Document/Miscellaneous GRF CES152-2008 D EN

- 1 -

European Economic and Social Committee

Brussels, 31October 2008

Registry CESE 152/2008 FR-EN-ES/GW/nm

- 1 -

The 448th plenary session of 22 and 23 October 2008 was marked by the two-yearly renewal of the Committee's thirteenth term of office, for the period 2008-2010

The following were elected:

EESC president: Mario SEPI (GR II – IT)

EESC vice-president, in charge of the communication group: Irini Ivoni PARI (GRIEL)

EESC vice-president, in charge of the budget group: Seppo KALLIO (GR III – FI)

There follows a summary of the opinions adopted by the plenary assembly:

1.FINANCIAL SERVICES

• Cross-border investments

Rapporteur: Mr Morgan (Employers–UK)

Co-rapporteur: Mr Derruine (Employees–B)

References: COM(2007) 853 final – CESE 1659/2008

Key points:

The EESC supports the Communication from the Commission that brings together two important strands of the Lisbon Programme: the focus on the formation and growth of innovative small companies and the integration of EU capital markets as a means of financing employment and productivity growth.

The EESC recommends that Member States use the taxation system to create incentives for private individuals to invest in small companies. This will then encourage the development of stock markets in which small company shares can be traded.

Venture capital will not meet all the demand for start-up capital because VC firms will only invest selectively in VC early stage businesses. The requirement to encourage the provision of start up capital is a second reason why the EESC commends to the Commission and to Member States the provision of tax incentives for private investment in start-up businesses.

The EESC is insistent that the removal of obstacles to cross border activities of VCs should not facilitate without proper safeguards, other private equity activities such as leveraged buy outs.

The EESC asks the Commission, in the context of this venture capital initiative, to ensure that social dialogue continues to prevail and that the directive on information and consultation of workers applies in those cases. Further, the EESC urges again the Commission to submit a proposal in order to update the "Acquired Rights" directive in the way that transfers of undertakings resulting from operations to transfer the shares are also covered.

Contact:Mr João Pereira dos Santos

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 92 45 – email: )

• Combating fraud/means of payment

Rapporteur: Mr Iozia (Employees–IT)

Reference:Own-initiative opinion – CESE 1662/2008

Key points:

One feature of the current global economy is the notable increase in non-cash means of payment, such as credit and debit cards and online payments.

The need to secure the development of alternative payment means to cash in the European Union is related to the liberalisation of capital movements and the implementation of Economic and Monetary Union.

The European Economic and Social Committee regrets that the initiatives taken to date to prevent and combat fraud and the counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment have proven to be insufficient to halt the spread of this phenomenon.

The main barrier to the effective implementation of a fraud prevention system has been identified by the Commission as the difficulty in exchanging data within the EU on both fraudsters and those deemed at risk. To ensure effective preventative action, it seems necessary to increase the means of information exchange on fraudsters, by enhancing the channels of cooperation between the relevant national authorities.

A further obstacle to effectively curbing fraud lies in the inconsistency of legislation across the Member States with regard to powers of inquiry, as well as the varying degrees of deterrence. Harmonising national legislation seems therefore the best way to effectively curb this typically trans-national form of crime.

The EU must therefore step up its strategy to combat fraud and the counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment by deploying a range of measures.

Contact:Ms Claudia Drewes-Wran

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 80 67– email: )

• Ethicaland social dimensionofEuropean financialinstitutions

Rapporteur: Mr Iozia (Employees–IT)

Reference:Own-initiative opinion– CESE 1680/2008

Key points:

The EESC is convinced that the grave financial crisis and the welcome defeat of casino capitalism could provide an opportunity to adopt more appropriate measures for safeguarding the financial system in the future while simultaneously relaunching the economy. A broad-based effort is required, commensurate with the danger that the virus detected in the financial sector might spread to the real economy as a whole. Investment in infrastructure, in 'green investment' such as energy efficiency, renewable resources, and innovation and research could help bolster demand. A new European Fund, to be managed by the EIB, and guaranteed by the Member States, could solve the problems created by the freeze on financing for the economy, especially for the part of the economy which most requires medium and long-term investment.

Protecting the biodiversity of suppliers of financial services is an element in Europe's cultural and social heritage that must not be frittered away; on the contrary it should be sustained, given the enormous social value that it represents.

The documented and important role of the savings banks and various cooperative movements in promoting ethical/social initiatives and fostering the development of local systems merits particular attention. Efforts should be made to secure more systematic and widespread recognition of this type of social governance.

Each time that a specific organisation can be shown to have given up, at least in part but on a structural and permanent basis, the principle of maximising profit in order to promote initiatives of an ethical or social nature, it should be entitled to come under tax and regulatory rules that are different from the general ones, except in the case of prudential rules, at least in part.

By ensuring that Member States do not adopt measures that would distort competition, the European Commission can help protect diversity in the supply of financial, banking and insurance services. The rules on State aid should take account of this aspect.

