European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Agnieszka Widuto (1st edition),

© waku / Fotolia

In preparation for the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027, the European Commission published a proposal for a regulation on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF) on 29 May 2018. The new single regulation on the ERDF and CF (previously covered by two separate regulations) identifies the specific objectives and scope of support for both funds, including non-eligible activities. In line with evidence regarding impact, investments will focus on activities with the highest added value, such as support for SMEs, smart specialisation, the low carbon economy, sustainable urban development and regional cooperation. The ERDF will focus mainly on smart growth and the green economy, and the CF on environmental and transport infrastructure. A special approach is adopted for territories such as urban areas and outermost regions. The indicator framework for monitoring progress will include new common results indicators. At the European Parliament, the file has been allocated to the Committee on Regional Development, with Andrea Cozzolino (S&D, Italy) as rapporteur. The rapporteur’s draft report is expected in the autumn.

Versions

• July 2018: ‘European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund 2021-2027‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund Committee responsible: Regional Development (REGI) COM(2018) 372
29.5.2018 Rapporteur: Andrea Cozzolino (S&D, Italy) 2018/0197(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso (EPP, Spain)
Raffaele Fitto (ECR, Italy)
Iskra Mihaylova (ALDE, Bulgaria)
Martina Michels (GUE/NGL, Germany)
Davor Škrlec (Greens/EFA, Croatia)
Rosa D’Amato (EFDD, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Ana Claudia Alfieri (1st edition),

© Nuthawut / Fotolia

Value added tax (VAT) is an important source of revenue for national governments and the European Union (EU) budget and, from an economic point of view, it is a very efficient consumption tax. However, the existing rules governing intra-Community trade are 25 years old and the current common EU VAT system presents such problems as vulnerability to fraud, high compliance costs for businesses and also a heavy administrative burden for national authorities.

The reform of the system is planned in several consecutive steps, first for goods and then for services, and will take some years. This proposal introduces the basic features of the definite VAT system for business-to-business (B2B) transactions of goods and aims to harmonise and simplify certain rules of the current VAT system, by amending the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112/EC).

Versions

• July 2018: ‘Introducing the definitive VAT system for B2B cross-border trade‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards harmonising and simplifying certain rules in the value added tax system and introducing the definitive system for the taxation of trade between Member States Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2017) 569
4.10.2017 Rapporteur: Jeppe KOFOD (S&D, Denmark) 2017/0251(CNS) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

 

  Ivana Maletić (EPP, Croatia)
Sander Loones (ECR, Belgium)
Thierry Cornillet (ALDE, France )
Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL, Greece)
Molly Scott Cato (Greens/EFA, United Kingdom)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Consultation procedure – parliament adopts only a non-binding opinion Next steps expected: Vote in ECON committee on draft report

Written by Ana Claudia Alfieri (1st edition),

© Art_Photo / Fotolia

Value added tax (VAT) is an important source of revenue for national governments and the European Union (EU) budget and, from an economic point of view, a very efficient consumption tax. However, the rules governing value added tax as applied to intra-Community trade are 25 years old and the current common EU VAT system is both complicated and vulnerable to fraud. Businesses doing cross-border trade face high compliance costs and the administrative burden of national tax administrations is also excessive.

The reform towards the definitive system is planned in several consecutive steps and will take some years. In the meantime, this proposal will amend the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112/EC) and reform the rules by which Member States set VAT rates. The reform will enter into force when the definitive system is in place; it will give more flexibility to Member States to set VAT rates and will end the current arrangements and their many ad-hoc derogations.

Versions

• July 2018: ‘More flexible VAT rates‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards rates of value added tax Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 20
18.1.2018 Rapporteur: Tibor Szanyi (S&D, Hungary) 2018/0005(CNS) Shadow rapporteurs:

  Werner Langen (EPP, Germany)
Sander Loones (ECR, Belgium)
Thierry Cornillet (ALDE, France)
Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL, Portugal)
Molly Scott Cato (Greens/EFA, United Kingdom) Consultation procedure – parliament adopts only a non-binding opinion Next steps expected: Vote on report in committee

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

The European Union lags behind the United States and China in fostering disruptive technology and needs a policy overhaul to catch up with, or even leapfrog, its rivals. Spending on research and development by the EU and its Member States should be streamlined, more agile and, above all, funds should be disbursed much faster than at present, notably to start-up companies. A risk-taking bias should replace a sometimes over-cautious attitude on the part of programme managers. These were some key messages from analysts and industry practitioners speaking at a conference on ‘Harnessing disruptive technologies: Converting EU research into successful start-ups’, organised by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) on 10 July 2018 in the European Parliament’s Library Room.

‘The EU, and indeed the Member States, spend a lot of money on promoting research of various kinds, and the question is how to make sure that as much of it as possible can be commercialised in a way that adds over time to GDP. There is a general perception that Europe is less successful than some of its competitors in doing so,’ said EPRS Director-General, Anthony Teasdale, opening the debate.

