This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52024AE4138
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank: 2025 European Semester – Autumn package (COM(2024) 700 final)
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank: 2025 European Semester – Autumn package (COM(2024) 700 final)
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank: 2025 European Semester – Autumn package (COM(2024) 700 final)
EESC 2024/04138
OJ C, C/2025/2019, 30.4.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2019/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2025/2019 |
30.4.2025 |
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank: 2025 European Semester – Autumn package
(COM(2024) 700 final)
(C/2025/2019)
Rapporteur:
Petru Sorin DANDEA|
Referral |
European Commission, 20.1.2025 |
|
Legal basis |
Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
|
European Commission document |
COM(2024) 700 final |
|
Section responsible |
Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
|
Adopted in section |
6.2.2025 |
|
Adopted at plenary session |
26.2.2025 |
|
Plenary session No |
594 |
|
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions) |
204/0/1 |
1. RECOMMENDATIONS
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
|
1.1. |
finds it highly regrettable and incomprehensible that, in the turbulent political, social and economic global context, the European Commission has chosen not to publish the Annual Sustainable Growth Survey, the main document of the Autumn package presenting the political orientations for the coming period; |
|
1.2. |
takes the view that the serious and growing geopolitical risks and the deterioration of multilateral institutions may eventually have a serious impact on European economies, trade, inflation and growth. European institutions should be prepared to deal with emergency situations; |
|
1.3. |
welcomes the Commission’s efforts to launch the implementation cycle of the new European governance framework (1) and encourages the Commission to finalise this process as soon as possible. The Committee believes, however, that, in the challenging global political and economic context, Member States must intelligently combine financial stabilisation measures with the reforms and investments necessary to keep the EU on the positive trend of sustainable growth; |
|
1.4. |
underlines the position of civil society that, while the Autumn Package emphasises the importance of stakeholder engagement, there is a perceived lack of concrete mechanisms to involve social partners and civil society organisations adequately and effectively at national level; |
|
1.5. |
agrees with the Commission’s proposal to launch the competitiveness compass early next year, based on the recommendations made in Enrico Letta’s (2) report Much more than a market and Mario Draghi’s (3) report The Future of European Competitiveness; |
|
1.6. |
agrees with the conclusion of the Draghi report that the main factor behind the negative productivity and competitiveness differentials of the EU economy compared to the US and China is the large investment deficit accumulated over the last two decades. The Committee sees a great need to promote a strong investment policy, focusing on the most advanced technological sectors, on the creation of a European energy market that substantially reduces energy prices, and on the implementation of fair green and digital transitions, using the tools provided by the strategic autonomy of a European industrial policy; |
|
1.7. |
believes that investment must be financed by public and private, national and European capital. The Committee believes that a European Fund for Strategic Investments should be set up, focused on financing European priority projects, and that the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028-2034 should significantly increase the resources earmarked for investment priorities. At the same time, private investment financing should be facilitated by strengthening the EIB’s lending capacity and renewing the InvestEU programme, and by completing the Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union without further unjustifiable delays; |
|
1.8. |
acknowledges the Commission’s proposal that country-specific recommendations (CSRs) should be geared towards better implementation of the reforms and investments included in the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and the MFF, as both are approaching their end, in 2026 and 2027 respectively. However, given the current implementation rate and the transformative nature of the reforms required, the EESC calls for a pragmatic assessment to ensure the full effectiveness of this unprecedented instrument (RRF), including an immediate evaluation of whether the current implementation timeline remains appropriate for achieving the intended objectives. This will help Member States affected by structural imbalances to rebalance their macroeconomic policies without jeopardising reforms that support increased competitiveness and generate sustainable growth; |
|
1.9. |
