MEDEF · Trade and business associations · FR
Šaltinis: Europos Komisijos skelbiami susitikimai, sutapatinti pagal skaidrumo registro numerį. n = 138 susitikimų; x — metai pagal susitikimo datą, y — susitikimų skaičius.
…1 To the EU Commission – DG TAXUD MEDEF / Transparency Register identification number: 43763731235-75 10 February 2026 EU Simplification Agenda – Recast of EU rules on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation Dear Sir/Madam, We welcome the wide review of EU legislation in direct and indirect taxation that has been launched by the European Commission following President Von der Leyen’s request for each Commissioner to reduce administrative burdens and simplify implementation of EU legislation to create a more competitive single market for EU business. We appreciate that DG TAXUD is consulting with key stakeholders, including the private sector on this major simplification project. We are pleased to provide the following comments relating to the recast of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC).
…pleased to provide the following comments relating to the recast of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC). We have also responded to some questions of the consultation questionnaire. Yours sincerely. MEDEF Tax Affairs Mouvement des entreprises de France (MEDEF) is the largest representative business organisation in France, encompassing more than 200,000 member companies, 119 territorial organisations in continental France and in the overseas departments and 101 professional federations bringing together all business sectors (industry, services, construction, trade, etc.). These represent over 10 million employees (i.e. more than one-third of all French employees)1. 1 For more information of MEDEF’s mandates, actions and membership, please visit our website at https://www.medef.com/en/who-are-we/overview. Comments from the Mouvement des Entreprises de France Ref.
…our website at https://www.medef.com/en/who-are-we/overview. Comments from the Mouvement des Entreprises de France Ref. Ares(2026)1785661 - 17/02/2026 2 General remarks on the DAC framework MEDEF would like to remind about its previous contributions submitted in July 2024 and June 2025, which remain largely valid. As regards the recast of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (Directive 2011/16/EU – DAC), we would recommend focusing on the following key priorities: eliminating reporting obligations that are obsolete or provide limited value, particularly under DAC6, and streamlining overlapping or duplicative obligations. MEDEF fully supports effective administrative cooperation between tax authorities and high standards of tax transparency.
…fully supports effective administrative cooperation between tax authorities and high standards of tax transparency. However, simplification will only be meaningful if it results in tangible reductions in compliance costs, enhanced legal certainty and a more proportionate regulatory framework for businesses operating in the Single Market. The successive amendments to the DAC (from DAC1 to DAC9) have resulted in a highly complex and fragmented framework. While the overall objectives pursued are legitimate, the accumulation of reporting and notification obligations has significantly increased administrative burdens for businesses, particularly those operating across multiple Member States. In some areas, the complexity of the rules risks undermining their effectiveness and policy relevance.
Member States. In some areas, the complexity of the rules risks undermining their effectiveness and policy relevance. From a business perspective, genuine simplification cannot be achieved through the continuous layering of new requirements. The removal of obligations that have become redundant, obsolete or of limited added value should therefore be seriously considered. This is particularly relevant given the substantial compliance efforts already required by the implementation of the OECD/G20 Pillar Two rules into EU law. In this context, MEDEF wishes to stress that its main priority under the EU Simplification Agenda is the review of the ATAD and direct taxes directives. A comprehensive rehaul of the DAC is not a priority for businesses at this stage.
…the ATAD and direct taxes directives. A comprehensive rehaul of the DAC is not a priority for businesses at this stage. In light of the significant resources already invested in DAC compliance and the risk that any reopening of the DAC framework could generate additional complexity, MEDEF considers that, unless DAC6 or certain of its hallmarks are removed, maintaining the status quo should be the preferred approach. This being said, we would like to provide some more detailed comments on DAC4, DAC6, DAC9 as well as the EU TIN proposal and the way we answered the consultation questionnaire (see annex):
…on DAC4, DAC6, DAC9 as well as the EU TIN proposal and the way we answered the consultation questionnaire (see annex): 1. DAC4 and DAC9 – notification requirements We have observed that DAC4 has been implemented very unevenly across Member States, particularly regarding the notification modalities (annual versus change-based, different forms, etc.) and the notification timelines, with very few common deadlines between Member States, making compliance complex and difficult to manage for groups. We therefore consider that aligning timelines and notification procedures across Member States would significantly contribute to simplification. In addition, to deliver meaningful simplification, we believe that notification requirements should be handled at the group level rather than duplicated at the level of individual entities: in practice, 3 this could be implemented through a centralized…
…exchange of the information between tax authorities in a standardized format, similar to the Pillar Two exchanges. 2. DAC6 – administrative burden, proportionality and policy relevance DAC6 represents one of the most burdensome element of the DAC framework for businesses. It has led to reporting of routine transactions that were never intended to fall within the scope of mandatory disclosure rules. Companies have already invested considerable time and resources to adapt internal systems and compliance processes to DAC6 requirements. Considering the recent introduction of the minimum taxation rules (“Pillar 2”) in the EU, we believe that the DAC6 has largely lost its policy significance. Structures that could potentially be subject to low taxation are now comprehensively covered by the minimum tax rules.
Structures that could potentially be subject to low taxation are now comprehensively covered by the minimum tax rules. We believe that DAC6 should be fully repealed, or that some generic hallmarks be removed. However, we strongly caution against introducing further changes to DAC6 (notably to the hallmarks) that would force businesses to again adapt their compliance processes. Such modifications would run counter to the Commission’s simplification objectives and risk increasing compliance costs. This being said, we would like to add a few comments regarding the hallmarks: Main Benefit Test (MBT) and hallmarks A1 to A3 We understand that the removal of the MBT is currently under discussion. We would like to emphasise that any removal of the MBT should be accompanied by the elimination of the generic nature of Hallmarks A1 to A3.
