904 Amendments of Marie-Christine BOUTONNET
Amendment 12 #
2018/2089(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that, in the light of the dynamic technological changes in the sector, there is a need to clarify who should bear the damage in the event of accidents caused by fully autonomous vehicles; calls therefore on the Commission to adapt the current EU legal framework and, if necessary, introduce new rules on the basis of which responsibility and liability are allocated to the designers, manufacturers, owners or users of autonomous vehicles;
Amendment 15 #
2018/2089(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that a possible solution to address the existing gaps and shortcomingway to compensate victims could be the setting up of a no-faultmandatory insurance framework for damage resulting from autonomous vehicles;
Amendment 17 #
2018/2089(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 21 #
2018/2089(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view that the idea of giving autonomous vehicles their own legal personality should be abandoned;
Amendment 28 #
2018/2089(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomNotes with interest the Commission proposals to regulate the protection of vehicles against cyber-attacks and to equip autonomous cars with data recorders to help determine the cause of accidents; calls on the Commission to further clarify rules on the protection and sharing of the data collected by those vehicles and access to such data, while fully respecting the GDPR rules and enabling interoperability between systems;
Amendment 21 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas courts and chambers specialised in commercial matters at national level will guarantee a higher level of competence in such matters and thereby attract such cases to the courts of the Member States;
Amendment 30 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Observes that such a procedure could build on requirements for thorough preparations by the parties before the procedure is launched, and strict deadlines, few possibilities to add facts or evidenthus achieving a fast-track proce during the process and no separate appeale; notes that it could be useful for such a procedure to be proecedural decisions, thus achieving a fast-tracked by an attempt at conciliation in order to avoid a lengthy and costly adversarial procedure;
Amendment 34 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Observes that the aim to provide expedited settlement of commercial disputes in the Union cannot just be achieved by the introduction of a fast-track procedural system; to this aim, courtspecialised chambers, judges and lawyers highly proficient in commercial law and private international law would be needed in order to make such a procedural system efficient and high quality;
Amendment 41 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Contends that in this respect there might be a need to review the Rome I Regulation in order to strengthen the connection between the aim and object of contracts and the law chosen, while at the same time allowing, where appropriate, for more party autonomy in relation to the choice of law, in order to ensure and enhance legal certainty, the Commission’s proposal should be based on the Rome I Regulation so as to enable the parties to determine the law applicable to the dispute in a simple and transparent manner;
Amendment 44 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Emphasises that legislative measures cannot address these issues alone, practical measures to raise the competence both of courtspecialised chambers and of lawyers are also necessary;
Amendment 48 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Pursuant to Article 225 TFEU, requests therefore the Commission to submit by 1 January 2020, on the basis of Article 81(2) TFEU, a proposal for a legislative act on a European Expedited Civil Procedure and a proposal for amendments toin accordance with the Rome I Regulation according to recommendations set out in the Annex hereto;
Amendment 50 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that any financial implications of the proposal, costs for procedures brought under the EECP, would be offset by equivalent savings as the EEPC is likely to be substantially more cost-effective than the ordinary procedures of the Member States, with the recommendation to attempt prior conciliation, and as the disputes in question would not be brought under the general procedural system of the Member State in question;
Amendment 61 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part I – paragraph 2 – point 7
Annex I – part I – paragraph 2 – point 7
7. Encourage a prior attempt at in- and out-of-court amicable settlement of disputes, including by way of mediation or conciliation;
Amendment 64 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part II
Annex I – part II
Amendment 66 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part II – paragraph 1
Annex I – part II – paragraph 1
Amendment 68 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part II – paragraph 2
Annex I – part II – paragraph 2
Amendment 76 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part III – point 3
Annex I – part III – point 3
Amendment 77 #
2018/2079(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part III – point 4
Annex I – part III – point 4
Amendment 21 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard with great interest and calls on the Commission to further promote this exercise in accordance with the Treaties and in consultation with the Member States;
Amendment 26 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports the aim of this exchange and stresses that an effective and independent national justice system could give businesses incentives to develop and invest at national and cross-border level, while at the same time protecting consumers and workers, thus boosting their economic contribution;
Amendment 31 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes the importance of judicial benchmarking for cross-border mutual trust, and for effective cooperation between national justice institutions and for the creation of a common judicial area and a European judicial culture; encourages the Commission, therefore, to continue developing concrete indicators tso assess, in practice, the upholding of EU values such as the rule of law or respect for fundamental rights to improve benchmarking;
Amendment 37 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesTakes note of the efforts of the Commission to provide measurable data and draw concrete conclusions on how Member States have improved or may yet improve the quality and efficiency of their justice systems; regrets that there are still instances where, though applicable or available, no data have been provided by some Member States for certain categories; calls on Member States, therefore, to fully collaborate with the Commissioneach other by sharing relevant, up-to- date data;
Amendment 46 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the importance of efficient and timely proceedings in strengthening consumer protection and safeguarding intellectual property and data privacy rights; notes with concern that such proceedings are still too lengthy in some Member States;
Amendment 49 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Encourages Member States to invest in the continued development and use of ICT tools in their judicial systems, in an effort to make them more accessible and comprehensible to all EU Member State citizens, including those with any form of disability; emphasises the benefit of ICT systems in reducing costs for all stakeholders involved and in improving the overall efficiency and quality of justice systems, and regrets that their full potential has not yet been reached in all Member States;
Amendment 53 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights the need to intensify and diversify the scope of training offered to judges, namely in the fields of gender structuresequality, judicial ethics, IT skills, court management and communication with parties and the press; underlines furthermore the importance of adequate training in EU law and different EU cooperation structures, such as Eurojust;
Amendment 60 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 69 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights the fact that legal aid for consumersthose below the poverty threshold remainis an essential balancing factor; underlines the role of legal aid in guaranteeing that weaker parties may also have access to justice, a fundamental right under EU lawfactor for justice;
Amendment 73 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 81 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the need to address the still existing gender balance disparities and considerable ratio gaps among judges, namely in higher instance courts/supreme courts, at both national and European level; takes note with regret of the recent negative development in the proportion of female professional judges in some Member States;
Amendment 82 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 85 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 87 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. UnderlinNotes that, while over half of the Member States increased expenditure on the judicial system per inhabitant in 2015, the determination of financial resources is still mostly based too often on historical or actual costs instead of actual workload or number of court requests;
Amendment 89 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 99 #
2018/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 19 #
2018/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) A lively public debate is taking place on summer-time arrangements and some Member States have already expressed their preference to discontinue the application of such arrangements. Furthermore, the public consultation exercise conducted by the Commission in 2018 revealed that 84% of the 4.6 million people who took part would like to discontinue biannual clock changes. In the light of these developments, it is necessary to abide by the will of the peoples of Europe and to continue safeguarding the proper functioning of the internal market and to avoid any significant disruptions thereto caused by divergences between Member States in this area. Therefore, it is appropriate to put an end in a coordinated way to summer-time arrangements.
Amendment 43 #
2018/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) This Directive should apply from 1 April 201920, so that the last summer-time period subject to the rules of Directive 2000/84/EC should start, in every Member State, at 1.00 a.m., Coordinated Universal Time, on 31 March 201920. Member States that, after that summer-time period, intend to adopt a standard time corresponding to the time applied during the winter season in accordance with Directive 2000/84/EC should change their standard time at 1.00 a.m., Coordinated Universal Time, on 27 October 201920, so that similar and lasting changes occurring in different Member States take place simultaneously. It is desirable that Member States take the decisions on the standard time that each of them will apply as from 201920 in a concerted manner.
Amendment 47 #
2018/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 55 #
2018/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article premier – paragraph 2
Article premier – paragraph 2
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States may still apply a seasonal change of their standard time or times in 201920, provided that they do so at 1.00 a.m., Coordinated Universal Time, on 27 October 201920. The Member States shall notify this decision in accordance with Article 2.
Amendment 76 #
2018/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall adopt and publish, by 1 April 201920 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
Amendment 80 #
2018/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
They shall apply those provisions from 1 April 201920.
Amendment 38 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The absence of any exception in Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 to the protection conferred by a supplementary protection certificate has had the unintended consequence of preventing manufacturers of generics and biosimilars established in the Union from manufacturing, even for the exclusive purpose of exporting to third countrywith a view to enter the Union markets in which such protection does not exist or has expired. A further unintended consequence is that the protection conferred by the certificate makes it more difficult for those manufacturers to enter the Union market immediately after expiry of the certificatemmediately after expiry of the certificate and/or export to countries in which such protection does not exist or has expired, given that they are not in a position to build up production capacity until the protection provided by the certificate has lapsed, by contrast with manufacturers located in third countries where protection does not exist or has expired.
Amendment 53 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The aim of this Regulation is to ensure that manufacturers established in the Union are able to compete effectively in those third country markets where supplementary protection does not exist or has expired. It is intended to complement the efforts of the Union’s trade policy to ensure open markets for Union-based manufacturers of medicinal products. Indirectly, it is also intended to put those manufacturers in a better position to enter the Union market immediately after expiry of the relevant supplementary protection certificate, namely the Day-1 entry. It would also help to serve the aim of fostering access to medicines in the Union by helping to ensure a swifter entry of generic and biosimilar medicines onto the market after expiry of the relevant certificate.
Amendment 60 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In thoese specific and limited circumstances, and in order to create a level playing field between Union-based manufacturers and third country manufacturers, it is appropriate to restricteliminate the prounintecntion conferred byal effects of a supplementary protection certificate so as to allow making for the exclusive purpose of (i) export to third countries and any related acts strictly necessary for making or for the actual export itself. (ii) entry onto the Union market immediately after expiry of the relevant supplementary protection certificate, and any related acts strictly necessary for making or for the actual export itself or entry onto the Union market.
Amendment 76 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) That exception should cover the making of the product, including the product which corresponds to the medicinal product protected by a supplementary protection certificate protected by a supplementary protection certificate, including the making of the corresponding medicinal product, in the territory of a Member State, for the exclusive purpose of export to third countries, as well as any upstream or downstream acts by the maker or by third parties in a contractual relationship with the maker or countries and/or Day-1 entry on the Union’s market, as well as any upstream or downstream acts, where such acts would otherwise require the consent of the certificate-holder, and are strictly necessary for making for the purpose of export or for the actual export itself or for Day-1 Entry. For instance, such acts may include the supply and import of active ingredients for the purpose of making the corresponding medicinal product to which the product covered by the certificate corresponds, or temporary storage of the product or advertising fmedicinal product or othe exclusivr activities necessary for the purpose of export to third country destinations or Day- 1 Entry.
Amendment 81 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The exception should not cover placing the medicinal product made for the exclusive purpose of export and Day 1 entry on the market in thea Member State where a supplementary protection certificate is in force, either directly or indirectly after export, nor should it cover re- importation of the medicinal product to the market of a Member State in which a certificate is in force. Moreover, it should not cover any act or activity for the purpose of import of medicinal products, or parts of medicinal products, into the Union merely for the purposes of repackaging and re-exporting.
Amendment 88 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) By limiting the scope of the exception to making for Day-1 entry in the Union's market and for the purpose of export outside the Union, and acts strictly necessary for such making or for the actual export itself, the exception introduced by this Regulation will not unreasonably conflict with normal exploitation of the product in the Member State where the certificate is in force, nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the certificate-holder, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.
Amendment 160 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 469/2009
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The certificate referred to in paragraph 1 shall not confer protection against a particular acts against which the basic patent conferred protection if, with respect to that particular act, the following conditions are met:
Amendment 173 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 469/2009
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a – point i
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a – point i
(i) making for the exclusive purpose of export to third countries; and/or entry onto the market of Member States immediately after expiry of the certificate in those Member States; and/or
Amendment 184 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 469/2009
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii
(ii) any related act that is strictly necessary for that making or for the actual export itself;, for the export itself and/or entry onto the market of those Member States immediately after expiry of the certificate in those Member States.
Amendment 58 #
2018/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) As a first step in a company’s lifecycle, it should be possible to establish and register companies fully online. However, Member States should have the possibility to derogate automatically from this requirement in the case of public limited liability companies due to the complexity of establishment and registration of such companies and in order to respect Member States’ existing traditions of company law. In any event, Member States should lay down detailed rules of registration. It should be possible to carry out online registration with the submission of documents in electronic form.
Amendment 48 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Online intermediation services and online search engines, as well as the commercial transactions facilitated by those services, have an intrinsic cross- border potential and are of particular importance for the proper functioning of the Union's internal market in today's economy. The potentially unfair and harmful trading practices of certain providers of those services in respect of business users and corporate website users hamper the full realisation of that potential and negatively affect the proper functioning of the internal market. In addition, the full realisation of that potential is hampered, and the proper functioning of the internal market is negatively affected, by diverging laws of certain Member States which, with a varying degree of effectiveness, regulate those services, while other Member States are considering adopting such laws.
Amendment 59 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Examples of online intermediation services covered by this Regulation should consequently include online e-commerce market places, including collaborative ones on which business users are active, online software applications services and, online social media services and voice assistance services. However, this Regulation should not apply to online advertising serving tools or online advertising exchanges which are not provided with the aim of facilitating the initiation of direct transactions and which do not involve a contractual relationship with consumers. This Regulation should also not apply to online payment services, since they do not themselves meet the applicable requirements but are rather inherently auxiliary to the transaction for the supply of goods and services to the consumers concerned.
Amendment 63 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) For reasons of consistency, the definition of online search engine used in this Regulation should be aligned with the definition used in Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council21. This definition should be understood – including for the purposes of this regulation – to include voice-based searches. _________________ 21 Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union (OJ L 194, 19.7.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 65 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to effectively protect business users where needed, this Regulation should apply whereto the terms and conditions of a contractual relationship, regardless of their name or form, are not individually negotiated by the parties to them. Whether or not terms and conditions were individually negotiated should be determined on the basis of an overall assessment, whereby the fact that certain provisions thereof may have been individually negotiated is, in itself, not decisive.
Amendment 73 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Ensuring transparency in the general terms and conditions can be essential to promoting sustainable business relationships and to preventing unfair behaviour to the detriment of business users. What is more, these terms and conditions should be objective, non- discriminatory, fair and reasonable. Providers of online intermediation services should therefore also ensure that the terms and conditions are easily available at all stages of the contractual relationship, including to prospective business users at the pre-contractual phase, and that any modifications to those terms are notified to business users within a set notice period which is reasonable and proportionate in light of the specific circumstances and which is at least 15 days. That notice period should not apply where, and to the extent that, it is waived in an unambiguous manner by the business user concerned or where, and to the extent that, the need to implement the modification without respecting the notice period stems from a legal obligation incumbent on the service provider under Union or national law.
Amendment 75 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Online intermediation services and online search engines, as well as the commercial transactions facilitated by those services, have an intrinsic cross- border potential and are of particular importance for the proper functioning of the Union’s internal market in today’s economy. The potentially unfair and harmful trading practices of certain providers of those services in respect of business users and corporate website users hamper the full realisation of that potential and negatively affect the proper functioning of the internal market. In addition, the full realisation of that potential is hampered, and the proper functioning of the internal market is negatively affected, by diverging laws of certain Member States which, with a varying degree of effectiveness, regulate those services, while other Member States are considering adopting such laws.
Amendment 75 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) In order to protect business users it should be possible for a competent court to establish that non-compliant terms and conditions are not binding on the business user, non-compliant terms and conditions should be concsiderned, with effects ex nunc. Any such finding by a co null and void. Any such measurte should however only concern the specific provisions of the terms and conditions which are not compliant. The remaining provisions should remain valid and enforceable, in as far as they can be severed from the non- compliant provisions. Sudden modifications to existing terms and conditions may significantly disrupt business users' operations. In order to limit such negative effects on business users, and to discourage such behaviour, modifications made in contravention of the obligation to provide a set notice period, should therefore be null and void, that is, deemed to have never existed with effects erga omnes and ex tunc.
Amendment 81 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The ranking of goods and services by the providers of online intermediation services has an important impact on consumer choice and, consequently, on the commercial success of the business users offering those goods and services to consumers. Providers of online intermediation services should therefore clearly and precisely outline the main parameters determining ranking beforehand, in order to improve predictability for business users, to allow them to better understand the functioning of the ranking mechanism and to enable them to compare the ranking practices of various providers. The notion of main parameter should be understood to refer to any general criteria, processes, specific signals incorporated into algorithms or other adjustment or demotion mechanisms used in connection with the ranking. The description of the main parameters determining ranking should also include an explanation of any possibility for business users to actively influence ranking against remuneration, as well as of the relative effects thereof. This description should provide business users with an adequate understanding of how the ranking mechanism takes account of the characteristics of the actual goods or services offered by the business user, and their relevance to the consumers of the specific online intermediation services. Online intermediation service providers should also provide consumers with a description of the parameters that affect ranking. The parameters should be objective and non-discriminatory and should be applied in a consistent and non-discriminatory way.
Amendment 84 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Similarly, the ranking of websites by the providers of online search engines, notably of those websites through which undertakings offer goods and services to consumers, has an important impact on consumer choice and the commercial success of corporate website users. Providers of online search engines should therefore provide a clear and precise description of the main parameters determining the ranking of all indexed websites, including those of corporate website users as well as other websites. In addition to the characteristics of the goods and services and their relevance for consumers, this description should in the case of online search engines also allow corporate website users to obtain an adequate understanding of whether, and if so how and to what extent, certain design characteristics of the website used, such as their optimisation for display on mobile telecommunications devices, is taken into account. In the absence of a contractual relationship between providers of online search engines and corporate website users, that description should be available to the public in an obvious and easily accessible location on the relevant online search engine. To ensure predictability for corporate website users, the description should also be kept up to date, including the possibility that any changes to the main parameters should be made easily identifiable. Whilst the providers are under no circumstances required to disclose any trade secrets as defined in Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 when complying with this requirement to disclose the main ranking parameters, the description given should at least be based on actual data on the relevance of the ranking parameters used. A description of these main parameters should also be available to consumers. The parameters should be objective and non-discriminatory and should be applied in a consistent and non-discriminatory way. _________________ 23 Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 87 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Where a provider of online intermediation services itself offers certain goods or services to consumers through its own online intermediation services, or does so through a business user which it controls, that provider may compete directly with other business users of its online intermediation services which are not controlled by the provider. In this case, the online intermediation services provider has both an economic incentive and the power to use its privileged position to give its own services or those it controls economic and technical benefits, and to refuse to grant those benefits to competing user companies. If it does this, it denies competing user companies a level playing field to conduct their business, and this can, in turn, be detrimental to consumers by reducing choice, increasing costs and restricting access to information and online services. In such situations, in particular, it is important that the provider of online intermediation services acts in a transparent manner and provides a description of any differentiated treatment, whether through legal, commercial or technical means, that it might give in respect of goods or services it offers itself compared to those offered by business users. For the purposes of this regulation, the concept of a competing service should be understood as a service which consumers consider interchangeable or substitutable because of its characteristics, price or usage. To ensure proportionality, this obligation should apply at the level of the overall online intermediation services, rather than at the level of individual goods or services offered through those services.
Amendment 91 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) In some cases, the imbalance in bargaining power between the provider of online intermediation services and other user companies results in a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of parties to the contract, which harms the interests of the user companies. In this case, the online intermediation services provider should apply fair treatment to user companies. In doing so, it should avoid practices which undermine companies’ freedom and ability to carry out their business activities.
Amendment 108 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Examples of online intermediation services covered by this Regulation should consequently include online e-commerce market places, including collaborative ones on which business users are active, online software applications services and, online social media services and voice assistance services. However, this Regulation should not apply to online advertising serving tools or online advertising exchanges which are not provided with the aim of facilitating the initiation of direct transactions and which do not involve a contractual relationship with consumers. This Regulation should also not apply to online payment services, since they do not themselves meet the applicable requirements but are rather inherently auxiliary to the transaction for the supply of goods and services to the consumers concerned.
Amendment 112 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) As the objective of this Regulation, namely to ensure a fair, predictable, sustainable and trusted online business environmentIn accordance within the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarprinciple of proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment 113 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1
Article premier – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation lays down rules to ensure that business users of online intermediation services and corporate website users in relation to online search engines are granted appropriate transparency, fairness and effective redress possibilities. This regulation shall be without prejudice to national civil law, particularly contract law and national legislation prohibiting or penalising unilateral behaviour or unfair commercial practices.
Amendment 121 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) For reasons of consistency, the definition of online search engine used in this Regulation should be aligned with the definition used in Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council21. This definition should be understood – including for the purposes of this regulation – to include voice-based searches. _________________ 21 Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union (OJ L 194, 19.7.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 124 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to effectively protect business users where needed, this Regulation should apply whereto the terms and conditions of a contractual relationship, regardless of their name or form, are not individually negotiated by the parties to them. Whether or not terms and conditions were individually negotiated should be determined on the basis of an overall assessment, whereby the fact that certain provisions thereof may have been individually negotiated is, in itself, not decisive.
Amendment 136 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
(7) ‘corporate website user’ means any natural or legal person which uses websites or mobile applications to offer goods or services to consumers for purposes relating to its trade, business, craft or profession;
Amendment 138 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Ensuring transparency in the general terms and conditions can be essential to promoting sustainable business relationships and to preventing unfair behaviour to the detriment of business users. What is more, these terms and conditions should be objective, non- discriminatory, fair and reasonable. Providers of online intermediation services should therefore also ensure that the terms and conditions are easily available at all stages of the contractual relationship, including to prospective business users at the pre-contractual phase, and that any modifications to those terms are notified to business users within a set notice period which is reasonable and proportionate in light of the specific circumstances and which is at least 15 days. That notice period should not apply where, and to the extent that, it is waived in an unambiguous manner by the business user concerned or where, and to the extent that, the need to implement the modification without respecting the notice period stems from a legal obligation incumbent on the service provider under Union or national law.
Amendment 142 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) In order to protect business users it should be possible for a competent court to establish that non-compliant terms and conditions are not binding on the business user, non-compliant terms and conditions should be concsiderned, with effects ex nunc. Any such finding by a co null and void. Any such measurte should however only concern the specific provisions of the terms and conditions which are not compliant. The remaining provisions should remain valid and enforceable, in as far as they can be severed from the non- compliant provisions. Sudden modifications to existing terms and conditions may significantly disrupt business users’ operations. In order to limit such negative effects on business users, and to discourage such behaviour, modifications made in contravention of the obligation to provide a set notice period, should therefore be null and void, that is, deemed to have never existed with effects erga omnes and ex tunc.
Amendment 147 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) are objective, non-discriminatory, fair and reasonable; and
Amendment 148 #
2018/0112(COD)
(c) set out the objective, non- discriminatory and reasonable grounds for decisions to suspend or terminate, in whole or in part, the provision of their online intermediation services to business users, taking account of all the circumstances, notably when there is no direct alternative to their services.
Amendment 154 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Terms and conditions, or specific provisions thereof, which do not comply with the requirements of paragraph 1 shall not be bindingbe null and void, without prejudice to the validity onf the business user concerned where such non-compliance is established by a competent courtremaining provisions, which shall remain valid and applicable in so far as they can be separated from the non-compliant provisions.