Dr Alexander Waibel

Indeed, the EU is good at funding basic research and incrementally improving traditional engineering-based industries, but its achievements in information technology, artificial intelligence and creating the environment for innovative start-ups to flourish is less impressive, said Dr Alexander Waibel, Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany. ‘Europe is doing a fantastic job in basic sciences, fundamental research programmes in physics, chemistry and human brain projects. We have companies that are the envy of the world, manufacturing products of a quality that no one can match’, he said.

However, ‘future growth and the economy’s ability to create jobs lies elsewhere’, Waibel added. ‘Disruption is absolutely key for society. Famous investor, Warren Buffet, once said: first come the innovators, then come the imitators, and then come the idiots. Uber, Google, Apple Facebook, they all in some way disrupted the way we do things and now dominate the market.’

The EU is spending considerable sums on research and development as part of its GDP. In Germany, the ratio is higher than in the USA.

However, André Loesekrug-Pietri, former venture capital investor and then adviser to the French government, noted that no European company is among the world’s 10 top firms in terms of market capitalisation. The market capitalisation of the seven largest platforms (four American, and three Chinese), is four times higher than the same parameter for the 30 biggest German and 40 largest French companies. China accounts for 48 % of investment in artificial intelligence, the US for 38 %, and the rest of the world, including the EU, for 14 %. This is because the current IT-based economy creates a ‘winner takes all’ market for the best conceived disruptive innovations.

André Loesekrug-Pietri

To be able to compete in this area, the EU and its Member States need to reform their system of awarding research grants. ‘We are too much focused on research papers. No venture capitalist is interested in research paper, we need prototypes,’ said Loesekrug-Pietri. In the current, fast-changing world, speed is of the essence. Project submissions should be 10 pages long, rather than 120, as is the case at present, and reviewed in six weeks by temporarily hired scientists acting as project managers, rather than by civil servants. A winner would receive funding swiftly, but it would face tough regular scrutiny on progress.

This is how the major US innovation incubator, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) works. DARPA is responsible for the development of emerging technologies for military and later civilian use. With a current budget of some $3.4 billion, it has 240 employees. DARPA was responsible for inventions such as the internet, global positioning systems, or driverless vehicles. Waibel listed some commandments for a DARPA-destined project. An applicant needs to answer questions as to: what they are trying to do, without any jargon; what the limits of current practice are; who cares if you are successful; what the risks and payoffs are; how much it will cost; how long it will take to implement; what the ‘mid-term and final exams’ for success are.

Both Waibel and Loesekrug-Pietri agreed that creating a European DARPA is worth considering, although the former advocated a pan-EU approach, while the latter said a few most committed countries should first launch the project. Loesekrug-Pietri is now the speaker of the Joint European Disruptive Initiative (JEDI), a private-public project aimed at accelerating French and German leadership in disruptive innovation.

The EPRS’ Head of the Scientific Foresight Service, Lieve Van Woensel, stressed that the EP attaches great importance to innovation, and its members are well briefed on the issue, to address the numerous concerns of ordinary people regarding the speed of technological change.

‘Disruption is about individual creativity. At the beginning of many disruptive technologies, we have an individual daring to do what others thought impossible, daring to test what others thought not worth testing’, concluded Franck Debié, the Acting Head of the Innovation and Project Management Unit in the EP.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Tambiama Madiega (1st edition),

© Tierney / Fotolia

The Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services on 26 May 2018. Providers of online intermediation services (e.g. Amazon and eBay) and online search engines (e.g. Google search) are required to implement a set of measures to ensure transparency and fairness in the contractual relations they have with online businesses (e.g. online retailers, hotels and restaurants businesses, app stores) which use such online platforms to sell and provide their services to customers in the EU.

The proposal is still at an early stage in consideration in the European Parliament, where it has been assigned to the IMCO committee.

Versions

• July 2018: ‘Fairness and transparency for business users of online services‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services Committee responsible: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) COM(2018) 238
26.4.2018 Rapporteur: Christel Schaldemose (S&D, Denmark) 2018/0112(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

  Philippe Juvin (EPP, France)
Daniel Dalton (ECR, United Kingdom)
Dita Charanzová (ALDE, Czech Republic) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Marcin Szczepański (1st edition),

© momius / Fotolia

There is a consensus that the digital economy is relatively undertaxed when compared with traditional businesses. Certain inherent characteristics such as reliance on cross-border provision of services without physical presence, easy transfers of intangible assets, and novel ways to create value make it particularly easy for enterprises to limit their tax liabilities.

In order to provide a solution to this problem, in March 2018 the Commission adopted the ‘fair taxation of the digital economy’ package, comprised of two proposals. One concerns a permanent reform of corporate tax regime while the second is a proposal for a directive on the common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services, which would apply as an interim measure until the permanent reform has been implemented.