…that any removal of the MBT should be accompanied by the elimination of the generic nature of Hallmarks A1 to A3. The MBT can function as a “filter,” and its removal without addressing these hallmarks could undermine the coherence of the rule and introduce new complexities. Hallmark C1 Experience shows that reporting under Hallmark C1 is often triggered by external non-tax factors. In other words, reports are made despite the absence of any tax-driven rationale. Therefore, we believe that reports based on Hallmark C1 appear to be of limited use - hence questioning the relevance of such hallmark.
…that reports based on Hallmark C1 appear to be of limited use - hence questioning the relevance of such hallmark. Hallmark E2 – Cross-border transfers of hard-to-value intangibles or similar arrangements Hallmark D2 raises significant practical difficulties, notably due to its substantial overlap with existing transfer pricing documentation requirements and, more recently, with Pillar Two compliance obligations. Cross-border transfers of intangibles are already subject to extensive documentation and disclosure, and DAC6 reporting in this area often results in duplicate reporting of information that is already available to tax authorities. This duplication increases administrative burden without delivering meaningful additional value in terms of risk assessment or tax transparency.
…burden without delivering meaningful additional value in terms of risk assessment or tax transparency. 4 In addition, the application of Hallmark D2 is complicated by the absence of a clear and operational definition of “hard-to-value intangibles” under DAC6. This creates uncertainty for businesses when assessing whether commonly transferred intangibles — such as software — fall within the hallmark. As a result, even basic and commercially driven intra-group transactions may trigger reporting. Hallmarks E1 to E3 Hallmark E illustrates duplication with information already available to tax authorities through transfer pricing documentation. As these hallmarks are not subject to the MBT, they often capture routine restructurings driven by operational or legal considerations and generate reports with no link to aggressive tax planning.
22 → 12
MEDEF Tax Affairs – April 2023 1 To the EU Commission – DG TAXUD MEDEF / Transparency Register identification number: 43763731235-75 4 April 2023 Public consultation on Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards VAT rules for the digital age Dear Sir/Madam, We welcome the consultation of the European Commission (EC) relating to its proposed package on VAT in the Digital Age published on 8 December 2022. We would like to share hereafter some overarching observations, followed by some more technical comments. We note that Commission’s proposal is very comprehensive and proposes some major changes of the existing VAT rules, the outcomes of which have not yet been fully grasped by business: further work, analysis and evaluation will be needed, and we therefore call for a further dialogue with all stakeholders involved, including business.
…will be needed, and we therefore call for a further dialogue with all stakeholders involved, including business. Careful attention should be given to the situation of SMEs and small businesses so that they may easily comply with the VAT framework in the EU. As always, we stand ready to further discuss and explain our views. Yours sincerely, Tax Affairs - MEDEF The Mouvement des entreprises de France (MEDEF) is the largest representative business organisation in France, encompassing 173,000 member companies, 122 territorial organisations in continental France and in the overseas departments, 77 professional federations bringing together all business sectors (industry, services, construction, trade, etc.) and 14 associated organisations and partners. These represent 10.2 million employees (i.e. more than one-third of all French employees).
…organisations and partners. These represent 10.2 million employees (i.e. more than one-third of all French employees). Over 95 % of member companies are small-and medium-sized enterprises, with an average of 47 employees.1 1 For more information of MEDEF’s mandates, actions and membership, please visit our website at https://www.medef.com/en/who-are-we/overview. Comments from the Mouvement des Entreprises de France Ref. Ares(2023)2448350 - 04/04/2023 MEDEF Tax Affairs – April 2023 2 1. E-invoicing and Digital Reporting Requirements (DRR) (i) General high-level observations MEDEF welcomes the Commission’s initiative aimed at updating the current VAT rules to make them fit with the digitalization of the economy.
…initiative aimed at updating the current VAT rules to make them fit with the digitalization of the economy. We support the development of standardised and harmonised e-invoicing in the EU which can foster the growth and competitiveness of EU businesses by allowing more efficiency and lower costs. We believe that e-invoicing offers numerous benefits over traditional paper-based invoicing, including increased efficiency, reduced costs, and improved accuracy. It should bring tangible operational, financial, commercial and organizational benefits for companies, and should also facilitate relations with tax authorities in the context of a tax audit as digital invoicing and reporting requirements would allow for a more efficient monitoring of taxable transactions. However, such a huge change will imply significant resources and can only be successful if certain conditions are met.
However, such a huge change will imply significant resources and can only be successful if certain conditions are met. We would like to stress the importance of the following prerequisites: • The need for harmonised clear and simple rules, and for a realistic timeframe Any new legislation should be guided by the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and simplicity. Digitalisation has the potential of simplifying many processes in a harmonised way. A realistic timeframe is key for business as the proposals would entail significant changes, notably in IT and ERP systems, and will require huge resources, especially human resources. The proposed Directive sets some deadlines (e.g. as from 2024 in particular) which appear to be unworkable, even for Member States who would need to transpose them within their national legal frameworks.
…to be unworkable, even for Member States who would need to transpose them within their national legal frameworks. A minimum lead-time of 18 to 24 months appears to be a bare minimum, starting when the domestic legislation of a Member State transposing the Directive is in force. This is notably necessary in respect of the removal of Article 232 of VAT Directive (which entails the mandatory acceptance of electronic invoices by the customer) as business will need to adapt to this major change (please see our comments below). The ability to anticipate the upcoming requirements is a key factor of success. It is necessary to clarify at a very early stage the target system and to provide clear and detailed rules upfront so that companies may anticipate the required developments.