Amendment 163 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The ranking of goods and services by the providers of online intermediation services has an important impact on consumer choice and, consequently, on the commercial success of the business users offering those goods and services to consumers. Providers of online intermediation services should therefore clearly and precisely outline the main parameters determining ranking beforehand, in order to improve predictability for business users, to allow them to better understand the functioning of the ranking mechanism and to enable them to compare the ranking practices of various providers. The notion of main parameter should be understood to refer to any general criteria, processes, specific signals incorporated into algorithms or other adjustment or demotion mechanisms used in connection with the ranking. The description of the main parameters determining ranking should also include an explanation of any possibility for business users to actively influence ranking against remuneration, as well as of the relative effects thereof. This description should provide business users with an adequate understanding of how the ranking mechanism takes account of the characteristics of the actual goods or services offered by the business user, and their relevance to the consumers of the specific online intermediation services. Online intermediation service providers should also provide consumers with a description of the parameters that affect ranking. The parameters should be objective and non-discriminatory and should be applied in a consistent and non- discriminatory way.
Amendment 164 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Modifications to terms and conditions implemented by a provider of online intermediation services contrary to the provisions of paragraph 3 shall be null and void, without prejudice to the validity of the remaining provisions, which shall remain valid and applicable in so far as they can be separated from the non- compliant provisions.
Amendment 168 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Similarly, the ranking of websites by the providers of online search engines, notably of those websites through which undertakings offer goods and services to consumers, has an important impact on consumer choice and the commercial success of corporate website users. Providers of online search engines should therefore provide a clear and precise description of the main parameters determining the ranking of all indexed websites, including those of corporate website users as well as other websites. In addition to the characteristics of the goods and services and their relevance for consumers, this description should in the case of online search engines also allow corporate website users to obtain an adequate understanding of whether, and if so how and to what extent, certain design characteristics of the website used, such as their optimisation for display on mobile telecommunications devices, is taken into account. In the absence of a contractual relationship between providers of online search engines and corporate website users, that description should be available to the public in an obvious and easily accessible location on the relevant online search engine. To ensure predictability for corporate website users, the description should also be kept up to date, including the possibility that any changes to the main parameters should be made easily identifiable. Whilst the providers are under no circumstances required to disclose any trade secrets as defined in Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 when complying with this requirement to disclose the main ranking parameters, the description given should at least be based on actual data on the relevance of the ranking parameters used. A description of these main parameters should also be available to consumers. The parameters should be objective and non-discriminatory and should be applied in a consistent and non-discriminatory way. _________________ 23 Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 173 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a provider of online intermediation services decides to suspend or terminate, in whole or in part, the provision of its online intermediation services to a given business user, it shall provide the business user concerned, without undue delay, with a statement of reasons for that decision, giving at least 15 days’ notice.
Amendment 177 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Where a provider of online intermediation services itself offers certain goods or services to consumers through its own online intermediation services, or does so through a business user which it controls, that provider may compete directly with other business users of its online intermediation services which are not controlled by the provider. In this case, the online intermediation services provider has both an economic incentive and the power to use its privileged position to give its own services or those it controls economic and technical benefits, and to refuse to grant those benefits to competing user companies. If it does this, it denies competing user companies a level playing field to conduct their business, and this can, in turn, be detrimental to consumers by reducing choice, increasing costs and restricting access to information and online services. In such situations, in particular, it is important that the provider of online intermediation services acts in a transparent manner and provides a description of any differentiated treatment, whether through legal, commercial or technical means, that it might give in respect of goods or services it offers itself compared to those offered by business users. For the purposes of this regulation, the concept of a competing service should be understood as a service which consumers consider interchangeable or substitutable because of its characteristics, price or usage. To ensure proportionality, this obligation should apply at the level of the overall online intermediation services, rather than at the level of individual goods or services offered through those services.
Amendment 182 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) In some cases, the imbalance in bargaining power between the provider of online intermediation services and other user companies results in a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of parties to the contract, which harms the interests of the user companies. In this case, the online intermediation services provider should apply fair treatment to user companies. In doing so, it should avoid practices which undermine companies’ freedom and ability to carry out their business activities.
Amendment 186 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Providers of online intermediation services shall set out clearly and precisely in their terms and conditions the main parameters determining ranking and the reasons for the relative importance of those main parameters as opposed to other parameters. The parameters must be objective and non-discriminatory and must be applied in a consistent and non-discriminatory way.
Amendment 216 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) any direct or indirect remuneration charged for the use of the online intermediation services concerned or any ancillary services, and any technical or economic benefit that it does not extend to all business users;
Amendment 220 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 225 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) As the objective of this Regulation, namely to ensure a fair, predictable, sustainable and trusted online business environmentIn accordance within the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarprinciple of proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment 230 #
2018/0112(COD)
1. This Regulation lays down rules to ensure that business users of online intermediation services and corporate website users in relation to online search engines are granted appropriate transparency and fair and effective redress possibilities. This regulation shall be without prejudice to national civil law, particularly contract law and national legislation prohibiting or penalising unilateral behaviour or unfair commercial practices.
Amendment 243 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Where, in the provision of their services, providers of online intermediation services restrict the ability of business users to offer the same goods and services to consumers under different conditions through other means than through those services, they restriction shall be objectively justified, non-discriminatory and fair. Providers of online intermediation services shall include grounds for that restriction in their terms and conditions and make those grounds easily available to the public. Those grounds shall include the main economic, commercial or legal considerations for those restrictions.
Amendment 252 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) process complaints swiftly and effectively, taking into account the importance and complexity of the issue raised and providing in all instances, within 15 days, an initial reply stating in particular how long it will take to process the complaint concerned;
Amendment 274 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
(7) ‘corporate website user’ means any natural or legal person which uses websites or mobile applications to offer goods or services to consumers for purposes relating to its trade, business, craft or profession;
Amendment 299 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) are objective, non-discriminatory, fair and reasonable; and
Amendment 305 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) set out the objective, non- discriminatory and reasonable grounds for decisions to suspend or terminate, in whole or in part, the provision of their online intermediation services to business users, taking account of all the circumstances, notably when there is no direct alternative to their services.
Amendment 313 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Terms and conditions, or specific provisions thereof, which do not comply with the requirements of paragraph 1 shall not be bindingbe null and void, without prejudice to the validity onf the business user concerned where such non-compliance is established by a competent courtremaining provisions, which shall remain valid and applicable in so far as they can be separated from the non-compliant provisions.
Amendment 323 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a Sanctions Member States shall lay down the penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions and obligations contained in this Regulation and shall take the necessary measures to apply them. Those penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment 342 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Modifications to tTerms and conditions implemented by a provid, or specific provisions ther eof online intermediation services contrary to the provisions of paragraph 3 shall be null and void, which do not comply with the requirements of paragraph 3 shall be null and void, without prejudice to the validity of the remaining provisions, which shall remain valid and applicable in so far as they can be separated from the non-compliant provisions.
Amendment 360 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a provider of online intermediation services decides to suspend or terminate, in whole or in part, the provision of its online intermediation services to a given business user, it shall provide the business user concerned, without undue delay, with a statement of reasons for that decision, giving at least 15 days’ notice.
Amendment 390 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Providers of online intermediation services shall set out clearly and precisely in their terms and conditions the main parameters determining ranking and the reasons for the relative importance of those main parameters as opposed to other parameters. The parameters must be objective and non-discriminatory and must be applied in a consistent and non-discriminatory way.
Amendment 465 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) any direct or indirect remuneration charged for the use of the online intermediation services concerned or any ancillary services, and any technical or economic benefit that it does not extend to all business users;
Amendment 476 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. When providers of online intermediation services or any user company controlled by those providers offer goods or services which are in competition with those offered by other user companies, the providers of online intermediation services must treat such other user companies fairly, so as not to compromise those companies’ ability and freedom to trade. This fair treatment shall entail: (a) allowing consumers to choose the services to which they have access via the online intermediation service without imposing unjustified constraints on them – for example, by ignoring or changing their default parameters – in making that choice; (b) refraining from interference in the trading relationships between user companies and the consumers who use those companies’ services, and particularly from blocking or otherwise inhibiting exchanges of information or communication between the companies and the consumers, inter alia through the use of advertisements or marketing operations; (c) granting user companies the information required to obtain a degree of interoperability with the provider of online intermediation services, or with its ancillary services, which is the same as that afforded to the services offered by the provider of online intermediation services itself; (d) not denying user companies technical or economic benefits which the provider of online intermediation services extends directly or indirectly to its own services.
Amendment 538 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Where, in the provision of their services, providers of online intermediation services restrict the ability of business users to offer the same goods and services to consumers under different conditions through other means than through those services, they restriction shall be objectively justified, non-discriminatory and fair. Providers of online intermediation services shall include grounds for that restriction in their terms and conditions and make those grounds easily available to the public. Those grounds shall include the main economic, commercial or legal considerations for those restrictions.
Amendment 565 #
2018/0112(COD)
(b) process complaints swiftly and effectively, taking into account the importance and complexity of the issue raised and providing in all instances, within 15 days, an initial reply stating in particular how long it will take to process the complaint concerned;
Amendment 707 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a Penalties Member States shall lay down the penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions and obligations contained in this Regulation and shall take the necessary measures to apply them. Penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment 74 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Persons who work for an organisation or are in contact with it in the context of their work-related activities are often the first to know about threats or harm to the public interest which arise in this context. By ‘blowing the whistle’ they play a key role in exposing and preventing breaches of the law and in safeguarding the welfare of society. However, potential whistleblowers are often discouraged from reporting their concerns or suspicions for fear of retaliation.
Amendment 85 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) In certain policy areas, breaches of Union law may cause serious harm to the public interest, in the sense of creating significant risks for the welfare ofto society. Where weaknesses of enforcement have been identified in those areas, and whistleblowers are in a privileged position to disclose breaches, it is necessary to enhance enforcement by ensuring effective protection of whistleblowers from retaliation and introducing effective reporting channels.
Amendment 133 #
2018/0106(COD)
(29) Effective detection and prevention of serious harm to the public interest requires that the information reported which qualifies for protection covers not only unlawful activities but also abuse of law, namely acts or omissions which do not appear to be unlawful in formal terms but defeat the object or the purpose of the law and, more generally, any act of wrongdoing that is prejudicial to the public interest.
Amendment 143 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) Retaliation expresses the close (cause and effect) relationship that must exist between the report and the adverse treatment suffered, directly or indirectly, by the reporting person, so that this person can enjoy legal protection. Effective protection of reporting persons as a means of enhancing the enforcement of Union law requires a broad definition of retaliation, encompassing any act or omission occurring in the work-related context which causes them detriment, although this definition is not restrictive or exhaustive.
Amendment 166 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 44 a (new)
Recital 44 a (new)
(44a) Keeping whistleblowers’ identity confidential is essential in order to avoid self-censorship. This principle of confidentiality can only be waived in exceptional circumstances in which disclosure of information about a whistleblower’s identity is a necessary and proportionate obligation under Union or national law in the context of investigations or subsequent or current judicial proceedings, to safeguard a right, such as the right of defence of the person concerned. Appropriate sanctions should be instituted which are to be applied in the event of a breach of the principle of confidentiality concerning the whistleblower’s identity.
Amendment 223 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 248 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Directive shall apply to reporting persons acting in a disinterested fashion who have personally gained knowledge of the information working in the private or public sector who acquired information on breaches in a work-related context including, at least, the following:
Amendment 270 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive shall also apply to reporting persons whose work-based relationship is yet to begin in cases where information concerning a breach has been acquired during the recruitment process or other pre-contractual negotiation, as well as to reporting persons whose working relationship has ceased, as well as reporting persons whose employment has ceased.
Amendment 285 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 289 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Amendment 294 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) ‘abuse of law’ means acts or omissions falling within the scope of Union law or a serious threat or damage to the public interest which do not appear to be unlawful in formal terms but defeat the object or the purpose pursued by the applicable rules;
Amendment 300 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9
9. ‘reporting person’ means a natural or legal person who reports or discloses information on breaches acquired in the context of his or her work-related activities;, in other words someone who discloses or reports, impartially and in good faith, an action he or she was personally aware of, and which constitutes: - a crime or an offence; - a serious and flagrant breach of an international commitment that is regularly ratified or approved by the European Union, or of a unilateral act of an organisation based on this commitment, as well as legal and regulatory provisions; - a serious threat or serious harm to public interest.
Amendment 307 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
12. ‘retaliation’ means any threatened or actual act or omission prompted by the internal or external reporting which occurs in a work-related context and causes or may cause unjustified detriment to the reporting person acting in good faith who is reporting on a threat or serious harm to the public interest;
Amendment 355 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) a confidential notification of receipt of the report to the reporting person within no more than seven days following receipt;
Amendment 359 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
d) a reasonable timeframe, not exceeding a timeframe of between one month and three months following the reportnotification, to provide feedback to the reporting person about the follow-up to the report;
Amendment 400 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) a confidential notification of receipt of the report to the reporting person within no more than seven days following receipt;
Amendment 407 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point g
g) a statement clearly explaining that persons making information available to the competent authority in accordance with this Directive are not considered to be infringing any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision, and are not to be involved in liability of any kind related to such disclosure. This statement does, however, specify three exceptions to this principle that allow Member States to safeguard secrets protected under conventional and constitutional principles: a) secrets of national defence, b) secrets concerning relations between a lawyer and his/her client, c) medical confidentiality.
Amendment 482 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
4. Persons reporting externally to competent authorities or making a public disclosure in accordance with this Directive shall not be considered to have breached any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision, and incur liability of any kind in respect of such disclosure. However, three exceptions to this principle do allow Member States to safeguard secrets protected under conventional and constitutional principles: a) secrets of national defence, b) secrets concerning relations between a lawyer and his/her client, c) medical confidentiality.
Amendment 495 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall provide for remedies and/or effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties applicable to natural or legal persons that:
Amendment 503 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide for remedies and/or effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties applicable to persons making malicious or abusive reports or disclosures, including measures for compensating persons who have suffered damage from malicious or abusive reports or disclosures.
Amendment 510 #
2018/0106(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Member States may introduce or retain provisions more favourable to the rights of the reporting persons and the persons who are the subject of the report than those set out in this Directive, without prejudice to Article 16 and Article 17(2), to ensure Member States are able to provide genuine guarantees of confidentiality.
Amendment 56 #
2018/0064(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
–
–
The Committee [on Legal Affairs] calls on the Committee [on Transport and Tourism], as the committee responsible, to propose rejection [of the Commission proposal].
Amendment 25 #
2017/2273(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission’s 2016 Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law, and notes that according to this report, the four fields in which the greatest number of transposition infringement proceedings were opened against Member States in 2016 were the environment, justice and consumers, taxation, and the internal market;
Amendment 30 #
2017/2273(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the large number of infringement procedures in 2016 shows that ensuring the timely and correct application of EU legislation in the Member States remains a serious challenge and priority; considers that some; notes that a number of those infringements are the result of the lack of resources dedicated to public administration in some Member States, sometimes as aitself the result of ill-advised austerity measures imposed by the European Union;
Amendment 38 #
2017/2273(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomesTakes note of the fall in the number of new EU Pilot files opened in 2016 (790 compared with 881 in 2014); notes, however, that the resolution rate fell slightly compared with 2015 (from 75 % to 72 %);
Amendment 40 #
2017/2273(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises that the primary responsibility for the correct implementation and application of EU law lies with the Member States, but points out that this does not absolve the EU institutions of their duty to respect primary EU law when they produce secondary EU law, even more so in the field of the rule of law and fundamental rights with regard to the CFREUminds the EU institutions of their duty to respect primary EU law when they produce secondary EU law or decide, implement and impose on Member States social, economic or other policies;
Amendment 47 #
2017/2273(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that the EU has been set up as a Union based on the rule of law and respect for human rights (Article 2 of the TEU); rReiterates that careful monitoring of the acts and omissions of Member States and EU institutions is of the utmost importance;
Amendment 48 #
2017/2273(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 56 #
2017/2273(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the Commission has a duty to monitor and assess the correct implementation of Union law and respect for the principles and objectives enshrined in the Treaties by the Member States and all the Union institutions and bodies; recommends, therefore, that this task is taken into consideration within the policy cycle for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF policy cycle); recalls, in this connection, its resolution of 25 October 2016, advising the Commission to bundle, from 2018 onwards, its relevant annual thematic reports with the outcome of existing monitoring mechanisms and periodic assessment tools, to be presented in due time;
Amendment 83 #
2017/2273(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 87 #
2017/2273(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to respond effectively to the developing migration and security situations and to enforce the European Agenda on Migration and the related implementation packages efficiently; asks the Member States to implement the Return Directive (2008/115/EC)16correctly and to report regularly on the implementation of the European Agenda on Migration; _________________ 16do its utmost to help Member States combat irregular migration; OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98.
Amendment 90 #
2017/2273(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Encourages the EU institutions to fulfil at all times their duty to respect primary EU law when establishing the provisions of secondary, EU and soft law, developing policies, and signing agreements or treaties with institutions outside the EU, and also to fulfil their duty to assist Member States by all means available in their efforts to transpose EU legislation in all areas and to respect the values and principles of the Union, especially with respect to recent developments in Member States;
Amendment 11 #
2017/2209(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with regret that insufficient attention has been paid to the concentration of media ownership in Member States; recalls that EU competition rules play an important role inpoints out the need to preventing the creation or abuse of dominant positions in the media; calls therefore on the EU Member States and local authorities to monitor media concentration and to provide easily accessible information on media ownership and economic influence over media, to keep the public fully informed about media ownership and media dependence, and to take measures to reduce that concentration;
Amendment 56 #
2017/2209(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that whistle-blowers are a crucial resource for democracy and for investigative journalism and an independent press; calls on the Commission; calls on the EU Member States, therefore, to provide EU-wide protection in accordance with the Union objectives of democracy, pluralism of opinion and freedom of expressguarantee their protection;
Amendment 71 #
2017/2209(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights that the fight against ‘fake news’, namely false news and other disinformation that is spread deliberately via the media, should not result in restricting freedom of internet usage; calls for the Member States and EU institutions to devote sufficient resources to tackling disinformation; is satisfied with the work of the East StratCom Task Force and the establishment of the High Level Expert Group on fake news and online disinformationresist the temptation to use this fight to restrict that freedom.
Amendment 1 #
2017/2139(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Appreciates that the budget implementation for the financial year 2016 represents a very high rate of use of final appropriation (98,23 %), even if slightly lower than the 2015 rate (99,1 %), due mainly to the gradual arrival in 2016 of 12 new Judges at the General Court;
Amendment 8 #
2017/2139(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the 2016 statistics for the three courts which make up the Court of Justice confirm the trend seen in recent years as regards the average duration of proceedings, which remains satisfactory (Court of Justice: 15 months for requests for a preliminary ruling (15,3 months in 2015), 2,7 months for urgent requests for a preliminary ruling (1,9 months in 2015), 19,3 months for direct actions (17,6 months in 2015) and 12,9 months for appeals (14 months in 2015); notes that those statistics contradict the arguments in favour of the Court reforms introduced in 2016 (an increase to the number of judges and the transfer to the Court of the power to rule, at first instance, on disputes between the Union and its staff);
Amendment 17 #
2017/2139(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomNotes the fact that the Court is working towards a gender balance inefforts to get more women appointed to positions of high responsibility at the Court and that the European Parliament and the Council have indicated, among their objectives, a balanced representation of genders in appointing new Judges to the General Court (as of this date, five women Judges and two women Advocates General are part of the organisation chart of the Court and ten women Judges are part of the organisation chart of the General Court).
Amendment 54 #
2017/2023(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that there is a lack of coordination in the field of jurisdictional rules, which leads to forum shopping when it comes to claims for the restitution of looted art; notes that Articles 3 and 4 of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects offer a key compromise between civil law and common law jurisdictions when resolving problems concerning stolen or illegally exported cultural objects resulting from differences among national rules; urgesasks, therefore, the Commission to consider how the rules of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention can be implemented in EU and national lawan exchange between Member States of their legislation and practices related to provenance research, in order to build on each other's successes while adapting them to national contexts for greater effectiveness, and to consider incorporating some of the basic principles of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects in a legislative act;
Amendment 59 #
2017/2023(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that it is time to put an end to the years of convolutions and nuances if a responsible and ethical European art market is to be established; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to encourage the Member States to identify civil law measures to help overcome the difficult problems encountered by private parties seeking the restitution of works of art genuinely belonging to them;
Amendment 73 #
2017/2023(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes that theft and looting are on increasing with each conflict and that the aim must therefore also be to prevent the illegal trade in such goods; Calls on Member States to take appropriate action to put an end to the illegal trade in cultural goods from the territories of states at war such as Syria and Iraq, thereby preventing cultural goods from being used as a source of terrorist financing;
Amendment 4 #
2017/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) defines the fundamental role of the Commission as ‘guardian of the Treaties’;
Amendment 9 #
2017/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 15 #
2017/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s 2015 annual report on the application of EU law, and notes that according to this report the three fields in which Member States were mostly subject to transposition infringement proceedings in 2015 were mobility and transport, energy and the environment;
Amendment 21 #
2017/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the large number of infringement procedures in 2015 shows that ensuring the timely and correct application of EU legislation in the Member States remains a serious challenge and priority in the EUowing to legislative texts which are against the interests of each Member State;
Amendment 32 #
2017/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the EU has been set up as a Union based on the rule of law and respect for human rights (Article 2 TEU); reiterates that careful monitoring of Member States’ and EU institutions’ acts and omissions is of utmost importance, and expresses its concern at the number of petitions to Parliament and complaints to the Commission concerning problems supposedly resolved by the Commission;
Amendment 36 #
2017/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the important role of the social partners, civil society organisations and other stakeholders in creating legislation and in monitoring and reporting shortcomings in the transposition and application of EU law by the Member Stateslegislation;
Amendment 56 #
2017/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Expresses its concern that the austerity measures which EU institutions imposed on over-indebted EU Member States, in particular the drastic cuts in public spending, have had the effect of reducing significantly the capacity of Member States’ administration and judiciary to assume their responsibility to implement EU law correctlywards their citizens;
Amendment 57 #
2017/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Regrets the poor state of domestic transposition and practical implementation of EU-level asylum standards (for example regarding the implementation by Member States of the reception conditions directive (Directive 2013/33/EU12 ))13 ; condemns the deficient implementation of the relocation mechanism proposed by the Commission to deal with the refugee crisis by Member States; calls, therefore, on the Commission to pay particular attention to the implementation of measures adopted in the area of asylum and migration so as to ensure that they comply with the principles enshrined in the CFREU, and to launch the necessary infringement proceedings when relevant; _________________ 12Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96. 13See inter alia: S. Carrera/S. Blockmans/D. Gross/E. Guild, ‘The EU’s Response to the Refugee Crisis -Taking Stock and Setting Policy Priorities’, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), essay No 20, 16 December 2015 - https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/EU%20R esponse%20to%20the%202015%20Refug ee%20Crisis_0.pdfNotes that the relocation mechanism proposed by the Commission to deal with the migrant crisis has been imposed on the peoples of Europe without democratic consultation;
Amendment 68 #
2017/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Calls on the Commission to present to the European Parliament and the Council an objective report on the concrete results of Union legislation on employment, growth and competitiveness in the Member States;
Amendment 18 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that subsidiarity and proportionality are fundamental principles, enshrined by the Member States in the Edinburgh Declaration of 1992, that the EU institutions should take into consideration when exercising EU competences; recalls that these principles are aimed at enhancing the functioning of the Union by ensuring that actions are always taken at the most appropriate level of government; draws attention to the fact that these principles can be distorted to serve Eurosceptic ends and emphasises that the EU institutions should be vigilant in order to avoid and counteract this risk;
Amendment 26 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises the work done by the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) and its successor as of July 2015 the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB); notes that the IAB and the RSB considered that 23 % of the impact assessments (IAs) reviewed by them in 2015 needed improvements on either subsidiarity or proportionality, or both; observes that in 2016 the percentage of IAs considered unsatisfactory by the RSB was of 15 %; welcomes the factnotes that these percentages have decreased compared with previous years; underlin but they remain too high; notes that the Commission reviewed all of the IAs concerned taking into account the analyses from the RSB;
Amendment 30 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the adoption by the Commission in May 2015 of a new Better Regulation package to ensure, inter alia, that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are applied in a more integrated and comprehensive manner; considers that the new Better Regulation framework should be a tool for the European Union to deliver legislation in full compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; stresses, notwithstanding the above, that it should not give rise to unnecessary delays in the adoption of the relevant legislation;
Amendment 38 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Praises the Commission’s commitment to ‘evaluate first’ before considering potential legislative changes; considers, in this respect, that the European Union andshould work closely together with the authorities of the Member States should work closely together to ensure better monitoring, measurement and evaluation of the actual impact of EU regulation on the economy, social structure and environment in the Member States;
Amendment 44 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. IRespectfully invites national parliaments to clearly indicate from the outset that their submission is a reasoned opinion under Protocol (No 2) to the Treaties and the legislative proposal(s) it refers to, to clearly state the reasons for which it considers that the proposal breaches the subsidiarity principle, to include a brief summary of the argumentation, and, where possible, to respect the eight- week time limit from the date of transmission of the relevant draft legislative act; notes that this will facilitate a timely and adequate treatment of reasoned opinions by all the institutions involved;
Amendment 47 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is of the opinion that, since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the involvement of national parliaments in EU affairs has developed significantly, including through their linking up with other national parliaments; encourages national parliaments to continue and reinforce inter-parliamentary contacts, also on bilateral basis, as a means of enhancing cooperation between Member States, and to do so with a European vision and in a European spirit of cooperation, when necessary, based on the rule of law and fundamental rights; underlines that these contacts can facilitate an exchange of best practices concerning the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 49 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Draws attention to the fact that in 2016 14 chambers of 11 national parliaments submitted reasoned opinions on the proposal for a Directive amending Directive 96/71/EC of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services3, thus reaching the threshold of one third of the votes required by Article 7(2) of Protocol (No 2) to the Treaties to trigger the so-called ‘yellow card’ procedure; recalls that the arguments put forward by the national parliaments were widely debated in Parliament with the Commission; notes that the Commission engaged with national parliaments within the framework of COSAC; notes that the Commission issued a communication in which it gave extensive reasons for maintaining the proposal4; considers that, with the reasons set out therein, the Commission fully complied with its obligation to give reasons for its decision; _________________ 3_________________ 3 COM(2016)0128. COM(2016)0128. 4 Communication of 20.7.2016 from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the National Parliaments on the proposal for a Directive amending the Posting of Workers Directive, with regard to the principle of subsidiarity, in accordance with Protocol No 2 (COM(2016)0505).