The tax is to cover businesses above two thresholds: total annual worldwide revenues exceeding €750 million and annual revenues in the EU exceeding €50 million. The proposed single rate is at 3 %, levied on gross revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services where user value creation is essential. The stakeholders and the Member States seem to be divided on the issue.

Versions

• July 2018: ‘Interim digital services tax on revenues from certain digital services‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Council directive on the common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 148
21.3.2018 Rapporteur: Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D, Spain) 2018/0073(CNS) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Paul Tang (S&D, the Netherlands)
Gabriel Mato (EPP, Spain)
Ashley Fox (ECR, UK)
Petr Ježek (ALDE, Czech Republic)
Martin Schirdewan (GUE/NGL, Germany)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Consultation procedure – parliament adopts only a non-binding opinion Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Maria Margarita Mentzelopoulou and Costica Dumbrava (1st edition),

© nd700 / Fotolia

The European Union Code on Visas is one of the core elements of the EU’s visa policy. It lays down the procedures and conditions for issuing short-stay visas for third-country nationals.

On 14 March 2018, the Commission adopted a proposal to revise the Community Code on Visas (visa code). The main objective of the proposal is to strengthen the common visa policy while taking into account migration and security concerns, by increasing the role of visa policy in the EU’s cooperation with third-countries, as well as economic considerations, by facilitating processing of visas for legitimate travellers who contribute to the EU’s economy and its cultural and social development.

Currently, the proposal is still at the early stage of discussions in committee.

Versions

• July 2018: ‘Revision of the Community Code on Visas‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) Committee responsible: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) COM(2018) 252 Rapporteur: Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D, Spain) 2018/0061(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Heinz K. Becker (EPP, Austria)
Helga Stevens (ECR, Belgium)
Gérard Deprez (ALDE, Belgium)
Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL, France)
Bodil Valero (Greens/EFA, Sweden)
Ignazio Corrao (EFDD, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Figure 1 – EU visa applications and granted visas (in millions)

Written by Ionel Zamfir,

Adopted on 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute is the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was set up to deal with the most serious crimes of international concern – genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Its establishment inspired much hope that such horrendous crimes will no longer go unpunished, and that it will significantly deter their occurrence. From its creation, the EU has been a strong supporter of the ICC system. Even if it deals with crimes that are to be universally proscribed, only around two thirds of world countries have ratified the Rome Statute to date. Those still missing include important global and regional players, such as the USA, Russia, China and India, as well as Israel, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The ICC exercises jurisdiction over four types of crime: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and, more recently, the crime of aggression. Its jurisdiction is limited to the states parties’ territories and nationals, unless the UN Security Council explicitly asks it to investigate situations in a country that is not an ICC member. These limitations in the Court’s jurisdiction have prevented it from investigating the atrocities committed in the civil wars in Syria and Iraq, as securing a referral of the situations there from the Security Council has proved impossible.

Since it started operating in 2003, the Court has conducted investigations and trials on some of the world’s most brutal conflicts and has not shied away from investigating those at the highest level of power, such as presidents in office. The Rome Statute explicitly excludes immunity for high-ranking officials. Immunities attached to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, do not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over that person.

To date, of the 11 situations under investigation, 5 have been investigated at the request of states’ parties (in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic (CAR) twice, and Mali); 2 at the request of the UN Security Council (in Sudan (Darfur) and Libya); and 4 at the initiative of the Prosecutor (with the assent of the pre-trial chamber (in Burundi, Kenya, Côte d’Ivoire and Georgia). Of the 11 situations investigated, 10 concern African countries, which has raised questions regarding a possible ‘African bias’ at the Court. However, such allegations ignore the fact that African states themselves referred many of these situations to the Court. This ‘African bias’ criticism has generated some momentum among African states for non-cooperation with the Court, and even for leaving the ICC system, for which a one-year withdrawal notice is required. Three of the four countries that have announced their decision to withdraw to date are African. In the Gambia, the decision was a personal one taken by the former president that his successor immediately annulled. South Africa considered withdrawing after it refused to arrest the Sudanese president, under a Court warrant, on its soil, but the procedure has proved more complicated domestically. Burundi remains the first and only country to date that has actually withdrawn from the Rome Statute. The fact the ICC has started investigations in their territories may actually have contributed to the decision of certain countries to leave. Two of the four that have announced the decision to withdraw are under ICC investigation for possible crimes within its competence committed on their territory: Burundi and the Philippines. Withdrawal has, however, no impact on ongoing proceedings or any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date upon which the withdrawal became effective.