Contact:Mr Gilbert Marchlewitz

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 93 58 – email: gilbert.marchlewitz @eesc.europa.eu)

• General arrangements for excise duty

Rapporteur: Mr Burani (Employers–IT)

References: COM(2008) 78 final/3 – 2008/0051 COD – CESE 1681/2008

Key points:

The EESC supports the proposal and intends to comment on some aspects as a contribution to the discussions that will follow.

A dual procedure (as regards the date of entry into force) would be confusing and expensive both for the authorities and for traders. However, the alternative, i.e. to launch EMCS only when everyone is ready, would similarly penalise traders and those who are already ready now. An interim solution, which is hardly satisfactory and would be likely to delay EMCS in Europe indefinitely, might consist in using EMCS only for internal transactions within those Member States able to adopt the electronic procedure.

With regard to the movement of goods under suspension of excise duty, the EESC supports the various innovations, aside from a few clarifications and proposals that are mainly to do with the concept, which is now more clearly defined, of "irretrievable loss" of goods. With regard to distance selling, the wording of the proposal could give rise to doubts of interpretation of a legal nature concerning the country in which excise duty is to be collected.

The EESC also proposes that a clause be inserted into the new directive specifying the quantitative and value limits up to which purchases made by a member of the public in another Member State are considered to have been made by that person as a "private individual".

Contact:Mr Siegfried Jantscher

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 82 87 – email: )

• Combating tax evasion

Rapporteur: Mr Salvatore (Employees–IT)

References: COM(2008) 147 final – 2008/0058 COD, 2008/0059 COD – CESE 1682/2008

Key points:

The European Economic and Social Committee welcomes the proposal.

The proposed amendments meet the growing demand for simplification, effectiveness and efficiency and forge a clearer link between measures to streamline administrative procedures and the capacity of Member States to combat and curb the problem of intra-Community fraud.

Contact:Mr Siegfried Jantscher

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 82 87 – email: )

2.DEFENCE AND SECURITY

• Transfersof defence-related products

Rapporteur: Mr Opran (Employers–RO)

References: COM(2007) 765 final – 2007/0279 COD – CESE 1660/2008

Key points :

The Committee believes that, in Europe, a concerted and common effort has to be made in order to ensure an appropriate control on the flow of war material or, more generally, defence equipment. For this reason the solution proposed by the Committee is a common European Security Framework.

The Committee therefore considers that the initiative taken by the Commission is an important step forward and considers it a priority that Member States adopt a common set of tools to manage their intra-EU transfers.

The Committee endorses the Commission proposal requesting that Member States introducethe option of issuing global and general licences and publish at least two general licences: a general licence covering military equipment for all the armed forces of the Member States, and a general licence covering transfers of components to certified companies.

While maintaining the full discretion of Member States for exports to third countries conducted by companies located on their territories, the Committee considers that the directive should provide sufficient guarantees to increase mutual confidence between Member States regarding the effectiveness of export control.

The Committee considers that the proposal for a Directive will have substantial beneficial effects on industrial cooperation in Europe and the development of competitiveness of European defence industries and recommends its adoption subject to the more detailed remarks contained in the opinion.

Contact:Mr João Pereira dos Santos

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 92 45 – email: )

• Public works contracts – Defence andsecurity

Rapporteur: Mr Opran (Employers–RO)

References: COM(2007) 766 final – 2007/0280 COD – CESE 1661/2008

Key points:

The Committee strongly recommends that all the initiatives of the EU in the defence and security domains be undertaken at the highest political level: the European Council, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the EDA Steering Board - in the ministerial configuration (EDA-SBMF).

The Committee recommends to the European Council, the High Representative for CFSP and the EDA-SBMF – that they evaluate, select and make public the final decision on the list of the defence equipments and products to be used by all EU participants to EDEM and EDTIB.

Furthermore, the Committee:

believes the European Defence Agency should be a major driving force in the sector;

recognises the European Commission's competence and the salient role which it plays, and believes that the European Commission's experience will be useful to its effort to restructure and develop Member States' defence industry;

recognises the importance of taking the interests and proposals of the defence industry itself into account in the process of developing a European defence equipment policy.

Regarding the application of the Code of Conduct on Defence Procurements, the Committee acknowledges that all EU and European NATO Member States should be able to take part in cooperation programmes in so far as their financial, industrial and technological capability allows them to do so, and that due respect should also be paid to the interests of "small-medium" states.

For statistical evaluation and correct benchmarking, the Committee considers that the Commission should periodically present a Progress Report on the implementation progress of the Directive - structured both on country bases and at the Community level.

Finally, the Committee considers that the proposed Directive should be extended to the entire European Economic Area (EEA).