believes that, in the difficult political and economic context that the EU is experiencing, better cooperation between Member States is the key to overcoming these obstacles. The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal for a recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area (4), which calls on Member States to take action individually and collectively to improve competitiveness and foster productivity; |
|
1.10. |
considers the Commission’s analyses and findings in the Joint Employment Report (5) to be correct and fit to be carefully converted into CSRs. The Committee also calls on Member States to step up their efforts to achieve the necessary improvements in the labour market and to continue implementing the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights; |
|
1.11. |
encourages the Commission to continue the programme to reduce the burden that excessive regulation places on European companies, reducing their ability to compete globally. The Commission should also identify and remove the regulatory barriers that adversely affect European companies’ competitivity, mergers and acquisitions. Particular attention should be paid to firms with strategic market status (SMSs). At the same time, simple national regulations should be harmonised as far as possible, leading in the future to common European standards. The EESC consider the rules of good regulatory quality, guaranteeing consumer rights and social and environmental rights, to be important and necessary; |
|
1.12. |
takes the view that, in the country-specific recommendations, investment and reform proposals should prioritise tackling the serious housing problem, which is preventing many citizens, especially young people, from enjoying a fundamental right and is becoming an obstacle to labour mobility, which in turn is a factor in competitiveness. |
2. EXPLANATORY NOTES
Arguments in support of recommendation 1.2 and 1.3
|
2.1. |
This autumn, the Commission launched the European Semester cycle under the new financial governance framework. Due to the complex political and economic situation at EU and global level, the Commission prepared a draft Council Recommendation on the medium-term plans (MTPs) for 21 Member States, a draft Council Recommendation on the excessive deficit procedure for 8 Member States and an opinion on the draft budgetary plans for 17 Member States. The Commission is still waiting for the MTPs for some Member States to be finalised, due to difficult political contexts at national level. |
|
2.2. |
The EESC believes that, in the current geopolitical context, Member States must make a particular effort to maintain the EU as a relevant actor. This means that the measures and reforms set out in the MTPs must be aligned with an investment policy that supports sustainable economic growth. |
|
2.3. |
The war situations in Ukraine and the Middle East are compounded by the fact that the new US president could unleash a trade war and is making threats of territorial annexation against several states, including a member of the European Union. |
|
2.4. |
The EESC considers the Macroeconomic Imbalance Surveillance indices used by the Commission to be outdated and recommends quickly launching a broad process of in-depth revision, to develop a more up-to-date, adapted and effective system that enables a more accurate assessment of Member States’ improvement in their national budgets and in their implementation of investments and reforms. |
Arguments in support of recommendation 1.4
|
2.5. |
The EESC organises an annual consultation process with social partners and civil society in the Member States. They often point out that the way in which civil society representatives are consulted on reform programmes is more of a formal tick-box exercise. |
|
2.6. |
The Committee believes that the consultation process needs to be improved at both national and European level. Consultation should lead to the inclusion of civil society proposals in national and European programmes (6). |
Arguments in support of recommendation 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7
|
2.7. |
The Committee looks forward to the publication of the Commission’s strategic document on the competitiveness compass. |
|
2.8. |
To recalibrate the EU’s level of competitiveness at global level, the Commission and the Member States must, above all, implement a programme that will lead to a reduction in energy prices. European companies are currently facing a significant loss of competitiveness due to the very high price of energy, which is twice as high as in the United States. The EESC believes that the EU must continue to develop renewable energy production capacities in parallel with consistent investment in transport networks and interconnection systems. In the medium-to-long term, this would lead to the efficient consumption of energy where it is needed, eliminating losses due to the intermittent nature of renewable energy production and limited storage facilities. In the short term, it is necessary to introduce measures with immediate effect to bridge the difference in energy costs faced by EU business compared with their international competitors, prioritising energy-intensive industries. Such measures could involve:
|
|
2.9. |
