63 Amendments of Dita CHARANZOVÁ related to 2017/2003(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 24 November 2016 on new opportunities for small transport businesses, including collaborative business models1a . _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0455
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 b (new)
Citation 2 b (new)
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas PricewaterhouseCoopers, in a study for the Commission, estimated that by 2025 that many areas of the sharing economy will rival the size of their traditional counterparts, with platforms in five sectors generating Europe-wide revenues worth over €80bn and facilitating nearly €570bn of transactions1a ; _________________ 1a http://press.pwc.com/News- releases/europe-s-five-key-sharing- economy-sectors-could-deliver--570- billion-by-2025/s/45858e92-e1a7-4466- a011-a7f6b9bb488f
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
A b. Whereas PwC also projects that sharing economy revenues will grow at a 35-40% rate per year in Europe and that the collaborative economy should account for 50% of the rental sector by 2025 globally1a ; _________________ 1a http://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/megatrends/c ollisions/sharingeconomy/the-sharing- economy-sizing-the-revenue- opportunity.html
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the main engine of the European economy, representing, on 2014 figures, 99.8 % of all undertakings outside the financial sector and accounting for two out of three of all jobs;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas a recent study by the Commission shows that 17 % of European consumers have used services provided by the sharing economy, and 52 % are aware of the services offered1a ; _________________ 1aFlash Eurobarometer 438 (March 2016) on ‘The use of collaborative platforms’
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
B c. whereas only 1.7 % of enterprises in the EU make full use of advanced digital technologies, while 41 % do not use them at all; whereas the digitalisation of all sectors is crucial if the EU's competitiveness is to be maintained and improved;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
Recital B d (new)
B d. whereas the flexibility and ease of entry inherent in the collaborative economy can provide employment opportunities for groups traditionally excluded from the labour market, in particular women, young people and migrants; whereas collaborative economy services can provide a good way of becoming self-employed and promote a culture of entrepreneurship;
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 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that, if developed in a responsible manner, the collaborative economy may create significant opportunities for citizens and consumers, who benefit from enhanced competition, tailored services and lower prices; underlines that the growth in this sector is consumer driven and lead to greater consumer empowerment;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Agrees that the collaborative economy could also generates new entrepreneurial opportunities, jobs and growth, and could plays an important role in making the economic system not only more efficient, but also socially and environmentally sustainable;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges, at the same time, that the collaborative economy is having a profound impact on long-established business models; underlines the risk of having different legal standards for similar economic actors; is concerned about the risk of reducing consumer protection, workers’ rights and tax compliance; acknowledges the effects that collaborative businesses are having on the urban environment;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges, at the same time, that the collaborative economy iscan having a profounde a significant impact on long-established business models; underlinestands the riskchallenges of having different legal standards for similar economic actors; is concerned about the risk of redubalancing consumer protection with consumer empowerment, workers’' rights andwith workers opportunities and the potential for tax compliance; acknowledges the effectnd tax transparency; recognises that the collaborative businesses are having on the urbaneconomy affects both urban and rural environments;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes the raise of peer reviews and forums as a part of the collaborative and wider economy; welcomes this and agrees with the Commission that these could serve as means to address asymmetric information exchanges; underlines that such reviews and forums are efficient means to ensure better information exchange, better consumer service and complaint resolutions;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 69 #
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 Market; is aware that, if not properly governed, these changes could result in legal uncertainty about applicable rules and constraints in exercising individual rightscurrent fragmentation of the single market due to diverging approaches taken at local and national levels, the lack of coordination between Member states and the lack of enforcement from the European Commission; is deeply concerned about the negative impact of legal uncertainty and complexity of rules on European start ups and social organisations involved the collaborative economy;
Amendment 70 #
