport Core Network, as well as by defining the appropriate financial and regulatory framework.

1.7

The full economic and social benefits of this transformation to Gigabit connectivity will only be delivered if Europe can provide high-capacity networks in urban and rural areas and across all of society. There is a need for public investments since, on its own, the market will not cover all remote areas and guarantee minimum digital access for the vulnerable members of our society.

1.8

The EESC recognises the positive momentum in the Member States with regard to the broadband targets set by the Digital Agenda for Europe in 2010, which serve as a reference for policy and national or regional broadband plans.

1.9

The EESC is pleased to note the free ‘WIFI4EU’ initiative for all Europeans in public places, public administrations, libraries and hospitals, as well as outdoor spaces. This initiative should offer everyone the option of a free internet connection which has the same digital identity throughout the EU. In particular, the EESC recommends following the eIDAS regulation (1) on digital identity, which offers guarantees for data protection and public security against improper use of the service (i.e. terrorism).

2.1

Very high-capacity internet connectivity is a key infrastructure for the transport of data, similar to the way that roads, railways, harbours and airports are essential for the transport of goods and people. Since the transport of data is increasingly important in our economy and social life, it is crucial for our society that we invest in this infrastructure in order to remain competitive and allow for new businesses and new jobs.

2.2

Internet connectivity is important for the Digital Single Market. The Commission’s Digital Single Market Strategy of May 2015 created the right environment and conditions for the deployment of advanced digital networks. The EESC has addressed the importance of these issues in several opinions (2), (3).

2.3

The expectations that the quality of service of internet connectivity will improve by 2025 are well documented (for instance in the European Commission’s public consultation).

2.4

The basic broadband available today to almost every European is no longer good enough. Over the next 10 years, very high-capacity broadband networks (Gigabit) will be needed for a large variety of applications, such as the Internet of Things (mostly wireless), cloud computing, high-performance computing and big data, next generation TV or virtual and augmented reality.

2.5

The quality of data transfer is characterised not just by speed but also by latency and reliability. Much lower latency than is currently possible and high reliability will open the door to new applications requiring fast feedback control, such as connected and automated driving, remote surgery, tactile internet or precision navigation.

2.6

The COM(2016) 587 communication accompanied by the staff working document SWD(2016) 300 sets out a vision for a European Gigabit society with three strategic objectives for 2025:

All three objectives are key for Europe’s growth and jobs, competitiveness and cohesion.

3.1

Europe has to cope with the ongoing modernisation of the digital infrastructure of its main competitors in the USA and Asia. Europe has the advantage of lower consumer prices for internet services due to higher competition within its internal market, along with the disadvantage of much more fragmented network providers. There is therefore a clear need for EU guidelines to achieve coherent, pan-European modernisation in support of the Digital Single Market.

3.2

In this context, the EESC welcomes the communication and the related EU initiatives, which the EESC has addressed in specific opinions (4), (5), (6), (7):

A support scheme for public authorities wanting to offer free wifi access.

3.3

The EESC recognises that to date, broadband targets set by the Digital Agenda for Europe in 2010 have been accepted in Member States and serve as a reference for policy in Member States. Many Member States have in fact aligned their national or regional broadband plans with the objectives.

3.4

The EESC is also pleased that the objectives were taken up as reference points under the rules and guidelines of both the European Structural and Investment Funds and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF Broadband), as well as under the Broadband State Aid guidelines.

3.5

The Strategic Objectives for 2025, as presented in the communication, set a timetable for developing the European high-capacity broadband infrastructure. They are derived by assuming an accelerated investment rate to ambitious but still realistic values:

By 1 July 2018, assess the impact on the cost of EU-funded broadband projects and issue guidelines on promoting best practice.

3.6

The full economic and social benefits of this digital transformation will only be delivered if Europe can ensure widespread deployment and take-up of very high-capacity networks in rural as well as urban areas and across all of society. However, the market will not solve all problems. Specifically, it will not:

Therefore, public support schemes have to be implemented to achieve the goals for the entire EU and for all Europeans.

4.1

The EESC welcomes the establishment of and support for the EU network of Broadband Competence Offices at regional/national level. This will be key for rural areas and small communities. It will help local administrations to apply and use the Structural Funds, by providing best practice and advising local administrations. This will be a big step forward for developing rural areas as well.