Amendment 51 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 57 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Takes note of the changes proposed by some national parliaments to the subsidiarity control mechanism; welcomnotes the conclusion reached by COSAC that any improvement to the subsidiarity control mechanism should not entail Treaty change; notes that an extension of the eight-week time limit in which national parliaments can issue a reasoned opinion would require an amendment of the Treaties or the Protocols thereto; notes that exclusions in addition to the month of August for the calculation of the eight- week period would unnecessimprove the scrutiny of the enforcement of and compliance with the principles of subsidiarilty slow down the legislative process and the adoptand proportionality; notes, in that regard, that the time that national parliaments currently have to assess compliance with the subsidiarity principle is often considered too short; takes the view that a periond of important legislation12 weeks would be more appropriate at the start of the legislative process;
Amendment 60 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Notes, further, that national parliaments should be able to issue a reasoned opinion at any point in the legislative process or at the very least at its mid-point and its end;
Amendment 62 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that a number of tools enabling national parliaments and citizens to participate in every step of the legislative process, which ensurcould be used to guarantee monitoring of respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, already exist; encourages, therefore, that full use of these existing tools be made without creating even more complex administrative structures and lengthy procedures in times when the EU is struggling to make itself understood by itseet the needs of the Member States' citizens;
Amendment 21 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the majority of the 3D- printed products being created are currently prototypes;
Amendment 36 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas a reduction in the number of intermediaries wouldhich might stem from 3D printing for commercial purposes may eventually give companies the opportunity to repatriate offshore production activities; whereas repatriation could help to maintain the added value of those production activities at local level; whereas by reducing the movement of goods, 3D printing wouldmight lower both transport costs and CO2 emissions;
Amendment 40 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas 3D-printing technology could help to create new jobs that are in some cases less physically demanding and less dangerous (maintenance technicians, engineers, designers, etc.) and also reduce production and storage costs (low-volume manufacturing, personalised manufacturing, etc.);
Amendment 41 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas alerts - aimed at professionals and individual citizens - will be put in place by the Member States to warn of the potential dangers of 3D printing, for example gas emissions during production, and whereas protective measures will be introduced;
Amendment 45 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas 3D-printing technology raises specific legal and ethical issues regarding in particular intellectual property and civil liability, and whereas those issues fawill be dealt within by the rMemit of the Committee on Legal Affairsber States in line with their existing rules on civil liability;
Amendment 50 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas 3D-printing technology also raises security issues, particularly with regard to the manufacturing of weapons, explosives and drugs, and particular care should be taken with regard to production of that kind, with each Member State already having a range of sanctions for all these areas;
Amendment 62 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas not all 3D-printing production of objects is unlawfuautomatically assumed to be illegal, nor are all operators in the sector producing counterfeit objects;
Amendment 89 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas national general liability rules also apply to 3D printing; whereas a specific liability regime could be envisaged for damage caused by an object created using 3D-printing technology, as the number of stakeholders involved in the process often makes it difficult for the victim to identify the person responsible; whereas those rules could make the creator or vendor of the 3D file liable, or the producer of the 3D printer, the producer of the software used in the 3D printer, the supplier of the materials used or even the person who created the object, depending on the cause of the defect discovered;
Amendment 99 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that to anticipateconsideration should be given to anticipating potential problems relating to accident liability or intellectual property infringement, the EU will have to adopt new legislation or tailor existing laws to the specific case of 3D technology; stresses that, in any case, the legislative response should avoid duplicating rules and should take into account projects that are already under way; adds that innovation needs to be accompanied by law, without the law acting as a brake or a constraint connected with the use of 3D printing;
Amendment 121 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that solutions of a legal nature could make it feasible to control the legal reproduction of 3D objects protected by copyright, for example, digital and 3D- printing providers could systematically display a notice on the need to respect intellectual property, or a legal limit could be introduced on the number of private copies of 3D objects in order to prevent illegal reproduction, and a national tax on 3D printing could be levied by each Member State to compensate intellectual property rights holders for damages suffered as a result of private copies being made in 3D;
Amendment 124 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 130 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 136 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. CriticisNotes the fact that the Commission has not revised Directive 2004/48/EC during this term, as it had announced it would, and has instead limited itself to presenting non-binding guidelines, without providing clarifications ongoing into detail on any issues specific to 3D printing; welcomes, though, the measures announced by the Commission on 29 November 2017 which are intended to step up intellectual property protection;
Amendment 142 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to carefully consider the civil liability issues related to 3D- printing technology, including when it assesses the functioning of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products;
Amendment 143 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls that civil liability is a matter falling in principle under the national legislation of each Member State;
Amendment 144 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 16 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain led to a plethora of implementing acts, making it difficult for Parliament and the Council to exercise their control function. It is clear from the number of objections that Parliament has adopted, particularly to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or pesticides – matters on which public opinion is clear – that the system of adoption and control of implementing acts takes scant account of democratic parliamentary representation. That system should therefore be changed, particularly through the adoption of targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure that Member State governments assume wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
Amendment 20 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions despite the fact that the Member States are consulted at the examination procedure stage, and those positions may remain undisclosed when the matter goes to the vote.
Amendment 25 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) That discretion is, however, significantly reduced in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, such as in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision. Throughout the procedure, moreover, the Commission may choose to disregard Parliament’s position entirely, as it has done on almost 20 occasions in the past three years, thus, while undoubtedly complying with the Treaties, giving members of the public every reason to be mistrustful of the EU.
Amendment 38 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The voting rules for the appeal committee shouldought to be changed in order to reduce the risk of no opinion being delivered and to provide an incentive for Member State representatives to take a clear position. To this end only Member States which are present or represented, and which do not abstain, should be considered as participating Member States for the calculation of the qualified majority. In order to ensure that the voting outcome is representative a vote should only be considered valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members of the appeal committee. If the quorum is not reached before expiry of the time-limit for the committee to take a decision, it will be considered that the committee delivered no opinion, as is the case today. We would point out, however, that amending the rules for the calculation of the qualified majority in this way would be in breach of the Treaties1a. __________________ 1ahttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData /docs_autres_institutions/parlements_nati onaux/com/2017/0085/PL_SENATE_CO NT1-COM(2017)0085_EN.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/d ocs_autres_institutions/parlements_natio naux/com/2017/0085/FR_SENATE_CON T1-COM(2017)0085_FR.pdf
Amendment 47 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased, and during the prior examination procedure, should be increased, States should be invited to explain their votes and the individual Member State representatives'’ votes should be made public.
Amendment 52 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly once it has been duly confirmed that it will be compatible with the Treaties,
Amendment 56 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6
Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6
Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 32 months of the initial date of referral.
Amendment 66 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a
3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission mayshall refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commissionuncil shall tmake account of any position expressrecommendations which shall be forwarded byto the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referralmmission, the Member States and Parliament. The Commission shall use the recommendations to draw up a fresh proposal for an implementing act within 3 months.
Amendment 43 #
2017/0003(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a REGULATIONDIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications and repealing Directive 2002/58/EC (Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications)
Amendment 7 #
2017/0002(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In Declaration No 21 on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, annexed to the final act of the intergovernmental conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the conference acknowledged that specific rules on the protection of personal data and the free movement of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation based on Article 16 TFEU could prove necessary because of the specific nature of those fields. This Regulation should therefore apply to Union agencies carrying out activities in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation only to the extent that Union law applicable to such agencies does not contain specific rules on the processing of personal data.
Amendment 8 #
2017/0002(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 11 #
2017/0002(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Where the founding act of a Union agency carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of the Treaty lays down a standalone data protection regime for the processing of operational personal data such regimes should be unaffected by this Regulation. However, the Commission should, in accordance with Article 62 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, by 6 May 2019 review Union acts which regulate processing by the competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security and, where appropriate, make the necessary proposals to amend those acts to ensure a consistent approach to the protection of personal data in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation.
Amendment 46 #
2017/0002(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. This Regulation shall not apply to the processing of operational data by EU agencies and bodies active in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation.
Amendment 6 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the concept of ‘social enterprise’ is used in some legal systems interchangeably with that of ‘solidarity- based enterprise’; whereas, however, for the purposes of this resolution the concepts of ‘social enterprise’ and ‘solidarity-based enterprise’ are intendwill not be deemed to be synonymous; whereas, firstly, the concept of ‘social enterprise’ is not clear-cut, and overlaps with that of more traditional social economy organisations, such as cooperatives, mutual organisations, associations and foundations; whereas discussions about the boundaries of the concept of ‘social enterprise’ are taking place among social scientists and lawyers; whereas it seems imperative to agree at present on a legal definition that makes a solid contribution to the development of, secondly, solidarity- based enterprise is different from social enterprise to the extent that sustainable development and the desire to involve users in policy-making form part of the foundations underpinning its activities; whereas solidarity-based enterprise raises the same kind of issues as social enterprises, byut the European Union and public administrations at all levels possibleapproaches that it applies to them are not necessarily related to internal democracy or mutualisation;
Amendment 39 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J – introductory part
Recital J – introductory part
J. whereas in its resolution of 10 September 2015, Parliament noted that socialamalgamated the two concepts of social economy and solidarity-based economy einterprises, which do noto one, which from the legal point of view can cause confusion; whereas it should certainly be pointed out that neither social economy enterprises nor solidarity-based economy enterprises necessarily have to be non- profit organisations, are enterprises; whereas only those enterprises operating as cooperatives, mutual societies, or associations, and whose purpose is to achieve their social goal, which may be to create jobs for vulnerable groups, or to provide services for their members, or more generally createing a positive social and environmental impact, and whichimpact by reinvesting their profits primarily in order to achieve those objectives; points out that social and solidarity-based economy enterprises are characterised by their commitment to upholding the following values:, are social economy enterprises, which does not imply that they seek to create a positive environmental impact;
Amendment 41 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J – indent 1
Recital J – indent 1
Amendment 42 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J – indent 2
Recital J – indent 2
Amendment 43 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J – indent 3
Recital J – indent 3
Amendment 45 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J – indent 4
Recital J – indent 4
Amendment 46 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J – indent 5
Recital J – indent 5
Amendment 47 #
Amendment 48 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J – indent 7
Recital J – indent 7
Amendment 49 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 53 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas socialthese two types of enterprises are private organisations independent from public authorities;
Amendment 57 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the contribution to social value creation must be the main purpose of a social enterprise; whereas social enterprises should expressly pursue the aim of benefitting the community at large or a specific group of people, transcending membership; whereas the social purpose pursued by social enterprises should be clearly indicated in their documents of establishment; whereas the notion of social enterprise should not be confused with that of corporate social responsibility (CSR), even though commercial enterprises with significant CSR activities can have a strong interconnection with social business, nor should it be confused with the notion of solidarity-based enterprise;
Amendment 90 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
W. whereas it is essential that public authorities check and ensure that a given social-economy undertaking fulfils the requirements to be issued aof any given certificate before it iscan be granted oneit; whereas a social enterprise should have its certificate revoked in the event that it fails to respect those requirements and its legal obligations;
Amendment 96 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 98 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to look into the possibility of introduceing at Union level a ‘European social label’ to be awarded to social enterprises;
Amendment 104 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 107 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 113 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 131 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 133 #
2016/2237(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 134 #
Amendment 2 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
— having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure, in particular recitals 19 and 20 thereof,
Amendment 6 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 14 February 2017 on the role of whistleblowers in the protection of EU’s financial interests (2016/2055(INI)),
Amendment 22 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas a whistleblowers play an important role in rep is a person who, by means of a courageous and civic-minded act, informs in good faith the persons or authoriting unlawful or improper conductes which can put a stop to or punish it of conduct which is illegal or which undermines the public interest;
Amendment 25 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas, however, the concept of the public interest recognised under EU law must not take precedence over respect for privacy or give rise to breaches of the right to protection of personal data, unless the law makes provision for such a step and provided that the essential nature of these rights is upheld and any action taken is consistent with the proportionality principle;
Amendment 27 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas a number of publicised whistleblowing cases have shown that whistleblowing brings serious wrongdoing to the attention of the public and of political authorities; whereas such wrongdoings have therefore been subject to corrective measures, however, the scope of the legal provisions on whistleblowers should not cover matters relating to national security, medical secrecy or lawyer-client confidentiality;
Amendment 85 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes ‘whistleblower’ to mean anybody who reports on or reveals information on, in a courageous and civic- minded gesture, reports in good faith to the authorities which can put a stop to it or punish it an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which underminesprejudicial to the public interest, in the context of his or her working relationship, be it in the public or private sector, of a contractual relationship, or of his or her trade union or association activities;
Amendment 95 #
2016/2224(INI)
3. Considers that a breach of the public interest includes, but is not limited to, acts of corruption, conflicts of interest, unlawful use of public funds, threats to the environment, health, public safety, national security and privacy and personal data protection, tax avoidance, attacks on workers’ rights and other social rights and attacks on human rights;
Amendment 96 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Makes it clear, however, that the concept of the public interest recognised under EU law must not take precedence over respect for privacy or give rise to breaches of the right to protection of personal data, unless the law makes provision for such a step and provided that the essential nature of these rights is upheld and any action taken is consistent with the proportionality principle;
Amendment 101 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Takes the view that the scope of the legal provisions on whistleblowers should not cover matters relating to national security, medical secrecy or lawyer-client confidentiality;
Amendment 150 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Expresses its concerns about the risks run by whistleblowers at their place of work, in particular the risks of direct or indirect retaliation by the employer and by those working for or acting on behalf of the employer; stresses that retaliation usually takes the form of suspending, slowing down or stopping career progression or even dismissal, along with psychological harassment; stresses that retaliation is a barrier to whistleblowers’ activities; believes that it is necessary to introduce protective measures against destabilising practices; takes the view that retaliation should be penalised and sanctioned effectively; stresses that, once somebody is recognised as a whistleblower in accordance with the definition given above, the measures taken against him or her should be brought to an end;
Amendment 164 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out the risk that genuine whistleblowers run of having legal and civil proceedings brought against them; stresses that they are often the weaker party in trials; considers it necessarypoints out that a person who denounces or defames others or discloses information for malicious purposes and not solely in the public interest, and not with the aim of triggering the review procedures and debate which are fundamental to a democratic society, does not meet the definition of whistleblower; warns against any move to provide for a reversal of the burden of proof even in respect of retaliation against and pressure on whistleblowers, and advocates, at the very least, that a case should have been made and convincing evidence put forward before the protective measures afforded to genuine whistleblowers are granted; takes the view that confidentiality should be guaranteed throughout the proceedings; at the first stage of the proceedings, but not thereafter;
Amendment 173 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. BTakes the view that the procedure should be carried out in two stages: firstly, reporting within the undertaking, administration and/or the press, and then, once a sufficient case has been made, disclosure to the public and lifting of anonymity, so that genuine whistleblowers can be acknowledged by democratic society for their courage and civic- mindedness; believes that the option, at the first stage, to report anonymously would encourage whistleblowers to share information which they would not share otherwise; stresses, in that regard, that clearly regulated means of reporting anonymously should be introduced by each Member State, in keeping with the Charter and the principles enshrined in the Treaties;
Amendment 180 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that anobody shouldnymity during the first stage would ensure that nobody loses the benefit of protection on the sole grounds that he or she has legitimately misjudged the facts or that the perceived threat to the public interest did not materialise, provided that, at the time of reporting, he or she had reasonable and/or clear grounds to believe them to be true;
Amendment 185 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. In the light of the principle of actori incumbit probatio, which is common to all national legal systems and international dispute-settlement procedures, urges that the burden of proof should not be reversed, given that it should be necessary only if there are clear indications or a set of evidence to suggest that the person in question qualifies for whistleblower status;
Amendment 191 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses the role that trade unions can play in supporting and helping whistleblowers in their dealings within their organisation;
Amendment 196 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that, in addition to the professional risks, whistleblowers also face psychological and financial risks; believes that psychological support should be provided, that the provisions on legal aid should be givenextended to whistleblowers who ask for it, that financial aid should be given to those who express a duly justified need for itpolice protection should be envisaged if necessary and that compensation for proven serious professional damages should be given as a protective measure if civil proceedings are brought against a whistleblower;
Amendment 205 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Member States to designate, if a suitable national body already exists, or introduce an independent body responsible for collecting reports, verifying their credibility and guiding whistleblowers, particularly in the absence of a positive response from their organisation;
Amendment 210 #
2016/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to pbroposeaden the establishment of a similar body at EU level responsible for coordinatingremit of the European Ombudsman to include the coordination at EU level of Member State activities, particularly in cross-border cases; believes that that European bodythe Ombudsman should also be able to collect reports directly, verify their credibility and guide whistleblowers when the response given by the Member State is obviously not appropriate; considers that the European Ombudsman’s mandate could be extended to serve that purpose;
Amendment 79 #
2016/2114(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Rule 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 82 #
2016/2114(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 7 – paragraph 5
Rule 7 – paragraph 5
5. In cases where a decision has been taken not to defend the privileges and immunities of a Member, the Member mayshall be fully within its rights to make a request for reconsideration of the decision, provided that it submittings new evidence. The request for reconsideration shall be inadmissible if proceedings have been instituted against the decision under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or if the President considers that the new evidence submitted is not sufficiently substantiated to warrant reconsideration.
Amendment 84 #
2016/2114(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 42 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Rule 42 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
If the committee responsible for the relevant subject matter is of the opinion that a proposal for a legislative act or parts of it do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity or the principle of proportionality, it shall request the opinion of the committee responsible for respect of those principles. The request shall be made no later than four weeks after the announcement in Parliament of referral to the committee responsible for the subject matter.