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 Marketconfusion by companies and regulators as to how to apply existing regulations and directives which has lead to greater fragmentation of the Single Market by regional and national authorities; is aware that, if not properly governed, these changesis confusion could result in legal uncertainty about applicable rules and constraints in exercising individual rights;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers the development of a harmonised, dynamic and clear legal environment to be of paramount importance for the collaborative economy to flourish in the EU;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers the development of a dynamic and clear legal environment to be of paramount importance for the collaborative economy to flourish in the EU; notes that there are already many examples of using self and co-regulation to achieve these goals;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises the need to consider the collaborative economy not only as a business modelcollection of new business models to offer goods and services but also as a new form of integration between the economy and society which is able to embed economic relations within social ones and to create new forms of community;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is concerned that, while a large part of the nascent it is not always completely clear which EU regulations apply to all sectors of the collaborative economy remains unregulated,and this has lead to significant differences are emerging among Member States due to national, regional and local regulations, as well as case-law, posing a risk ofwhich has only furthered fragmentation of the Single Market;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is concerned that, while a largeNotes that many parts of the nascent collaborative economy aremains unregulated, covered by national and local regulation; recognises however that some significant differences are emerging among Member States due to national, regional and local regulations, as well as case-law, posing a risk of fragmentation of the Single Market;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Stresses the complex nature of the transport sector within and outside the collaborative economy; notes that this sector is subject to heavy regulation, particularly regarding access to the profession, activities concerned and the development, use and marketing of transport services (exclusive rights, capping of the number of licenses), as well as subsidisation; deplores the fact that they are, among other factors, sometimes used as a pretext to erect artificial barriers, especially against new business models;
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 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Underlines the existing legislation of the Services Directive and the failure to fully implement it in practice by many Member States; calls on the Commission to launch further infringement actions against those Member States, who despite having transposed the Directive, have not ensure that it is respected by local and regional authorities; urges the Commission to increase the speed by which infringement and competition cases are handled in order to allow for swift resolutions for both companies and individuals;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Agrees that, in line with the EU Treaty and applicable secondary legislation, any market access requirements for collaborative platforms and service providers must be necessary, justified and proportionate, and that this assessment should be dependent on whether services are provided by professional or private individuals, making to meet legitimate public interest objectives as set out in the Services Directive; recalls that the Service Directive includes an obligation for Member States' authorities to review existing legislation and remove such market restrictions; believes that peer providers should be subject to lighter legal requirements;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Agrees that market access requirements for collaborative platforms and service providers must be necessary, justified and proportionate, and that this assessment should be dependent on whether services are provided by professional or private individuals, making peer providers subject to lighter or no legal requirements;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Welcomes the Service Package proposals and guidance on regulated professions; calls for further review and harmonisation of the rules on access to regulated professions and activities in Europe, so as to enable new operators and services linked to digital platforms and the collaborative economy to develop in a business-friendly environment, including greater transparency with regard to legislative changes, and to coexist with incumbent operators within an environment of healthy competition;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14 b. Agrees with the Communication that when assessing whether market access and other requirements meet the conditions of the Services Directive, Member States should take into account the specific features of collaborative economy business models; is of the same understanding as the Council's Collaborative Economy Discussion Paper that not everything that has historically been considered justified and proportionate in an economic sector is automatically also justified and proportionate in the collaborative economy;
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 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Underlines that any thresholds based on income levels must take into account the important differences in income levels and prices across the Member States, stresses that there can be no 'one-size-fits-all' EU income threshold;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Believes that peer providers, in most cases being private individuals offering services on an occasional basis, should not fall under the definition of professional service providers, and thresholds can be useful in that respect to exempt peers from legal requirements. Draws attention, at the same time, to the risk that establishing thresholds may not only create a disparity between micro and small businesses on the one side, and peers on the other; calls therefore for the legislation applicable to professional service providers to be revised in order to level the playing field among comparable categories of service providers and to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens but also create disparity between cities, regions and member states when different thresholds are set at local, regional or national levels ; calls therefore for the legislation applicable to professional service providers to be simplified and modernised to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens and ensure that legal requirements are proportionate, necessary and non discriminatory;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Draws attention, at the same time, to the risk that