…system and to provide clear and detailed rules upfront so that companies may anticipate the required developments. • Harmonisation - existing systems - avoiding cumulation of requirements Companies should be able to capitalize on what already exists in the field of e-invoicing. One of the conditions for the success of the implementation of e-invoicing for B2B will be the acceptance by tax administrations of sufficiently broadly-used formats. Businesses that are already engaged in e-invoicing should not be imposed any major “rollback” or regression as compared to what already exists.
…engaged in e-invoicing should not be imposed any major “rollback” or regression as compared to what already exists. MEDEF Tax Affairs – April 2023 3 While we support harmonisation and standardisation within the EU as an ultimate and ideal aim, we also take into account that several Member States have already introduced (or are introducing) e- invoicing and/or e-reporting requirements: the Commission’s impact assessment report indicates that 12 Member States have already put in place digital reporting requirements, which means that business has already undergone (or is already undergoing) significant costs in order to adapt to these requirements across the EU. Working on interoperability of systems should be explored as it may support the aim of harmonisation and convergence. In general, we call for the EC and Member States to avoid a cumulation of requirements on business.
…and convergence. In general, we call for the EC and Member States to avoid a cumulation of requirements on business. New requirements in the field of VAT should come with the removal or simplification of obsolete rules. It is also crucial to take into account the overall landscape in which business evolves. In particular, there has been a deluge of tax regulations in the field of direct taxation that EU business has had to comply with since the past decade (and there are still new initiatives). Businesses’ resources have become scarce in the present economic context. Any new EU legislation will create an additional strain on business, which needs to be taken in to account and carefully balanced when designing any new requirement.
…strain on business, which needs to be taken in to account and carefully balanced when designing any new requirement. • Legal certainty and the need for a change of mindset as regards the audit function The development of e-invoicing and DRR within the EU will be a game changer for tax administrations as they will be provided massive amounts of data which they will be able to use for their tax collection and tax audit and risk-assessment functions. These e-invoicing and DRR requirements in the EU should therefore come along with a review and a rebalancing of tax obligations of taxpayers: in this new environment, it is notably crucial for business that the new rules be accompanied by securing and simplifying tax constraints in terms of control and reporting requirements (elimination or reduction of the recapitulative and statitics reportings and of the reliable audit trail requirement).
(elimination or reduction of the recapitulative and statitics reportings and of the reliable audit trail requirement). Because tax administration will have unprecedented tools to detect fraud, this should imply that the “traditional” ways of carrying out tax audits in the VAT field will no longer be justified. More targeted and qualitative checks should be performed and honest taxpayers seeking to comply with the rules should benefit from more tax certainty. This could mean, for example, that taxpayers may benefit from certain presumptions or may undergo fewer full tax audits with respect to VAT. This should be reflected in the Directive so that Member States be required to initiate changes in this field.
VAT. This should be reflected in the Directive so that Member States be required to initiate changes in this field. In addition, the use of the data collected by Member States through e-invoicing and DRR must be strictly used within the scope of the risk-assessment and tax audit functions of tax administrations. Any other use should be prohibited, and this should be clearly reflected in the Directive (as underlined by the European Data Protection Supervisor in its Opinion 7/2023 dated 3 March 2023 on the package of legislative proposals on VAT in the Digital Age2).
57 → 12
…1 To the EU Commission – DG TAXUD MEDEF / Transparency Register identification number: 43763731235-75 10 February 2026 EU Simplification Agenda – Recast of EU rules on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation Dear Sir/Madam, We welcome the wide review of EU legislation in direct and indirect taxation that has been launched by the European Commission following President Von der Leyen’s request for each Commissioner to reduce administrative burdens and simplify implementation of EU legislation to create a more competitive single market for EU business. We appreciate that DG TAXUD is consulting with key stakeholders, including the private sector on this major simplification project. We are pleased to provide the following comments relating to the recast of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC).
…pleased to provide the following comments relating to the recast of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC). We have also responded to some questions of the consultation questionnaire. Yours sincerely. MEDEF Tax Affairs Mouvement des entreprises de France (MEDEF) is the largest representative business organisation in France, encompassing more than 200,000 member companies, 119 territorial organisations in continental France and in the overseas departments and 101 professional federations bringing together all business sectors (industry, services, construction, trade, etc.). These represent over 10 million employees (i.e. more than one-third of all French employees)1. 1 For more information of MEDEF’s mandates, actions and membership, please visit our website at https://www.medef.com/en/who-are-we/overview. Comments from the Mouvement des Entreprises de France Ref.
…our website at https://www.medef.com/en/who-are-we/overview. Comments from the Mouvement des Entreprises de France Ref. Ares(2026)1517126 - 10/02/2026 2 General remarks on the DAC framework MEDEF would like to remind about its previous contributions submitted in July 2024 and June 2025, which remain largely valid. As regards the recast of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (Directive 2011/16/EU – DAC), we would recommend focusing on the following key priorities: eliminating reporting obligations that are obsolete or provide limited value, particularly under DAC6, and streamlining overlapping or duplicative obligations. MEDEF fully supports effective administrative cooperation between tax authorities and high standards of tax transparency.
…fully supports effective administrative cooperation between tax authorities and high standards of tax transparency. However, simplification will only be meaningful if it results in tangible reductions in compliance costs, enhanced legal certainty and a more proportionate regulatory framework for businesses operating in the Single Market. The successive amendments to the DAC (from DAC1 to DAC9) have resulted in a highly complex and fragmented framework. While the overall objectives pursued are legitimate, the accumulation of reporting and notification obligations has significantly increased administrative burdens for businesses, particularly those operating across multiple Member States. In some areas, the complexity of the rules risks undermining their effectiveness and policy relevance.
