SG 3.1

/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Secretariat-General
REFIT Platform Secretariat

Note for the REFIT Platform

Subject:Analysis of input from the members of the REFIT Platform's Stakeholder group on priorities

1Introduction

2Individual submissions in the area of Agriculture, Taxation and Internal Market (total number 32)

3Identification of individual submissions falling outside of the 3 priority areas (total number 9)

4Individual submissions that should be considered by the Platform at a later stage (total number 7)

5Individual submissions that should not be addressed by the Platform (total number 4)

6Submissions on which there are diverging opinions within the group (total number 3)

Annex 1 - Individual submissions in the 3 priority areas to be dealt with in upcoming 6 months

Annex 2 - Individual submissions falling outside of the 3 priority areas (9)

Annex 3 - Individual submissions that should be addressed by the Platform at a later stage according to the lead reporter(s)

Annex 4 - Individual submissions that should not be addressed by the Platform (according to some members)

Annex 5 – Individual submission on which members of the Platform have diverging views regarding the prioritisation

1Introduction

  • Following up on the meeting of the REFIT Platform on 20 September, members of the Stakeholder group have been invited to screen the submissions and to identify their priorities for the upcoming 6 months.
  • In particular, members were asked to identify:
  • Individual submissions in the areas of Agriculture, Taxation and Internal marketthe Stakeholder group will work on during the next 6 months, with confirmation of the members who will prepare the work;
  • Individual submissions members would like to fast track falling outside of these policy areas for reasons specific legitimacy, with confirmation of the members who will prepare the work;
  • Individual submissions on which the Stakeholder group will not prepare an opinion, at least for now.
  • The present document provides a consolidated overview of the input receivedby members of the Stakeholder group and has been prepared to facilitate discussions for the meeting of22 November 2016.
  • In total, 43 individual submissions have been identified for prioritisation over the upcoming 6 months:
  • 32 of which fall under agreed priority areas of Agriculture, Taxation and Internal Market and could be addressed by 16 opinions. Reporters have been identified for all submissions (Annex 1).
  • 9of which falloutside of the 3 priority areas but could be fast tracked for reasons of specific legitimacy (Annex 2).
  • In addition, members of the Stakeholder group have identified 7 submissionsfor which they suggest that the REFIT Platform should await results of ongoing Commission work before issuing an opinion (Annex 3) and 3 submissions falling under the agreed exclusion criteria (Annex 4).
  • 3 submissions have been prioritised differently byindividual members Stakeholder group (Annex 5).
  • The Platform secretariat has received information from different stakeholders who have made suggestions that they would like to withdraw their 3submissions.

2Individual submissions in the area of Agriculture, Taxation and Internal Market (total number 32)

  • Members have reiterated their interest to work on the three priority areas identified by the Stakeholder group back in April 2016: Agriculture, Taxation and Custom Union and Internal Market.
  • In total, 32 individual submissions have been identified under these 3 areas, which could be covered by 16 opinions:
  • 19 in the area of agriculture.In descending order of priority these cover: Greening (corresponding to 7 individual submissions that could be grouped and answered by one opinion); ‘Cross Compliance’ (corresponding to 6 individual submissions that could be grouped under 1 opinion) and ‘Control and Audit of the CAP’ (corresponding to 6 individual submissions which could be grouped under 1 opinion).
  • 6 in the area of Taxation and Custom Union
  • 7 in the area of Internal Market

3Identification of individual submissions falling outside of the 3 priority areas (total number 9)

  • 9 individual submissions were identified, covering the areas of:
  • Competition
  • Environment
  • Health and Food Safety
  • Financial Stability; and
  • Horizontal

Please see Annex 2 for the list of thesesubmissions.

4Individual submissions that should be considered by the Platform at a later stage (total number 7)

  • 3 submissions in the area of internal Market have been identified as proposals that are already being addressed by the Commission andshould therefore be considered at a later stage by the Platform, once it is more clear what the outlook of the Commission is for each one.
  • 4 submissions in the area of Internal Market have been categorized requiring more analysis before the Stakeholder group can decide how to respond to them.

