Activities of Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT related to 2017/2003(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
European agenda for the collaborative economy - Online platforms and the Digital Single Market (debate) NL
Amendments (14)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. In general welcomes and supports the views of the European Commission as outlined in the Communication COM(2016) 356.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises the fact that all collaborative economies, covering the full spectrum from market-oriented to gift- based, are rooted in human cooperative behaviour and that no matter how diverse they are, or will become, theybenefit from socio-economic developments shifting from the need to own to the need to use assets and resources. Collaborative economies are all identified by resource sharing, the active empowerment of citizens, community- accepted innovation, and the intensive use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as a key enabler;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that, if developed in a responsible manner, the collaborative economy maywill continue to create significant opportunities for citizens and consumers, who benefit from enhanced competition, tailored services, increased choice and lower prices;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that collaborative economies thrive in communities in which knowledge- and education-sharing models are strong, thereby consolidating a culture of open innovation, supporting open- sourced hardware and software, and expanding our heritage of common goods and creative commons;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the Commission to ensure that the EU develops the highest international standards regarding (a) social protection for ‘workpreneurs’ in collabMember States to apply functionally similar tax and consumer protection obligations to businesses providing comparable services. Such as mentioned by the Commission, rating and reputational systems or other mechanisms to discourage harmful behaviour by market participants may in some cases reduce risks for consumers stemming from informative economies, (b) safety guarantees for the customers of collaborative economies, and (c) cohabitation synergies with traditional business modelon asymmetries. This can contribute to higher quality services and potentially reduce the need for certain elements of regulation, provided adequate trust can be placed in the quality of the reviews and ratings;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points to the risks of increasing regulatory grey areas, the consequent disregard of existing regulations and the fragmentation of the Single MarketBelieves that regulation needs to be fit for purpose for the digital age; action to address regulatory grey areas and the fragmentation of the Single Market must be future proof and should underpin, not undermine digital innovations; is aware that, if not properly governed, these changes could result in legal uncertainty about applicable rules and constraints in exercising individual rights;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commissonsiders the functionally similar tax and consumer protection obligations applied ind one Member States to open non-exclusive, experimentation-oriented spaces for collaborative economies and to promote guidelines on this matter in European, national and local legislation, while fostering digital connectivity and literacy, supporting European entrepreneurs and incentivising Industry 4.0 hubbe transferable to other Member States. In order to support the exchange of best practices, calls on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection to commission a comparative study focusing on agreements with platforms for the collection of taxes and insurance payments;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that EU legislation and policies are future- friendly and provide legal certainty in order to unleash the full potential of collaborative economies for EU businesses and citizens, while redefining and modernising – where necessary – the concepts of ‘work/service’, ‘worker’ and ‘service provider’;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Commission’'s intent to tackle the current fragmentation, but regrets that its communication did not bring sufficient clarity about the applicability of existing EU legislation to different collaborative economy models; calls for a clear enforcement framework of the consumer acquis and of the Services Directive; encourages the Commission and Member States to ensure the full implementation of existing rules, using infringement procedures whenever incorrect or insufficient implementation of the legislation is identified;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Urges the Commission to provide further guidelines to Member States with a view to laying down effective criteria for distinguand Member States to work together to agree guidelines for distinguishing between peers and professionals, which is crucial for the fair development of the collaborative economy; requests the European Commission to conduct a study of existing thresholds in the collaborative economy across Member States in order to get a better understanding of exishting between peers and professionals, which is crucial for the fair developmentpractices and to be able to analyse the best possible way forward, bearing in mind differing economic realities and purchasing powers across Member States; recognises that a one-size fits all solution may not be appropriate; notes that such guidelines should take into account the fact that there may be several definitions of what is a professional depending ofn the collaborative economyarea of law considered; Stresses that an important criteria to distinguish a peer from a professional is whether the user is making a profit or only sharing costs;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Strongly believes, at the same time, that this self-regulating capacity does not undercut the need for regulation, especially for market failures that platforms cannot address and for other nWhereas self-regulation has proved to be a good alternative to ex-ante regulation, especially in the area of the collaborative economy thanks to new technological developments such as two- way rating mechanisms; notes that customer satisfaction with collabormative goals (e.g. reversing inequalities, boosting fairness, inclusiveness, and openness, etc.)economy services is much higher than in the traditional sectors; believes, at the same time, that this self-regulating capacity does not replace the need for regulation, such as the Services and eCommerce Directives, and EU consumer law to ensure coherence and complementarity;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Is convincedBelieves that a common EU horizontal and harmonised regulatory framework, consisting of a combination of general principles and specific rules, needs to be developed, in addition to anyregulatory framework must be pro- innovation, technologically neutral and future proof and establish sector-ial specific regulation that might be neededations whilst recognising general principles;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Believes that the existing EU regulatory framework should continue to be applied, and that future changes consisting of general principles and specific rules should be considered in response to any gaps or needs on a case- by-case basis, in line with better regulation principles.
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Is concerned about the difficulties that have emerged so farthat there may have been some difficulties in some sectors in relation to tax compliance and enforcement, despite the increased traceability of economic transactions via online platforms; recognises that these issues have been addressed in certain Member States; therefore invites the European Commission and Member States to facilitate an exchange of best practices between tax authorities and stakeholders to allow Member States to develop appropriate solutions for payments of taxes in the sharing economy;