9 Amendments of Dita CHARANZOVÁ related to 2016/2010(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Notes that implementation of the Postal Services Directive helped in opening domestic markets for competition but did not lead to the accomplishment of internal market for postal services;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Considers that the level of transposition of the Directive is not satisfactory; Notes that Commission initiated infringement proceedings against two Member States on issues of content; Considers that in some Member States several issues, such as effective structural separation of the regulatory functions from activities associated with ownership and control, conditions governing access to networks and authorisation requirements might not be transposed properly; Therefore, calls the Commission to look closely at inconsistencies in the application of the Directive between different Member States and to monitor whether the legislative measures adopted by Member States constitute complete transposition of the Directive and if not, undertake decisive actions to rectify the situation and to ensure proper competition within the sector;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the Commission’s confirmation that the Postal Services Directive does not require any particular ownership structure for universal service providers (USPs); believes that USPs should not be prevented fromand alternative operators should be encouraged to investing and innovatinge in the provision of efficient and quality postal services;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls the Commission to analyse the reasons for high costs of cross-border delivery; calls the Commission to undertake measures to lift barriers to cross-border and domestic competition, such as closed terminal dues agreements, labelling and authorisation requirements, unjustified VAT exemptions, special or exclusive rights for public operators and other forms of state subsidies, in order to level playing field for incumbent and alternative operators;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recognises the decisionNotes the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C340/13, bpost SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT), as an endorsement of the legitimate goal of stimulating demand for postal servicwhich stated that principle of anti-discrimination referred to in article 12 of the Directive does not preclude the introduction by universal service provider (USP) of quantity discounts per business customer; However, the system of operational discounts as per preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in joined Cases C-287/06 to C-292/06 is not compatible with abovementioned article 12; Points out that Court ruled that if an USP applies special tariffs, it must, in order to observe the principles of transparency and non-discrimination, apply them equally between third parties;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Commends the establishmentReiterates its support to the Postal Users Forum, which was established in 2011 by the Commission, aiming at submitting the views of the Ppostal User Forum for postal services user representativvices users and discuss with postal services operators the actual level of end-user satisfaction, identify the business-user particular requirements and discuss how to improve e-commerce delivery; Is of the opinion that the Forum was very useful and should meet regularly in order to confront different users’ expectations with postal services, operators and trade unionswork together with trade unions and other stakeholders for better solutions for parcel delivery;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. UrgesCalls on the Commission to take full account of the occurrence, and further risk, of downgrading of job security and terms and conditions for workers in the postal sector, and to make specific provision to mitigate and avoid this in any proposed new legislationmonitor the level of job sustainability for workers in the postal sector; encourages Member States to develop policies aimed at further improving skills, education and training of workers in this sector;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that geographical coverage and accessibility to universal services for parcel deliveries can be improved, especially for vulnerable consumers and those in remote areasthe quality, accessibility and reliability of the parcel deliveries can be improved and the trust of consumers strengthened, especially as regards cross- border deliveries and e-commerce;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights that the Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive and the online dispute resolution platform may benefit consumers and businesses in cross-border transactions; calls for further mechanisms for adequate consumer redress in postal services to be introduced, including a collective approach to redress where needed.platform established by the Regulation on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes may benefit consumers and businesses in cross-border transactions; Deplores the fact that until now, 10 months after transposition deadline, only 20 Member States transposed the Directive and consequently millions of European citizens are deprived of effective redress mechanism;