The ICC has been under intense public scrutiny. Some voices have pointed to a certain ‘political bias’ in the selection of cases (the ‘African bias’ being part of this more general problem). To guarantee the Prosecutor’s impartiality in the selection and prioritisation of cases, extensive internal rules were developed. The Court has also developed extensive tools to protect its most important asset – witnesses, who in many cases have faced intimidation, violence and even death.

With some €1.5 billion spent in 15 years of operation, and with only three final convictions, the Court has been criticised as ineffective. Effectiveness cannot be judged, however, based solely on convictions. The ICC is a court of last resort and the complementarity principle limits its activities: the ICC is competent to conduct investigations only when states are unable or unwilling to prosecute the crimes themselves. The Court’s impact on national judicial systems has also been significant, with many countries having adopted national legislation on the crimes under ICC jurisdiction.

The European Union is a staunch supporter of the ICC and of the principles underpinning the Rome Statute. All its Member States are states parties to the ICC. The EU has developed specific policy tools to structure its cooperation with the Court and to encourage and assist third states to join the ICC system. The EU has included an ICC clause in several of its cooperation agreements with partner countries and has been providing assistance for countries that encounter difficulties in ratifying, accessing and implementing the Rome Statute. It has funded a range of actions with regard to the ICC system through its European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. The EU also recognises the importance of the complementarity principle, prioritising accountability, and justice at the national level. The European Parliament has expressed its support for the ICC in numerous resolutions. It has also called for the appointment of an EU Special Representative on International Humanitarian Law and International Justice to mainstream EU commitment to the ICC across EU foreign policy.

To learn more about the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court and the EU support to it, please read this EPRS briefing “International Criminal Court: Achievements and challenges 20 years after the adoption of the Rome Statute“, published in July 2018.

Written by Katharina Eisele with Anne van Heijst,

© Mike Fouque / Fotolia

This briefing provides an initial analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the European Commission’s impact assessment (IA) accompanying the above-mentioned proposal, submitted on 17 April 2018 and referred to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE).

Currently, there are at least 86 different versions of identity cards (ID cards) and 181 types of residence documents in circulation in the EU. The Free Movement Directive (2004/38/EC) stipulates the conditions that EU citizens and their third-country-national family members need to meet in order to exercise their right of free movement and residence within the Union. However, it does not regulate the format and minimum standards for the ID cards and residence documents to be used for entering or leaving an EU Member State (IA, pp. 9-10). This proposal aims to strengthen the security features of ID cards and residence documents of EU citizens and their non-EU family members. Passports and travel document issued by Member States are already regulated by EU law.

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.

See also the European Commission’s inception impact assessment of 6 September 2017.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Security of ID cards and of residence documents issued to EU citizens and their families‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Écrit par Etienne Bassot,

EPRS mobilisé pour appuyer la visite du président Tajani au Niger : tables-rondes à Niamey sur la recherche en matière de numérique, d’eau et d’agriculture, et d’énergies renouvelables

Le Président du Parlement européen se rendra au Niger les 17 et 18 juillet. Une nouveauté totale pour ce genre de déplacement : il a tenu à ce que sa visite comporte un important volet dédié à la recherche et que s’engagent un dialogue et une réflexion sur les expériences de l’Europe, les expériences du Niger, les enjeux et les défis communs, les réponses possibles. Autour de trois tables-rondes, les chercheurs et experts de haut niveau d’Europe et d’Afrique vont échanger leurs expériences sur la transformation numérique, l’agriculture et la gestion de l’eau, et les énergies renouvelables.

Transformation numérique

Les technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC) apparaissent aujourd’hui comme un maillon clé du développement durable. Le Niger a adopté récemment un Plan stratégique sur les technologies de l’information et de la communication autour de plusieurs axes stratégiques : e-gouvernement, villages intelligents, cité de l’innovation, et promotion du numérique. La mise en œuvre de la stratégie numérique pour l’Europe initiée en 2010 dans l’Union européenne a été réalisée en partie – avec le développement des réseaux et services numériques et l’amélioration de l’accès aux biens et services numériques pour les citoyens, consommateurs et les entreprises – mais de nouveaux défis liés au développement de la société de l’information apparaissent. La table-ronde ‘Transformation numérique’ sera l’occasion de croiser les expériences et points de vues entre experts nigériens, européens et internationaux en discutant des enjeux, défis, contraintes et réponses réglementaires, notamment en matière de commerce électronique et de formation au numérique.