Amendment 27 #
2016/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 4 #
2016/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. having regard to the significant effect on Europeanthe competitiveness of the EU Member States of a comprehensive reform of company law and the obstacles to full implementation of the Directive on cross- border mergers;
Amendment 4 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas protection of health is a fundamental right enshringuaranteed inby the European Convention on Human RightMember States;
Amendment 13 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas EUMember States’ public budgets, including those covering health expenditure, are under significant constraints;
Amendment 19 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas competition based on smart protectionism can lower costs, reduce expenditure on medicines and improve access to affordable medicines;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the EU will need to oversee improvements in a range of fields that have an impact on how medicines are produced and distributed;
Amendment 35 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses the importance of observing the principle of subsidiarity, as each Member State must address any shortcomings on the basis of its own particular requirements;
Amendment 36 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Calls for support for the progress achieved by the pharmaceutical industry, hitherto driven by European SMEs, which have transformed the standard of healthcare in Europe and helped to prolong life expectancy;
Amendment 37 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 46 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Reiterates that part of the reason why businesses are becoming less competitive and why welfare spending is so high is that EU rules – including rules on drug pricing – are too burdensome;
Amendment 49 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 58 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 69 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Member States to grant patents on health products that strictly fulfil the patentability requirements of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability as enshrined in the European Patent Convention;
Amendment 74 #
2016/2057(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 10 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that Eurostat figures show that 2.9 % of the EU’s workforce, i.e. 6.3 million people, were employed in the cultural sector in 2014, which is comparable to the proportion of the workforce employed in the banking and insurance sector; points out, further, that according to estimates the cultural and creative sectors account for more than 3% of jobs in the EU and of EU GDP;
Amendment 15 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the fact that employment in the cultural sector is unlikely to be offshored, as it is connected to specific cultural and historical competences; points out that enterprises in the cultural sector thus have a key role to play in the economic development and in spreading the culture of the regions and their Member States;
Amendment 21 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Understands that in order to improve access to finance in the cultural and creative sector it is necessary to develop expertise in assessing the specific risks of a lack of tangible collateral and a dependence on intangible assets; notes that this expertise is needed both within micro- enterprises and SMEs and within the financial institutions, which often do not have the information they require to analyse the economic models employed in the cultural and creative industries; stresses that intellectual property rights can be accepted as collateral;
Amendment 25 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out, further, that steps should be taken to remedy the undervaluation by financial institutions of the intangible assets held by the cultural and creative industries, so that those institutions can adapt to the complex array of business plans and models employed in the cultural sector;
Amendment 33 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Emphasises that, in addition to problems in obtaining funding, SMEs and microenterprises in the cultural sector often face obstacles in the form of red tape and tax formalities; urges, therefore, certain Member States, including France, to consider introducing simplification mechanisms or even tax incentives in order to foster development and recruitment in this growth sector;
Amendment 1 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
–
–
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
Amendment 8 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
Amendment 10 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 13 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 14 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 21 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 24 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 26 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 27 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 28 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
Amendment 30 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
Amendment 32 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
Amendment 34 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
Amendment 35 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
Amendment 37 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
Amendment 39 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 40 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 42 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
Amendment 63 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Amendment 67 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Amendment 69 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5
Article 5
Amendment 79 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Amendment 82 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Amendment 83 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 85 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Amendment 89 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Amendment 90 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Amendment 96 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 98 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12
Article 12
Amendment 101 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 104 #
2016/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 1 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
–
–
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
Amendment 6 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
Amendment 15 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 18 #
2016/0402(COD)
Amendment 19 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 21 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 22 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
Amendment 24 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 25 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 26 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 28 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
Amendment 31 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
Amendment 32 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
Amendment 33 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 34 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 36 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 38 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 39 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
Amendment 40 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
Recital 38
Amendment 43 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
Recital 41
Amendment 44 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
Amendment 49 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
Amendment 51 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 48
Recital 48
Amendment 68 #
Amendment 76 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 79 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 83 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Assessment of the application by the home 1. home Member State shall within one week of having received an application for a European services e-card: (a) (b) accuracy of the information provided; (c) e-cards issued in relation to other home Member States for the same provider and service activity have been revoked or cancelled, or that cancelation has been requested to allow replacementrticle 11 deleted Member State The coordinating authority of those e- cards by the European services e-card to which the application refers to; (d) accompanying documents, if any, that prove compliance with requirements applicable to the service provision to which the applicant is subject in the home Member State; (e) application from the applicant, where necessary; (f) the information obtained in accordance with Article 14(2); (g) where the standard form for application is made available the necessary documents, if any, obtained in accordance with Article 14(2). Where the coordinating authority of the home Member State requests supplementing of the application from the applicant, the time-limit is suspended until that information is provided. 2. The coordinating authority of the home Member State shall, upon completion of the tasks referred to in paragraph 1, communicate without delay the application to the coordinating authority of the host Member State, with information to the applicant. 3. The decisions and actions by the coordinating authorityxamine the application; verify the completeness and verify whether European services verify the content and validity of request supplementing of the hcome Member State, notified to the applicant through the electronic platform where the standard form for application is made available, or the absence of a decision or action within the time-limit shall be subject to appeal under national law of the home Member State. 4. The Commission shall adopt technical rules for the handling and processing of the application by means of implementing acts. These rules shall include time-limits on the expiration of the application due to inaplete the application form with upload to the electiron of the applicant. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 19(2).ic platform
Amendment 93 #
Amendment 105 #
Amendment 124 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14
Article 14
Amendment 128 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 7
Article 17 – paragraph 7
Amendment 132 #
2016/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 21
Article 21
Amendment 16 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In order to contribute to the functioning of the internal market, it is necessary to provide for wider dissemination ofinue to support the European cultural and creative industries, it is necessary to embed the principle of territoriality, including for television and radio programmes originating in other Member States, for the benefit of users across the Union by facilitating licensingenterprises but also of users, by enshrining the principle of copyright and related rights in works and other protected subject-matter contained in broadcasts of such programmes. Indeed, television and radio programmes are important means of promoting cultural and linguistic diversity, social cohesion and access to information, and it is therefore vital to ensure that the mechanisms for the financing of audiovisual works are not jeopardised.
Amendment 22 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The development of digital technologies and internet has transformed the distribution of, and access to, television and radio programmes. Users increasingly expect to have, pitting traditional audiovisual media services against increasingly fierce international competition, including from on-line platforms. To meet user demand for access to television and radio programmes both live and on- demand, using traditional channels such as satellite or cable and also through online services. B, broadcasting organisations are therefore increasinglyhave managed to adapt and offer ing, in addition to their own broadcasts of television and radio programmes,novative solutions such as online services ancillary to their broadcast, such ass, like simulcasting and catch-up services. Retransmission services operators, which aggregate broadcasts of television and radio programmes into packages and provide them to users simultaneously to the initial transmission of the broadcast, unaltered and unabridged, use various techniques of retransmission such as cable, satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based or mobile networks as well as the open internet. On the part of users, there is a growing demand for access to broadcasts of television and radio programmes not only originating in their Member State but also in other Member States of the Union, including from members of linguistic minorities of the Union as well as from persons who live in another Member State than their Member State of originThese new techniques have made it possible to offer users a broad choice and increasingly easy access to high-quality content.
Amendment 26 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) A number of barriers hinder the provision of online services which are ancillary to broadcasts and the provision of retransmission services and thereby the free circulation of television and radio programmes within the Union. Broadcasting organisations transmit daily many hours of news, cultural, political, documentary or entertainment programmes. These programmes incorporate a variety of content such as audiovisual, musical, literary or graphic works, which is protected by copyright and/or related rights under Union law. That results in a complex process to clear rights from a multitude of right holders and for different categories of works and othenational bodies of law and Union law. Territorial-based sales of rights and exclusivity clauses play a major protected subject matter. Often the rights need to be cleared in a short time- frame,le in the financing and distribution of this content. This investment ins particular when preparing programmes such as news or current affairs. In order to make their online services available across borders, broadcasting organisations need to have the required rights to works and other protected subject matter for all the relevantly relevant in the case of the cross-border distribution of content across the EU, as was pointed out by the European Audiovisual Observatory in its study on territoriality in 2015, because the EU market is heterogeneous and very fragmented – owing to differences in the language, culture and tastes of the public – and, therritories which further increases the complexity of the rights’ clearefore, obliges broadcasting organisations to adapt to national circumstances.
Amendment 31 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The development of digital technologies and internet has transformed the distribution of, and access to, television and radio programmes. Users increasingly expect to have, pitting traditional audiovisual media services against increasingly fierce international competition, particularly from on-line platforms. To meet user demand for access to television and radio programmes both live and on- demand, using traditional channels such as satellite or cable and also through online services. B, broadcasting organisations are therefore increasinglyhave managed to adapt and offer ing, in addition to their own broadcasts of television and radio programmes,novative solutions such as online services ancillary to their broadcast, such ass, like simulcasting and catch-up services. Retransmission services operators, which aggregate broadcasts of television and radio programmes into packages and provide them to users simultaneously to the initial transmission of the broadcast, unaltered and unabridged, use various techniques of retransmission such as cable, satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based or mobile networks as well as the open internet. On the part of users, there is a growing demand for access to broadcasts of television and radio programmes not only originating in their Member State but also in other Member States of the Union, including from members of linguistic minorities of the Union as well as from persons who live in another Member State than their Member State of originThese new techniques have made it possible to offer users a broad choice and increasingly easy access to high-quality content.
Amendment 34 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) A number of barriers hinder the provision of online services which are ancillary to broadcasts and the provision of retransmission services and thereby the free circulation of television and radio programmes within the Union. Broadcasting organisations transmit daily many hours of news, cultural, political, documentary or entertainment programmes. These programmes incorporate a variety of content such as audiovisual, musical, literary or graphic works, which is protected by copyright and/or related rights under Union law. That results in a complex process to clear rights from a multitude of right holders and for different categories of works and othenational bodies of law and Union law. Territorially based sales of rights and exclusivity clauses play a major protected subject matter. Often the rights need to be cleared in a short time- frame,le in the financing and distribution of this content. This investment ins particular when preparing programmes such as news or current affairs. In order to make their online services available across borders, broadcasting organisations need to have the required rights to works and other protected subject matter for all the relevantly relevant in the case of the cross-border distribution of content across the Union, as was pointed out by the European Audiovisual Observatory in its study on territoriality in 2015, because the Union market is heterogeneous and very fragmented – owing to differences in the language, culture and tastes of the public – and, therritories which further increases the complexity of the rights' clearefore, obliges broadcasting organisations to adapt to national circumstances.
Amendment 37 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) ThIt is also necessary to point out that this legal protection of right holders, which is laid down in the judicial systems of most Member States, is also enshrined in European law, since rights in works and other protected subject matter are harmonised, among others, through Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council15 and Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.16. _________________ 15 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10–19. 16 Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 28–35.
Amendment 42 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) While Council Directive 93/83/EEC17 facilitates cross-border satellite broadcasting and retransmission by cable of television and radio programmes from other Member States of the Union. However, the provisions of that Directive, its provisions on transmissions of broadcasting organisations are limited to satellite transmissions and therefore do not apply to online services ancillary to broadcast while the provisions concerning retransmissions of television and radio programmes from other Member States are limited to simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged retransmission by cable or microwave systems and do not extend to such retransmissions by means of other technologies. _________________ 17 Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission OJ L 248, 6.10.1993, p. 15– 21.
Amendment 44 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In order to contribute to the functioning of the internal market, it is necessary to provide for wider dissemination ofinue to support the European cultural and creative industries, it is necessary to embed the principle of territoriality, including for television and radio programmes originating in other Member States, for the benefit of users across the Union by facilitating licensingenterprises but also of users, by enshrining the principle of copyright and related rights in works and other protected subject-matter contained in broadcasts of such programmes. Indeed, television and radio programmes are important means of promoting cultural and linguistic diversity, social cohesion and access to information, and it is therefore vital to ensure that schemes for the financing of audiovisual works are not jeopardised.
Amendment 47 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Therefore, cross-border provision of online services ancillary to broadcastBearing in mind the importance of the principle of territoriality for the financing of cultural and cretransmissions of television and radio programmes originating in other Membative content, and in particular of audiovisual works, the provisions of Directive 93/83/EEC on cross-border Stsates should be facilitallited by adapting the legal framework on the exercise of copyright and related rights relevant for those activitiesroadcasting and retransmission by cable should not be extended to on-line services ancillary to broadcasting and retransmission.
Amendment 52 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Operators of retransmission services, that normally offer multiple programmes which use a multitude of works and other protected subject matter included in the retransmitted television and radio programmes, have a very short time- frame forthe possibility of obtaining the necessary licences and hence also face a significant rights clearing burden. There is also a risk for right holders of having their works and other protected subject matter exploited without authorisation or payment of remuneration, which is a facet of contractual freedom and guarantees right holders the remuneration they need for their livelihoods and to continue to offer a wide variety of content, which is necessary in order to preserve cultural diversity in Europe.
Amendment 55 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) ThIt is also necessary to point out that this legal protection of right holders, which forms part of the constitutional traditions and legal systems of most Member States, is also enshrined in Union law, since rights in works and other protected subject matter arehave been harmonised, among othersinter alia, through Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council15 and Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.16 _________________ 15 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10–19. 16 Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 28–35.
Amendment 60 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) While Council Directive 93/83/EEC17 facilitates cross-border satellite broadcasting and retransmission by cable of television and radio programmes from other Member States of the Union. However, the provisions of that Directive, its provisions on transmissions of broadcasting organisations are limited to satellite transmissions and therefore do not apply to online services ancillary to broadcast while the provisions concerning retransmissions of television and radio programmes from other Member States are limited to simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged retransmission by cable or microwave systems and do not extend to such retransmissions by means of other technologies. _________________ 17 Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission OJ L 248, 6.10.1993, p. 15– 21.
Amendment 61 #
2016/0284(COD)
Amendment 68 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Therefore, cross-border provision of online services ancillary to broadcastBearing in mind the importance of the principle of territoriality for the financing of cultural and cretransmissions of television and radio programmes originating in other Membative content, and in particular of audiovisual works, the provisions of Directive 93/83/EEC on cross-border Stsates should be facilitallited by adapting the legal framework on the exercise of copyright and related rights relevant for those activitiesroadcasting and retransmission by cable should not be extended to on-line services ancillary to broadcasting and retransmission.
Amendment 70 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 79 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Through the principle of contractual freedom it will be possibleis necessary to continue limiting the exploitation of the rights affected by the principle of country of origin laid downset out in this Regulation, especially as far as certain technical means of transmission or certain language versions are concerned, provided that any such limitations of the exploitation of those rights are in compliance with Union law.
Amendment 84 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Operators of retransmission services offered on satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based, mobile and similar networks, provide services which are equivalent to those provided by operators of cable retransmissIn view of the principle of contractual freedom, and although the collective management model might be encouraged, it would be recommendable not to implement new legislation spervices when they retransmit simultaneously, in an unaltered and unabridged manner,taining to rights clearance procedures for rseception by the public, an initial transmission from another Member State of television or radio programmes, where this initial transmission is by wire or over the air, including by satellite but excluding online transmisondary retransmissions of programmes by operators of packages of televisions, and intended for reception by the public. They should therefore be within the scope of this Regulation and benefit from the mechanism introducing mandatory collective management of rights. Retransmission services which are offered on the open internet should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation as those services have different characteristics. They are not linked to any particular infrastructure and their ability to ensure a controlled environment is limited when compared for example to cable or closed circuit IP-based networksradio channels by means of IPTV or other closed electronic communication networks. Moreover, no changes of a legal nature should be made at this stage in respect of retransmission services offered on the open internet.
Amendment 84 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 93 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to provide legal certainty to operators of retransmission services offered on satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based, mobile or similar networks, and to overcome disparities in national law regarding such retransmission services, rules similar to those that apply to cable retransmission as defined in Directive 93/83/EEC should apply. The rules established in that Directive include the obligation toemphasis should be placed on the principle of contractual freedom, which ensures genuine protection of right holders and content creators in general. It is also necessary to underscore the possibility of exerciseing the right to grant or refuse authorisation to an operator of a retransmission service through a collective management organisation. This is without prejudice to Directive 2014/26/EU18 and in particular to its provisions concerning rights of right holders with regard to the choice of a collective management organisation. _________________ 18Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi- territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72–98 or otherwise.
Amendment 95 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 99 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) AnyThe aforesaid principles also apply to rights held by broadcasting organisations themselves in respect of their broadcasts, including rights in the content of the programmes,. It should be exempted from the mandatory collective management of rights applicable for retransmissions. Onoted in this respect that operators of retransmission services and broadcasting organisations generally have ongoing commercial relations and a. As a result, the identity of broadcasting organisations is known to operators of retransmission services and hence the clearance of rights with broadcasting organisations is comparatively simple. Thus, to obtain the necessary licences from broadcasting organisations, operators of retransmission services do not face the same burden as they face to obtain licences from holders of rights in works and other protected subject matter included in the retransmitted television and radio programmesrelatively simple. Therefore, there is no need for the simplification of the licensing process with regard to rights held by broadcasting organisations.
Amendment 105 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 108 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Through the principle of contractual freedom it will be possibleis necessary to continue limiting the exploitation of the rights affected by the principle of country of origin laid downset out in this Regulation, especially as far as certain technical means of transmission or certain language versions are concerned, provided that any such limitations of the exploitation of those rights are in compliance with Union law.
Amendment 109 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) This Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Whilst there may be an interference with the exercise of the rights of right holders insofar asprinciples and notably the principle of contractual freedom. As such, mandatory collective management is required for the exercise of the right of communication to the public with regard to retransmission services, it is necessary to prescribe such a condition in a targeted manner for specific services and in order to allow more widespread cross-border dissemination of television and radio programmes by facilitating the clearance of these right should be ruled out, as it might additionally impact on the exercising of the rights of right holders.
Amendment 111 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 114 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Operators of retransmission services offered on satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based, mobile and similar networks, provide services which are equivalent to those provided by operators of cable retransmissIn view of the principle of contractual freedom, and although the collective management model might be encouraged, it would be recommendable not to implement new legislation spervices when they retransmit simultaneously, in an unaltered and unabridged manner,taining to rights clearance procedures for rseception by the public, an initial transmission from another Member State of television or radio programmes, where this initial transmission is by wire or over the air, including by satellite but excluding online transmisondary retransmissions of programmes by operators of packages of televisions, and intended for reception by the public. They should therefore be within the scope of this Regulation and benefit from the mechanism introducing mandatory collective management of rights. Retransmission services which are offered on the open internet should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation as those services have different characteristics. They are not linked to any particular infrastructure and their ability to ensure a controlled environment is limited when compared for example to cable or closed circuit IP-based networksradio channels by means of IPTV or other closed electronic communication networks. Moreover, no changes of a legal nature should be made at this stage in respect of retransmission services offered on the open internet.
Amendment 119 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) A review of the Regulation should be undertaken after the Regulation has been in force for a period of time, in order to assess, among other things, to what extent the cross-border provision of ancillary online services has increased to the benefit of European consumers and hence also to the benefit of improvedit helps protect copyright holders and the principle of territoriality, which underpins the financing of cultural creation and is therefore highly symbolic in terms of preserving cultural diversity in the UnionEurope.
Amendment 120 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 128 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to provide legal certainty to operators of retransmission services offered on satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based, mobile or similar networks, and to overcome disparities in national law regarding such retransmission services, rules similar to those that apply to cable retransmission as defined in Directive 93/83/EEC should apply. The rules established in that Directive include the obligation toemphasis should be placed on the principle of contractual freedom, which ensures genuine protection of right holders and content creators in general. It is also necessary to underscore the possibility of exerciseing the right to grant or refuse authorisation to an operator of a retransmission service through a collective management organisation. This is without prejudice to Directive 2014/26/EU18and in particular to its provisions concerning rights of right holders with regard to the choice of a collective management organisation. _________________ 18 Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi- territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72–98 or otherwise.
Amendment 143 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) AnyThe aforesaid principles also apply to rights held by broadcasting organisations themselves in respect of their broadcasts, including rights in the content of the programmes,. It should be exempted from the mandatory collective management of rights applicable for retransmissions. Onoted in this respect that operators of retransmission services and broadcasting organisations generally have ongoing commercial relations and a. As a result, the identity of broadcasting organisations is known to operators of retransmission services and hence the clearance of rights with broadcasting organisations is comparatively simple. Thus, to obtain the necessary licences from broadcasting organisations, operators of retransmission services do not face the same burden as they face to obtain licences from holders of rights in works and other protected subject matter included in the retransmitted television and radio programmesrelatively simple. Therefore, there is no need for the simplification of the licensing process with regard to rights held by broadcasting organisations.
Amendment 155 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – title
Article 2 – title
Application of the principle of ‘country of origidestination’ to ancillary online services
Amendment 160 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 162 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
(1) The acts of communication to the public and of making available occurring when providing an ancillary online service by or under the control and responsibility of a broadcasting organisation as well as the acts of reproduction which are necessary for the provision of, the access to or the use of the ancillary online service shall, for the purposes of exercising copyright and related rights relevant for these acts, be deemed to occur solely in the Member State or Member States in which the broadcasting organisation has its principal establishmentundertakes those acts of communication and reproduction.
Amendment 172 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
(2) When fixing the amount of the payment to be made for the rights subject to the country of origidestination principle as set out in paragraph 1, the parties shall take into account all aspects of the ancillary online service such as the features of the ancillary online service, the audience, and the language version.
Amendment 173 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) This Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Whilst there may be an interference with the exercise of the rights of right holders insofar as, particularly the principle of contractual freedom. Accordingly, mandatory collective management is required for the exercise of the right of communication to the public with regard to retransmission services, it is necessary to prescribe such a condition in a targeted manner for specific services and in order to allow more widespread cross-border dissemination of television and radio programmes by facilitating the clearance of these right should be ruled out, as it might additionally impact on the exercising of the rights of right holders.
Amendment 175 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 178 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
(1) Holders of copyright and related rights other than broadcasting organisations may exercise their rights to grant or refuse the authorisation for a retransmission only through a collective management organisation or through any other means they appropriate, in line with the principle of contractual freedom.
Amendment 180 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 181 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
(3) Where more than one collective management organisation manages rights of that category for the territory of that Member State, the right holder shall be free to choose which of those collective management organisations is deemed to be mandated to manage his or her right. If in such a situation the right holder does not choose the collective management organisation, it shall be for the Member State for whose territory the operator of the retransmission service seeks to clear rights for a retransmission to indicate which of the collective management organisations, if he/she so wishes, the collective management organisation that is deemed to be mandated to manage the right of that right holderhis or her right.
Amendment 182 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) A review of the Regulation should be undertaken after the Regulation has been in force for a period of time, in order to assess, among other things, to what extent the cross-border provision of ancillary online services has increased to the benefit of European consumers and hence also to the benefit of improvedit helps protect copyright holders and the principle of territoriality, which underpins the financing of cultural creation and is therefore highly symbolic in terms of preserving cultural diversity in the UnionEurope.
Amendment 183 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
(5) A Member State may provide that, wWhere a right holder authorises the initial transmission within its territoryin a Member State of a work or other protected subject matter, the right holder shall be deemed to have agreed not to/she may exercise his or her rights in retransmission on an individual basis but to exercise them in accordance with, or in accordance with the arrangements set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 190 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Amendment 234 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – title
Article 2 – title
Application of the principle of ‘country of origidestination’ to ancillary online services
Amendment 244 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
(1) The acts of communication to the public and of making available occurring when providing an ancillary online service by or under the control and responsibility of a broadcasting organisation as well as the acts of reproduction which are necessary for the provision of, the access to or the use of the ancillary online service shall, for the purposes of exercising copyright and related rights relevant for these acts, be deemed to occur solely in the Member State or Member States in which the broadcasting organisation has its principal establishmentundertakes those acts of communication and reproduction.
Amendment 258 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
(2) When fixing the amount of the payment to be made for the rights subject to the country of origidestination principle as set out in paragraph 1, the parties shall take into account all aspects of the ancillary online service such as the features of the ancillary online service, the audience, and the language version.
Amendment 274 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
(1) Holders of copyright and related rights other than broadcasting organisations may exercise their rights to grant or refuse the authorisation for a retransmission only through a collective management organisation or through any other means they deem appropriate, in keeping with the principle of contractual freedom.
Amendment 283 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 287 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
(3) Where more than one collective management organisation manages rights of that category for the territory of that Member State, the right holder shall be free to choose which of those collective management organisations is deemed to be mandated to manage his or her right. If in such a situation the right holder does not choose the collective management organisation, it shall be for the Member State for whose territory the operator of the retransmission service seeks to clear rights for a retransmission to indicate which of the collective management organisations, if he or she so wishes, the collective management organisation that is deemed to be mandated to manage the right of that right holderhis or her right.
Amendment 297 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
(5) A Member State may provide that, wWhere a right holder authorises the initial transmission within its territoryin a Member State of a work or other protected subject matter, the right holder shall be deemed to have agreed not toor she may exercise his or her rights in retransmission on an individual basis but to exercise them, or in accordance with other arrangements set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 308 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Amendment 73 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 11467 thereof,
Amendment 75 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Treaty provides for the establishment of an internal market and the institution of a system ensuring that competition stipulates that the Union, while respecting the powers of the Member States, must contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting the internal market is not distortedir national and regional diversity. Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States on copyright and related rights should contribute further to the achievement of those objectiveshelp to preserve this cultural diversity.
Amendment 77 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The constitutional traditions of the Member States and the European directives which have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights have the aim of provideing for a high level of protection for rightholders and of createing a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place. This harmonised legal framework contributes to the good functioning of the internal market; itshould make it possible to preserve cultural heritage and to promote the cultural and creative industries, with the purpose of stimulatesing innovation, creativity, investment and production of new content, also in the digital environment. The protection provided by this legal framework also contributes to the Union's objective of respecting and promoting cultural diversity while at the same time bringing the European common cultural heritage to the fore. Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires the Union to take cultural aspects into account in its action.