Given the geopolitical fragmentation and tensions in the global trading system, the EESC considers it imperative for the EU to review and complement the Green Deal with an Industrial Deal. The latter should promote the completion of the Energy Union and the reindustrialisation of the EU. The Industrial Deal should also include the development of the strategic raw materials industry and the defence industry. |
|
2.10. |
Digitalisation is another area that should be addressed by the competitiveness compass. With 80 % of digital products being imported, the EU is far behind the United States and China in this area. The EESC therefore believes that the EU should catch up in this competition by developing large projects, potentially in public-private partnerships. Support for digital start-ups is a good measure but is not enough. |
|
2.11. |
The EESC also considers it important to improve companies’ access to capital. The European Capital Union must be completed as a priority. |
Arguments in support of recommendation 1.8
|
2.12. |
The EESC believes that the Autumn package affects different Member States in different ways, depending on their economic conditions, energy dependencies, and social frameworks. For some countries, the package may offer much-needed support for sustainable development and green transitions. However, others may face challenges due to the financial implications or the need to adapt rapidly to new regulatory environments. Additionally, the package might exacerbate existing inequalities among Member States, as those with fewer resources may struggle to implement the proposed changes effectively. |
|
2.13. |
The EESC notes with concern that the implementation of the CSRs is on a downward trend. While some countries have made significant progress in implementing RRF measures, others face implementation challenges due to administrative capacity constraints or the complexity of the reforms required (7). The Committee notes that the relatively low uptake of the RRF loan component (EUR 108,69 billion out of EUR 291 billion) suggests a need to reassess how this instrument can better serve its intended purpose. The EESC notes with concern that, as of early 2025, only 28 % of RRF milestones have been achieved, with EUR 197,46 billion absorbed out of EUR 359 billion in grants. While maintaining reform momentum is crucial, the Committee emphasises that the focus should be on ensuring high-quality implementation and lasting impact. |
Arguments in support of recommendation 1.9
|
2.14. |
As the Draghi report shows, the EU has upheld democracy, fundamental rights, prosperity and the social market economy. If the EU loses its power to uphold these principles, it will lose its raison d’être. The EESC therefore calls on the Member States to support the revitalisation of the European project by promoting measures of general interest to the EU, and to stop blocking such measures for specific interests. In the extremely complicated global political context, a strong EU is in the interest of every Member State. |
Arguments in support of recommendation 1.10
|
2.15. |
Due to the demographic situation, the available workforce in the EU is in decline. Many companies are facing a shortage of skilled personnel. In this difficult context, the EESC believes that, in the next programming period, the resources allocated to the ESF+ programme should be focused on developing skills. |
|
2.16. |
The EESC believes that education and training curricula need to be updated in line with the twin transitions. By involving social partners at sectoral and national level, they can be better designed to meet the needs of companies. |
Arguments in support of recommendation 1.11
|
2.17. |
The EESC believes that reducing unnecessary regulatory burden on European companies must be a priority for the EU. Regulatory burden is one of the major obstacles that European companies face. In the light of the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, the EESC does consider social and labour regulation important and necessary, |
|
2.18. |
When developing the competitiveness compass, the Commission should consider removing regulatory barriers that hinder European companies from competing globally. It should also review merger and acquisition regulations, considering that only 10 of the top 100 companies globally are European. |
Arguments in support of recommendation 1.12
|
2.19. |
The problem of housing and the unstoppable rise in housing prices, both for renting and for owning, is regarded as one of the main concerns for the population in most Member States. Supply is inadequate and has been eroded both by speculative processes and by the massive increase in the number of properties rented as poorly regulated tourist accommodation. |
Brussels, 26 February 2025.
The President
of the European Economic and Social Committee
Oliver RÖPKE
(2) Enrico Letta, Much more than a market (2024).
(3) EU competitiveness: Looking ahead, European Commission.
(4) 2025 Recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area.
(6) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the EESC’s recommendations for a solid reform of the European Semester (own-initiative opinion) ( OJ C 228, 29.6.2023, p. 1).
(7) EESC information report on Mid-term evaluation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2019/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)