Agriculture et gestion de l’eau

Le panel ‘agriculture et gestion de l’eau’ discutera les défis rencontrés par le secteur agricole qui doit à la fois gérer les ressources naturelles – l’eau en particulier – tout en assurant la production alimentaire et le maintien des territoires ruraux. La politique agricole commune (PAC) est l’une des politiques les plus emblématiques ayant marqué le processus d’intégration à l’Union européenne depuis ses débuts dans les années 1960 jusqu’à aujourd’hui. L’Union Européenne s’efforce d’adapter cette politique aux nouveaux défis. Dans ce contexte, la recherche et l’innovation sont considérées comme des éléments clés de la gestion durable des ressources naturelles. Ce dernier point est décisif pour maximiser l’impact du secteur agricole du Niger sur la réduction de la pauvreté. De plus, mobiliser les ressources en eau en vue de sécuriser les différentes productions est une des lignes d’intervention prioritaires dans la stratégie de développement rural du Niger. Le partage des résultats de la recherche et des réussites en matière d’innovation peut bénéficier à la fois à l’Europe et au Niger. Les orateurs discuteront des exemples concrets de recherche menée en Europe et en Afrique et des projets réalisés au Niger sur la thématique de la gestion de l’eau dans l’agriculture.

Énergies renouvelables

Les énergies renouvelables, comme l’éolien et le solaire peuvent aider à réduire la dépendance en matière d’importations d’énergie, réduire la pollution et lutter contre les effets du changement climatique. L’Union européenne soutient les énergies renouvelables dans tous les secteurs économiques et s’est fixé l’objectif d’atteindre une part de marché de 32 % d’énergie renouvelable pour 2030. Pour le Niger, les énergies renouvelables peuvent contribuer à améliorer l’accès à l’énergie, par le réseau électrique ou par les solutions ‘off-grid’ (hors réseau). Lors de la table ronde, des experts vont aborder les thèmes suivants : le potentiel et les bénéfices des énergies renouvelables, le cadre réglementaire, les expériences et les plans pour l’avenir en Europe et au Niger, l’état du développement des énergies renouvelables en Afrique de l’Ouest, les obstacles rencontrés ainsi que les conditions de succès – y compris le financement – pour leur déploiement.

Pour en savoir plus

Promotion des sources d’énergie renouvelables dans l’UE, EPRS, analyse approfondie, 2016

Financer la transition vers les énergies propres en Europe, EPRS, briefing, 2017

Énergies renouvelables, PE, fiche technique, 2018

L’innovation dans l’agriculture de l’Union européenne EPRS En bref 2016

Solutions technologiques pour une agriculture durable EPRS En bref 2016

L’agriculture de précision et l’avenir de l’agriculture en Europe. Étude de prospective scientifique EPRS, étude, 2016

Une stratégie numérique pour L’Europe, PE, fiche technique, Mai 2018

S’adapter aux nouvelles réalités numériques, EPRS briefing 2018 (traduction en FR imprimée)

L’économie européenne des applis : Situation actuelle, enjeux et politique de l’Union, EPRS briefing 2018

Vers une société européenne du gigabit : Objectifs en matière de connectivité et de 5G, EPRS briefing 2017

Preparing FP9: Designing the successor to the Horizon 2020 research and innovation framework programme, EPRS analyse approfondie (traduction en FR imprimée)

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for people living in mountainous regions.

Mountains cover nearly 30 % of EU territory. Highly valued for their rich natural resources, their fresh, bracing air and their beautiful landscapes, mountain areas are attractive places to live. Mountain dwellers know first-hand, however, that their regions’ specific geographical features (remoteness, topography and climate) also pose concrete problems for day-to-day activities, the most obvious being difficult access to key infrastructure, facilities and services, be that transport, education, healthcare, broadband, or business support.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Through its regional policy programmes, the EU supports a wide range of projects offering practical solutions to these problems, including cross-border initiatives. The construction of a French-Spanish hospital in Cerdanya in the Pyrenees is one prominent example. The EU has also set up a specific strategy for the Alps, within which 7 countries and 48 regions have joined forces to secure the sustainable development of their territory. The focus ranges from accessibility and mobility to employment and energy.

© Adisorn/ Fotolia

Altitude, climate and steep slopes sometimes prevent the use of conventional machinery, and mountain farmers work in a particularly challenging environment. The EU, through its common agricultural policy, supports farmers located in mountainous areas and facing ‘natural or other specific constraints‘, compensating them for their agricultural production under difficult conditions. It has also launched a ‘mountain product‘ quality label to help mountain farmers market and raise the profile of their produce.

Further information

• EPRS publication on ‘The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region’, 2016, europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/586640/EPRS_BRI(2016)586640_EN.pdf
• European Parliament Intergroup on Rural, Mountainous and Remote Areas, rumra-intergroup.eu
• European association of mountain areas, https://www.euromontana.org/en/

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for people living in border regions.

If you are one of the 150 million people living near an internal EU border, you probably cross it regularly, whether for work, study, shopping or leisure. The EU makes such trips easier. As an EU citizen, you have the right to free movement when travelling within the EU. If, in addition, your country and its neighbour are in the Schengen area, there are no border checks.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

The EU has put various tools and mechanisms in place to facilitate cross-border work, including: the European network of employment services (EURES), which provides information and advice on all kinds of issues relating to cross-border commuting; the rules for the coordination of social security systems; the European Qualifications Framework, which makes qualifications more readable and understandable across borders; the Europass Framework, which enables users to present their skills, qualifications and experience by means of five standardised documents, including a CV; and the European Professional Card, an electronic procedure for the recognition of professional qualifications.

