Traduction de «chargé principal de l'évaluation » (Français → Anglais) :

Notes that energy reporting obligations as part of a framework are essential to evaluate the progress and implementation of existing energy efficiency legislation; regrets, however, the excessive energy reporting obligations imposed, also by gold-plating by Member States, on businesses, energy producers, consumers and public authorities, which limit the potential for growth and innovation; stresses that reporting duties should wherever possible be simplified in order to reduce administrative burdens and costs; criticises the fact that data obtained in reporting are often not comparable across the EU due to different breakdowns, methodologies and standards; calls on the Commission to reduce, including through digital solutions, the admin ...[+++]istrative burden related to reporting obligations and to establish more guidelines on data comparability for better data evaluation; calls for aligning energy demand projections in line with cost-effective saving potential in key sectors, and believes that cutting red tape will speed up the implementation of energy efficiency measures; notes that applying the ‘energy efficiency first’ principle requires reviewing energy planning and reporting and improving policy coherence in order to ensure their mutual reinforcement, recognising that saving energy is Europe’s first and most secure source of energy; notes that energy efficiency can be the best energy ‘source’ investment, improving affordability of energy, driving down the need for additional and costly supply-side infrastructure and helping tackle climate change.

42. Stresses the need for an urgent review of the Tissues and Cells Directive to bring it in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular as regards the principle of unpaid donation; takes the view that the same applies to the Advanced Therapies Regulation, which also needs to be made more applicable to SMEs; stresses to the Commission the need to come forward with a proposal for a more common approach to health technology assessment (HTA) for pharmaceuticals that does not create an extra layer of administrative burden ...[+++], but instead unburdens companies and Member States’ authorities by requiring them to carry out such assessment only once, at the European level, rather than in the 28 Member States; expects the timely adoption of secondary legislation provided for under the Tobacco Products Directive; stresses that the Commission should make the fight against antimicrobial resistance a priority, and asks for concrete legislative proposals to tackle these serious problems, in addition to the existing proposals in the veterinary field; calls also for greater attention to be focused on human medicine, for example in the form of an instrument governing antibiotics for human use similar to that already proposed for antibiotics in the veterinary field;

15. Urges the Commission to establish such a high-level advisory body on better regulation involving both stakeholder expertise and national experts as soon as possible; proposes a strong and independent advisory mandate for this body, inter alia on assessing the regulatory burdens of proposals including, but not limited to, administrative burdens and the cost of compliance, respect for subsidiarity and proportionality, and the choice of legal base, and suggesting better regulation initiatives and monitoring the implementation of EU legislation at national level; calls for Parliament and the Council to be involved in the expert nominat ...[+++]ion procedure;

7. Is firmly against the proposal of the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens to establish an external high level advisory body on better regulation outside the EU institutions, which would be responsible for assessing the administrative burden of proposals, the cost of compliance, respect for subsidiarity and proportionality, the choice of legal base, and suggesting better regulation initiatives and monitoring the implementation of EU legislation at national level; believes that this option raises serious issues of legitimacy and governance and would strongly undermine the role and legitimacy of the Commission; strongly insists ...[+++]that this responsibility for conducting comprehensive and balanced impact assessments should be retained by the Commission under the systematic control of the European Parliament;

7. Is firmly against the proposal of the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens to establish an external high level advisory body on better regulation outside the EU institutions, which would be responsible for assessing the administrative burden of proposals, the cost of compliance, respect for subsidiarity and proportionality, the choice of legal base, and suggesting better regulation initiatives and monitoring the implementation of EU legislation at national level; believes that this option raises serious issues of legitimacy and governance and would strongly undermine the role and legitimacy of the Commission; strongly insists ...[+++]that this responsibility for conducting comprehensive and balanced impact assessments should be retained by the Commission under the systematic control of the European Parliament;

12. Observes that some prima facie assessment of the merits of a collective action should form a preliminary stage and stresses that claimants in collective redress actions must not be in a better or worse position than individual claimants; calls for the application in the context of collective redress mechanisms of the principle that the party bringing the action must provide evidence for its claim, subject to the applicable national law providing for a lighter burden of proof or easier access to information and evidence held by the defendant;