4.2

EU strategies and instruments are technology neutral. However, it is well known that eventually only optical fibre can provide optimal performance. The old monopolies (such as German Telekom) should not hinder the installation of optical fibre while continuing to invest in their copper cable infrastructure.

4.3

Only some countries, such as Malta, Lithuania, Belgium and the Netherlands, already have nearly comprehensive coverage by Next Generation Access (NGA) networks. Elsewhere, NGA coverage is less advanced. Some Member States with currently less developed infrastructure have even been able to leapfrog technology steps. The installation of optical fibre gives them an advantage.

4.4

‘EDUROAM’ is the biggest and most successful roaming system for free wifi worldwide, developed in the EU for academics. It gives millions of students and other academics free access to wifi. The EESC is pleased to note that this success story could serve as a role model for the free ‘WIFI4EU’ initiative for all Europeans in public places, public administrations, libraries and hospitals, as well as freely accessible outdoor spaces. This initiative should offer everyone the option of a free internet connection which has the same digital identity throughout the EU. In particular, the EESC recommends following the eIDAS regulation on digital identity, which offers guarantees for data protection and public security against improper use of the service (i.e. terrorism).

4.5

Designed to support SMEs, vouchers will be used by local authorities to pay for installations (cables, antennas, etc.). Companies installing the material will send the vouchers to the EU in order to be paid. Apart from reducing administrative costs and burdens, the system will allow easy monitoring and good quality objectives.

4.6

The EESC welcomes the goal of upload-download symmetry for all socio-economic drivers as this will be essential for many future applications.

4.7

The EESC asks for a scheme to ensure that vulnerable end-users have access to reasonable and adequate connectivity allowing them to participate socially and economically in modern society. WiFi4EU could be one element of this.

4.8

Regulatory incentives for network providers to support the COM(2016) 587 objectives should not conflict with other important objectives, such as network neutrality.

4.9

In the long term, people in rural areas should also be able to benefit from healthy competition and freedom to choose their internet access provider. Regulatory measures should therefore also provide incentives for such competition.

4.10

5G technology will not only enable new mobile applications, it will also serve as a bridge technology bringing high-speed connectivity to rural areas more rapidly. Nevertheless, only a fibre-based infrastructure will provide the stability and reliable bandwidth required by many new applications.

5.1

The EESC is pleased to note a sharp increase in funding from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) for high-speed broadband networks from EUR 2,7 billion in 2007-2013 to around EUR 6 billion for 2014-2020. Most of this investment is expected to take the form of grants. With the leverage effects on national and/or regional co-funding and private co-funding, it is expected that EUR 9-10 billion will be invested in broadband during the 2014-2020 programming period. This will be key for commercial investments to provide high-speed connectivity for the rural population.

5.2

The European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) also plays an important role. This role could be strengthened by supporting large-scale European projects for high speed broadband networks, including along the Trans-European Transport Network, Industrial Gigabytes, and Industry 4.0, as well as by having DG CONNECT represented on the EFSI Steering Committee. The Commission should also be proactive in defining the appropriate financial and regulatory framework.

5.3

The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) in the digital area has a budget of EUR 150 million to support deployment of state-of-the-art broadband infrastructure, based on the provision of financial instruments via the European Investment Bank (EIB). The broadband component of the CEF is expected to mobilise at least EUR 1 billion of additional investment through a dedicated fund for broadband network infrastructure, which could be further supplemented by the EFSI.

21.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/56

Rapporteur working alone:

Jorge PEGADO LIZ

1.1

The EESC endorses the general thinking underlying the Commission’s proposal on the European electronic communications code, as well as its timing, the way it has approached the subject and the manner in which it has tackled the codification and horizontal recasting of the four existing directives (Framework Directive, Authorisation Directive, Access Directive and Universal Service Directive), bringing them together in a single directive and simplifying the current structure, aimed at making the legislation more consistent and accessible, in line with the aim of regulatory fitness (REFIT).

1.2

The EESC would in particular highlight the difficulty of recasting the various directives concerned, stressing the excellent legal work carried out the first time, but it would draw attention to the need for the various language versions to be carefully reviewed so as to sort out a few minor problems in the wording.

1.3

It agrees with the main objectives of the proposal, aimed at securing better internet connectivity for everyone and all businesses in the bundle of initiatives designed to make it more attractive for firms to invest in new, high-quality infrastructures throughout the EU, both at local level and beyond national frontiers.

