11 Amendments of Constance LE GRIP related to 2013/2122(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the scope of Directive 2006/114/EC is currently related to misleading and comparative advertising and its consequences on fair competition within the internal market;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
A b. whereas there is a clear demand from businesses, especially SMEs and microbusinesses, for better protection and for effective action against misleading practices in a business-to-business context, which is outside the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas SMEs, and in particular small businesses and microbusinesses, are the main victims of misleading marketing practices, although such companies are a key driver for growth in Europe; whereas schools, churches, hospitals, NGOs, and municipalities and other public authorities are also being targeted;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas Member states have implemented differently Directives 2005/29/EC and 2006/114/EC leading to significant differences between national provisions in those fields; whereas such differences contribute to market fragmentation and create uncertainties on legal enforcement of European rules for businesses, notably in a cross-border context;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Asks the Commission to clarify the scope of Directive 2006/114/EC in order to allow better protection for businesses against misleading marketing practices;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Recalls that misleading marketing practices are a great burden for the European economy, especially by hampering SMEs' growth potential;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to investigate the possibility of introducing, on the basis of validated criteria, an EU-wide blacklist of fraudulent companimisleading marketing practices, in order to prevent suchfraudulent companies from expanding their practices to other Member States;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the need for national enforcement authorities to work more closely together with enablers of misleading marketing practices, such as banks, telephone companies, postal services and collection agencies, by increasing exchange of information, in order to prevent rogue companies from operating;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes with concern that the investigative authorities in various Member States are extremely unwilling to take up cases of misleading marketing practices and tend to arguebecause of the lack of clarity of existing provisions and that they have no confidence that the burden of proof can be sufficiently established; underlines the need for government to be proactive in tackling financial and economic crime;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to examine, as a matter of priority, whether businesses which have been found guilty of serious and repeated misleading marketing practices can be excluded from EU procurement procedures and/or from receiving EU funding for a period of at least five years;