14.3.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/24

1.1

The Committee recalls (1) that the Single Market is a centrepiece of European integration, with the potential to deliver directly-felt benefits to European stakeholders and to generate sustainable growth for Europe's economies. In the current economic crisis a well-functioning, future-oriented Single Market is not merely desirable but essential for the political and economic future of the European Union.

1.2

Against the background of an ongoing economic crisis and, amongst other things, the impact the deregulation of financial markets has had on the national budgets of the Member States, on the real economy, on poverty and on employment in the EU (2), the optimistic tone the Commission strikes in its Communication regarding the implementation of the Single Market (SM) feels inappropriate. The EESC believes that the Commission has paid too little attention to the unintended negative side-effects of the Single Market. An overly explicit and demonstrative, but premature, claim of success can only frustrate the EU citizens. The consequence could be a further undermining of the Single Market rather than a new dynamic. The Commission should demonstrate a more realistic approach by communicating in a well-balanced tone.

1.3

The better functioning of the Single Market by means of the old and new guidelines is under huge threat from the massive increase to 28 million unemployed, particularly affecting youth in the EU. Hundreds of thousands of SMEs have gone bankrupt and 120 million citizens are at threat of poverty and social exclusion, i.e. approx. 25 % of the EU population. For these reasons, demand and consumption in the EU are massively affected. In addition to key actions the EU and the Member States must step up their efforts to overcome the financial, economic and budgetary crisis and to release the full potential of the Single Market.

1.4

The EESC calls on the Parliament, Commission and Council to act quickly without affecting quality, in order to ensure that these legislative proposals are adopted before the end of the Parliament and Commission mandates in spring 2014. The EESC would very much welcome the fast application of the measures proposed in the Communication on the Governance of the Single Market to improve the overall implementation of EU rules.

2.1

The Commission has defined the second phase of the Single Market Act (hereafter SMA) by means of 12 new key actions to improve the functioning of the Single Market. The EESC welcomes the fact that it has been consulted before the communication's publication and that the Commission has taken up some of its recommendations in the SMA II. However, it regrets that there was no formal public consultation this time and that the informal consultation was not evenly balanced between relevant stakeholders.

2.2

Despite the Single Market's positive contribution to economic growth and the creation of new jobs since its establishment, it has not delivered its full potential to all stakeholders, be they businesses, workers, consumers, citizens or others. The Commission mentions an extra 2.77 million jobs but says nothing about the precarious nature of some of these jobs (3). We know that since spring 2008, when the consequences of the economic crisis were felt throughout Europe, approximately 10 million jobs have been lost and it appears that we have not yet seen the end of this downturn (4).

2.3

Though the Commission indicates the guiding principles behind these choices (better regulation agenda, cost of non-Europe, etc.), the sense of urgency regarding some of the choices is not always clear in all European institutions. On the mobility of workers, for instance, the Commission announces an initiative in relation to the EURES portal while at the same time other fundamental activities in this field are still in the Council pending.

2.4

The EESC feels that the Commission has paid too little attention to the unintended negative side-effects of the Single Market. EU regulation of financial markets has been too weak to put an end to defective supervision and to prevent a type of entrepreneurship geared towards the short-term interests of a privileged group of shareholders. More attention needs to be paid to improving corporate governance. Increasing transparency and accountability should be the highest priority, in order to ensure that the Single Market contributes to developing a legal environment that respects the legitimate interests of all stakeholders.

2.5

Notable is the firmness with which the Commission claims that these 12 new levers will contribute to growth, more employment and more confidence in the Single Market. The EESC believes that the history of the Single Market's introduction demonstrates that some of the measures taken in the past have had ample effect in the short term. An overly explicit and demonstrative, but premature, claim of success can only frustrate the EU citizens, particularly in the absence of robust evidence from impact assessments. The consequence could be a further undermining of the Single Market rather than a new dynamic (5). The Commission should demonstrate a more realistic approach by communicating in a well-balanced tone.

2.6

Regrettably, the SMA I and II do not underscore the importance of ensuring confidence in relation to the enforcement of rights. The EESC is still impatient to see, at last, an efficient collective judicial redress instrument made available to European consumers. While liberalising markets and increasing competition are key objectives of the Single Market policy and play an important role in enabling consumers to choose freely, consumers also need a robust framework of protective rights in relation to the purchase of goods and services and the efficient enforcement of these rights. Several studies have concluded that the implementation of different EU instruments is slow and enforcement is still relatively weak, particularly in cross-border situations, and the Commission should therefore as a matter of urgency propose binding measures on new enforcement tools.