Member States. In some areas, the complexity of the rules risks undermining their effectiveness and policy relevance. From a business perspective, genuine simplification cannot be achieved through the continuous layering of new requirements. The removal of obligations that have become redundant, obsolete or of limited added value should therefore be seriously considered. This is particularly relevant given the substantial compliance efforts already required by the implementation of the OECD/G20 Pillar Two rules into EU law. In this context, MEDEF wishes to stress that its main priority under the EU Simplification Agenda is the review of the ATAD and direct taxes directives. A comprehensive rehaul of the DAC is not a priority for businesses at this stage.
…the ATAD and direct taxes directives. A comprehensive rehaul of the DAC is not a priority for businesses at this stage. In light of the significant resources already invested in DAC compliance and the risk that any reopening of the DAC framework could generate additional complexity, MEDEF considers that, unless DAC6 or certain of its hallmarks are removed, maintaining the status quo should be the preferred approach. This being said, we would like to provide some more detailed comments on DAC4, DAC6, DAC9 as well as the EU TIN proposal and the way we answered the consultation questionnaire (see annex):
…on DAC4, DAC6, DAC9 as well as the EU TIN proposal and the way we answered the consultation questionnaire (see annex): 1. DAC4 and DAC9 – notification requirements We have observed that DAC4 has been implemented very unevenly across Member States, particularly regarding the notification modalities (annual versus change-based, different forms, etc.) and the notification timelines, with very few common deadlines between Member States, making compliance complex and difficult to manage for groups. We therefore consider that aligning timelines and notification procedures across Member States would significantly contribute to simplification. In addition, to deliver meaningful simplification, we believe that notification requirements should be handled at the group level rather than duplicated at the level of individual entities: in practice, 3 this could be implemented through a centralized…
…exchange of the information between tax authorities in a standardized format, similar to the Pillar Two exchanges. 2. DAC6 – administrative burden, proportionality and policy relevance DAC6 represents one of the most burdensome element of the DAC framework for businesses. It has led to reporting of routine transactions that were never intended to fall within the scope of mandatory disclosure rules. Companies have already invested considerable time and resources to adapt internal systems and compliance processes to DAC6 requirements. Considering the recent introduction of the minimum taxation rules (“Pillar 2”) in the EU, we believe that the DAC6 has largely lost its policy significance. Structures that could potentially be subject to low taxation are now comprehensively covered by the minimum tax rules.
Structures that could potentially be subject to low taxation are now comprehensively covered by the minimum tax rules. We believe that DAC6 should be fully repealed, or that some generic hallmarks be removed. However, we strongly caution against introducing further changes to DAC6 (notably to the hallmarks) that would force businesses to again adapt their compliance processes. Such modifications would run counter to the Commission’s simplification objectives and risk increasing compliance costs. This being said, we would like to add a few comments regarding the hallmarks: Main Benefit Test (MBT) and hallmarks A1 to A3 We understand that the removal of the MBT is currently under discussion. We would like to emphasise that any removal of the MBT should be accompanied by the elimination of the generic nature of Hallmarks A1 to A3.
…that any removal of the MBT should be accompanied by the elimination of the generic nature of Hallmarks A1 to A3. The MBT can function as a “filter,” and its removal without addressing these hallmarks could undermine the coherence of the rule and introduce new complexities. Hallmark C1 Experience shows that reporting under Hallmark C1 is often triggered by external non-tax factors. In other words, reports are made despite the absence of any tax-driven rationale. Therefore, we believe that reports based on Hallmark C1 appear to be of limited use - hence questioning the relevance of such hallmark.
…that reports based on Hallmark C1 appear to be of limited use - hence questioning the relevance of such hallmark. Hallmark E2 – Cross-border transfers of hard-to-value intangibles or similar arrangements Hallmark D2 raises significant practical difficulties, notably due to its substantial overlap with existing transfer pricing documentation requirements and, more recently, with Pillar Two compliance obligations. Cross-border transfers of intangibles are already subject to extensive documentation and disclosure, and DAC6 reporting in this area often results in duplicate reporting of information that is already available to tax authorities. This duplication increases administrative burden without delivering meaningful additional value in terms of risk assessment or tax transparency.
…burden without delivering meaningful additional value in terms of risk assessment or tax transparency. 4 In addition, the application of Hallmark D2 is complicated by the absence of a clear and operational definition of “hard-to-value intangibles” under DAC6. This creates uncertainty for businesses when assessing whether commonly transferred intangibles — such as software — fall within the hallmark. As a result, even basic and commercially driven intra-group transactions may trigger reporting. Hallmarks E1 to E3 Hallmark E illustrates duplication with information already available to tax authorities through transfer pricing documentation. As these hallmarks are not subject to the MBT, they often capture routine restructurings driven by operational or legal considerations and generate reports with no link to aggressive tax planning.
22 → 12
…1 To the EU Commission – DG TAXUD MEDEF / Transparency Register identification number: 43763731235-75 10 September 2024 Public consultation on the evaluation of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) Dear Sir/Madam, We welcome the consultation of the European Commission relating to the evaluation of the Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2017/9522 of 29 May 2017. We remain fully available should you wish any further clarification. We stand ready to exchange and provide further input during the evaluation process of the EU Commission. Yours sincerely.
…stand ready to exchange and provide further input during the evaluation process of the EU Commission. Yours sincerely. MEDEF Tax Affairs Mouvement des entreprises de France (MEDEF) is the largest representative business organisation in France, encompassing more than 200,000 member companies, 119 territorial organisations in continental France and in the overseas departments and 101 professional federations bringing together all business sectors (industry, services, construction, trade, etc.). These represent over 10 million employees (i.e. more than one-third of all French employees). Comments from the Mouvement des Entreprises de France Ref. Ares(2024)6415533 - 10/09/2024 2 General comments on the ATAD Directive We particularly welcome the European Commission’s evaluation of the Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD)1.