Contact:Mr João Pereira dos Santos

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 92 45 – email: )

3.EXTERNAL RELATIONS

• EU-Brazil relations

Rapporteur: Mr Barros Vale (Employers–PT)

Co-rapporteur: Mr Iuliano (Employees–IT)

Reference: Own-initiative opinion– CESE 1685/2008

The opinion looks at the development of EU-Brazil relations and the emerging political and economic role which Brazil is playing, with increasing influence on the international stage. In 2007 EU-Brazil relations were revitalised with the launching of the EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership and holding of the First EU-Brazil Summit of Heads of State and Government on 4 July 2007.

This new framework for bilateral relations at the highest political level, which is not intended to replace but rather to complement EU-Mercosur relations, establishes mechanisms for ongoing dialogue with Brazil in a series of sectoral dialogues.

In this opinion the EESC sets out recommendations on possible activities within the scope of the joint action plan: the participatory dimension and economic and social cohesion; economic and trade cooperation and the issue of land; education, research and development; social dialogue and the multinationals operating in Brazil; the environment, climate change and biofuels; poverty and social problems; immigration and recognition of qualifications; and "bringing our people together".

The EESC intends to act within this new framework by setting up a Round Table of EU-Brazil civil society, similar to those it has with India and China. Its counterpart would be Brazil's Council for Economic and Social Development.

Contact:Ms Beatriz Porres de Matteo

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 91 31–email: )

• Northern Ireland peace process

Rapporteur: Ms Morrice (Various Interests–UK)

Key points:

Much can be learnt from the EU involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process. The progress made since the darkest days of its troubled past, in social, economic and particularly political terms, has been exceptional.

The role played by the EU in the Northern Ireland peace process was, and remains, without precedent in its history. The EU peace-building method in Northern Ireland has been a unique, long-term commitment of substantial resources, strategically planned and executed, based on the principles of social partnership and subsidiarity and guided every step of the way by inclusive local consultation.

Through a combination of indirect and direct intervention using both financial and non-financial tools, the EU has helped enable the peace process create the environment for the successful settlement, once the political conditions prevailed, and acted as a catalyst for a genuine, albeit limited, peace building impact.

Much remains to be done as the peace process now moves to the more matter of bringing about real reconciliation to the region.

The opinion recommends that the EU should retain its long term support for peace-building in Northern Ireland, in doing so it should continue to focus on: cross-community reconciliation; marginalised groups; the needs of victims of the "Troubles"; the inclusion of voluntary and community organisations, trade unions and business at all levels of decision-making regarding EU PEACE funds; and reducing bureaucracy. It further recommends sharing of key lessons learnt throughout the peace process both within the EU and internationally, e.g. by setting up a data-base of best practice in conflict resolution and producing a compendium of successful projects. The Opinion supports an idea referred to in the European Commission's report of the Task Force on Northern Ireland, namely to establish an EU facility for Conflict Resolution.

Finally, the opinion contains a "tool kit" which draws together an array of instruments that can be used in conflict resolution.

Contact:Mr Marco Thyssen

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 84 11 – email: )

4.INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVENESS

• A mid-term review of SME policy

Rapporteur: Mr Burns (Employers–UK)

References: COM(2007) 592 final – CESE 1657/2008

Key points:

Contact:Mr Luis Lobo

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 97 17– email: )

• Europe: catching up or taking the lead?

Rapporteur: Mr Toth (Various Interests–HU)

Co-rapporteur: Mr Leo (Cat. 3–AT)

Reference: Own-initiative opinion – CESE 1674/2008

Key points :

Climate change, demographic changes, globalisation, and commodity and energy scarcity will lead to far-reaching economic and social changes in Europe. The impact on living standards and competitiveness in Europe depends largely on whether the right measures are taken in good time. The need to find innovative responses to new challenges stems from the success of the European catch-up process in many areas.

A sustained increase in resources for the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy is therefore proposed.

Increased cooperation among Member States in devising and implementing measures can also increase effectiveness. In order to support this process, a share of the additional resources should be put aside specifically for the development of cooperation programmes between the European Union and Member States.

Europe is thus faced with a challenge primarily because only a few Member States have laid the foundations for cutting-edge work. Many Member States have still not managed the transition from catch-up phase to cutting-edge production. The transition to a knowledge-based economy leads to increased demand for highly qualified workers. In order to deal with this situation, there is a need for medium to long-term forecasts of the skills required of workers. This will form the basis for the restructuring of the education and training sector.

In order to solve outstanding problems and boost economic efficiency, structures in science and research should be put in place to promote excellence. The European Research Council and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology will accelerate this process of change. Investment in these structures must be further stepped up in future as an incentive for Member States to pursue complementary strategies.

Alongside investment in workers and scientific systems, there is a need for Member States, in their efforts to promote research, to offer much stronger support to risky innovation projects, better protection of property rights (e.g. European patent and measures against product piracy), innovation-friendly regulation of the product and labour markets, risk-appropriate funding possibilities, measures to boost demand for innovation (e.g.internal market, public procurement, lead markets), more mobility at all levels and an appropriate competition and macro-policy.