Amendment 82 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way works and other subject-matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited. New business models and new actors continue to emerge. The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright frameworknational legal systems and taken over by the Union with regard to copyright remain sound. However, legal uncertainty remains, for both rightholders and users, as regards certain uses, including cross-border uses, of works and other subject-matter in the digital environment. As set out in the Communication of the Commission entitled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework’26 , in some areas it is necessary to adapt and supplement the current Union copyright framework. This Directive provides for rules to adapt certain exceptions and limitations to the digital and cross-border environments, as well as measures to facilitate certain licensing practices as regards the dissemination of out-of- commerce works and the online availability of audiovisual works on video- on-demand platforms with a view to ensuring wider access to content. In order to achieve a well-functioning marketplace for copyrightstriking a balance between respect for rightholders' rights or rights related to copyright, which are responsible for financing cultural creation, and ensuring wider access to content. In order to ensure legal certainty for all stakeholders, there should also be rules on rights in publications, on the use of works and other subject-matter by online service providers storing and giving access to user uploaded content and on the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts. _________________ 26 COM(2015) 626 final.
Amendment 86 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 11467 thereof,
Amendment 87 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Treaty provides for the establishment of an internal market and the institution of a system ensuring that competition stipulates that the Union, while respecting the powers of the Member States, must contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting the internal market is not distortedir national and regional diversity. Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States on copyright and related rights should contribute further to the achievement of those objectivesmust help to preserve this cultural diversity.
Amendment 88 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The constitutional traditions of the Member States and the European directives which have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights have the aim of provideing for a high level of protection for rightholders and create a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place. This harmonised legal framework contributes to the good functioning of the internal market; itshould make it possible to preserve the cultural heritage and to project the cultural and creative industries, the aim being to stimulates innovation, creativity, investment and production of new content, also in the digital environment. The protection provided by this legal framework also contributes to the Union's objective of respecting and promoting cultural diversity while at the same time bringing the European common cultural heritage to the fore. Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires the Union to take cultural aspects into account in its action.
Amendment 90 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way works and other subject-matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited. New business models and new actors continue to emerge. The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright frameworknational legal systems and taken over by the Union with regard to copyright remain sound. However, legal uncertainty remains, for both rightholders and users, as regards certain uses, including cross-border uses, of works and other subject-matter in the digital environment. As set out in the Communication of the Commission entitled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework’26 , in some areas it is necessary to adapt and supplement the current Union copyright framework. This Directive provides for rules to adapt certain exceptions and limitations to the digital and cross-border environments, as well as measures to facilitate certain licensing practices as regards the dissemination of out-of- commerce works and the online availability of audiovisual works on video- on-demand platforms with a view to striking a balance between respect for rightholders' rights or rights related to copyright, which are responsible for financing cultural creation, and the aim of ensuring wider access to content. In order to achieve a well-functioning marketplace for copyrightensure legal certainty for all stakeholders, there should also be rules on rights in publications, on the use of works and other subject-matter by online service providers storing and giving access to user uploaded content and on the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts. _________________ 26 COM(2015) 626 final. COM(2015) 624 final.
Amendment 94 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are already taken into account by certain Member States but are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature ofcertain exceptions and limitations are already provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. MandatoryOptional exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment and for preservation of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
Amendment 101 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are already taken into account by certain Member States but are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature ofcertain exceptions and limitations are already provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. MandatoryOptional exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment and for preservation of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
Amendment 105 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The exceptions and the limitation set out in this Directive should seek to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors and other rightholders on the one hand, and of users on the other. They canIt should be possible for them to be applied only in certain special cases which doand not to conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject- matter and do notor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders.
Amendment 105 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The exceptions and the limitation set out in this Directive should seek to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors and other rightholders on the one hand, and of users on the other. They canIt should be possible for them to be applied only in certain special cases which doand not to conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject- matter and do notor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders.
Amendment 109 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) New technologies enable the automated computational analysis of information in digital form, such as text, sounds, images or data, generally known as text and data mining. TWhile those technologies allow researchers to process large amounts of information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. Whilst text and data mining technologi, their uses are prevalent across the digital economy, there is widespread acknowledgment that text and data mining can in particular benefit the research community and in so doing encourage innovation. However, in the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes are confronted with legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of contentquire a legal framework and should be limited to non-commercial uses, particularly as regards the analysis of data. Although text mining may prove profitable in the field of research and innovation, it must not disproportionately damage copyright in a context in which profit takes the place of the educational objective. In certain instances, text and data mining may involve acts protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right, notably the reproduction of works or other subject- matter and/or the extraction of contents from a database. Where there is no exception or limitation which applies, an authorisation to undertake such acts would be required from rightholders. Text and data mining may also be carried out in relation to mere facts or data which are not protected by copyright and in such instances no authorisation would be required.
Amendment 111 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Some national legal systems and Union law already provides certain exceptions and limitations covering uses for scientific research purposes which may apply to acts of text and data mining. HowevIn order, those exceptions and limitations aro preserve the integrity of the coptional and not fully adapted toyright principle, the use of technologies in scientific research. Moreoexceptions should remain optional. However, where researchers have obtained lawful access to content, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences, it should be possible for the terms of the licences may exto include text and data mining. As research is increasingly carried out with the assistance of digital technology, there is a risk that the Union's competitive position of EU Member States as a research area will suffer from a possible impossibility to undertake text mining unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data miningsurrounding it.
Amendment 116 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) New technologies enable the automated computational analysis of information in digital form, such as text, sounds, images or data, generally known as text and data mining. TWhile those technologies allow researchers to process large amounts of information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. Whilst text and data mining technologi, their uses are prevalent across the digital economy, there is widespread acknowledgment that text and data mining can in particular benefit the research community and in so doing encourage innovation. However, in the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes are confronted with legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of contentquire a legal framework and should be limited to non-commercial uses, particularly as regards the analysis of data. Although text mining may prove profitable in the field of research and innovation, it must not disproportionately damage copyright in a context in which profit takes the place of the educational objective. In certain instances, text and data mining may involve acts protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right, notably the reproduction of works or other subject- matter and/or the extraction of contents from a database. Where there is no exception or limitation which applies, an authorisation to undertake such acts would be required from rightholders. Text and data mining may also be carried out in relation to mere facts or data which are not protected by copyright and in such instances no authorisation would be required.
Amendment 121 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a mandatoryn optional exception to the right of reproduction and also to the right to prevent extraction from a database. The new exception should be without prejudice to the existing mandatory exception on temporary acts of reproduction laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which should continue to apply to text and data mining techniques which do not involve the making of copies going beyond the scope of that exception. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public- private partnerships.
Amendment 130 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Some national legal systems and Union law already provides certain exceptions and limitations covering uses for scientific research purposes which may apply to acts of text and data mining. HowevIn order, those exceptions and limitations aro preserve the integrity of the coptional and not fully adapted toyright principle, the use of technologies in scientific research. Moreoexceptions should remain optional. However, where researchers have lawful access to contentobtained content lawfully, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences, it should be possible for the terms of the licences may exto include text and data mining. As research is increasingly carried out with the assistance of digital technology, there is a risk that the Union's competitive position of EU Member States as a research area will suffer from a possible impossibility to undertake text mining unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data miningsurrounding it.
Amendment 135 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) There is no needIt is necessary to provide for compensation for rightholders as regards uses under the text and data mining exception introduced by this Directive given that in view of the nature and scope of the exception the harm should be minimal, as the principle of compensation is central to the concept of copyright.
Amendment 136 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The national legal systems of some Member States, as well as Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC, allows Member States to introduce an exception or limitation to the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public for the sole purpose of, among others, illustration for teaching. In addition, Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(b) of Directive 96/9/EC permit the use of a database and the extraction or re-utilization of a substantial part of its contentsextracts from works or content from them for the purpose of illustration for teaching. The scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distance. Moreover, the existing framework does not provide for a cross-border effect. This sTherefore, this optional exception or limituation may hamper the development of digitally- supported teaching activities and distance learning. Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessaryshould be extended to digital teaching to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using extracts from works or other subject-matter in digital teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 144 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a mandatoryn optional exception to the right of reproduction and also to the right to prevent extraction from a database. The new exception should be without prejudice to the existing mandatory exception on temporary acts of reproduction laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which should continue to apply to text and data mining techniques which do not involve the making of copies going beyond the scope of that exception. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public- private partnerships.
Amendment 156 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digital uses of works and other subject-matter such as the use of parts or extracts of works to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including the related learning activities. The use of theextracts from works or other subject- matter under the exception or limitation should be only in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means in the classroom and online uses through the educational establishment's secure electronic network, the access to which should be protected, notably by authentication procedures. The exception or limitation should be understood as covering the specific accessibility needs of persons with a disability in the context of illustration for teaching.
Amendment 161 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC or on licensing agreements covering further uses, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate educational uses of works and other subject-matter. Such arrangements have usually been developed taking account of the needs of educational establishments and different levels of education. Whereas it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatoryile this new optional exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and cross-border teachin an educational context may apply ing activitill Member States, the modalities of implementation may differ from a Member State to another, to the extent they do not hamper the effective application of the exception or limitation or cross-border uses. This should allow Member States to build on the existing arrangements concluded at national level. In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of adequate licences, covering at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. This mechanism would, for example, allow giving precedence to licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market. In order to avoid that such mechanism results in legal uncertainty or administrative burden for educational establishments, Member States adopting this approach should take concrete measures to ensure that licensing schemes allowing digital uses of extracts from works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such licensing schemes.
Amendment 165 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) An act of preservation may require a reproduction of a work or other subject- matter in the collection of a cultural heritage institution andor libraries, which sometimes preserve the regional and/or national heritage, and may consequently require the authorisation of the relevant rightholders. Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collections for future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections but they also create new challenges. IAn view of these new challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction in order to allowoptional exception may enable Member States to act in a proportionate manner, consistently with national legal traditions, with those actsim of preservationing the cultural heritage.
Amendment 169 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservation by cultural heritage institutionArticle 1(h) of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, to which a number of Member States, and also the Union, are parties, reaffirms 'the sovereign rights of States to maintain, adopt and implement policies and measures thamper cross-border cooperation and the sharing of means of preservation by cultural heritage institutions in the internal market, leading to an inefficient use of resourcest they deem appropriate for the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions on their territory'. Accordingly, to comply with legal requirements, it is imperative that this directive should not conflict with obligations under international law to protect and preserve the cultural heritage.
Amendment 169 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) There is no needIt is necessary to provide for compensation for rightholders as regards uses under the text and data mining exception introduced by this Directive given that in view of the nature and scope of the exception the harm should be minimal, as the principle of compensation is central to the concept of copyright.
Amendment 171 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The national legal systems of some Member States, as well as Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC, allows Member States to introduce an exception or limitation to the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public for the sole purpose of, among others, illustration for teaching. In addition, Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(b) of Directive 96/9/EC permit the use of a database and the extraction or re-utilization of a substantial part of its contentsextracts from works or content from them for the purpose of illustration for teaching. The scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distance. Moreover, the existing framework does not provide for a cross-border effect. This situation may hamper the development of digitally- supported teaching activities and distance learning. Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessaryTherefore, this optional exception or limitation should be extended to digital teaching to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using extracts from works or other subject-matter in digital teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 178 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Member States should therefore be required tohave the option of provideing for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions and libraries to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number and at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only.
Amendment 182 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) For the purposes of this Directive, works and other subject-matter should be considered to be permanently in the collection of a cultural heritage institution or library when copies are owned or permanently held by the cultural heritage institution, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements.
Amendment 192 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Cultural heritage institutions or libraries should benefit from a clear framework for the digitisation and dissemination, including across borders, of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter. However, the particular characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works mean that obtaining the prior consent of the individual rightholders may be very difficult. This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject- matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the licensing of rights in out-of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and thereby to allow the conclusion of agreements with cross- border effect in the internal marketor libraries.
Amendment 199 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digital uses of works and other subject-matter such as the use of parts or extracts of works to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including the related learning activities. The use of theextracts from works or other subject- matter under the exception or limitation should be only in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means in the classroom and online uses through the educational establishment's secure electronic network, the access to which should be protected, notably by authentication procedures. The exception or limitation should be understood as covering the specific accessibility needs of persons with a disability in the context of illustration for teaching.
Amendment 201 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and libraries, it is important that the licensing mechanisms introduced by this Directive are available and can be used in practice for different types of works and other subject-matter, including photographs, sound recordings and audiovisual works. In order to reflect the specificities of different categories of works and other subject- matter as regards modes of publication and distribution and to facilitate the usability of those mechanisms, specific requirements and procedures may have to be established by Member States for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms. It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, users and collective management organisations when doing so.
Amendment 206 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC or on licensing agreements covering further uses, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate educational uses of works and other subject-matter. Such arrangements have usually been developed taking account of the needs of educational establishments and different levels of education. Whereas it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatoryile this new optional exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and cross-border teachin an educational context may apply ing activitill Member States, the modalities of implementation may differ from a Member State to another, to the extent they do not hamper the effective application of the exception or limitation or cross-border uses. This should allow Member States to build on the existing arrangements concluded at national level. In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of adequate licences, covering at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. This mechanism would, for example, allow giving precedence to licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market. In order to avoid that such mechanism results in legal uncertainty or administrative burden for educational establishments, Member States adopting this approach should take concrete measures to ensure that licensing schemes allowing digital uses of extracts from works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such licensing schemes.
Amendment 207 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Information regarding the future and ongoing use of out-of-commerce works and other subject-matter by cultural heritage institutions or libraries on the basis of the licensing mechanisms provided for in this Directive and the arrangements in place for all rightholders to exclude the application of licences to their works or other subject- matter should be adequately publicised. This is particularly important when uses take place across borders in the internal market. It is therefore appropriate to make provision for the creation of a single publicly accessible online portal for the Union to make such information available to the public for a reasonable period of time before the cross-border use takes place. Under Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council33 , the European Union Intellectual Property Office is entrusted with certain tasks and activities, financed by making use of its own budgetary measures, aiming at facilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities, the private sector and Union institutions in the fight against, including the prevention of, infringement of intellectual property rights. It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the European portal making such information available. _________________ 33Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2012 on entrusting the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with tasks related to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including the assembling of public and private-sector representatives as a European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights (OJ L 129, 16.5.2012, p. 1–6)Member States are therefore asked, if necessary, to establish a portal to provide information on the subject.
Amendment 210 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) On-demand services have the potential to play a decisive role in the dissemination of European works across all Member States of the European Union. However, agreements on the online exploitation of such works may face difficulties related to the licensing of rights. Such issues may, for instance, appear when the holder of the rights for a given territory is not interested in the online exploitation of the work or where there are issues linked to the windows of exploitation.
Amendment 211 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) An act of preservation may require a reproduction of a work or other subject- matter in the collection of a cultural heritage institution andor libraries, which sometimes preserve the regional and/or national heritage, and may consequently require the authorisation of the relevant rightholders. Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collections for future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections but they also create new challenges. IAn view of these new challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction in order to allowoptional exception may enable Member States to act in a proportionate manner, consistently with national legal traditions, with those actsim of preservationing the cultural heritage.
Amendment 213 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand platforms, this Directive requirescommends that Member States to set up a negotiation mechanism allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body. The body should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional and external advice. Against that background, Member States should decide on the conditions of the functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the bearing of the costs. Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation forum.
Amendment 216 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservation by cultural heritage institutionArticle 1(h) of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, to which a number of Member States, and also the Union, are parties, reaffirms 'the sovereign rights of States to maintain, adopt and implement policies and measures thamper cross-border cooperation and the sharing of means of preservation by cultural heritage institutions in the internal market, leading to an inefficient use of resourcest they deem appropriate for the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions on their territory'. Accordingly, to comply with legal requirements, it is imperative that this directive should not conflict with obligations under international law to protect and preserve the cultural heritage.
Amendment 219 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information for citizens of the Member States. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
Amendment 225 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It is therefore nrecessary to provide at Union level a harmonisedommended that Member States take measures to ensure optimal legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. SAccordingly it is suggested that such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law,where necessary, into national legal systems of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.
Amendment 225 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Member States should therefore be required tohave the option of provideing for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions and libraries to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number and at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only.
Amendment 231 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) For the purposes of this Directive, works and other subject-matter should be considered to be permanently in the collection of a cultural heritage institution or library when copies are owned or permanently held by the cultural heritage institution, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements.
Amendment 239 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) The rights which may possibly be granted to the publishers of press publications by Member States that so decide under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.
Amendment 245 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications by Member States which so wish under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.
Amendment 248 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Cultural heritage institutions or libraries should benefit from a clear framework for the digitisation and dissemination, including across borders, of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter. However, the particular characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works mean that obtaining the prior consent of the individual rightholders may be very difficult. This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject- matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the licensing of rights in out-of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and thereby to allow the conclusion of agreements with cross- border effect in the internal marketor libraries.
Amendment 260 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and libraries, it is important that the licensing mechanisms introduced by this Directive are available and can be used in practice for different types of works and other subject-matter, including photographs, sound recordings and audiovisual works. In order to reflect the specificities of different categories of works and other subject- matter as regards modes of publication and distribution and to facilitate the usability of those mechanisms, specific requirements and procedures may have to be established by Member States for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms. It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, users and collective management organisations when doing so.
Amendment 267 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Information regarding the future and ongoing use of out-of-commerce works and other subject-matter by cultural heritage institutions or libraries on the basis of the licensing mechanisms provided for in this Directive and the arrangements in place for all rightholders to exclude the application of licences to their works or other subject- matter should be adequately publicised. This is particularly important when uses take place across borders in the internal market. It is therefore appropriate to make provision for the creation of a single publicly accessible online portal for the Union to make such information available to the public for a reasonable period of time before the cross-border use takes place. Under Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council33 , the European Union Intellectual Property Office is entrusted with certain tasks and activities, financed by making use of its own budgetary measures, aiming at facilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities, the private sector and Union institutions in the fight against, including the prevention of, infringement of intellectual property rights. It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the European portal making such information available. _________________ 33 Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2012 on entrusting the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with tasks related to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including the assembling of public and private-sector representatives as a European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights (OJ L 129, 16.5.2012, p. 1–6)Member States are therefore asked, if necessary, to establish a portal to provide information on the subject.
Amendment 273 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) On-demand services have the potential to play a decisive role in the dissemination of European works across all Member States of the European Union. However, agreements on the online exploitation of such works may face difficulties related to the licensing of rights. Such issues may, for instance, appear when the holder of the rights for a given territory is not interested in the online exploitation of the work or where there are issues linked to the windows of exploitation.
Amendment 279 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand platforms, this Directive requirescommends that Member States to set up a negotiation mechanism allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body. The body should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional and external advice. Against that background, Member States should decide on the conditions of the functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the bearing of the costs. Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation forum.
Amendment 291 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information for citizens of the Member States. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment isare often complex and inefficient.
Amendment 294 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreement.
Amendment 299 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It is therefore nrecessary to provide at Union level a harmonisedommended that Member States take measures to ensure optimal legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. SAccordingly it is suggested that such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law,where necessary, into national legal systems of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.
Amendment 327 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) The objectives of this Directive, namely the modernisation of certain aspects of the Union copyright framework to take account of technological developments and new channels of distribution of protected content in the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States but can rather, by reason of their scale, effects and cross-border dimension, be better achieved at Union levelGiven that a Community copyright framework is already in place, Union action on the subject is justified by the aim of this Directive, namely to take account of technological developments and new channels of distribution of protected content. Therefore, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
Amendment 328 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 45
Recital 45
(45) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Uns provided for by the Member States’ constitutional traditions. Accordingly, this Directive should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles.
Amendment 329 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. The aim of this Directive lays down rules which aim at further harmonisingis to modernise the Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the framework of the internal market, taking into account in particular digital and cross-border uses of protected content. It also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations, and on the facilitation of licences as well as rules aiming at ensuring a well-functioning marketplace forthat the interests of all the stakeholders in the exploitation of works and other subject-matter are properly balanced.
Amendment 334 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) The rights which may possibly be granted to the publishers of press publications by Member States that so decide under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.
Amendment 336 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
(2) ‘text and data mining’ means any automated analytical technique aiming to analyse text and data in digital form in order to generate information such as patterns, trends and correlations;
Amendment 348 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications by Member States which so wish under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.
Amendment 349 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title 3
Title 3
MEASURES TO ADAPT EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS TO THE DIGITAL AND CROSS-BORDER ENVIRONMENT
Amendment 350 #
Amendment 358 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions made by research organisations in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject- matter to which they have lawful access for the purposes of scientific research.
Amendment 372 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
Article 4 – title
Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teaching activities
Amendment 378 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of extracts from works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 382 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishmenwhere the teaching activities of an educational establishment recognised by the Member State in which it is established are carried out or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment’s pupils or students and teaching staff;
Amendment 388 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) is accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author’s name, unless this turns out to be impossible.[Does not affect the English version]
Amendment 390 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be inapplicable. The exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall not apply in cases where licences are available.
Amendment 394 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States mayshall provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 does not apply generally or as regards specific types of works or other subject- matter, to the extent that adequate licences authorising at least the acts described in paragraph 1 are easily available in the market.
Amendment 400 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishmentsmay exclude materials intended chiefly for the educational market from the exception or limitation provided for in Article 1.
Amendment 402 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
For the purposes of applying paragraph 2, Member States shall actively assist in ensuring the availability of licences authorising, at least, the acts covered by paragraph 1, for example by acquiring collective licences on behalf of the educational establishments established on their territory or by facilitating dialogue between rightholders and educational establishments with a view to establishing specific authorisations for the acts covered by paragraph 1. Member States shall ensure the visibility of the licences authorising the acts covered by paragraph 1 through appropriate tools, such as a single portal or database accessible to educational establishments, where the available licences shall be listed and kept up to date.
Amendment 404 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The use of extracts from works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic networks undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the educational establishment is established.
Amendment 409 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States mayshall provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 417 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States shallmay provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions and libraries, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation.
Amendment 426 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject- matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation, which will make it possible to guarantee the sharing of value online, should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.
Amendment 432 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Except in the cases covered by Article 17, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect the exceptions and limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 96/9/EC and Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 2009/24/EC, including with regard to their being optional.
Amendment 442 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shallmay, without prejudice to their national model for unavailable works, provide that when a collective management organisation, on behalf of its members, concludes a non- exclusive licence for non- commercial purposes with a cultural heritage institution for the digitisation, distribution, communication to the public or making available of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter permanently in the collection of the institution, such a non- exclusive licence may be extended or presumed to apply to rightholders of the same category as those covered by the licence who are not represented by the collective management organisation, provided that:
Amendment 473 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8
Article 8
Amendment 480 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Member States shallare advised to ensure a regular dialogue between representative users' and rightholders' organisations, and any other relevant stakeholder organisations, to, on a sector-specific basis, foster the relevance and usability of the licensing mechanisms referred to in Article 7(1), ensure the effectiveness of the safeguards for rightholders referred to in this Chapter, notably as regards publicity measures, and, where applicable, assist in the establishment of the requirements referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 7(2).
Amendment 485 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) The objectivesGiven that an EU copyright framework is already in place, Union action on the subject is justified by the aim of this Directive, namely theo modernisation of certain aspects of the Union copyrighte aspects of the framework to take account of technological developments and new channels of distribution of protected content in the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States but can rather, by reason of their scale, effects and cross-border dimension, be better achieved at Union level. Therefore, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
Amendment 486 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 45
Recital 45
(45) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Uns provided for by the Member States’ constitutional traditions. Accordingly, this Directive should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles.