Please see Annex 3 for the list of thesesubmissions.

5Individual submissions that should not be addressed by the Platform (total number 4)

  • 3 submissions (1 for Taxation and 2 for Internal Market ) have been categorized as simplification proposals that should be taken care of directly by the Commission because they are too restrictive in their scope or are considered to fall outside of the mandate of the REFIT Platform.
  • 1 submission regarding the Flight Delay Compensation Regulation has been identified as falling under the exclusion criteria set by the REFIT Platform and as such should not be further pursued.

Please see Annex 4 for the list of thesesubmissions.

6Submissions on which there are diverging opinions within the group (total number 3)

  • For three submissions members of the Stakeholder group have identified different prioritized, which will need to be discussed during the meeting.

Please see Annex 5 for the list of thesesubmissions.

1

SG 3.1

Annex 1 - Individual submissions in the 3 priority areas to be dealt with in upcoming 6 months

1.Individual submissions identified in the area of Agriculture that should be dealt with in the next 6 months (total number 19)

Greening

Ref Number / Submitted by / Short Description of the submission
I.10.a / NNR / The hectare thresholds for derogations from greening should be evaluated
I.10.b / NNR / Control crop diversification on the basis of the farmers’ aid application
I.10.c / NNR / Reduce the number of weighting factors by increasing the factor for short rotation coppice and catch crops/green cover to 0, 7.
I.10.d / NNR / Assess whether the measure of keeping the share of permanent grassland at a national level is effective.
I.10.e / NNR / Keep a clear distinction between permanent grassland and arable land by letting fallow arable land be labelled as arable land, independent of cover.
I.10.f / NNR / Establish separate set of rules for administrative penalties related to fulfilling the derogations
I.10.g / NNR / A fundamental review of greening would be welcome, evaluating the costs and benefits of the greening payment, preferable already in 2017 or at least in the view of the next CAP reform.

Cross Compliance

Ref Number / Submitted by / Short Description of the submission
I.8.a / NNR / Abolish the criteria of “intent” in the cross-compliance system
I.8.b / NNR / Evaluate the cross-compliance penalty system
I.8.c / NNR / Delete the rule in Article 39.1 in (EU) No 640/2014 where it says that reductions on support should as a general rule be 3 %.
I.8.d / NNR / Clarify and develop the guidelines on lost ear tags to also cover guidance on how to deal with non-compliances as regards reporting of incidents and record keeping
I.8.e / NNR / Evaluate what rules that should apply within the cross-compliance system
I.8.f / NNR / Assessment of the link between cross-compliance rules and AGRI-environmental commitments.

Control and Audit

Ref Number / Submitted by / Short Description
I.7.a / NNR / On the stop controls should not focus on the execution of minor details.
I.7.b / NNR / Audits based on random samples should be avoided
I.7.c / NNR / Audit methods are not harmonised
I.7.d / NNR / Greening payments should be included in the provisions of Art 36
I.7.e / NNR / The control of the greening payment should be amended in line with the cross-compliance system
I.7.f / NNR / The Commission should review, explain and develop the reasoning behind the 2 % materiality threshold for all support schemes

2.Individual submissions identified in the area of Taxation that should be dealt with in the next 6 months (Total number 6)

Ref Number / Submitted by / Short Description of the submission
XVIII.2.a / German Chambers of Commerce and Industry (DIHK)" / "Improving the efficiency of VAT on six different points; VAT treatment of chain transactions, simplification rules for warehouses, tax exemption on intra community deliveries, standardizing the reverse charge, avoiding duplication of VAT and enabling EU-wide VAT registration".
XVIII.5.a / Danish Business Forum (DBF): / The COM should build and extend on the mini One-Stop-Shop into a wide One-Stop-Shop for EU VAT declarations
XVIII.8.a / NNR / The COM should present EU harmonized definition or clear guidance regarding the distinction between single and composite supplies".
XVIII.9.a / NNR / The VAT rules for public bodies and for transactions in the public interest need to be modernized and article 13 redrafted to establish a level playing field between public and private sector".
XVIII.10.a / NNR / A possibility for small businesses to use a VAT reporting threshold on B2C sales across EU".
XVIII.12.a / LTL ID 27 / Complicated tax regimes for the Scotch Whisky industry that creates unfair competition to Scotch".