Directive We particularly welcome the European Commission’s evaluation of the Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD)1. The ATAD, aimed at curbing aggressive and undesirable tax practices, has significantly altered the tax landscape within the European Union (EU), notably with the introduction of minimum requirements and options provided in the Directive (Interest Limitation Rules; Exit Taxation Rules; General Anti- Abuse Rules; Controlled Foreign Company rules; anti-Hybrid Mismatch Rules). Over the past decade, companies have had to face an unprecedented proliferation of anti-abuse rules (ATAD as well as the various updates to the DAC): this has created a complex framework, imposing a huge compliance burden on businesses. The rules are often intricate, challenging to interpret, and difficult to apply.
…compliance burden on businesses. The rules are often intricate, challenging to interpret, and difficult to apply. In addition, their implementation across the EU is fragmented due to divergences between Member States (MS), which significantly increases complexity. We believe that the practical benefits of the ATAD rules need to be carefully evaluated, both from a quantitative and qualitative point of view, in order to assess their concrete impact. This is also a question of accountability of public action. In addition, the global tax landscape is undergoing a significant shift with the recent introduction of the global minimum tax (the “GMT”) (following the OECD’s “Pillar 2” rules), which is now being implemented in the EU.
…global minimum tax (the “GMT”) (following the OECD’s “Pillar 2” rules), which is now being implemented in the EU. With this paradigm change in international taxation, it is timely and appropriate to critically examine the necessity and effectiveness of the current ATAD provisions. Overall, we believe that it is essential to work towards better coherence of the tax system in the EU, to simplify and streamline the tax compliance process, and to create a more business-friendly and competitive environment in the EU, especially in the current context of global economic and political instability. Certain rules of the ATAD Directive should be reviewed as a matter of priority: (i) the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) rules have become superfluous in light of the GMT and could therefore be removed or at least revised.
Companies (CFC) rules have become superfluous in light of the GMT and could therefore be removed or at least revised. (ii) the need to improve the European tax framework to strengthen the competitiveness of companies is also essential: companies in the EU are currently suffering the effects of the increasing cost of debt in a context which still remains marked by inflation (although it is decreasing). The European Central Bank’s interest rate on the main refinancing operations is still at 4.50%. This calls for the revision of the rules for limiting the deduction of financial charges, which were put in place at a time when rates were historically low and which are no longer adapted in light of the current financing challenges.
…a time when rates were historically low and which are no longer adapted in light of the current financing challenges. In addition, a reduction of the administrative burden and reporting obligations imposed by EU tax law should be urgently considered: avoiding the further complexification of tax compliance in the EU should be a guiding principle for the new European Commission. This implies to refrain from adding or introducing requirements that are not well targeted, nor well adapted to real-life business constraints, or that place an unreasonable burden on companies. In our view, the recent proposals for an ATAD3 and for a “SAFE” framework (Securing the Activity Framework of enablers) are examples of legislation which would not be efficient in this respect. 1 Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2017/9522 of 29 May 2017 (i.e.
Avoidance Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2017/9522 of 29 May 2017 (i.e. so called “ATAD 1” and “ATAD 2”). 3 The focus should be on making the EU more attractive. Simplified tax rules are crucial for reducing the administrative load on companies operating within the EU, creating a more business-friendly environment that promotes investment and growth. We would like to emphasize on the current economic context faced by EU businesses. As we emerge from the energy crisis, there is a critical risk of a lasting and structural disconnect with the United States and China. While European economies struggle, the United States benefits from significantly lower energy prices and has launched the “Inflation Reduction Act” injecting $370 billion into its industry and decarbonization efforts over a decade. China, too, heavily invests in its industry.
$370 billion into its industry and decarbonization efforts over a decade. China, too, heavily invests in its industry. Any measure that widens the competitiveness gap between European companies and their international counterparts warrants re-evaluation. In summary, streamlining, simplifying and removing any obsolete EU tax rules are vital for businesses to allocate resources effectively, develop activities, create jobs and focus on growth. We stand ready to exchange and provide further input during the evaluation process of the EU Commission. Detailed comments: priority issues to be considered regarding the evaluation of the ATAD Directive CFC RULES (ARTICLES 7 AND 8) The intersection of CFC rules and the GMT should be dealt with as a matter of priority. The GMT functions as a kind of “super-CFC”, aiming to limit profit shifting and ensure a global minimum tax rate.
The GMT functions as a kind of “super-CFC”, aiming to limit profit shifting and ensure a global minimum tax rate. Businesses that fall under both regimes face the challenge of dual compliance. This situation prompts the question of whether CFC rules are still necessary for businesses already covered by the GMT. Despite their different scopes and approaches, overall coherence should be prioritized. Some groups have reported that the GMT will cover situations which are currently not captured by the present CFC rules because of a substance exception. We recommend a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of CFC rules across EU Member States. This evaluation should not focus solely on revenue generation, as CFC rules are primarily a behavioural measure. It should also consider how well they achieve their policy goals.
…as CFC rules are primarily a behavioural measure. It should also consider how well they achieve their policy goals. Based on this assessment, EU MS should be allowed to decide for their own country whether CFC rules are still considered essential or whether the operation of the GMT provides sufficient assurance for the tax authority. Some MS may decide that a General Anti-Avoidance Rule serving as a safety net may be sufficient. INTEREST DEDUCTION LIMITATION RULE (ARTICLE 4) The tax rule limiting the deductibility of financial charges has become an obstacle to business investment and recovery, in a sluggish economic context. Many EU companies are currently seeing their profits shrink, even though they are in vital need of financing.