Amendment 489 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive lays down rules which aim at further harmonisingaims to modernise the Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the framework of the internal market, taking into account in particular digital and cross-border uses of protected content. It also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations, and on the facilitation of licences as well as rules aiming at ensuring a well-functioning marketplace forthat the interests of all the stakeholders in the exploitation of works and other subject- matter are properly balanced.
Amendment 492 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay, if they so decide, provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.
Amendment 497 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in national legal systems and Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.
Amendment 512 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
(2) ‘text and data mining’ means any automated analytical technique aiming to analyse text and data in digital form in order to generate information such as patterns, trends and correlations;
Amendment 528 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title 3
Title 3
MEASURES TO ADAPT EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS TO THE DIGITAL AND CROSS-BORDER ENVIRONMENT
Amendment 530 #
Amendment 544 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions made by research organisations in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject- matter to which they have lawful access for the purposes of scientific research.
Amendment 571 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
Article 4 – title
Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teaching activities
Amendment 581 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of extracts from works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 584 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
–a is limited, in the case of written, printed and digital works, to brief extracts or short works;
Amendment 589 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishmenpremises where the teaching activities of an educational establishment recognised by the Member State in which it is established are carried out or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment'’s pupils or students and teaching staff;
Amendment 592 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Directive 96/9/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) where there is use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 594 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
Directive 96/9/EC
Article 9 – point b
Article 9 – point b
(b) in the case of extraction for the purposes of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 596 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 597 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 600 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) is accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible.[Does not affect the English version]
Amendment 602 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be inapplicable. The exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall not apply in cases where licences are available.
Amendment 604 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Article 12 – paragraph 4
(e) to examine the impact of the transposition of Directive [this Directive] on the functioning of the internaproper balance between the interests of all mparketties involved and to highlight any transposition difficulties;
Amendment 611 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States mayshall provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 does not apply generally or as regards specific types of works or other subject- matter, to the extent that adequate licences authorising at least the acts described in paragraph 1 are easily available in the market.
Amendment 619 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorismay exclude materials intended chiefly for the educational market from the exception or limitation provided for ing the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishmentsfirst subparagraph.
Amendment 621 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. For the purposes of applying paragraph 2, Member States shall actively assist in ensuring the availability of licences authorising, at least, the acts covered by paragraph 1, for example by acquiring collective licences on behalf of the educational establishments established on their territory or by facilitating dialogue between rightholders and educational establishments with a view to establishing specific authorisations for the acts covered by paragraph 1. Member States shall ensure the visibility of the licences authorising the acts covered by paragraph 1 through appropriate tools, such as a single portal or database accessible to educational establishments, where the available licences shall be listed and kept up to date.
Amendment 625 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The use of extracts from works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic networks undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the educational establishment is established.
Amendment 633 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States mayshall provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 646 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1. Article 5 Preservation of cultural heritage Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions and libraries, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation.
Amendment 674 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Except in the cases covered by Article 17, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect the exceptions and limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 96/9/EC and Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 2009/24/EC, including the optional nature thereof.
Amendment 679 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shallmay, without prejudice to their national model for unavailable works, provide that when a collective management organisation, on behalf of its members, concludes a non- exclusive licence for non- commercial purposes with a cultural heritage institution for the digitisation, distribution, communication to the public or making available of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter permanently in the collection of the institution, such a non- exclusive licence may be extended or presumed to apply to rightholders of the same category as those covered by the licence who are not represented by the collective management organisation, provided that:
Amendment 709 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8
Article 8
Amendment 710 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Amendment 713 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Amendment 717 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Amendment 719 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Member States shallmay ensure a regular dialogue between representative users' and rightholders' organisations, and any other relevant stakeholder organisations, to, on a sector-specific basis, foster the relevance and usability of the licensing mechanisms referred to in Article 7(1), ensure the effectiveness of the safeguards for rightholders referred to in this Chapter, notably as regards publicity measures, and, where applicable, assist in the establishment of the requirements referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 7(2).
Amendment 751 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay, if they so decide, provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.
Amendment 768 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for inunder national legal systems and Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.
Amendment 973 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Directive 96/9/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) where there is use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 975 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
Directive 96/9/EC
Article 9 – point b
Article 9 – point b
(b) in the case of extraction for the purposes of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 980 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 983 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 991 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point e
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point e
(e) to examine the impact of the transposition of Directive [this Directive] on the functioning of the internaproper balance between the interests of all mparketties involved and to highlight any transposition difficulties;
Amendment 11 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Directive […] endeavours to implement the Unobligation's obligatf the Member States and of the Unions under the Marrakesh Treaty in a harmonised manner in order to improve the availability of accessible format copies for beneficiary persons and their circulation withinthroughout the internal marketritories of the Member States. The Ddirective requires Member States and the Union to introduce a mandatory exception to certain rights of right holders that are harmonised by Union law. The objectives of this Regulation are to implement the obligations in the Marrakesh Treaty with respect to the export and import of accessible format copies for the benefit of beneficiary persons between the UnionMember States and third countries that are parties to the Marrakesh Treaty, and to lay down the conditions for such export and import. Such measures may onlycan be taken at Union level, as the exchange of accessible format copies of works and other protected subject-matter concerns the commercial aspects of intellectual property. A Rregulation is the onlyrefore an appropriate instrument.
Amendment 12 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) In taking the steps necessary to facilitate cross-border trade in works and protected subject-matter in accessible format with third countries that are parties to the Marrakesh Treaty, the Member States must comply with the rights and obligations laid down in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, as they are required to under Article 11 of the Marrakesh Treaty;
Amendment 13 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The Regulation should ensure that accessible format copies of books, journals, newspapers, magazines and other writings, sheet music and other print material, which have been made in any Member State in accordance with the national provisions adopted pursuant to Directive […] may be exported to third countries that are parties to the Marrakesh Treaty. Accessible formats include Braille, large print, adapted e-books, audio books and radio broadcasts. The distribution, communication or making available of accessible format copies to print disabled persons or to authorised entities in the third country should only be carried out on a non-profit basis by authorised entities established in the Unionterritories of the Member States.
Amendment 14 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) This Regulation should also allow for the importation of and access to accessible format copies made in accordance with the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty from a third country, by beneficiary persons in the UnionMember States and authorised entities established in the Unionerritories of the Member States, for the benefit of print-disabled persons. It should be possible for those accessible format copies to be circulated in the internal marketamong the Member States under the same conditions as accessible format copies made in the UnionMember States in accordance with Directive [...].
Amendment 18 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Any processing of personal data under this Regulation should respect fundamental rights, including the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data underas enshrined in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in the UN resolution of 14 December 1990 on guidelines for the regulation of computerized personal data files, and in the common constitutional traditions of the Member States, as well as, secondarily, in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and must be in compliance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and the Council13 , which governs the processing of personal data, as may be carried out by authorised entities within the framework of this Regulation and under the supervision of the Member Statesʼ competent authorities, in particular the public independent authorities designated by the Member States. _________________ 13 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).
Amendment 19 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ʻthe UNCRPDʼ), to which a number of Member States are signatories and to which the EU is a party, guarantees people with disabilities the right of access to information and the right to participate in cultural, economic and social life on an equal basis with others. The UNCRPD requires parties to the Convention to take all appropriate steps, in accordance with international law, to ensure that laws protecting intellectual property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials.
Amendment 20 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in international law, in the common constitutional traditions of the Member States, and, secondarily, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This Regulation should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles.
Amendment 21 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Any processing of personal data under this Regulation should respect fundamental rights, including the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and must be in compliance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and the Council13 and with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council13a., which governs the processing of personal data, as may be carried out by authorised entities within the framework of this Regulation and under the supervision of the Member Statesʼ competent authorities, in particular the public independent authorities designated by the Member States. _________________ 13 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31). 13a.Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 23 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part
(2) ‘beneficiary person’ means someone who, regardless of any other disability, has one of the following characteristics, i.e.:
Amendment 25 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rightcommon constitutional traditions of the Member States of the European Union. This Regulation should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles.
Amendment 26 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) ‘accessible format copy’ means a copy of a work or other subject-matter, presented on a non-profit basis in an alternative manner or form that gives a beneficiary person access to the work or other subject-matter, including allowing for the person to have access as feasibly and comfortably as a person without a visual impairment or any of the disabilities referred to in paragraph 2;
Amendment 27 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘authorised entity’ means an organisation that is authorised and recognised by the national authorities and that providinges education, instructional training, adaptive reading or information access to beneficiary persons on a non- profit basis, as its main activity or as one of its main activities or public- interest missions.interest missions; it also denotes a government institution or non-profit organisation that provides the same services to beneficiary persons as one of its main activities or institutional obligations;
Amendment 31 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
An authorised entity established in a Member State may, without engaging in any commercial activity, distribute, communicate or make available to beneficiary persons or to an authorised entity established in a third country that is a party to the Marrakesh Treaty an accessible format copy made in accordance with the national legislation adopted pursuant to Directive [...], where, before the copy is distributed and made available, the authorised entity responsible for that distribution is unaware that the accessible format copy could be used for a purpose other than that for which it was originally and primarily intended, for persons other than the beneficiaries.
Amendment 32 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
A beneficiary person or an authorised entity established in a Member State may import or otherwise obtain or access and thereafter use, in accordance with the national legislation adopted pursuant to Directive [...], with due regard for the legitimate interests of the author, an accessible format copy that has been distributed, communicated or made available to beneficiary persons or to authorised entities, by an authorised entity in a third country that is a party to the Marrakesh Treaty.
Amendment 37 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) it demonstrates due care in, and maintains records of, its handling of works and other subject-matter and of their accessible format copies, and does so with due respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data as enshrined in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the UN resolution of 14 December 1990 on guidelines for the regulation of computerized personal data files; and
Amendment 39 #
2016/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
The processing of personal data carried out within the framework of this Regulation shall be carried out in compliance with international law, specifically the UN resolution of 14 December 1990 on guidelines for the regulation of computerized personal data files, and with Directive 95/46/EC.
Amendment 9 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The national laws of most Member States and, secondarily, several Union Directives in the area of copyright and related rights provide legal certainty and a high level of protection for rightholders. This harmonised legal framework contributes to the proper functioning of the internal market andfor rightholders. The protection of copyright and related rights is necessary in order to stimulates innovation, creation, investment and the production of new content, including in the digital environment. It also aimsThis right also makes it possible to promote access to knowledge and culture by protecting works and other subject-matter and by permitting exceptions or limitations that are in the public interest. A fair balance of rights and interests between rightholders and users should be safeguarded.
Amendment 14 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled continue to face many barriers in accessing books and other print material which are protected by copyright and related rights. Measures need to be taken to increase the availability of those works in accessible formats and to improve their circulation in the internal market.
Amendment 16 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (ʻthe Marrakesh Treatyʼ) was signed on behalf ofby several Member States and also by the Union on 30 April 201423. Its aim is to improve the availability of works and other protected subject-matter in accessible formats for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. The Marrakesh Treaty requires contracting parties to provide exceptions or limitations to the rights of holders of copyright and related rights for the making and dissemination of copies in accessible formats of certain works and other subject- matter, and for the cross-border exchange of those copies. The conclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty by the Union requires the adaptationMember States and, secondarily, by the Union requires the adaptation of the national laws of the signatory States and, moreover, of Union law by establishing a mandatory exception for uses, works and beneficiary persons covered by the Treaty. This Directive implements the obligations that the Union has to meet under the Marrakesh Treaty in a harmonised manner, with a view to ensuring that those measures are applied consistently throughout the internal marketritory of Union Member States. _________________ 23 Council Decision 2014/221/EU of 14 April 2014 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled. (OJ L115, 17.4.2014, p. 1).
Amendment 30 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The exception should allow authorised entities to make and disseminate online and offline within the Union Member States accessible format copies of works or other subject-matter covered by this Directive.
Amendment 36 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) It should be possible for accessible format copies made in one Member State to be available in all Member States, in order to ensure their greater availability across the internal market. This would reduce the demand for redundant work in producing accessible format copies of the same work or other subject matter across theall Union Member States, thus generating savings and efficiency gains. This Directive should therefore ensure that accessible format copies made in one Member State may be circulated and accessed in all Member States. An authorised entity should thus be able to disseminate those copies, offline or online, to beneficiary persons and authorised entities in any Member State. Moreover, authorised entities and beneficiary persons should be allowed to obtain or have access to those copies from any authorised entity in any Member State.
Amendment 40 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Any processing of personal data under this Directive should respect fundamental rights, including the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and must, stemming from the common constitutional provisions of the Member States and should be in compliance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1a and with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council1b, which governs the processing of personal data, as may be carried out by authorised entities within the framework of this Directive and under the supervision of the Member Statesʼ competent authorities, in particular the public independent authorities designated by the Member States. _________________ 1aDirective 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31). 1b Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 42 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Any processing of personal data under this Directive should respect fundamental rights, including the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data underas established by the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN resolution of 14 December 1990 on guidelines for the regulation of computerised personal data files, and as derived from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States and, secondarily, from Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and must be in compliance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, which governs the processing of personal data, as may be carried out by authorised entities within the framework of this Directive and under the supervision of the Member Statesʼ competent authorities, in particular the public independent authorities designated by the Member States.
Amendment 43 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ʻthe UNCRPDʼ), of which several Union Member States are signatories and to which the EU is a party, guarantees people with disabilities the right of access to information and the right to participate in cultural, economic and social life on an equal basis with others. The UNCRPD requires parties to the Convention to take all appropriate steps, in accordance with international law, to ensure that laws protecting intellectual property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials.
Amendment 43 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European UnionIn accordance with the common constitutional traditions of the Member States, the Union recognises and respects the right of people with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.
Amendment 44 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the common constitutional traditions of the Member States, and, secondarily, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Union recognises and respects the right of people with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.
Amendment 50 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) This Directive therefore respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular in international law and, secondarily, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This Directive should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles.
Amendment 52 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The Marrakesh Treaty imposes certain obligations regarding the exchange of accessible format copies between Union Member States, the Union, and third countries that are parties to the Treaty. The measures taken by the Union to fulfil those obligations are contained in Regulation […] which should be read in conjunction with this Directive.
Amendment 54 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) The objective of this Directive – implementing Union Member State and also the Union’s obligations under the Marrakesh Treaty in order to improve access to works and other subject- matter protected by copyright and related rights for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled in the Union – cannot be achieved by the Member States acting independently, as it requires the adaptation of Union law. Furthermore, by reason of its scale and effects, the objective can only be achieved through action at Union level. The Union may thereforerequires the adaptation of Union law. The Union should, to that end, adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in the same Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment 73 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
Article 4 – title
Accessible format copies in the internal marketthroughout the territory of Union Member States
Amendment 78 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
By [two years after the date of transposition], the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the availability, in accessible formats, of works and other subject-matter other than those defined in Article 2(1) for beneficiary persons, and of works and other subject- matter for persons with disabilities other than those referred to in Article 2(2), in the internal market. The report shall contain an assessment on whether an amendment of the scope of this Directive should be considered.
Amendment 21 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In order to realise the objective of ensuring good functioning ofThe abolition of State barriers under the internal market, has an area without internal fronpushed private partiers in which the free movement of inter alia goods and services is ensured, it is not sufficient to abolish, as between Member States, only State barriers. Such abolition can be undermined by private parties putting in place obstacles inconsistent with internal market freedoms. That occurs where traders operating in one Member Statefaced with unfair competition into needing to find other ways of protecting their industries. When left unprotected by their national authorities, traders operating in one Member State have had to be imaginative in finding ways of blocking or limiting the access to their online interfaces, such as websites and apps, of customers from other Member States wishing to engage in cross- border commercial transactions (a practice known as geo- blocking). It also occurs through other actions by certain traders involving the application ofCertain traders, keen to preserve their freedom to conduct business, apply different general conditions of access to their goods and services with respect to such customers from other Member States, both online and offline. WThereas there may sometimes b are objective justifications for such differential treatment, in other cases traders deny consumers wishing to engage in cross- border commercial transactions access to goods: while the Internet is a fantastic area of freedom which should be protected, it would be dangerous to disregard both consumer protection and the interests of very small, small and medium-sized enterprises, which have drawn attention to the various risks entailed in ending geo-blocking: the risk that standardisation orf services, or apply different conditions in this regard, for purely commercial reasonsupply could produce higher prices; the fact that many online sales offers are tied to national markets; or even, the fear that abolishing geo-blocking could stop customised sale of content to a local distributor.
Amendment 26 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) In this manner, certain traders artificially segment the internal market along internal frontiers and hamper the free movement of goods and services, thus restricexercise their freedom to conduct business and employ a principle of territoriality which protects the diversity of industries; setting the rights of customers and preventinggainst themis from benefitting from a wider choice and optimal conditions. Such discriminatory practices are an important factor contrieedom to conduct business would be ill- advised as customers' purchasing power ís intrinsically linked to optimal business conditions. This principle enables local butsing to the relatively low level of cross-border commercial transactions within the Union, including in the sector of electronic commerce, which prevents the full growth potential of the internal market from being realised. Clarifyesses to survive and encourages their transition to digitisation, which is for very many regional areas a factor ing in which situations there can be no justification for differential treatment of this kindnovation and growth. Reaffirmation of this territorial principle should bring clarity and legal certainty for all participants in cross-border transactions and should ensure that rules on non-discrimination can be effectively applied and enforced across the internal market.
Amendment 30 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) PFursuant tothermore, from a legal viewpoint Article 20 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council17 ,already exists, compelling Member States are to ensure that service providers established in the Union do not treat recipients of services differently on the basis of their nationality or place of residence. However, that provision has not been fully effective in combatting discrimination and it has not sufficiently reduced legal uncertainty, particularly because ofIt should be remembered that this Directive allows for the possibility to justify the differences in treatment for which it allows and the corresponding difficulties in enforcing it in practice. Moreover, geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on nationality, place of residence or place of establishment can also arise as a consequence of actions by traders established in third countries, which fall outside the scope of that Directive. Not only is this legal flexibility beneficial for the parties concerned, particularly businesses, but introducing more restrictive rules could also give rise to legal inconsistency. _________________ 17 Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36).
Amendment 36 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) For the purposes of ensuring the good functioning of the internal market, the targeted measures set out in this Regulation, which provide for a clear, uniform and effective set of rules on a selected number of issues, are therefore requiredThis Regulation is necessary therefore to maintain the principle of territoriality.
Amendment 37 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In order to realise the objective of ensuring good functioning ofThe abolition of State barriers under the internal market, has an area without internal fronpushed private partiers in which the free movement of inter alia goods and services is ensured, it is not sufficient to abolish, as between Member States, only State barfaced with unfair competition into needing to find other ways of protecting their industriers. Such abolition can be undermined by private parties putting in place obstacles inconsistent with internal market freedoms. That occurs where traders operating in one Member Statetripped of the protection afforded by national authorities, traders operating in one Member State have had to be imaginative in finding ways of blocking or limiting the access to their online interfaces, such as websites and apps, of customers from other Member States wishing to engage in cross-border commercial transactions (a practice known as geo- blocking). It also occurs through other actions by certain traders involving the application of; certain traders, keen to preserve their freedom to conduct business, apply different general conditions of access to their goods and services with respect to such customers from other Member States, both online and offline. WThereas there may sometimes b are objective justifications for such differential treatment, in other cases traders deny consumers wishing to engage in cross- border commercial transactions access to goods: while the Internet is a fantastic area of freedom which should be protected, it would be dangerous to disregard both consumer protection and the interests of very small, small and medium-sized enterprises, which have drawn attention to the various risks entailed in ending geo-blocking: standardisation orf services, or apply different conditions in this regard, for purely commercial reasonsupply could produce higher prices; the fact that many online sales offers are tied to national markets; or even, the fear that abolishing geo- blocking could stop customised sale of content to a local distributor.
Amendment 39 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) In this manner, certain traders artificially segment the internal market along internal frontiers and hamper the free movement of goods and services, thus restricexercise their freedom to conduct business and employ a principle of territoriality which protects the diversity of industries; setting the rights of customers and preventinggainst themis from benefitting from a wider choice and optimal conditions. Such discriminatory practices are an important factor contrieedom to conduct business would be ill- advised as customers' purchasing power ís intrinsically linked to optimal business conditions. This principle enables local butsing to the relatively low level of cross-border commercial transactions within the Union, including in the sector of electronic commerce, which prevents the full growth potential of the internal market from being realised. Clarifyesses to survive and encourages their transition to digitisation, which is for very many regional areas a factor ing in which situations there can be no justification for differential treatment of this kindnovation and growth. Reaffirmation of this territorial principle should bring clarity and legal certainty for all participants in cross-border transactions and should ensure that rules on non-discrimination can be effectively applied and enforced across the internal market.
Amendment 41 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) This Regulation aims at preventing discrimination based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishmentmaintaining the principle of territoriality, including via geo-blocking, in cross-border commercial transactions between traders and customers relating to the sales of goods and the provision of services within the Union. It seeks to address direct as well as indirect discriminationcknowledge the justification for a certain degree of differential treatment, both direct and indirect, in certain cases, thus also covering unjustified differences of treatment on the basis of other distinguishing criteria which lead to the same result as the application of criteria directly based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment. Such other criteria can be applied, in particular, on the basis of information indicating the physical location of customers, such as the IP address used when accessing an online interface, the address submitted for the delivery of goods, the choice language of made or the Member State where the customer's payment instrument has been issued.
Amendment 42 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) PFursuant tothermore, from a legal viewpoint Article 20 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council17 ,already exists, compelling Member States are to ensure that service providers established in the Union do not treat recipients of services differently on the basis of their nationality or place of residence. However, that provision has not been fully effective in combatting discrimination and it has not sufficiently reduced legal uncertainty, particularly because ofIt should be remembered that this Directive allows for the possibility to justify the differences in treatment for which it allows and the corresponding difficulties in enforcing it in practice. Moreover, geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on nationality, place of residence or place of establishment can also arise as a consequence of actions by traders established in third countries, which fall outside the scope of that Directive. This legal flexibility is not just beneficial for the parties concerned, and businesses in particular, but introducing rules that are more restrictive could bring about legal inconsistency. _________________ 17 Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36).
Amendment 45 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) For the purposes of ensuring the good functioning of the internal market, the targeted measures set out in this Regulation, which provide for a clear, uniform and effective set of rules on a selected number of issues, are therefore requiredThis Regulation is necessary therefore to maintain the principle of territoriality.
Amendment 46 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Considering that some regulatory and administrative barriers for traders have already been removed across the Union in certain services sectors as a result of the implementation of Directive 2006/123/EC, in terms of material scope, consistency should be ensured between this Regulation and Directive 2006/123/EC. As a consequence, the provisions of this Regulation should not apply inter alia to non- audio-visual electronically supplied services, the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter, subject however to the specific exclusion provided for in Article 4 and the subsequent evaluation of that exclusion as provided for in Article 9these rights aiming notably to maintain and promote cultural diversity and conserve the heritage related thereto. Audio-visual services, including services the main feature of which is the provision of access to broadcasts of sports events and which are provided on the basis of exclusive territorial licenses, are excluded from the scope of this Regulation. Access to retail financial services, including payment services, should therefore also be excluded, notwithstanding the provisions of this Regulation regarding non-discrimination in payments.