3.Individual submissions identified in the area of Internal Market that should be dealt with in the next 6 months (Total number 7)

Ref Number / Submitted by / Short Description of the submission
XII.1.a / BusinessEurope / "More focused data collection and research on the application of single market rules to be able to collect more precise and comparable sector specific data, without increasing costs for business".
XII.2.a / BusinessEurope / Public authorities should make better use of Internal Market Information (IMI) system to alleviate administrative burden on business by checking information through this network, to save both time and costs".
XII.4.a / Danish Business Forum / A common notification procedure, like the Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS), for technical rules on goods and services within the internal market would be favourable to ensure uniform rules and transparency."
XII.4.c / BusinessEurope / Every Member State should put in place one Single Market Centre with authority over national transposition, implementation and enforcement over EU legislation to ensure better application of Single Market rules on the ground."
XII.6.a / Danish Business Forum / The COM should develop additional guidelines to guide Member States to justify the need for new additional technical regulations in the notification process under the Transparency Directive."
XII.11.a / Finnish Survey for Better Regulation / A standard on fibre labels should be prepared on fibre abbreviations, to avoid that fibre labels must be provided in the official language of the Member State".
XII.13.a / Member of the REFIT Platform Government group / The COM needs to consider some framework to ensure that linked objectives within different proposals/directives are complementary or synchronized, e.g. clear link between the Late Payment Directive and the Procurement Directive."

Annex 2 - Individual submissions falling outside of the 3 priority areas (9)

Policy Area / Ref N° / Submitted by / Short Description of the submission
Competition / V.7.a / DIHK / Increasing the threshold for the de Minimis regulation
Competition / V.9.a / Member of the Government group / The obligation to notify every project undertaken by companies in certain areas, regardless of the amount of investment generates really high administrative burdens
Environment / Not yet available / Member of the Stakeholder group / Environmental impacts of shale gas exploration and production
Environment / IX.8.a / Member of the Stakeholder group / The Commission should continue to make proper use of the notification procedure according to Directive 98/34/EC to avoid unjustified national draft technical regulations.
Health and Food Safety / XI.10a / Member of the Stakeholder group / The definition “pesticides residues” should only cover the residues of active substances used as plant protection products, their metabolites and/or reaction products. For pesticide residues this means they have to derive from a treatment with plant protection products
Financial stability / X.4a / GDV / EMIR and Solvency II
Financial stability / X.5a / DIHK / EMIR and OTC
Horizontal / XXII.2.a / Member of the Stakeholder group / Standardisation – general - Ensuring that standardisation is harmonised across EU legislation and correctly referred to
Horizontal / XXII.2.b / Member of the Stakeholder group / Standardisation - medical devices - European companies have to use a very old standard (which was not identical to an international standard), while manufacturers in other countries can use the updated standard, being ahead of Europe

Annex 3 - Individual submissions that should be addressed by the Platform at a later stage according to the lead reporter(s)

Simplification proposals that could be considered by the Platform but that are already being addressed by the Commission and, therefore, should be considered at a later stage once it is clearer what the outlook of the Commission is as a result of the current stage in its work

Internal Market

•Submission XII.4.b by the Board of Swedish Industry and Commerce for Better Regulation (NNR)

"The Commission should ensure the full implementation of the Services Directive across the EU by putting more pressure on Member States failing to comply with agreed provisions".

Current Commission work: In the Communication 'Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business' the Commission announced a legislative proposal modelled on the successful features of the notification procedure under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 for services currently not covered by that Services Directive.

•Submission XII.9.a by the DIHK (German Chambers of Commerce and Industry)

"New eco-design requirements governing resource efficiency must not lead to regulatory duplication and should take products that are no longer contemporary out of the market".