…context. Many EU companies are currently seeing their profits shrink, even though they are in vital need of financing. While it originated with an anti-abuse objective, the tax rule, which was adopted when inflation was non-existent, has the unintended effect of curbing the ability of companies to consolidate their cash position, preserve their solvency, create jobs and restart their activity, as well as to reinvest. 4 Inflation has had a significant impact lately with levels not seen since the beginning of the euro more than 20 years ago (although inflation now seems to be slowing down). In 2019, the European Central Bank’s refinancing interest rate was 0%. Since the autumn of 2023, it has peaked at 4.5%. This means that for a company in a situation of net financial expense, the cost of interest has been multiplied by 4.
16 → 12
Position du MEDEF relative au projet de règlement sur les emballages et déchets d’emballages Un cadre législatif mature à réformer dans la continuité Cela fera bientôt 30 ans que l’Union européenne a adopté sa première législation relative aux emballages et déchets d’emballages. Depuis, les directives successives ont structuré en profondeur les politiques et mesures de prévention ainsi que les systèmes de gestion des déchets au sein des différents Etats membres. Elles ont également amené les fabricants et utilisateurs d’emballages à revoir leurs pratiques (allègement et réduction des emballages, développement d’emballages recyclables, compostables, réemployables…) et ont incité les consommateurs à se préoccuper davantage de la gestion de leurs déchets (tri, réemploi, vrac…).
…et ont incité les consommateurs à se préoccuper davantage de la gestion de leurs déchets (tri, réemploi, vrac…). Ces textes successifs ont permis d’augmenter de façon importante les quantités d’emballages réemployés et recyclés et de réduire l’impact environnemental de ces emballages sur l’environnement, faisant de l’Europe le continent le plus en pointe dans la gestion des déchets d’emballages. Toutefois, force est de constater que la question de l’impact environnemental des emballages dépend, d’une part, de l’évolution très rapide des modes de consommation (nomadisme, livraisons à domicile, monodose…) et, d’autre part, des évolutions des modes de gestion des déchets, elles- mêmes tributaires d’investissements publics et privés très lourds ainsi que des pratiques de tri des consommateurs.
…tributaires d’investissements publics et privés très lourds ainsi que des pratiques de tri des consommateurs. Dans ce contexte, le MEDEF a accueilli favorablement la proposition de la Commission qui vise globalement à réduire encore l’impact environnemental des emballages. En particulier, il est important que le cadre législatif prenne pleinement en compte les évolutions des modes de consommation (réduction de l’impact des livraisons, meilleure prise en compte du nomadisme…), ainsi que les évolutions techniques relatives aux emballages (nécessité d’assurer le recyclage de tous les emballages, et la performance environnementale des emballages réemployables). En revanche, il est tout aussi important que le futur règlement sur les emballages et déchets d’emballages s’inscrive dans une certaine continuité vis-à-vis des choix stratégiques qui ont été faits depuis 30 ans.
…s’inscrive dans une certaine continuité vis-à-vis des choix stratégiques qui ont été faits depuis 30 ans. Pour cela, il doit offrir suffisamment de flexibilité quant aux moyens que les différents Etats membres doivent mettre en place pour répondre aux objectifs qui seront fixés par le règlement. Ainsi, de façon générale, le règlement devrait éviter de fixer des objectifs de moyens en plus des objectifs de résultats, de manière que les Etats Membres soient en mesure de mettre en œuvre les moyens nécessaires et les mieux adaptés à leur contexte national.
Etats Membres soient en mesure de mettre en œuvre les moyens nécessaires et les mieux adaptés à leur contexte national. Cette continuité est nécessaire pour assurer aux investisseurs publics comme privés la prévisibilité dont ils ont besoin tant en ce qui concerne les outils de fabrication des emballages que les outils industriels de gestion des déchets (unités de tri et de recyclage, unités de compostage, unités de valorisation énergétique, unités de lavage…). Ref. Ares(2023)2889697 - 24/04/2023 Un besoin de neutralité technologique La prise en compte des outils industriels et des systèmes de gestion existants nécessite notamment que les objectifs de résultats ne soient pas doublés d’objectifs de moyens.
…de gestion existants nécessite notamment que les objectifs de résultats ne soient pas doublés d’objectifs de moyens. En cela, nous nous inquiétons de la proposition de la Commission qui promeut certaines solutions comme la consigne, l’obligation de compostabilité de certains produits ou encore la généralisation du réemploi. Il nous semble important de rester prudent vis-à-vis de l’imposition de telles solutions qui doivent être évaluées au regard de leurs pertinences environnementales, des contextes nationaux ou territoriaux ainsi que des spécificités des filières. Ainsi, il n’existe pas de solution unique qu’il faudrait imposer mais bien une multitude de solutions qu’il convient de déployer lorsqu’elles s’avèrent les plus pertinentes De même, nous sommes inquiets des conséquences que pourrait engendrer la proposition visant à interdire les emballages non recyclables « à l’échelle ».
…conséquences que pourrait engendrer la proposition visant à interdire les emballages non recyclables « à l’échelle ». En effet, de nombreux investissements industriels sont en cours de déploiement, notamment en France, pour permettre le recyclage de matériaux qui ne l’étaient pas jusqu’à présent. Or ces nouvelles solutions vont nécessiter du temps avant d’être pleinement opérationnelles et produire leurs effets sur le taux de recyclage des emballages, qui plus est si ce recyclage doit se faire sur une échelle très large géographiquement (Europe). Il convient donc que cette notion de recyclabilité « à l’échelle » tienne compte en particulier de l’atteinte d’objectifs nationaux.