Amendment 47 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) This Regulation aims at preventing discrimination based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishmentmaintaining the principle of territoriality, including via geo-blocking, in cross-border commercial transactions between traders and customers relating to the sales of goods and the provision of services within the Union. It seeks to address direct as well as indirect discriminationcknowledge the justification for differential treatment, both direct and indirect, in certain cases, thus also covering unjustified differences of treatment on the basis of other distinguishing criteria which lead to the same result as the application of criteria directly based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment. Such other criteria can be applied, in particular, on the basis of information indicating the physical location of customers, such as the IP address used when accessing an online interface, the address submitted for the delivery of goods, the choice language of made or the Member State where the customer's payment instrument has been issued.
Amendment 50 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Considering that some regulatory and administrative barriers for traders have already been removed across the Union in certain services sectors as a result of the implementation of Directive 2006/123/EC, in terms of material scope, consistency should be ensured between this Regulation and Directive 2006/123/EC. As a consequence, the provisions of this Regulation should not apply inter alia to non- audio-visual electronically supplied services, the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter, subject however to the specific exclusion provided for in Article 4 and the subsequent evaluation of that exclusion as provided for in Article 9these rights aiming notably to maintain and promote cultural diversity and conserve the heritage related thereto. Audio-visual services, including services the main feature of which is the provision of access to broadcasts of sports events and which are provided on the basis of exclusive territorial licenses, are excluded from the scope of this Regulation. Access to retail financial services, including payment services, should therefore also be excluded, notwithstanding the provisions of this Regulation regarding non-discrimination in payments.
Amendment 54 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Discrimination can also occur in relation to services in the field of transport, in particular with respect to the sales of tickets for the transport of passengers. However, in that regard Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council19 and Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council20 already contain broad prohibitions of discriminations covering all discriminatory practices that the present Regulation seeks to addresstrictly define justified differential treatments. Furthermore, it is intended that Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council21 will be amended to that effect in near future. Therefore, and in order to ensure consistency with the scope of application of Directive 2006/123/EC, services in the field of transport should remain outside the scope of this Regulation. _________________ 18 Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3). 19 Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 1). 20 Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 1). 21 Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14).
Amendment 54 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Discrimination can also occur in relation to services in the field of transport, in particular with respect to the sales of tickets for the transport of passengers. However, in that regard Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council,18 , Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council19 and Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council20 already contain broad prohibitions of discriminations covering all discriminatory practices that the present Regulation seeks to addresstrictly define justified differential treatments. Furthermore, it is intended that Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council21 will be amended to that effect in near future. Therefore, and in order to ensure consistency with the scope of application of Directive 2006/123/EC, services in the field of transport should remain outside the scope of this Regulation. _________________ 18 Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3). 19 Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 1). 20 Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 1). 21 Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14).
Amendment 55 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) TIt should be ensured that this Regulation shoulddoes not affect acts of Union law concerning judicial cooperation in civil matters, notably the provisions on the law applicable to contractual obligations and on jurisdiction set out in Regulations (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council24 and (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 , including the application of those acts and provisions in individual cases. In particular, the mere fact that a trader acts in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation should not be construed as implying that he directs his activities to the consumer's Member State for the purpose of such application. 24 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6). _________________ 24 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6). 25 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1).
Amendment 56 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The discriminatory practices that this Regulation seeks to addressjustified differential treatments covered by this Regulation typically take place through general terms, conditions and other information set and applied by or on behalf of the trader concerned, as a precondition for obtaining access to the goods or services in question, and that are made available to the public at large. Such general conditions of access include inter alia prices, payment conditions and delivery conditions. They can be made available to the public at large by or on behalf of the trader through various means, such as information published in advertisements, on websites or pre-contractual or contractual documentation. Such conditions apply in the absence of an individually negotiated agreement to the contrary entered into directly between the trader and the customer. Terms and conditions that are individually negotiated between the trader and the customers should not be considered general conditions of access for the purposes of this Regulation.
Amendment 59 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Both consumers and undertakings should be safeguarded from discrimination for reasons related to their nationality, place of residence or place of establishment when acting as customers for the purposes of this RegulationCustomers' purchasing power being linked to businesses' freedom to conduct business, and by extension, to their rights to establish justified differential treatments, they should each be able to claim proportional and equal protection in the event of a dispute. However, that protection should not extend to customers purchasing a good or a service for resale, because it would affect widely used distribution schemes between undertakings in a business to business context, such as selective and exclusive distribution, which generally allow for manufacturers to select their retailers, subject to compliance with the rules on competition.
Amendment 60 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The effects for customers and on the internal market of discriminatoryof justified differential treatment in connection to commercial transactions relating to the sales of goods or the provision of services within the Union are the same, regardless of whether a trader is established in a Member State or in a third country. Therefore, and with a view to ensuring that competing traders are subject to the same requirements in this regard, the measures set out in this Regulation should apply equally to all traders operating within theMember States of the European Union.
Amendment 61 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 64 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Certain traders operate different versions of their online interfaces, targeting customers from different Member States. While tThis should remain possible, with redirecting a customer from one version of the online interface to another version without his or her explicit consent should be prohibited. All, taking care to inform the customer thereof, being possible. At least one versions of the online interface should remain easily accessible to the customer at all times.
Amendment 65 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In certain cases, blocking, limiting of access or redirection without the customer's consent to an alternative version of an online interface for reasons related to the customer's nationality, place or residence or place of establishment might be necessary in order to ensure compliance with a legal requirement in Union law or in thefirstly, national laws, of Member States in acr secorndance withrily, Union law. Such laws can limit customers' access to certain goods or services, for instance by prohibiting the display of specific content in certain Member States. Traders should not be prevented from complying with such requirements and thus be able to block, limit the access or redirect certain customers or customers in certain territories to an online interface, insofar as that is necessary for that reason.
Amendment 66 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In a number of specific situations, any differences in the treatment of customers through the application of general conditions of access, including outright refusals to sell goods or to provide services, for reasons related to the customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment cannot bare objectively justified. In those situations, all such discrimination should be prohibited and customerpreferential treatment may be applied and the business should consequently be entitled, under the specific conditions laid down in this Regulation, to engage insubject commercial transactions under the same conditions as a local customer and have full and equalto conditions in view of these objective reasons, and thus potentially restrict access to any of the different goods or services offered irrespective of theiron the basis of the customer's nationality, place of residence or place of establishment. Where necessary, traderMember States should therefore take measures to ensure compliance with that prohibition of discrimination if otherwise the customers concerned would be precluded from having such full and equal access. However, the prohibition applicable is freedom of undertakings. Moreover, continuing those situations should not be understood as precludingo ensure that traders fromcan directing their activities at different Member States or certain groups of customers with targeted offers and differing terms and conditions, including through the setting- up of country-specific online interfaces, is essential.
Amendment 67 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The first of those situations iIn cases where the trader sells goods and there is no cross-border delivery of thoese goods by or on behalf of the trader to the Member State where the customer resides. In that situation the customer should be ab, the trader is entitled to purchase goods, under exactly the sameset sales conditions, including price and conditions relating to the delivery of the goods, as similardifferent from those of customers who are residents of the Member State of the trader. That may mean that a foreign customer will have toe trader may, furthermore, if he so wishes, offer the customer the option of picking up the good in that Member State, or in a different Member State to which the trader delivers. In this situation, there is no need to register for value added tax ("VAT") in the Member State of the customer, nor arrange for the cross-border delivery of goods.
Amendment 67 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) TIt should be ensured that this Regulation shoulddoes not affect acts of Union law concerning judicial cooperation in civil matters, notably the provisions on the law applicable to contractual obligations and on jurisdiction set out in Regulations (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council24 and (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 , including the application of those acts and provisions in individual cases. In particular, the mere fact that a trader acts in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation should not be construed as implying that he directs his activities to the consumer's Member State for the purpose of such application. _________________ 24 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6). 25 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1).
Amendment 70 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The second situation iIn cases where the trader provides electronically supplied services, other than services the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter, such as cloud services, data warehousing services, website hosting and the provision of firewalls. In this case, no physical delivery is required, as the services are being supplied electronically. The trader canmay declare and pay the VAT in a simplified manner in accordance with the rules on VAT Mini-One-Stop-Shop (MOSS) set out in Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/201126 . _________________ 26Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 77, 23.3.2011, p. 1)ccordance with the national law of the Member State in which he is established.
Amendment 71 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Finally, in the situation where the trader provides services and those services are received by the customer in the premises of or at a location chosen by the trader and different from the Member State of which the customer is a national or in which the customer has his or her place of residence or place of establishment, the application of different general conditions of access for reasons related to such criteria should notmay also be justified either. Those situations concern, as the case may be, the provision of services such as hotel accommodation, sport events, car rental, and entry tickets to music festivals or leisure parks. In those situations, the trader does not have to register for VAT in another Member State nor arrange for cross-border delivery of goods.
Amendment 71 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The discriminatory practices that this Regulation seeks to addressjustified differential treatments covered by this Regulation typically take place through general terms, conditions and other information set and applied by or on behalf of the trader concerned, as a precondition for obtaining access to the goods or services in question, and that are made available to the public at large. Such general conditions of access include inter alia prices, payment conditions and delivery conditions. They can be made available to the public at large by or on behalf of the trader through various means, such as information published in advertisements, on websites or pre-contractual or contractual documentation. Such conditions apply in the absence of an individually negotiated agreement to the contrary entered into directly between the trader and the customer. Terms and conditions that are individually negotiated between the trader and the customers should not be considered general conditions of access for the purposes of this Regulation.
Amendment 73 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) In all those situations, traders may in some cases be prevented from selling goods or providing services to certain customers or to customers in certain territories, for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer, as a consequence of a specific prohibition or a requirement laid down in Union law or in thethe national laws of Member States in acand, as a secorndance withry consideration, in Union law. Laws of Member States may also require, in accordance with Union law, traders to respect certain rules on the pricing of books. Traders should not be prevented from complying with such laws in as far as necessary.
Amendment 74 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) Under Union law, traders are in principlTraders are free to decide which means of payment they wish to accept, including payment brands. However, oOnce this choice has been made, in view of the existing legal framework for payment services, there are no reasons for traders to discriminate customers within the Unioncustomers within the Union may take differential treatment measures which are justified, either by refusing certain commercial transactions, or by otherwise applying certain different conditions of payment in respect of those transactions, for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer. In this particular context, such unjustified unequdifferential treatment formay be based on reasons related to the location of the payment account, the place of establishment of the payment service provider or the place of issue of the payment instrument within the Union should be expressly prohibited as well. It should be further recalled that Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 already prohibits all payees, including traders, from requiring bank accounts to be located in a certain Member State for a payment in euro to be accepted.
Amendment 75 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Directive 2015/2366/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council28 introduced strict security requirements for the initiation and processing of electronic payments, which reduced the risk of fraud for all new and more traditional means of payment, especially online payments. Payment service providers are obliged to apply so-called strong customer authentication, an authentication process that validates the identity of the user of a payment service or of the payment transaction. For remote transactions, such as online payments, the security requirements go even further, requiring a dynamic link to the amount of the transaction and the account of the payee, to further protect the user by minimising the risks in case of mistakes or fraudulent attacks. As a result of these provisions, the risk of payment fraud in national and cross-border purchases is brought to an equal level and should not be used as an argument to refuse or discriminate any commercial transactions within the UnionIt is therefore desirable to continue to limit, in so far as possible, the risk of fraud, and, for that purpose, to leave traders free to take all legal measures that they consider necessary to minimise the risk of a fraudulent attack. _________________ 28 Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35– 127).
Amendment 75 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Both consumers and undertakings should be safeguarded from discrimination for reasons related to their nationality, place of residence or place of establishment when acting as customers for the purposes of this RegulationCustomers' purchasing power being linked to businesses' freedom to conduct business, and by extension, to their rights to establish justified differential treatments, they should each be able to claim proportional and equal protection in the event of a dispute. However, that protection should not extend to customers purchasing a good or a service for resale, because it would affect widely used distribution schemes between undertakings in a business to business context, such as selective and exclusive distribution, which generally allow for manufacturers to select their retailers, subject to compliance with the rules on competition.
Amendment 77 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
Amendment 77 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The effects for customers and on the internal market of discriminatoryof justified differential treatment in connection to commercial transactions relating to the sales of goods or the provision of services within the Union are the same, regardless of whether a trader is established in a Member State or in a third country. Therefore, and with a view to ensuring that competing traders are subject to the same requirements in this regard, the measures set out in this Regulation should apply equally to all traders operating within theMember States of the European Union.
Amendment 78 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) Where necessary, Member States should designate one or more bodies responsible for taking effective action to monitor and to secure compliance with the provision of this Regulationa balance between the rights of consumers and the freedom of undertakings. Member States should also ensube empowered that effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties can be imposed on traders in the event of any breach of this Regulationo take exceptional measures to combat unfair competition, fiscal dumping, risks of fraud or risks to national security arising from activities for the purpose of selling goods or services on-line.
Amendment 79 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Consumers should be in the position to receive assistance from responsible national authorities facilitating the resolution of conflicts with traders, arising from the application of this Regulation, including by way of a uniform complaint form.
Amendment 82 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) In order tot should be stressed that increaseing the possibility for customers to access information related to the sales of goods and the provision of services on the internal market and toand increaseing transparency, including with respect to prices, traders should not is most definitely necessary; however, traders, for reasons related to the promotion of local or national heritage, public safety, research and innovation, should be able, through the use of technological measures or otherwise, prevent customers from having full and equal access to online interfaces on the basis of their nationality, place of residence or place of establishment. Such technological measures can encompass, in particular, any technologies used to determine the physical location of the customer, including the tracking of that by means of IP address, coordinates obtained through a global navigation satellite system or data related to a payment transaction. However, that prohibition of discrimination with respect to accessMoreover, in accordance with the principle of freedom to conline interfaces should not be understood as creating anduct business, there should not be any obligation for the trader to engage in commercial transactions with customers.
Amendment 83 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) This Regulation should be regularly evaluated, with a view to proposing amendments where necessary. The first evaluation should concentrate, in particular, on the possible extension of the prohibition of Article 4(1)(b)Any ban on geoblocking or equivalent measures should never apply to electronically supplied services, the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter, provided that the trader has the requisite rights for the relevin the name of compliance with the principle of territoriality, the safeguarding of cultural diversity antd territorieshe promotion of cultural heritage.
Amendment 85 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
Amendment 85 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Certain traders operate different versions of their online interfaces, targeting customers from different Member States. While tThis should remain possible, with redirecting a customer from one version of the online interface to another version without his or her explicit consent should be prohibited. All, taking care to inform the customer thereof, being possible. At least one versions of the online interface should remain easily accessible to the customer at all times.
Amendment 86 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 87 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 89 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) In order to achieve the objective of effectively addresst is necessary to maintain the principle of territoriality and the freedom of undertakings to take measures entailing direct and indirect discriminationfferential treatment based on the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of customers, it is appropriate to adopt a Regulation, which directly applies in all M. In this context, the national authorities seem ber States. This is necessary in order to guarantee the uniform application of the non- discrimination rules across the Union and their entering into force at the same time. Only a Regulation ensures the degree of clarity, uniformity and legal certainty which is necessary in order to enable customers to fully benefit from those rulest placed to adopt regulations, as these principles concern specific aspects of local and national production and the national rights of consumers.
Amendment 90 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 90 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In certain cases, blocking, limiting of access or redirection without the customer's consent to an alternative version of an online interface for reasons related to the customer's nationality, place or residence or place of establishment might be necessary in order to ensure compliance with a legal requirement in Union law or in thefirstly, national laws, of Member States in acr secorndance withrily, Union law. Such laws can limit customers' access to certain goods or services, for instance by prohibiting the display of specific content in certain Member States. Traders should not be prevented from complying with such requirements and thus be able to block, limit the access or redirect certain customers or customers in certain territories to an online interface, insofar as that is necessary for that reason.
Amendment 91 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 92 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In a number of specific situations, any differences in the treatment of customers through the application of general conditions of access, including outright refusals to sell goods or to provide services, for reasons related to the customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment cannot bare objectively justified. In those situations, all such discrimination should be prohibited and customerpreferential treatment may be applied and the business should consequently be entitled, under the specific conditions laid down in this Regulation, to engage insubject commercial transactions under the same conditions as a local customer and have full and equalto conditions in view of these objective reasons, and thus potentially restrict access to any of the different goods or services offered irrespective of theiron the basis of the customer's nationality, place of residence or place of establishment. Where necessary, traderMember States should therefore take measures to ensure compliance with that prohibition of discrimination if otherwise the customers concerned would be precluded from having such full and equal access. However, the prohibition applicable is freedom of undertakings. Moreover, continuing those situations should not be understood as precludingo ensure that traders fromcan directing their activities at different Member States or certain groups of customers with targeted offers and differing terms and conditions, including through the setting- up of country-specific online interfaces, is essential.
Amendment 93 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation seeks to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by preventing discriminationmaintain the principle of territoriality by acknowledging the justification for certain types of special treatment based, directly or indirectly, on the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of customers.
Amendment 97 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The first of those situations iIn cases where the trader sells goods and there is no cross-border delivery of thoese goods by or on behalf of the trader to the Member State where the customer resides. In that situation the custom, the trader should be abentitled to purchase goods, under exactly the same conditionset sales conditions for such customers, including price and conditions relating to the delivery of the goods, as similardifferent from those of customers who are residents of the Member State of the trader. That may mean that a foreign customer will have toe trader should, furthermore be able, if he so wishes, to offer the customer the option of picking up the good in that Member State, or in a different Member State to which the trader delivers. In this situation, there is no need to register for value added tax ("VAT") in the Member State of the customer, nor arrange for the cross-border delivery of goods.
Amendment 98 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Traders shall nomay, for reasons linked to the promotion of local or national heritage, public safety, research or innovation, introduce justified forms of special treatment, through the use of technological measures or otherwise, for example blocking or limiting customers' access to their online interface for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer.
Amendment 99 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Traders shall notmay, for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer, redirect customers to a version of their online interface that is different from the online interface which the customer originally sought to access, by virtue of its layout, use of language or other characteristics that make it specific to customers with a particular nationality, place of residence or place of establishment, unless the customer gives his or her explicit consent prior to such redirectiontaking care to inform the customer. At least one version of the online interface should remain easily accessible to the customer at all times.
Amendment 100 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. The prohibitiIn addition to the reasons set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply where the, blocking, limitation of access or redirection with respect to certain customers or to customers in certain territories ismay also be necessary in order to ensure compliance with a legal requirement in Unational law or in the laws of Member States in accordance with, alternatively, Union law.
Amendment 100 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The second situation is whereIf the trader provides electronically supplied services, other than services the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter, (such as cloud services, data warehousing services, website hosting and the provision of firewalls. In this case), no physical delivery is required, as the services are being supplied electronically. The trader can declare and pay the VAT in a simplified manner in accordance with the rules on VAT Mini-One-Stop-Shop (MOSS) set out in Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/201126 . _________________ 26Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 77, 23.3.2011, p. 1)ccordance with the national law of the Member State in which he is established.
Amendment 101 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where a trader blocks or limits access of customers to an online interface or redirects customers to a different version of the online interface in compliance with paragraph 4s 1 and 3, the trader shall provide a clear justification. That justification shall be given in the language of the online interface that the customer originally sought to access.
Amendment 102 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Traders shall notmay apply different general conditions of access to their goods or services, for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer, in the following situations:
Amendment 104 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Finally, in the situation where the trader provides services and those services are received by the customer in the premises of or at a location chosen by the trader and different from the Member State of which the customer is a national or in which the customer has his or her place of residence or place of establishment, the application of different general conditions of access for reasons related to such criteria shcould notalso be justified either. Those situations concern, as the case may be, the provision of services such as hotel accommodation, sport events, car rental, and entry tickets to music festivals or leisure parks. In those situations, the trader does not have to register for VAT in another Member State nor arrange for cross-border delivery of goods.
Amendment 105 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The prohibition set out in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall not apply to traders that are exempted from VAT on the basis of the provisions of Chapter 1 of Title XII of Directive 2006/112/ECtrader may declare and pay the VAT in accordance with the national law of the Member State in which he is established.
Amendment 106 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 107 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
With respect to sales of books, the prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not preclude traders frommay applying different prices to customers in certain territories in so far as they are required to do so under the laws of Member States in accordance with Union law.
Amendment 108 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – title
Article 5 – title
Special types of treatment for payment- related reasons
Amendment 109 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Traders shall not, formay, in an effort to minimise the risk of fraud, take any lawful measure they regard as necessary to minimise the risk of fraudulent attacks, citing reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer, the location of the payment account, the place of establishment of the payment service provider or the place of issue of the payment instrument withinin all the Member States of the Union, and thus apply different conditions of payment for any sales of goods or provision of services, where:
Amendment 111 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not preclude traders' possibility to requestIn addition, the trader shall be entitled to impose charges for the use of a card-based payment instrument for which interchanges fees are not regulated under Chapter II of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 and for those payment services to which Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 does not apply. Those charges shall not exceed the costs borne by the trader for the use of the payment instrument.
Amendment 111 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) In all those situations, traders may in some cases be prevented from selling goods or providing services to certain customers or to customers in certain territories, for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer, as a consequence of a specific prohibition or a requirement laid down in Union law or in thethe national laws of Member States in accordance withand, as a secondary consideration, in Union law. Laws of Member States may also require, in accordance with Union law, traders to respect certain rules on the pricing of books. Traders should not be prevented from complying with such laws in as far as necessary.
Amendment 112 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. EachWhere necessary, Member States shall designate a body one or more bodies responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation. Member States shall ensure that adequate and effective means exist with the body or bodies designated in order to enforce compliance with this Regulationaking effective action to monitor and to secure a balance between the rights of consumers and the freedom of undertakings.
Amendment 114 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall lay down the rules on the penalties applicable for infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasivould also be empowered to take exceptional measures to combat unfair competition, fiscal dumping, risks of fraud or risks to national security arising from activities for the purpose of selling goods or services on-line.
Amendment 114 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) Under Union law, traders are in principlTraders are free to decide which means of payment they wish to accept, including payment brands. However, oOnce this choice has been made, in view of the existing legal framework for payment services, there are no reasons for traders to discriminatey can introduce differentiated treatment of customers within the Union, where justified, by refusing certain commercial transactions, or by otherwise applying certain different conditions of payment in respect of those transactions, for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer. In this particular context, such unjustified unequal treatment fordifferentiated treatment may be based on reasons related to the location of the payment account, the place of establishment of the payment service provider or the place of issue of the payment instrument within the Union should be expressly prohibited as well. It should be further recalled that Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 already prohibits all payees, including traders, from requiring bank accounts to be located in a certain Member State for a payment in euro to be accepted.
Amendment 115 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Directive 2015/2366/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council28 introduced strict security requirements for the initiation and processing of electronic payments, which reduced the risk of fraud for all new and more traditional means of payment, especially online payments. Payment service providers are obliged to apply so-called strong customer authentication, an authentication process that validates the identity of the user of a payment service or of the payment transaction. For remote transactions, such as online payments, the security requirements go even further, requiring a dynamic link to the amount of the transaction and the account of the payee, to further protect the user by minimising the risks in case of mistakes or fraudulent attacks. As a result of these provisions, the risk of payment fraud in national and cross-border purchases is brought to an equal level and should not be used as an argument to refuse or discriminate any commercial transactions within the UnionFurther steps should therefore be taken to minimise the risk of fraud, and, with that aim in view, to leave traders free to take any legal measures they consider necessary to minimise the risk of a fraudulent attack. _________________ 28 Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35– 127).