Current Commission work:The Eco-design Directive was evaluated in 2012 and again in 2015. On both occasions, the Commission concluded that the Directive was fit for purpose and that those aspects which required more attention (e.g. timely standards, better market surveillance) did not require changes to the legislative text.

•Submission XII.15.aby a member of the REFIT Platform Stakeholder group

"There is a burden on the food business operators and the COM should continue working towards achieving “full” EU harmonization".

Current Commission work: The Single Market Strategy, adopted in October 2015( aims at straightening the internal market by (among others) ensuring more and better mutual recognition. This will be done by an EU wide Action Plan aiming to increase awareness of the principle and by revisiting the Mutual Recognition Regulation to facilitate the use of the mutual recognition principle by 2017.If precise burden on food business operators can be estimated it could be considered by the European Commission in the impact assessment.

Simplification proposals which require more analysis before the stakeholder group can decide how to respond to them (according to lead reporters)

Internal Market

•Submission XII.4.d by the Board of Swedish Industry and Commerce for Better Regulation (NNR)

"Removal of remaining barriers to establishment, by including health- and elderly care in the provisions of the Service Directive, giving companies full access to the EU-market".

•Submission XII.7.a by the Finnish Survey for Better Regulation

"The provisions on delivery under the Postal Service Directive on five days could be repealed, or more flexible regulations introduced".

•Submission XII.10.a by the GDV (German Insurance Association)

"Mandatory insurance for medical device manufacturers raises the danger of moral hazard and voluntary insurance solutions are thus preferable for European competitiveness"

•Submission XII.12.a by the Finnish Survey for Better Regulation

"More extensive impact assessments are required for the proposal of a simplifying regulation on the transfer of motor vehicles registered in another Member State".

Annex 4 - Individual submissions that should not be addressed by the Platform (according to some members)

Taxation

•Submission XVIII.11 .a by Cinquantenaire Partners SPRL (LTL ID 42)

"Establishment of a low minimum salary component common to all EU".

Internal Market

•Submission XII.14.a by citizen (LTL ID 554): "Too restrictive French law on fitness instruction".

Mobility and Transport

•Submission XV.7a by the NNR;" Flight delay compensation regulation": Falls under the exclusion criterion as it is inlegislative procedure since 2013 (EESC)

Annex 5 – Individual submission on which members of the Platform have diverging views regarding the prioritisation

Internal market

  • Submission XII.17.a by the European Forum of Independent Professionals (LTL ID 555): "Some SME tests in official impact assessments fail because they do not measure nor they are not adapted to reveal the impacts on self-employed professionals".

Current Commission position: The SME Test covers the assessment of impacts on all types of small and medium-sized companies. The initial assessment of the types of businesses likely to be affected by the proposal should steer the further steps of the SME Test. For example, if self-employed professionals are part of the groups likely to be affected by the proposal, the following steps of the SME Test should then focus on the expected impacts on this specific group.

  • Submission XII.3.aby a citizen "Submissions to form an internal system which would incorporate databases of all EU states to make it easier to establish new branches between EU states, to decrease administrative burdens".

Current Commission work:The Commission is currently working with the Member States on setting up the system of interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers in accordance with Directive 2012/17/EU. The system, named BRIS, is due to go live by mid-2017. It will be composed of the Member States registers, a European central platform and the European e-Justice Portal, serving as the European electronic access point to company information. Once BRIS is live, citizens, businesses and public authorities will have cross-border access to documents and particulars which need to be compulsorily disclosed by limited liability companies in accordance with EU law. While BRIS will not deal with the company or branch registration as such, it will however greatly facilitate the access to company data including for public authorities dealing with the registration of foreign branches.

The Commission Work Programme for 2017 announces a company law package, including an initiative to facilitate the use of digital technologies throughout a company's lifecycle. The 2015 Communication on "Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business" as well as the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020 already contained a reference to such an initiative, referring in this context in particular to online registration of companies and to the electronic filing of documents and information.