© tanjakolosjko / Fotolia

Since 1990, as part of its regional policy, the EU has been funding projects to support cross-border cooperation between European countries and regions, helping them to find joint solutions to common challenges and enhance their citizens’ quality of life. Examples of activities funded include measures to improve cross-border transport, increased cooperation between emergency and firefighting services, the development of cross-border healthcare services, and environmental protection, to name but a few.

Further information

• EPRS publication on European territorial cooperation, 2018, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/614773/EPRS_BRI(2018)614773_EN.pdf
• European Commission, ‘Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions’, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/communications/2017/boosting-growth-and-cohesion-in-eu-border-regions

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for women entrepreneurs.

If you are a self-employed woman seeking support to launch your own company, you may be interested to know that the EU is encouraging women to start up in business and lending a helping hand.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

As women represent only a third of Europe’s self-employed workforce, the EU has tried to identify the obstacles that can make starting and growing a business more difficult for them, including lack of access to information, training, funding, mentors and support networks – not to mention difficulties balancing work and family life.

The EU has created the ‘WEgate-platform’, an online gateway with practical advice on how to start up and grow a business and access funding, e-learning materials, networking opportunities and details of local support organisations across Europe. It also finances the European Community of Business Angels, which helps women entrepreneurs to find funding, and cooperates with the WES policy network, which promotes female entrepreneurship at national level.

© Alliance / Fotolia

Under EU legislation, all self-employed women are entitled to a maternity allowance and to leave of at least 14 weeks, if they choose to take it. Additional flexible working arrangements in the EU’s new proposal for a work-life balance directive will hopefully enable more women to take part in the labour market as well in business activities.

Lastly, if you have received EU research and innovation funding at some point in your career, and founded or co-founded a successful company based on your innovative ideas, you could receive one of the annual cash prizes awarded as part of the EU Prize for Women Innovators.

Further information

• European Commission, GROWTH, Promoting entrepreneurship, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/promoting-entrepreneurship_en
• European Commission, GROWTH, The Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/promoting-entrepreneurship/action-plan_en
• European Commission, Research and Innovation, Funding, EU Prize for women innovators, http://ec.europa.eu/research/prizes/women-innovators/index.cfm

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for young Entrepreneurs.

Have you always wanted to be your own boss? You are not alone: around 44 % of young Europeans would like to set up their own business. Reality paints a different picture however: in 2011, only 4 % of 15-24 year-olds were self-employed. A lack of skills and funding are what usually get in the way.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

The EU promotes young entrepreneurs in many ways. In 2009, the EU launched ‘Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs’. The idea is that new entrepreneurs learn from experienced entrepreneurs in another EU country. They gain the valuable skills they need to start their own business, while the EU offers financial and practical support. In the first five years of the programme, 2 500 exchanges took place involving 5 000 new and experienced entrepreneurs.

© lassedesignen / Fotolia

Another source of financial support for the would-be self-employed is the European Social Fund (ESF). For several years now, the ESF has been opening up learning and training opportunities and helping young business starters gain valuable skills and experience. One success story is the COPIE project – a network with partner organisations in five countries that works to make it easier for people from disadvantaged and under-represented backgrounds to set up in business. Meanwhile, as many aspiring entrepreneurs face financial difficulties in the start-up phase, the European Progress Microfinance facility can help improve access to microcredits.

Further information

• European Commission’s Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs website, http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/promoting-entrepreneurship/support/erasmus-young-entrepreneurs_en

Written by Carmen-Cristina Cîrlig, Laura Tilindyte and Sidonia Mazur,

© Elena Abrazhevich / Fotolia

With less than one year to go before the planned Brexit date of 30 March 2019, talks are continuing as regards the terms of the United Kingdom’s (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU). Beginning in June 2017, the withdrawal negotiations have focussed on three key priority issues – citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the situation of Northern Ireland – alongside other ‘separation’ provisions (e.g. ongoing EU judicial and administrative procedures, Euratom related issues, data protection etc.). In addition, in December 2017, the European Council decided to begin negotiations on the terms of a transitional period as requested by the UK government.

On 19 March 2018, EU and UK negotiators announced that significant progress had been achieved regarding the draft withdrawal agreement: more than 75 % of the legal text had been settled, based on previous commitments undertaken by both sides in a joint report in December 2017. In particular, in the draft withdrawal agreement negotiators settled two of the priority issues in their entirety – citizens’ rights and the financial settlement; and importantly also approved the proposed transitional arrangements – to cover a 21-month period following the UK’s date of withdrawal from the EU until 31 December 2020. Furthermore, as regards the future governance of the agreement, it was agreed that a Joint Committee made up of an equal number of UK and EU representatives would assume responsibility for the implementation and application of the agreement. A few days later, the European Council (EU-27) welcomed this advance in the talks, which opened the door to discussions on defining the future framework of EU-UK relations, in accordance with the newly adopted European Council guidelines.

