14 Amendments of Dita CHARANZOVÁ related to 2015/2053(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that it would be highly recommended for the European Union to adopt legislation on non-agricultural GIs, in order to increase the distinctiveness and fully exploit the potential of protectedfully exploit the positive economic effects of protecting the distinctiveness and quality of these products;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that an EU level system of protection for non-agricultural GIs should cover non-geographical names which are unambiguously associated with a given place;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the lack of a unitary system for the protection of geographical indications relating to non-agricultural products creates a highly fragmented situation in Europe, arising from different national and local, sectoral or transversal rules, which have distorting effects, which hamper the harmonious development of the common market, as well as homogeneous protection and effective competition on equal terms, which prevent consumers from receiving accurate, truthful and comparable information that allows them to make better informed decisions and which are an obstacle to consumer protection;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that, currently, there is no uniform GI protection for non-agricultural products at EU level but several legal frameworks ensuring only national or regional protection. In this context, underlines the fact that the present legal frameworks may result in consumer deception and, countless cases of counterfeerfeiting and unfair competitiong; therefore, a uniform EU system could better inform consumers about the authenticity of products and protect the rightful owners of a registered product;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that this system should be based on the general principles governing the system in force for agricultural and food products, and calls on the Commission to learnapply the necessary lessons learned from the experience gained in thate agricultural and food sectors, with the aim of creating a system based on best practices and transparent and non- discriminatory principles, and which is effective, responsive and free of unnecessary administrative burden for the operators involved; further calls on the Commission in this regard to apply a non-sectoral approach to a system of protection
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is of the opinion that a coherent, simple, transparent, and bureaucratically and economically non-burdensome EU-level system of GI protection for non- agricultural products would enable the EU to achieve similarequal protection for such European products outside the EU in the framework of international trade negotiations and create a significant advantage in negotiating free trade agreements with third countries;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes that the establishment of such a system at the EU level could positively influence renewed discussions of the widening of GIs protection and the creation of a multilateral GIs register within the Doha Development Agenda of the World Trade Organisation;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is strongly convinced that extending protection of geographical indications to non-agricultural products could have many and varied positive effects for citizens, consumers, producers and the whole European economic and social fabric, and enable the EU to achieve equal protection for such European products in third countries in the framework of international trade negotiations;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is of the opinion that the creation of a singleuniform EU-level protection of non- agricultural GIs that includes a registration scheme recognised at EU level, without lowering the standards of protection already existing in somin parallel with protection offered at the level of the Member States, would be the best way to be more effective both within the EU and in negotiations with third countries;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
- protect consumers more effectively and help them to make better informed choices about buying products,, particularly if the existence of such a system is efficiently communicated, and helping consumers to make better informed choices regarding the products they purchase by increasing transparency, and furnishing more information about quality and origin and ensuring traceability;,
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
- promote and facilitate access to the common market and markets outside the EU for European craft products, which are the fruit of traditional knowledge and skills, that helping to conserve preciousvaluable know-how which characterises entire social and local communities, and which represents a significant element in the historical, cultural, economic and social heritage of Europe;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises the importance of creating a future legal framework that guarantees that the link to the original geographical area remains a priority, and that clearly specifies the conditions under which the denomination may be used outside the reference space; further emphasises that such a system should cover non- geographical names which are unambiguously associated with a given place;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the regulator to take into account the GIs already existing in the Member States in order to avoid unnecessary red tape for their registration at European level., and to allow for national systems of GI protection to continue to coexist with a uniform EU system;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers, at the same time, that the system should allow reasonable margins of flexibility in order to more effectively to meet the need to protect heterogeneous products with diverse specific characteristics; further considers that an EU level system of protection should cover non- geographical names which are unambiguously associated with a given place;