2.7

It is unfortunate that just 1 out of 12 initiatives is labelled a consumer measure, despite the fact that several levers have an important impact on European consumers' daily lives (6). We hope that this does not reflect the Commission's general view of consumer policy. It is important that the focus is wide and that consumers are not seen as an appendix to business policy but rather as independent players, with a view to creating a Single Market that benefits everybody, cf. the Monti and Grech reports. The EESC agrees with the Commission that there is still unused potential in the Single Market, after both the 50 proposals and the first 12 levers. However, from consumers' point of view, the Commission could and should have placed more emphasis on prioritizing consumer- friendly initiatives, as previously underlined in an EESC opinion (7).

2.8

The EESC is also struck by the lack of awareness of social partnership in this communication. Confidence and trust cannot be restored if involving social partners in EU policies is limited to the policy area of DG Employment. Consultation of social partners is also needed in relation to various activities within DG Market.

2.9

As the EESC has pointed out in previous opinions, any proposal for cross-border consumer transactions should be achieved incrementally, starting with cross-border commercial sales contracts between businesses (B2B) on a pilot basis. Pending the adoption of any proposal for B2C transactions, there should be no further initiative of optional nature regarding cross-border commercial sales contracts.

3.1

The Commission has already presented 11 of the 12 legislative proposals for the key actions and the EESC has adopted opinions on these proposals (8). The EESC calls on the Parliament, Commission and Council to act quickly, without affecting quality in order to ensure that these legislative proposals are adopted before the end of the Parliament and Commission mandates in spring 2014. The Member States should implement the adopted legislation correctly and enforce it to guarantee the level playing field and barriers created on unjustified and discriminatory grounds must be removed in order to enable the Single Market to function properly.

3.2

The withdrawal of the Monti II regulation does not solve the problems created by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in its judgments relating to the posting of workers. A solution to the current situation must be found, since it is preventing workers from exercising their rights fully. The Commission should ensure that fundamental social rights cannot be restricted by economic freedoms. The Commission should consider a proposal for a social progress protocol to be attached to the European Treaties. Such a protocol should clarify the relationship between fundamental social rights and economic freedoms by confirming that the Single Market is not a goal in itself, but was established in order to achieve social progress for all EU citizens (effectively in implementation of Article 3.3 of the Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union). It should also make it clear that economic freedoms and competition rules cannot take priority over fundamental social rights and social progress and can in no way be interpreted as granting undertakings the right to evade or circumvent national social and employment laws and practices or for the purposes of unfair competition on wages and working conditions.

3.3

The EESC has identified a number of measures that were missing from the SMA I and which it felt would also contribute to boosting citizens' confidence. The measures still missing include the revision of the copyright directive, copyright levies, net neutrality, the social progress protocol, micro- and family businesses, measures to support the creation of new companies and the expansion of existing ones, over-indebtedness and interbank transfers, with a view to consolidating the operation of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA).

4.9.1

Unsafe consumer products, including products bearing the CE mark, are still found on the EU market, posing avoidable risks to health and safety. The EESC is therefore pleased that the European Commission will propose a legislative ‘product safety package’ consisting of a Single Market surveillance instrument for all non-food products, a proposal for a new General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) and a multiannual market surveillance framework plan. The revision should provide for more clarity on how the various EU legislations dealing with product safety interact with each other. In particular, manufacturers' responsibilities need to be strengthened and clarified. It must be ensured that the level of enforcement is the same across the EU and that market surveillance activities are effective across the EU.

4.9.2

Child-appealing products should be explicitly addressed and the prohibition of food-imitating products should be maintained. The EU policy must constitute a major step forward for safety and health. Attention should be paid to unfair competition for EU businesses required to obey EU rules. The revision of the GPS Directive should effectively prevent dangerous products being placed on the market, which requires a European market surveillance system including effective controls at EU external borders.

4.10.1

The proposals presented here are placed under this heading in a rather artificial way. The EESC recognises the importance, at this time of crisis, of focussing on combating further social exclusion and poverty. In this regard, social enterprise has been highlighted as a key factor in the strategy for overcoming the crisis. The lack of a dedicated key action for the development and growth of the social economy and social enterprises is disappointing. The suggested key action 12 fails to address the increasing social exclusion and poverty in Europe. The EESC would therefore recommend a clear and dedicated key action on social enterprise based on the proactive recommendations of the EESC which the Committee believes will better address the need for further social cohesion (14).

4.10.2

The EESC welcomes the proposal to give all EU citizens access to a basic payment account, to ensure that payment account fees are transparent and comparable and to make it easier to switch payment accounts. The EESC hopes that the Commission will this time put forward binding legislation rather than the recommendation of July last year which was highly criticised for its voluntary nature. The EESC notes that the transparency and comparability of payment account fees for consumers has either shown significant shortcomings or failed entirely. The proposed EU legislation should ensure that every consumer has the right of access to a basic payment account and should remove any obstacle to switching payment accounts.