1.4

The EESC does, however, express regret at the decision to leave the directive on privacy out of this move, as it should be a shining example for citizens of the positive action taken by the EU for their benefit. The directive is deprived of one of the most important pillars guaranteeing the main interests of network users. This is therefore one of the weak points of the proposal.

1.5

It also deplores the fact that the Commission has opted for a directive with a variety of harmonisation arrangements, leaving many of the important matters to the Member States to decide upon, doing nothing to prevent market fragmentation, rather than opting for a regulation which would be directly applicable and legislating for a higher level of consumer protection, thus contributing to greater integration in the single market.

1.6

The EESC supports the proposal, highlighting the following aspects:

1.7

On the other hand, the EESC has serious misgivings and strong doubts about the following points:

2.1.1

As part of the Digital Single Market (DSM) (1) strategy, and given the recent rapid and profound structural changes in the electronic communications market and the arrival of formerly unknown types of market players now competing with traditional telecom operators, combined with the rise in the number and popularity of online content services, a review and update of the regulatory framework for electronic communications is required. This framework dates from 2009 and should be reviewed so that individuals and businesses can seamlessly access and conduct online activities under conditions of fair competition. The main objective set by the Commission in its proposal of 14 September 2016 (2) is to ensure better connectivity for all individuals and businesses.

2.1.2

The present proposal is part of a package aimed at making investment in new, high-quality infrastructure throughout the EU — both locally and beyond national borders — more attractive to all businesses. The package also contains a proposal for a regulation on the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and a communication from the Commission on Connectivity for a competitive Digital Single Market — Towards a European gigabit society. An action plan to introduce 5G services across the EU from 2018 and a proposal for a regulation to promote internet connectivity in local communities and public spaces (WiFi4EU) are likewise part of the package.

2.1.3

All these instruments pursue the three main strategic connectivity objectives for 2025:

2.1.4

The proposal is based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, aiming to ‘achieve the internal market for electronic communications and ensure its functioning’. It opts for a horizontal recasting of the four existing directives (Framework Directive, Authorisation Directive, Access Directive and Universal Service Directive), bringing them together in a single directive and simplifying the current structure, aimed at making the legislation more consistent and accessible, in line with the aim of regulatory fitness (REFIT) and taking the form of a fully-fledged European electronic communications code.

2.1.5

Depending on the areas addressed, the proposal adopts different forms of legislative harmonisation, ranging from full targeted or selective harmonisation, for example where end-user protection rules are concerned, to minimum harmonisation of national regulatory authorities’ (NRA) competences at a high level, or maximum harmonisation in spectrum matters.

2.1.6

The proposal was based on wide-ranging public consultation with stakeholders over a 12-week period and on external expert advice from the EP and the Council, together with a number of studies that were examined and reviewed in detail in the impact assessment, and by a high-level expert panel set up under the SMART 2015/0005 study.

2.1.7

The Commission’s intention with this present proposal is to achieve the following objectives:

2.1.8

In short, several of the proposed changes, particularly those concerning spectrum, universal service, access, end-users, numbering and governance policy, aim to introduce clear rules, allow parties to easily understand their rights and obligations, and avoid overregulation and administrative burdens.

2.1.9

The proposed changes include specifically: streamlining and geographic targeting of access regulation; the use (wherever possible) of general authorisation in preference to individual licences for spectrum; fostering secondary markets for spectrum; the removal of redundant universal service obligations such as requirements to ensure the provision of payphones and physical directories; narrowing of the scope of universal service; clarifying the scope of the regulatory framework and the removal of redundant consumer protection obligations where these are already addressed through horizontal legislation or met by the market; harmonisation and clarification of rules and governance of numbering in the machine-to-machine (M2M) context.

2.1.10

The Commission also proposes to strengthen the role of national regulators and BEREC to ensure consistent and predictable application of the rules throughout the Digital Single Market, limiting current fragmentation and inconsistencies with the aim of enhancing the efficient governance of new bodies (3).

2.2.1

The Commission has gone beyond simple codification, bringing together the content of the different previous directives into a harmonious, coherent text without, however, amending their content, as it does in most cases. Instead, it has used the possibility granted to it under the Interinstitutional Agreement signed on 28 November 2001 (4) to make deep and substantial changes (‘substantive amendments’) to the current regime, in tandem with the horizontal merger of several previous acts into a single legislative act.