…que cette notion de recyclabilité « à l’échelle » tienne compte en particulier de l’atteinte d’objectifs nationaux. Une occasion unique pour harmoniser les règles et les bonnes pratiques Cette révision doit être l’occasion d’harmoniser, au niveau européen, les définitions (recyclable, réemployable…) ainsi que les méthodologies de mesure et d’évaluation des caractéristiques et performances des emballages (recyclable, compostable, réemployable…) et des systèmes de gestion des déchets d’emballages. Cette harmonisation doit être guidée par le pragmatisme et le réalisme afin notamment que les entreprises puissent facilement répondre aux exigences de reporting et que les autorités compétentes soient en mesure de réaliser des contrôles.
…répondre aux exigences de reporting et que les autorités compétentes soient en mesure de réaliser des contrôles. Nous considérons qu’il est primordial d’assurer une harmonisation des règles de mise sur le marché des emballages, notamment en ce qui concerne la nature des emballages pouvant être mis sur le marché. Il importe également de tendre vers une harmonisation des dispositifs d’information du consommateur sur les modalités de tri et de caractérisation des emballages. Pour toutes ces raisons nous souhaitons que l’article 114 du traité fondateur de l’UE reste la base légale du règlement. Un besoin de cohérence avec les autres textes et objectifs européens Comme pour tous les autres textes, ce projet doit, bien sûr, être cohérent avec les autres législations européennes.
…pour tous les autres textes, ce projet doit, bien sûr, être cohérent avec les autres législations européennes. C’est notamment le cas pour les textes relatifs à l’encadrement des substances (REACH, CLP, RoHS, cosmétiques…) qui doivent rester le point d’entrée des mesures de restriction des substances chimiques. Ainsi, le rôle du règlement emballages doit se limiter à réglementer les substances qui peuvent perturber la gestion des déchets et notamment leur capacité à être recyclés. Il convient également d’assurer une cohérence avec les textes relatifs à la conception des produits (futur règlement éco-conception).
…d’assurer une cohérence avec les textes relatifs à la conception des produits (futur règlement éco-conception). Des objectifs nécessairement basés sur les performances environnementales et économiques ainsi que les attentes des consommateurs Les objectifs visés et les solutions qui devront être mises en œuvre pour les atteindre doivent être pertinents du point de vue environnemental et économique. C’est le cas notamment des objectifs de réemploi qui sont fixés alors même que, dans un certain nombre de cas, le réemploi est moins performant que le recyclage du point de vue environnemental. En outre, le réemploi généralisé des emballages, comme le propose le projet de règlement pour un certain nombre d’emballages, risque de se heurter aux attentes des consommateurs qui pourraient ne pas y être aussi favorables qu’attendu.
…risque de se heurter aux attentes des consommateurs qui pourraient ne pas y être aussi favorables qu’attendu. Il est donc important que les objectifs visés en matière de réemploi s’appuient sur des études d’impacts robustes confirmant les bénéfices économiques et environnementaux attendus, au regard des coûts engendrés en termes de logistique et d’organisation industrielle. Il importe également que les objectifs de réemploi soient définis pour permettre, aux secteurs concernés, une approche complémentaire du recyclage et du réemploi, selon la solution qui aura démontré sa pertinence d’un point de vue environnemental.
14 → 12
Comité Régulations du numérique - CF. 02.02.2024 Revue RGPD 2024 1 Revue RGPD 2024 (Article 97) Commentaires du Medef Février 2024 Ref. Ares(2024)809384 - 02/02/2024 Comité Régulations du numérique - CF. 02.02.2024 Revue RGPD 2024 2 L’article 97 du règlement (UE) 2016/679 du 27 avril 2016 sur la protection des données personnelles (RGPD) prévoit que tous les quatre ans à partir du 25 mai 2020, la Commission européenne présente au Parlement européen et au Conseil de l’Union européenne un rapport sur l’évaluation et le réexamen du RGPD, notamment en tenant compte de l’évolution des technologies de l’information.
…sur l’évaluation et le réexamen du RGPD, notamment en tenant compte de l’évolution des technologies de l’information. En cinq ans, les entreprises ont déployé de considérables efforts, financiers, techniques et humains, pour se mettre en conformité aux dispositions du RGPD, s’acculturer aux enjeux de protection des données personnelles et se plier au principe d'accountability, malgré la complexité des obligations à mettre en place. Si les entreprises sont sensibles à la protection des données personnelles et choisissent d’intégrer de plus en plus des valeurs éthiques et humanistes dans leurs raisons d’être, l’essor du numérique et des technologies constitue un enjeu majeur pour l’ensemble des entreprises. Or, le traitement de la donnée est au cœur de ces mutations, qui transforment toujours un peu plus l’économie et la société à tous les niveaux.
…donnée est au cœur de ces mutations, qui transforment toujours un peu plus l’économie et la société à tous les niveaux. Il est donc nécessaire de trouver un juste équilibre entre protection de l’individu (à travers une meilleure maîtrise de ses données personnelles) et enjeux économiques et industriels afin de permettre aux entreprises européennes d’innover et de rester compétitives. Le principal atout du RGPD pour les entreprises reste son approche par les risques et celle-ci doit donc être maintenue. A ce stade, une réouverture du RGPD ne semble pas souhaitable car cela impliquerait une nouvelle mise en conformité pour les entreprises. Quelques difficultés doivent toutefois être partagées.
…une nouvelle mise en conformité pour les entreprises. Quelques difficultés doivent toutefois être partagées. Une complexité juridique et technique impactant particulièrement les TPE/PME Malgré les efforts déployés par les entreprises, ce règlement reste un texte très technique et complexe et donc difficile à appréhender pour les entreprises, notamment les plus petites qui n’ont pas nécessairement les expertises juridiques et informatiques nécessaires en interne. Une grande disparité est en effet observée entre les grandes entreprises et les petites structures.