establishing thresholds may create a disparity between micro and small businesses on the one side, and peers on the other; calls therefore for the legislation applicable to professional service providers to be revised in order to level the playing field among comparable categories ofa full analysis of potential impacts to be ascertained before considering whether the legislation applicable to professional service providers should be revised and to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens; cautions against calls for legislative actions which stifle innovation;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Draws attention, at the same time, to the risk that establishing thresholds may create a disparity between micro and small businesses on the one side, and peers on the other; calls therefore for the legislation applicable to professional service providers to be revised in order to level the playing field among comparable categories of service providers and to remove unnecessary regulatory burdensuse this transformation as an occasion to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens for all business operators, collaborative and traditional alike;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that consumers should enjoy a high and effective level of protection, regardless of whether services are provided by professionals or peers; highlights, in particular, the importance of protecting consumers in peer-to-peer transactions; welcomes the Commission’s initiative to ensure the adequacy of consumer law and preventing abuse of the collaborative economy; Stresses however that this initiative should take into account consumers and platforms behaviors in the collaborative economy, consumers being more active and empowered than in traditional markets, and collaborative economy platforms more reactive and agile with regard to consumer satisfaction, their business model being largely based on trust ;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that consumers should enjoy a high and effective level of protection, regardless of whether services are provided by professionals or peers; highlights, in particular, the importance of protecting consumersconsumer protection in peer-to-peer transactions; welcomes the Commission’'s initiative to ensure the adequacy of consumer law and preventing abuse of the collaborative economy; recognises that some forms of protection can be delivered by platforms without the need for regulation;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Emphasises that, in manyWhere there is persisting market dominated players and therefore a lack of choice or competition, that clases,sical rules for protecting consumers aremight still be needed in the collaborative economy, especially due to persisting asymmetric information or lack of choiceand actions taken to ensure new market entries access to a local or regional market;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Emphasises that, in many cases, rules for protecting consumers are still needed in the collaborative economy, especially due to where there is persisting asymmetric information or lack of choice ; Stresses therefore that the need for consumer protection should be based first and foremost on an assessment on the extent to which technology solves asymmetry of information ;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to clarifUnderlines that the Ecommerce framework fully applies to the collaborative economy platforms, therefore online platforms should benefit from the limited liability regime according to the conditions set out by the Ecollaborative platforms liability regime, which couldmmerce directive. Acknowledges however the lack of legal certainty and clarity in defining the level of control and knowledge a platform has over the information it hosts. Calls on the Commission to provide further guidance on the application of the criteria that indicate whether a platform is providing an underlying service or is merely an hosting provider and on the possibilities for hosting providers to take voluntary measures to enhance responsible behaviour and increase user confidence;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. CRecalls on the Commission to clarify the collaborative platforms liability regime, which couldthe E-commerce Directive and the requirements as to online intermediaries liability; at the same time, asks platforms to take voluntary measures to enhance responsible behaviour and increase user confidence;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission to further scrutinise EU legislation in order to reduce uncertainties concerning the rules applicable to collaborative business models and to assess whether new or amended rules are desirablappropriate;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Believes that any new regulation should leveragefocus on ex-post regulation instead of ex-ante and that platforms’ self- governing capacities and peer-review should be leveraged to the greatest extent possible; is convinced that collaborative platforms themselves could take an active role in such a new regulatory environment by correcting many asymmetric information and other market failures which have been traditionally addressed through regulation, especially by digital trust-building mechanisms;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
