Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services - Progress report - Hoofdinhoud
| Documentdatum | 03-06-2016 |
|---|---|
| Publicatiedatum | 10-06-2016 |
| Kenmerk | 9309/16 ADD 1 |
| Van | Presidency |
| Externe link | origineel bericht |
| Originele document in PDF |  |
Council of the European Union Brussels, 3 June 2016
PUBLIC
(OR. en)
9309/16
Interinstitutional File: ADD 1
2016/0070 (COD) i LIMITE
SOC 339 EMPL 235 MI 366 COMPET 312 CODEC 714 JUSTCIV 120
REPORT
From: Presidency
To: Permanent Representatives Committee
No. prev. doc.: 8664/16 SOC 224 EMPL 135 MI 298 COMPET 210 CODEC 593 JUSTCIV 86
No. Cion doc.: 6987/16 SOC 144 EMPL 97 MI 142 COMPET 118 CODEC 279 -
COM(2016) 128 final i + ADD 1 - ADD 2
Subject: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC i concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services
-
-Progress report
In accordance with the guidance on Impact Assessment (doc. 16024/14) delegations will attached the summary of the discussions on the Impact Assessment on the above Directive.
_______________ Summary of the Working Party discussions on the Impact Assessment (IA)
A group delegations felt that the policy context was based on scarce data which do not provide an objective picture of reality and can lead to false conclusions. The data collected in four years would not justify different conclusions from those drawn in 2012 in the IA to the Enforcement Directive. They also questioned the proposed legal basis (provision of services) as to the coverage of the rules on working conditions (protection of workers), and in particular remuneration, contained in the proposal. Another group of delegations were of the view that the IA analysed well or at least to some extent the policy context and the problem.
There was also a divergence between delegations on whether and to what extent the EU competence is clearly established and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality well-grounded in the IA, with a group of delegations of the view that the Commission did not fulfil all conditions in Protocols 1 and 2 of the TFEU and that the problem was disproportionately small compared to the measure proposed.
As to the evidence, a number of delegations indicated that the problems were not sufficiently justified and substantiated by evidence such that the proposal was based on assumptions, that the Commission had carried out no public consultations or consultations with stakeholders and that there were significant limitations to the accuracy/reliability of the data used and provided (use of estimates, proxies, extrapolations, etc).
Other delegations felt that the limited availability of evidence was fairly acknowledged by the
Commission which could, nonetheless, carefully assess the data and draw plausible conclusions, or at least to some extent.
Most respondents concur that the policy objectives are either clear or clear to some extent.
However, for some there is not enough correspondence between these policy objectives and the problem definition, given that, in their view, the problem itself is not well defined; subsequently, for these same respondents, the broad policy strategies are also inconsistent with the policy objectives.
As regards the policy options, for most respondents, the IA identifies fully or partly the feasible ones to meet the objectives. Broadly speaking, there is satisfaction as regards the stakeholder identification. For a group of delegations, there was no explanation why negative views of some major stakeholders were discarded, while the favorable views of others were taken into consideration.
A group of delegations was satisfied with the underlying reasoning concerning possible impacts given by the Commission, considering that it was clearly or at least to a certain extent presented and assessed for each option in the IA. Other delegations stressed the lack of hard facts and data which could justify the Commission's assumptions, judging the analysis biased. These delegations found that the IA lacked an in-depth economic analysis based on solid evidence and calculations, that effects on consumers were not sufficiently analysed, that the impact on competitiveness and competition of enterprises was not well estimated (with regard to increased labour costs and additional costs of transport, accommodation and board, and higher regulatory costs, in particular for SME's) and that the socio-economic impact in sending countries was not taken into consideration.
Referring to the proposed indicators, many delegations pointed out that there were no indicators proposed in the IA. There was a broadly more positive evaluation of the monitoring and evaluation arrangements from a large group of delegations, while another large group felt that the IA does not, or does only to a certain extent, explicitly provide for operational arrangements for monitoring and evaluation, making only a slight reference on the promotion of independent research to analyse different elements of the proposal. Only some delegations considered that the IA contained information on the impact of the transposition deadline. As regards the methodology, a group of delegations were either unsatisfied, or satisfied only to a certain extent, considering that it was based on assumptions and estimates. The rest of delegations considered that the methodology was appropriate in full or to some extent.