2.2.2

When carrying out any legislative simplification, codification or substantive amendment of the legal content of a legislative act, ‘The Community’s normal legislative process shall be complied with in full’ (Article 5 of the Agreement). More specifically, it must be referred to the EESC for an opinion, and the recast proposal must comply with a series of criteria and rules clearly set out in Articles 6 and 7 of the Agreement.

3.1.1

On account of both the limits on the length of its opinions and the nature of the proposal itself, the EESC does not consider that it should comment again on content carried over unchanged from previous legislative acts into the present proposal, except insofar as this is absolutely necessary for understanding one or another of the points addressed.

3.1.2

The EESC has commented in detail in previous opinions on all such content and would simply confirm its positions in this regard.

3.1.3

Neither will it comment in detail in the present opinion on aspects concerning the structure and functioning of BEREC, which are to be analysed in detail in the opinion being drawn up in parallel with the present one.

3.2.1

Firstly, the Commission would congratulate the Commission on the good timing of its initiative, which is fully warranted on the grounds of market developments, technological progress and the legal protection of users of electronic communications users. The legal framework needs to be recast so as ensure that individuals can seamlessly access and conduct online activities and that businesses can develop these activities under conditions of fair competition. It also welcomes the fact that Commission has opted for the recast method, which is a highly appropriate instrument within the general REFIT framework; its only regret is that the Commission makes little use of it.

3.2.2

The EESC acknowledges in particular how the Commission has correctly conducted this difficult recast exercise, complying strictly with the established rules, and regrets only that the Commission has not simultaneously published a ‘clean’, more readable version, as the EESC has suggested on a number of occasions.

3.2.3

It also agrees in general terms with the new rules introduced in the proposed new directive and the way in which these legal provisions are made compatible with other Community policies: the specific rules in force in the sector, and more particularly the principles of competition law and horizontal consumer protection legislation.

3.2.4

The EESC considers, however, that legal simplicity and certainty would have been increased if, instead of choosing a directive — a choice which is not entirely justified — that is so all-embracing and wide-ranging and leaves so many aspects up to national rules, the option had been for a framework directive to be applied directly, immediately and uniformly in all the Member States, as in fact proposed by the Commission itself, in the form of specific directives for some of the areas covered, entailing different levels of harmonisation depending on market conditions and the nature of the subject matter. The time required for adoption (a minimum of 18 months), transposition (no less than 2 years) and implementation means that the new system cannot come into effect before 2021/2022.

3.2.5

On the other hand, that fact that the proposed directive on privacy (COM(2017 10 final)) published on 10 January 2017 — one of the most important aspects of the package — has been left out, while understandable on grounds of the legislative timetable, inevitably constitutes a weak point in the proposal. The proposal is thus deprived of one of the most important pillars guaranteeing the main interests of network users. The effect of this is to push back steps for bringing current rules into line with what will be the future privacy instrument into the distant future, making transposition and implementation of all the measures more difficult.

3.2.6

The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (5) and certain aspects of the Communication from the Commission on promoting the shared use of radio spectrum resources in the internal market (6), which were worth including in the Code, have also been left out.

3.2.7

Lastly, it is clear that this proposal does not respond to the Council’s express wish that there be a European code of rights for users of electronic communications services, the aim of which would be to ‘have at EU level a simple, user-friendly tool bringing together all the rights of users of electronic communications services in the areas of ICT (information and communications technology) and consumer protection’ (7); nor, by the same token, does it take on board the explicit intention set out in the Digital Agenda to ‘issue a code of EU online rights by 2011 that summarises existing digital user rights in the EU in a clear and accessible way’ (8).

4.3.1

Where the objectives are concerned, the EESC would draw attention to the important aspect of cooperation between national regulatory authorities and other competent authorities, as well as between the Member States and BEREC for achieving these objectives, although the Committee’s preferred ‘model’ would adopt a different approach, as set out in its opinion on the new status of BEREC.

4.3.2

It is particularly important in this regard to emphasise the re-definition of the obligations of the national regulatory and other competent authorities, as well as those of BEREC, laid down in Article 3(2).

4.3.3

Of similar importance is cooperation between the Member States through the Radio Spectrum Policy Group, established by Commission Decision 2002/622/EC, with each other and with the Commission, and their call, together with the European Parliament and the Council, in support of strategic planning and coordination of radio spectrum policy approaches in the Union.