Despite these important steps towards reaching a withdrawal deal, divergences persist, particularly as regards two important elements: firstly, the jurisdiction and powers of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) as regards the interpretation and application of the agreement, as part of the dispute settlement process; secondly the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland after Brexit. The EU and UK agreed in principle that the Protocol on Northern Ireland/Ireland annexed to the draft agreement should include a default scenario, or backstop option, that would apply to the territory of Northern Ireland in the absence of any agreed solutions, with a view to avoiding the establishment of a hard border on the island of Ireland after Brexit. However, despite further talks in recent months the negotiators have yet to settle either of these issues, although some limited progress on other parts of the draft withdrawal agreement was announced in a joint statement on 19 June. The European Council meeting at the end of June welcomed this further progress from 19 June, but expressed its concern that no significant headway was achieved with regard to the backstop solution for Northern Ireland.

Negotiators are now aiming for October 2018 as the deadline for finalising the withdrawal deal, to allow time for the completion of approval procedures in the EU and the UK.

As part of these procedures, the European Parliament will have to give its consent to the deal. Having closely monitored the negotiations and provided input at every stage in the process, Parliament’s resolutions have particularly emphasised the importance of upholding citizens’ rights in the future deal, including throughout the transition period. Even with the part on citizens’ rights now agreed, Parliament will continue to monitor the negotiations and push for further rights to be included in the deal. As regards the remaining unresolved issues, Parliament has expressed support on several occasions for the Commission’s proposals.

Read the complete in-depth analysis on ‘The EU-UK withdrawal agreement: Progress to date and remaining difficulties‘ in PDF on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Timeline of key events in the Brexit negotiations

Written by Nicole Scholz (1st edition),

© gustavofrazao / Fotolia

The European Commission has proposed to amend Directive 2004/37/EC by expanding its scope and by including and/or revising occupational exposure limit values for a number of cancer- or mutation-causing substances. The initiative is proceeding in steps. The first proposal of May 2016 covered 13 priority chemical agents, the second, of January 2017, a further seven. The current (third) proposal addresses an additional five.

Broad discussions with scientists and the social partners fed into all three proposals. Reacting to the Commission’s set of measures as a whole, trade unions have acknowledged the importance of further action to improve the existing framework, reiterating the need to reach the target of 50 limit values in 2020, while some considered it necessary to extend the scope of the CMD to substances that are toxic to reproduction. Actors on the employers’ side, while in principle supporting further revisions of the directive, have underlined, among other things, the need to ensure that values are proportionate and feasible in terms of technical implementation.

While welcoming the Commission proposal, the rapporteur’s draft report of 29 June 2018 proposes, inter alia, to grant incentives to businesses that comply with the directive. Moreover, it opts to include, within the scope of the directive, the protection of workers from exposure to hazardous, or harm-causing, medicines (including cytotoxic ones, which are used in the treatment of cancer).

Versions

• July 2018: ‘Limits on exposure to carcinogens and mutagens at work: Third proposal‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work Committee responsible: Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) COM(2018) 171
05.04.20182018/0081(COD)

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Rapporteur: Laura Agea (EFDD, Italy) Shadow rapporteurs: Marita Ulvskog (S&D, Sweden) Next steps expected: Discussions in EMPL and committee vote

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for victims of terrorism.

Every year Europe commemorates victims of terrorism on 11 March. This European Remembrance Day was established after the 2004 Madrid bombings, which left 191 people dead and around 2 000 injured. But Europe does not limit its action to commemoration. European legislation aimed specifically at combating terrorism dates back to 2002, and introduced a common understanding of terrorist offences and minimal penalties for perpetrators across Europe. It recognised the vulnerability of terrorism victims and the assistance they and their families need.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© MoiraM / Fotolia

With the recent wave of attacks, which affected nine EU countries between 2015 and 2018, the European Union reinforced its arsenal to protect citizens and help victims. A law adopted in 2017 not only tightens the rules and sanctions related to terrorist activities, but also provides for better support for victims. Complementing earlier legislation on the rights of victims of crime, this law addresses victims’ needs, such as medical and psychological care or legal advice, and puts emergency mechanisms in place to assist them in the aftermath of an attack. Moreover, victims from another European country should receive the same assistance and compensation as residents of the country where the attack occurred, even when they return home. To ensure more efficient cooperation between countries, a Coordination Centre for Victims of Terrorism will open in 2019. An EU country faced with a terrorist attack can also ask for help under the EU solidarity clause and benefit from the crisis response arrangements involving political coordination.