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 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Points out the crucial importance of clarifying methods by which decisions based on algorithms are taken and of guaranteeing algorithm fairness; emphasises the need to verify the potential harm to privacy caused by big data, to assess the impact of data on different segments of society and to prevent discrimination; calls on the Commission to lay down effective criteria for developing algorithm accountability principles for information- based collaborative platforms;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. ICalls convinced that the Commission to assess in order to prevent further fragmentation of the single market whether 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 any sector- specific regulation that might be needed ;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Is convinced 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 any sector- specific regulation that might be needed; takes the view that any legislation which imposes new requirements on collaborative economy actors, particularly tax-related, social and environmental measures, should be proportionate, simple and clear, and not hampering their development;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Is deeply concerned of the impact of unjustified market access requirements taken in numerous member states on innovation in Europe; Calls on the Commission for an ambitious and more effective enforcement framework , and to support the Member States in developing a strong culture of compliance and enforcement;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Welcomes that the rise of the collaborative economy has brought greater competition and has challenged existing operators to focus on consumers' real demands, consumer service and a better service to cost ratio; underlines that the collaborative economy is positive even for those individuals that do not directly take part in it;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Is concerned about the difficulties that have emerged so far in relation to tax compliance and enforcement, despite the increased traceability of economic transactions via online plStresses the increased traceability of economic transactions via online platforms which should lead to greater tax compliance and enforcement; asks that the Member States to seek, based on these best practices, greater tax compliance and enforcement within traditional market operatforms as well;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Is concerned about the difficulties that have emerged so far in relation to tax compliance and enforcement, despite the increased traceability of economic transactions via online platforms; Underlines that public-private cooperation with regard to tax and social security compliance has proven successful in some Member States ; Stresses therefore the role competent authorities should play in engaging with platforms to develop effective and innovative solutions that facilitate compliance and the role of the European Commission in facilitating exchange of best practices and reuse of technological solutions;
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. AWhile respecting the principle of subsidiarity and national tax policies, agrees that functionally similar tax obligations should be applied to businesses providing comparable services, and is convinced that taxes should be paid where profits are generated;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5
Subheading 5
Impact on labour market and workers’ rights
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Emphasises that the digital revolution is having a profound impact on the labour market and that emerging trends in the collaborative economy are part of a broader tendency; of transformation of the society and economy from a vertical hierarchical structure to a more horizontal structure; believes that the collaborative economy provides workers with more flexibility, autonomy, and opportunities that represents this shift in behaviors and therefore requires modernisation of employment and welfare systems ; Stresses in that regard that modernisation should imply to reform a system that should no longer be based on open-ended contracts, which are no longer the norm, but at the level of the labour market, to ensure that all workers benefit from social protection.
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35 a. Regrets that local governments' responses to the development of collaborative business models has so far been very fragmented and in some cases inconsistent with the potential and benefits of the development of this sector, as well as contrary to consumer expectations; considers that a coordinated overall European-level action is needed to prevent local and regional authorities from adopting rules that are inconsistent with EU law;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 b (new)
Paragraph 35 b (new)
35 b. calls on the Member States to comply with, and fully implement, the Electronic Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC) and the Services Directive (Directive 2006/123/EC); maintains that the free movement of service providers and freedom of establishment, as provided for in Articles 56 and 49 TFEU respectively, are essential in order to realise the European dimension of services and hence of the internal market;
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 c (new)
Paragraph 35 c (new)
35 c. Calls on the Member States to put an end to over-regulation, which is often protectionist in nature and inhibit the advantages of new market entries in order to protect established market players and other social actors; believes it is necessary for Member States to refrain from uncoordinated actions and unwarranted restrictive unilateral measures against collaborative economy companies;
Amendment 346 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Notes that first movers have been cities, where urban conditions such as population density and physical proximity favour the adoption of collaborative practices; is also convinced that the collaborative economy can offer significant opportunities to inner peripheries and outlying, mountainous and rural areas, toogions, and also offer indirect benefits for the tourism sector;
Amendment 359 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37 a. Calls on the Commission to be proactive in encouraging public-private cooperation in particular with regard to the take up of e-IDs, to increase consumers and service providers trust in online transactions, building on the EU framework for mutual recognition of Eids, and to address other existing barriers to the growth of the collaborative economy, such as obstacles to providing crossborder insurance schemes ;
Amendment 363 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39 a. Notes that services provided by SMEs in the collaborative economy sector are not always sufficiently tailored to the needs of persons with disabilities and the elderly; calls for tools and programmes aimed at supporting these operators to take into account the needs of persons with disabilities;