Traduction de «Groupe ad hoc sur les structures industrielles futures » (Français → Anglais) :

Ad hoc Group on Future Industrial Structures

Foreign ownership and the structure of Canadian industry [ Report of the Task Force on the structure of Canadian industry ]

Task Force on the Structure of Canadian Industry

Ad hoc COST Working Party on Structures

19. Agrees with the Commission that IP must have an effective, integrated governance structure including the monitoring of activities; recalls the EP’s recommendation in the Lange report on industry to establish a permanent Commission IP task force of relevant directorates-general that takes into account the input of stakeholders and coordinates and monitors implementation; stresses that Parliament should be regularly informed on IP developments and asks the Commission to report annually to Parliament on the progress of RISE and the ...[+++] extent to which its ambitions are being met with the tools available; proposes that the taskforces for the priority action lines also publish an annual report; calls also on the Commission to study and identify the overcapacity and restructuring challenges facing European industry and particular sectors with the view to putting forward short-term solutions and calls on the Commission to monitor any offshoring of European manufacturing; stresses that RISE needs an alliance of and partnership with stakeholders from industry from different sectors (including SMEs), trade unions, academia and civil society, such as consumer watchdogs and non-governmental organisations; calls on the Commission to make full use of Article 173(2) of the Treaty to advance RISE and marshal its resources more effectively; points to the importance of improving the manner in which the Union communicates its IP to the public and in particular young people, so as to enhance the importance of European industry, its jobs and know-how;

28. Calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance, covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation; calls for a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment schemes; urges the Commission to answer its previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ...[+++]ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision-making and standard-setting process; notes that these stakeholders ay include – but are not necessarily restricted to – the EPC, consumer organisations, merchant organisations and large retail chains, the European Banking Authority (EBA), the Commission, experts in various fields, non-banking payment service providers, and mobile, internet and card commerce and mobile network operators; calls on these stakeholders to arrange their work under a new governance structure where the SEPA Council has a role; considers that the SEPA Council should be assisted by various technical committees, or ‘task forces’ for e-payment, m-payment, cards, cash and other standardisation issues, and by ad hoc working groups; recalls the Commission's commitment, in the declaration on SEPA governance on the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012, to come up with proposal before the end of 2012; calls on European standardisation bodies such as the European Committee for Standardisation (Comité Européen de Normalisation, CEN) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), in cooperation with the Commission, to play a more active role in standardising card payments;

28. Calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance, covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation; calls for a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment schemes; urges the Commission to answer its previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ...[+++]ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision-making and standard-setting process; notes that these stakeholders ay include – but are not necessarily restricted to – the EPC, consumer organisations, merchant organisations and large retail chains, the European Banking Authority (EBA), the Commission, experts in various fields, non-banking payment service providers, and mobile, internet and card commerce and mobile network operators; calls on these stakeholders to arrange their work under a new governance structure where the SEPA Council has a role; considers that the SEPA Council should be assisted by various technical committees, or ‘task forces’ for e-payment, m-payment, cards, cash and other standardisation issues, and by ad hoc working groups; recalls the Commission's commitment, in the declaration on SEPA governance on the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012, to come up with proposal before the end of 2012; calls on European standardisation bodies such as the European Committee for Standardisation (Comité Européen de Normalisation, CEN) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), in cooperation with the Commission, to play a more active role in standardising card payments;

25. Notes that the EU should have capacity to adjust and reform its internal governance structures in order to ensure a decision-making process able to reflect its plurality and create consensus; stresses the importance that a coherent foreign policy approach at EU level towards the BRICS and other emerging countries be reflected in the functioning of the EEAS; believes that the EEAS should review and strengthen strategic partnerships with individual BRICS countries, in close consultation with Parliament, exploiting their specificities and the potential for synergies and cooperation with the EU; urges the EEAS to devise horizontal and ...[+++] vertical coordination mechanisms that will enable EU foreign policy to benefit from EU institutional synergies and from the density and depth of Member States' bilateral ties with strategic partners, including the BRICS and other emerging powers; takes the view that, with regard to the BRICS, in addition to its organisation along geographical and thematic lines, the EEAS should establish an ad hoc coordinating mechanism to ensure that all individual policies towards the BRICS are compatible from a systemic point of view and that the policy lines adopted are reflected in the EU dialogue with emerged powers such as the USA, Canada and Japan; believes that the EU delegations in BRICS countries and other relevant emerging powers should liaise more closely with one another in order to ensure continuous monitoring and analysis on relations amongst the BRICS and relevant cross-sensitivities, thus enabling a more systemic approach; takes the view in this regard that EU Delegations in BRICS countries should analyse the positions of BRICS countries on governance and global challenges and on relations with other BRICS countries; believes that the EU should direct renewed efforts and resources to leading the reform process of a global system of governance and of international organisations with a view to ensuring a more inclusive consensus- ...