Further information

• European Commission webpage on assistance to victims of terrorism and their families, https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/crisis-and-terrorism/victims_en
• European Parliament, study ‘How can the EU and the Member States better help victims of terrorism?’, 2017,  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596805/IPOL_STU(2017)596805_EN.pdf
• Fight against terrorism – definitions of terrorist crimes and support to victims, summary of legislation, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32017L0541

Written by Irina Popescu (1st edition),

© aterrom / Fotolia

On 23 March 2018, the European Commission proposed a multiannual plan for management of fisheries in a northeast Atlantic area along the western coast of the EU, known as the Western Waters. The plan covers fisheries exploiting stocks of fish and crustaceans living close to the sea bottom (i.e. ‘demersal fisheries’), and several deep-sea stocks. The proposed plan aims to ensure that stocks are exploited sustainably and that management is based on the most up-to-date scientific information. The EU fishing fleet concerned mainly includes vessels from Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom.

The proposal follows the pattern set by the recently adopted North Sea multiannual plan. It would allow a certain flexibility in setting fishing opportunities, by defining ranges of fishing mortality based on the best available scientific advice, and would introduce safeguard measures based on biomass levels, so as to restore stocks when they fall below safe biological limits. The plan would not include quantified values for fishing mortality or biomass levels. These are instead provided by the latest scientific advice available, and directly used by the Council when fixing fishing opportunities.

Versions

• July 2018: ‘Multiannual plan for fisheries in the Western Waters‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for fish stocks in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) 509/2007 and (EC) 1300/2008 Committee responsible: Fisheries (PECH) COM(2018) 149
23.3.2018

 

2018/0074(COD)

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Rapporteur: Alain Cadec (EPP, France) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D, Portugal)
Baroness Nosheena Mobarik (ECR, UK)
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE, Spain)
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL, Portugal)
Linnéa Engström (Greens/EFA, Sweden) Next steps expected: Committee vote

Written by Krisztina Binder, graphics: Giulio Sabbati,

© chris / Fotolia

Negotiations on an EU-Japan trade agreement were officially launched in March 2013. Following the political agreement in principle reached in July 2017, a final accord on the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) was announced in December 2017. On 18 April 2018, the European Commission proposed to the Council of the European Union to sign and conclude the agreement. The Commission expects that the EU-Japan EPA can be signed in July 2018, and aims to have the agreement come into effect before the end of its mandate in 2019, following approval by the Council and the European Parliament.

The EU-Japan EPA will establish a free trade area with a combined market of around 640 million consumers that accounts for roughly a third of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP). The 2016 Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (Trade SIA) of the agreement indicated that EU exports to Japan could rise by up to 34 %, and according to a more recent Commission estimate, European companies would save up to €1 billion in customs duties per year as a result of the EU-Japan EPA.

In addition to exploiting the untapped potential of bilateral trade, the agreement is also of strategic importance, conveying a strong message of the parties’ commitment to promoting a free and fair trading system based on rules, and to reject trade protectionism.

Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Japan, of the other part Committee responsible: International Trade (INTA) Rapporteur: Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D, Portugal)

Read the complete briefing on ‘International Agreements in Progress – EU-Japan trade agreement: a driver for closer cooperation beyond trade‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Maria Margarita Mentzelopoulou and Costica Dumbrava,

© Uskarp / Shutterstock

Access to citizenship status is an important prerequisite for enjoying rights and privileges, such as migration and political rights, as well as for developing a sense of identity and belonging. Since the establishment of Union citizenship, all persons who are nationals or citizens of an EU Member State enjoy the status of EU citizenship, which confers on them a number of additional rights and privileges. However, Member States retain full control over who can be recognised as a citizen.

Although the legal rules on the acquisition and loss of citizenship in the EU Member States remain fairly divergent, one can identify a number of key trends and issues. The need to integrate long-term immigrants has pushed EU countries to amend their citizenship laws. This often resulted in making citizenship both more liberal (lowering residence requirements and tolerating dual citizenship) and more restrictive (introducing integration clauses and citizenship tests). The surge in terrorist activities in the EU, which involve citizens, prompted several Member States to revise or reactivate citizenship provisions allowing for citizenship to be revoked.

Concerns about immigrants’ integration, allegiance and belonging, as well as about the cultural and economic consequences of regional integration and globalisation are at the heart of recent debates about citizenship in Europe. As the Maltese case of investor citizenship shows, the issue of access to citizenship is no longer a matter that concerns Member States alone. The bundling of national and EU citizenship means that Member States have a certain responsibility towards each other when taking decisions over who to accept (or reject) as citizens.

Read this briefing on ‘Acquisition and loss of citizenship in EU Member States: Key trends and issues‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Click to view slideshow.