…en interne. Une grande disparité est en effet observée entre les grandes entreprises et les petites structures. Les directions juridiques et/ou informatiques des grandes entreprises se sont saisies du sujet et la problématique pour elles est davantage de s’assurer de la conformité de leurs prestataires et sous-traitants et de mettre effectivement en place leurs obligations (bonne gestion des droits des personnes sur l’ensemble du système d’information d’une entreprise, mise en œuvre de la portabilité…). Les TPE/PME rencontrent davantage de difficultés (techniques et financières) dans la compréhension du texte et de leurs obligations. Il est en effet difficile pour elles de comprendre leur rôle juridique (qui est le responsable du traitement, qui est sous-traitant ?), de cartographier l’ensemble des traitements ou encore de remplir un registre des traitements.
…qui est sous-traitant ?), de cartographier l’ensemble des traitements ou encore de remplir un registre des traitements. La complexité juridique du RGPD a pour conséquence de laisser la main aux experts qui comprennent le texte (les directions juridiques ou les consultants extérieurs). Les opérationnels ne s’approprient donc pas les principes. La mise en place du RGPD génère donc des coûts importants pour les entreprises (nouveaux outils, nouvelles obligations, appel à des consultants externes…), notamment pour les TPE/PME. Force est de constater que certaines entreprises, et en particulier les plus petits acteurs, ont préféré abandonner des projets faute de savoir comment implémenter le RGPD et l’ensemble des règles applicables (législations nationales, interprétations par l’autorité de contrôle). En ce sens, la protection des données personnelles peut constituer un frein à l’innovation.
…l’autorité de contrôle). En ce sens, la protection des données personnelles peut constituer un frein à l’innovation. Cette problématique est exacerbée par une avalanche de textes sur le numérique qui se développent aux niveaux nationaux et européen (RGPD, AI Act, Data Act, etc.), ainsi que par la superposition de ces législations et des interprétations qui en sont faites par les autorités nationales accroissant ainsi les fragmentations du marché intérieur. Cela rend illisible pour une entreprise l’ensemble des obligations auxquelles elle doit se soumettre. Les principales préoccupations des entreprises quant à la protection des données Le RGPD a laissé à la main des Etats membres une cinquantaine de « marges de manœuvre » leur permettant d’écarter, de déroger et/ou de préciser certaines dispositions.
…cinquantaine de « marges de manœuvre » leur permettant d’écarter, de déroger et/ou de préciser certaines dispositions. Si le RGPD ne peut anticiper ni réglementer l’ensemble des situations, le renvoi aux droits nationaux conduit nécessairement à des différences d’interprétation entre les Etats membres. Comité Régulations du numérique - CF. 02.02.2024 Revue RGPD 2024 3 Au-delà des risques de fragmentation de la réglementation européenne, l’interprétation du droit européen par les autorités nationales ne doit pas aboutir à désavantager les entreprises situées sur un territoire donné dans la compétitivité européenne et/ou internationale. Le consentement L’interprétation faite par les autorités de contrôle de la définition du consentement semble aller au-delà de ce qui est prévu par le RGPD.
…par les autorités de contrôle de la définition du consentement semble aller au-delà de ce qui est prévu par le RGPD. D’une part, alors que le RGPD définit six bases légales à un traitement de données personnelles, il a été constaté par les entreprises que les particuliers et les autorités considèrent généralement le consentement comme le seul fondement juridique valable ou, à tout le moins, comme le fondement juridique prédominant. L’obligation légale, l’exécution du contrat ou encore l’intérêt légitime sont souvent rapidement écartés au profit du consentement. D’autre part, les lignes directrices du G29 sur le consentement sont venues durcir les conditions prévues par le RGPD qui laissait volontairement une certaine souplesse aux acteurs, remettant ainsi en cause l’approche par les risques du règlement européen.
…une certaine souplesse aux acteurs, remettant ainsi en cause l’approche par les risques du règlement européen. Par ailleurs, sans attendre l’adoption du règlement ePrivacy, la CNIL a publié en juillet 2019 de nouvelles lignes directrices sur les cookies et autres traceurs en France. Ce durcissement des règles semble aller au- delà de la souplesse du RGPD qui définit le consentement comme un acte positif clair par lequel la personne concernée manifeste son accord1. Cela est d’autant plus étonnant que les associations de consommateurs ont dénoncé, dans le cadre des travaux sur le règlement ePrivacy, la « fatigue du consommateur » du fait de l’apparition de « bandeaux cookies » sur chaque site visité et de la nécessité de paramétrer ou d’accepter systématiquement les cookies.
…bandeaux cookies » sur chaque site visité et de la nécessité de paramétrer ou d’accepter systématiquement les cookies. La CNIL a donc anticipé les réflexions et les travaux européens sur le règlement ePrivacy sans tenir compte ni des difficultés pratiques pour les entreprises, ni de l’exaspération des internautes. Les transferts de données Les entreprises se préoccupent et s’inquiètent fortement des mécanismes de transferts de données personnelles dans un contexte international où la circulation des données est majeure pour le développement économique. Si plusieurs mécanismes sont prévus par le RGPD, les décisions d’adéquation constituent la solution qui apporte le plus de pérennité et de sécurité juridique aux entreprises pour le transfert de données hors Union européenne.
…le plus de pérennité et de sécurité juridique aux entreprises pour le transfert de données hors Union européenne. Les entreprises restent toutefois confrontées à une grande insécurité juridique, en raison notamment des conflits de lois et de cultures qui peuvent exister avec certains pays. Cela a été renforcé par l’adoption par le Comité européen de protection des données (CEPD) d’une recommandation sur les mesures à mettre en place dans le cadre de transferts de données vers des pays non européens sur la base de l’arrêt rendu par la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) en juillet 2020 (« Affaire Schrems II »).
22 → 12