Amendment 116 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall confer resConsumers should be in the ponsibility for providing practical assistance to consumers to a body or bodies in case of a dispute between a consumer and ation to receive assistance from competent national authorities with responsibility for facilitating the resolution of disputes with traders arising from the application of this Regulation. Each Member State shall designate a body or bodies responsible for that task, including by way of a single national complaint form.
Amendment 117 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The bodies referred to in paragraph 1 shall offer consumers a uniform national model form to file complaints to the bodies referred to in paragraph 1 and in Article 7(1). The Ccommissionpetent national authorities shall assist those bodies in developing this model form.
Amendment 118 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. By [date: two years after the entry into force of this Regulation] and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall report on the evaluation of this Regulation to the Member States, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. That report shall, where necessary, be accompanied by a proposal for an amendment of this Regulation, in light of legal, technical and economic developments.
Amendment 118 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
Amendment 120 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) Where necessary, Member States should designate one or more bodies responsible for taking effective action to monitor and to secure compliance with the provision of this Regulationa balance between the rights of consumers and the freedom of undertakings. Member States should also ensube empowered that effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties can be imposed on traders in the event of any breach of this Regulationo take exceptional measures to combat unfair competition, fiscal dumping, risks of fraud or risks to national security arising from the activity of selling goods or services on-line.
Amendment 123 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The first evaluation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be carried out, in particular, with a view to assessing whether the prohibition of Article 4(1)(b)Any ban on geoblocking or equivalent measures should alsonever apply to electronically supplied services, the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter, provided that the trader has the requisite rights for the relevin the name of compliance with the principle of territoriality, the safeguarding of cultural diversity antd territorieshe promotion of cultural heritage.
Amendment 125 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Consumers should be in the position to receive assistance from responsible national authorities facilitating the resolution of conflicts with traders, arising from the application of this Regulation, including by way of a uniform complaint form.
Amendment 129 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) This Regulation should be regularly evaluated, with a view to proposing amendments where necessary. The first evaluation should concentrate, in particular, on the possible extension of the prohibition of Article 4(1)(b)Any ban on geoblocking or equivalent measures should never apply to electronically supplied services, the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter, provided that the trader has the requisite rights for the relevin the name of compliance with the principle of territoriality, the safeguarding of cultural diversity antd territorieshe promotion of cultural heritage.
Amendment 135 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
Amendment 137 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 138 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 140 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) In order to achieve the objective of effectively addressingt is necessary to maintain the principle of territoriality and the freedom of undertakings to use direct andor indirect discriminationfferentiated treatment based on the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of customers, it is appropriate to adopt a Regulation, which directly applies in all Member States. This is necessary in order to guarantee the uniform application of the non- discrimination rules across the Union and their entering into force at the same time. Only a Regulation ensures the degree of clarity, uniformity and legal certainty which is necessary in order to enable customers to fully benefit from those rule. In this context, the national authorities seem to be best placed to take measures, given that these principles concern specific aspects of local and national production and the national rights of consumers.
Amendment 142 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 144 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 150 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation seeks to contribute to the proper functionmaintain the principle of territoriality by acknowledging of the internal market by preventing discriminationjustification for certain types of differentiated treatment based, directly or indirectly, on the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of customers.
Amendment 172 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Traders shall nomay, for reasons linked to the promotion of local or national heritage, public safety, research or innovation, introduce justified differentiated treatment, through the use of technological measures or otherwise, for example blocking or limiting customers' access to their online interface for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer.
Amendment 175 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Traders shall notmay, for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer, redirect customers to a version of their online interface that is different from the online interface which the customer originally sought to access, by virtue of its layout, use of language or other characteristics that make it specific to customers with a particular nationality, place of residence or place of establishment, unless the customer gives his or her explicit consent prior to such redirectiontaking care to inform the customer. At least one version of the online interface must remain easily accessible to the customer at all times.
Amendment 180 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. The prohibitiIn addition to the reasons set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply where the, blocking, limitation of access or redirection with respect to certain customers or to customers in certain territories ismay also be necessary in order to ensure compliance with a legal requirement in Unational law or in the laws of Member States in accordance with, alternatively, Union law.
Amendment 183 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where a trader blocks or limits access of customers to an online interface or redirects customers to a different version of the online interface in compliance with paragraph 4s 1 and 3, the trader shall provide a clear justification. That justification shall be given in the language of the online interface that the customer originally sought to access.
Amendment 186 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Traders shall notmay apply different general conditions of access to their goods or services, for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer, in the following situations:
Amendment 197 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The prohibition set out in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall not apply to traders that are exempted from VAT on the basis of the provisions of Chapter 1 of Title XII of Directive 2006/112/ECtrader may declare and pay the VAT in accordance with the national law of the Member State in which he is established.
Amendment 199 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 204 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
With respect to sales of books, the prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not preclude traders frommay applying different prices to customers in certain territories in so far as they are required to do so under the laws of Member States in accordance with Union law.
Amendment 208 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – title
Article 5 – title
Amendment 209 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Traders shall not, formay, in an effort to minimise the risk of fraud, take any lawful measure they regard as necessary to minimise the risk of fraudulent attacks, citing reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer, the location of the payment account, the place of establishment of the payment service provider or the place of issue of the payment instrument withinin all the Member States of the Union, and thus apply different conditions of payment for any sales of goods or provision of services, where:
Amendment 211 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The prohibition set out in paragraph 1 shall not preclude traders' possibility to requestIn addition, the trader shall be entitled to impose charges for the use of a card-based payment instrument for which interchanges fees are not regulated under Chapter II of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 and for those payment services to which Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 does not apply. Those charges shall not exceed the costs borne by the trader for the use of the payment instrument.
Amendment 214 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. EachWhere necessary, Member States shall designate a body one or more bodies responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation. Member States shall ensure that adequate and effective means exist with the body or bodies designated in order to enforce compliance with this Regulationaking effective action to monitor and to secure a balance between the rights of consumers and the freedom of undertakings.
Amendment 215 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall lay down the rules on the penalties applicable for infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasivalso be empowered to take exceptional measures to combat unfair competition, fiscal dumping, risks of fraud or risks to national security arising from activities for the purpose of selling goods or services on-line.
Amendment 218 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall confer responsibility for providing practical assistance to consumers to a body or bodies in case of a dispute between a consumer and aConsumers must be able to receive assistance from competent national authorities which are responsible for facilitating the resolution of conflicts with traders arising from the application of this Regulation. Each Member State shall designate a body or bodies responsible for that task.
Amendment 221 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The bodies referred to in paragraph 1 shall offer consumers a uniform national model form to file complaints to the bodies referred to in paragraph 1 and in Article 7(1). The Ccommissionpetent national authorities shall assist those bodies in developing this model form.
Amendment 225 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. By [date: two years after the entry into force of this Regulation] and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall report on the evaluation of this Regulation to the Member States, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. That report shall, where necessary, be accompanied by a proposal for an amendment of this Regulation, in light of legal, technical and economic developments.
Amendment 229 #
2016/0152(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The first evaluation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be carried out, in particular, with a view to assessing whether the prohibition of Article 4(1)(b)Any ban on geo-blocking or equivalent measures should alsonever apply to electronically supplied services, the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter, provided that the trader has the requisite rights for the relevin the name of compliance with the principle of territoriality, the safeguarding of cultural diversity antd territorieshe promotion of cultural heritage.
Amendment 102 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 53(1) and 62, Article 62 and Article 168 thereof,
Amendment 106 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
Amendment 116 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to ensure the effective implementation of this Directive, it is crucial for Member States to keep up-to- date records of the audiovisual media service providers and video-sharing platform providers under their jurisdiction and regularly share those records with their competent independent regulatory authorities and the Commission. Those records should include information about the criteria on which jurisdiction is based.
Amendment 117 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Establishing jurisdiction requires an assessment of factual situations against the criteria laid down in Directive 2010/13/EU. The assessment of such factual situations might lead to conflicting results. In the application of the cooperation procedures provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2010/13/EU, it is important that the Commission can base its findings on reliable facts. The European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) should therefore be empowered to provide opinions on jurisdiction upon the Commission's request.
Amendment 125 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 136 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) In order to empower viewers, including parents and minors, in making informed decisions about the content to be watched, it is necessary that audiovisual media service providers provide Member States with sufficient information about content that may impair minors' physical, mental or moral development. This could be done, for instance, through a system of content descriptors indicating the nature of the content. Content descriptors could be delivered through written, graphical or acoustic means.
Amendment 158 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to remove barriers to the free circulation of cross-border services within the Union, it is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of self- and co-regulatory measures aiming, in particular, at protecting consumers or public health. When well enforced and monitored, incentivising codes of conduct at Union level might be a good means of ensuring a more coherent and effective approach.
Amendment 171 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The market for TV broadcasting has evolved and that there is a need for more flexibility with regard to audiovisual commercial communications, in particular for quantitative rules for linear audiovisual media services, product placement and sponsorship. The emergence of new services, including without advertising, has led to a greater choice for viewers, who can easily switch to alternative offers.
Amendment 185 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) The liberalisation of product placement has not brought about the expected take-up of this form of audiovisual commercial communication. In particular, the general prohibition of product placement with some exceptions has not created legal certainty for audiovisual media service providers. Product placement should thus be allowed in all audiovisual media services, subject to exceptionorder to safeguard editorial independence and the protection of consumers, in particular children, but also the elderly and persons with a disability, Member States should maintain the ban on product placement, in keeping with their national public policy priorities.
Amendment 188 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) PWhat is more, it should be emphasised that product placement should not be admissible in news and current affairs programmes, consumer affairs programmes, religious programmes, cultural and educational programmes, family programmes, such as entertainment broadcasts, children’s programmes and programmes with a significant children’s audience. In particular, evidence shows that product placement and embedded advertisements can affect children’s behaviour as children are often not able to recognise the commercial content. There is thus a need to continue to prohibit product placement in children’s programmes and programmes with a significant children’s audience. Consumer affairs programmes are programmes offering advice to viewers, or including reviews on the purchase of products and services. Allowing product placement in such programmes would blur the distinction between advertising and editorial content for viewers who may expect a genuine and honest review of products or services in such programmes.
Amendment 220 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) While tThis Directive does not increase the overall amount of admissible advertising time during the period from 7:00 to 23:00, i. It is important, for broadcasters to have more flexibility and to be able to decide when to place advertising in order to maximise advertisers' demand and viewers' flow. The hourly limit should thus be abolished while a daily limit of 20%reasons relating to public health and the safeguarding of the quality of audiovisual programmes and therefore the credibility with viewers of the services which provide such programmes, to maintain restrictions ofn advertising within the period from 7:00 to 23:00 should be introduced, at the discretion of the Member States, in keeping with their public health and cultural policy objectives.
Amendment 230 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Providers of on-demand audiovisual media services should promote the production and distribution of European works by ensuring that their catalogues contain a minimum share of European works and that those are given enough prominence, in keeping with the national requirements laid down in the Member State in which their services are available.
Amendment 241 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) In order to ensure adequate levels of investment on European works, Member States should be able, if necessary, to impose financial obligations to on-demand service providers established on their territory. Those obligations can take the form of direct contributions to the production of and acquisition of rights in European works. The Member States could also impose levies payable to a fund, on the basis of the revenues made with on- demand services that are provided in and targeted towards their territory. Notwithstanding any audiovisual content they may offer, online news publications should not be subject to the above- mentioned obligations, so as not to infringe the freedom of the press and the pluralism of the media; This Directive clarifies that, given the direct link between financial obligations and Member States' different cultural policies, Member States are also allowed to impose such financial obligations on providers of on-demand services established in another Member State which are targeted towards its territory. In this case financial obligations should only be charged on the revenues generated through the audience in that Member State.
Amendment 249 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) In order to ensure that obligations on promotion of European works do not undermine market development and to allow for the entry of new players in the market, companies with no significant presence on the market should not be subject to such requirements. This is in particular the case for companies with a low turnover and low audiences, very small, small and medium enterprises (VSEs/SMEs), and small and micro enterprises as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC33. It could also be inappropriate to impose such requirements in cases where – given the nature or theme of the on-demand audiovisual media services– they would be impracticable or unjustified. __________________ 33 Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium- sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).
Amendment 256 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) There are new challenges, in particular in connection with video-sharing platforms, on which users - particularly minors - increasingly consume audiovisual content. In this context, harmful content and hate speech stored on video-sharing platforms have increasingly given rise to concern. It is necessary, in order to protect minors from harmful content and all citizens from content containing incitement to violence or hatred, to set out proportionate rules on those matters. rules on those matters which are proportionate but which guarantee, among other things, the absolute protection of the freedom of expression as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council of 1 July 2016 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet (A/HRC/32/L.20), and additionally defined by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 265 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) An important share of the content stored on video-sharing platforms is not under the editorial responsibility of the video-sharing platform provider. However, those providers typically determine the organisation of the content, namely programmes or user-generated videos, including by automatic means or algorithms. Therefore, those providers should, with due respect for their editorial independence and for the principle of the freedom of expression as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council of 1 July 2016 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet (A/HRC/32/L.20), and additionally defined by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be required to take appropriate measures to protect minors from content that may impair their physical, mental or moral development and protect all citizennationals of Member States from incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to sex, race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.
Amendment 290 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) It is appropriate to involve the video-sharing platform providers as much as possible when implementing the appropriate measures to be taken pursuant to this Directive. Co-regulation should therefore be encouraged. With a view to ensuring a clear and consistent approach in this regard across the Union, Member States should not be entitled to require video-sharing platform providers to take stricter measures to protect minors from harmful content and all citizens from content containing incitement to violence or hatred than the ones provided for in this Directive. HoweverFurthermore, it should remain possible for Member States to take such stricter measures where that content is illegal, provided that they comply with Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC, and to take measures with respect to content on websites containing or disseminating child pornography, as required by and allowed under Article 25 of Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and the Council35. It should also remain possible for video-sharing platform providers to take stricter measures on a voluntary basis __________________ 35 Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 1).
Amendment 303 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) When taking the appropriate measures to protect minors from harmful content and to protect all citizens from content containing incitement to violence or hatred in accordance with this Directive, the applicable fundamental rights, as, the applicable fundamental rights, as defined by the written or unwritten constitutions of the Member States and additionally laid down in the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union, should be carefully balanced. That concerns in particular, as the case may be, the right to respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, the prohibition of discrimination and the right of the child.
Amendment 311 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The video-sharing platform providers covered by this Directive provide information society services within the meaning of point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 2000/31/EC. Those providers are consequently subject to the rules on the internal market set out in Article 3 of that Directive, if they are established in a Member State. It is appropriate to ensure that the same rules apply to video-sharing platform providers which are not established in a Member State with a view to safeguarding the effectiveness of the measures to protect minors and citizennationals of Member States set out in this Directive and ensuring a level playing field in as much as possible, in as far as those providers have either a parent company or a subsidiary which is established in a Member State or where those providers are part of a group and another entity of that group is established in a Member State. To that effect, arrangements should be made to determine in which Member State those providers should be deemed to have been established. The Member States and the Commission should be informed of the providers under each Member State's jurisdiction in application of the rules on establishment set out in this Directive and in Directive 2000/31/EC.
Amendment 316 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) Regulatory authorities of the Member States can achieve the requisite degree of structural independence only if established as separate legal entities. Member States should therefore guarantee the independence of the national regulatory authorities from both the government, public, mixed and private bodies and the industry with a view to ensuring the impartiality of their decisions. This requirement of independence should be without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to establish regulators having oversight over different sectors, such as audiovisual and telecom. National regulatory authorities should be in possession of the enforcement powers and resources necessary for the fulfilment of their tasks, in terms of staffing, expertise and financial means. The activities of national regulatory authorities established under this Directive should ensure respect for the objectives of media pluralism, cultural diversity, and consumer protection, the internal market and the promotion of fair competition.
Amendment 319 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) ERGA has made a positive contribution towards consistent regulatory practice and has provided high level advice to the Commission on implementation matters. This calls for the formal recognition and reinforcement of its role in this Directive. The group should therefore be re-established by virtue of this Directive.
Amendment 323 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) The Member States and the Commission should be free to consult ERGA on any matter relating to audiovisual media services and video- sharing platforms. ERGA should assist the Member States and the Commission by providing its expertise and advice and by facilitating exchange of best practices. In particular, the Commission should consult ERGA in the application of Directive 2010/13/EU with a view to facilitating its convergent implementation across the Digital Single Market. Upon Upon the request of the Member States and the Commission's request, ERGA should provide opinions, including on jurisdiction and Union codes of conduct in the area of protection of minors and hate speech as well as audiovisual commercial communications for foods high in fat, salt/sodium and sugars.
Amendment 337 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particularby the written and unwritten constitutions of the Member States and, additionally, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Directive seeks to ensure full respect for the right to freedom of expression, the freedom to conduct a business, the right to judicial review and to promote the application of the rights of the child enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in the written and unwritten constitutions of the Member States, and additionally in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 342 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) The right to access political news programmes is crucial to safeguard the fundamental freedom to receive information and to ensure that the interests of viewers in the Member States of the Union are fully and properly protected. Given the ever growing importance of audiovisual media services for societies and democracy, broadcasts of political news shouldmight, to the best extent possible, and without prejudice to copyright rules, be made available cross- border inin the various Member States of the EU.
Amendment 463 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure freedom of reception and shall notmay restrict retransmissions on their territory of audiovisual media services from other Member States for reasons which fall within the fields coordinated by this Directive, provided that they give reasons to justify doing so.
Amendment 471 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) prejudices or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public morality, public policy or public security, including the safeguarding of national security and defence; or
Amendment 475 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) prejudices or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public health, the lives of people and animals or the preservation of plants.
Amendment 480 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) during the 126 months preceding the notification referred to in point (b) of this paragraph, the media service provider has, in the opinion of the Member State concerned, contravened point (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 2 on at least two occasions;
Amendment 484 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(c) consultations with the Member State which has jurisdiction over the provider and the Commission have not produced an amicable settlement within one month of the notification provided for in point (b);
Amendment 490 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 496 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
‘That period shall begin on the day following the receipt of a complete notification. The notification shall be considered as complete if, within three months from its receipt, or from the receipt of any additional information requested, the Commission does not request any further information.’
Amendment 497 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 499 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
‘If, at the meeting of the dispute resolution body, no settlement is arrived at with a view to halting the contraventions by the provider, the Member State concerned shall uphold the measures taken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3. In that case, the ad hoc dispute resolution body shall meet again within three months. If a settlement is arrived at, the Member State concerned shall put an end to the measures in question.’
Amendment 500 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 b (new)
‘If it is proven that the contraventions are occurring, the Member State which has jurisdiction over the provider shall do everything possible, in accordance with the means available to it, to halt them, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation.’
Amendment 507 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 7
Article 3 – paragraph 7
7. Without prejudice to the Member State’s possibility of proceeding with the measures referred to in paragraph 6, the Commission shall examine the compatibility of the notified measures with Union lawm in the shortest possible time. WThere it comes to the conclusion that the measures are incompatible with Union law, the Commission shall require the Member State concerned to refrain from taking any intended measures or urgently to put an end to those measures ad hoc dispute resolution body shall meet as soon as possible if this is necessary on grounds of urgency.
Amendment 516 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall remain free to require media service providers under their jurisdiction to comply with more detailed or stricter rules with regard to Articles 5, 6, 6a, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19 to 26, 30 and 30a, provided that such rules are in compliance with Union law.
Amendment 538 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) it has notified the Commission and the Member State in which the broadcaster is established and the Commission of its intention to take such measures while substantiating the grounds on which it bases its assessment;
Amendment 545 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) the Commission has decided, after having consulted ERGA, that the measures are compatible with Union law, in particular that assessments made by the Member State taking those measuresobjectively necessary, applied in a non-discriminatory manner and proportionate to the objectives pursued, and under paragraphs 2 and 3 are correctly founded.
Amendment 547 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall decidemake its assessment within 3 months following the notification provided for in point (a) of paragraph 4. That period shall begin on the day following the receipt of a complete notification. The notification shawill be considered as complete if, within 32 months from its receipt, or from the receipt of any additional information requested, the Commission does not request any further information.
Amendment 550 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
The Member State shall provide the information requested within a reasonable period, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation.
Amendment 551 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3
Where the Member State concerned does not provide the information requested within the period fixed by the Commission or provides incomplete information, the Commission shall take a decision that the measures taken by the Member State in accordance with paragraph 3 are incompatible with Union law. If the Commission decides that the measures are incompatible with Union lawnot objectively necessary, applied in a non-discriminatory manner or proportionate to the objectives pursued. If the Commission decides that they are not objectively necessary, applied in a non-discriminatory manner or proportionate to the objectives pursued, the Member State in question shall refrain from taking the intendedctify those measures.
Amendment 560 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point d
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
The CommissionMember States may ask ERGA to give an opinion on the drafts, amendments or extensions of those codes. The Commission may publish those codes as appropriate.
Amendment 573 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 6
Article 6
Member States shall ensure by appropriate means that audiovisual media services provided by media service providers under their jurisdiction do not contain any incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, while fully protecting freedom of expression as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Council resolution of 1 July 2016 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet (A/HRC/32/L.20) and, subsidiarily, as set out in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.;
Amendment 595 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 6 a – paragraph 3
Article 6 a – paragraph 3
3. The Member States, Commission and ERGA shall encourage media service providers to exchange best practices on co- regulatory systems across the Member States of the Union. Where appropriate, the Commission shall facilitate theMember States shall work together to development of Union codes of conduct as a means of encouragement, with the Commission playing a coordinating role if necessary.;
Amendment 635 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point a
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 9 – paragraph 2 –– subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 2 –– subparagraph 1
"2. Member States and subsidiarily the Commission shall encourage the development of self- and co-regulatory codes of conduct regarding inappropriatemust seek to effectively reduce the exposure of children and minors to audiovisual commercial communications, for aclcompanying or included in programmes with a significant children’s audience, ofholic beverages and for non-alcoholic foods and beverages containing nutrients and substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, excessive inthat are rich in fats, trans-fatty acids, salt or sodium and sugars. In the light of that objective, no such commercial communications should be broadcast between 6.00 a.m. and 11 p.m. Member Staktes of which in the overall diet are not recommended, in particular fat, trans- fatty acids, salt or sodium and sugarsand, subsidiarily, the Commission may seek to further reduce the exposure of minors to such commercial communications by encouraging the development of codes of conduct.
Amendment 647 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point a
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
The Member States, Commission and ERGA shall encourage the exchange of best practices on self- and co-regulatory systems across the Union. Where appropriate, the Commission shall facilitate the development of Union codes of conduct."Member States shall work together to develop incentivising Union codes of conduct, with the Commission playing a coordinating role if necessary;
Amendment 657 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point b
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. The Member States, Commission and ERGA shall encourage the exchange of best practices on self- and co-regulatory systems across the Union. If considWhered appropriate, the Commission shall facilitate the development of Union codes of conduct.";Member States shall work together to develop incentivising Union codes of conduct, with the Commission playing a coordinating role if necessary.
Amendment 682 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. PWhat is more, it should be emphasised that product placement shallould not be admissible in all audiovisual media services, except in news and current affairs programmes, consumer affairs programmes, religious programmes, cultural and educational programmes, family programmes, such as entertainment broadcasts, children’s programmes and programmes with a significant children'’s audience.
Amendment 695 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 723 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that providers of on-demand audiovisual media services under their jurisdiction secure at least a 230% share of European works in their catalogue and ensure prominence of these works., more if they so wish or at a level in line with their current requirements, and ensure prominence of these works. Member States shall also retain the possibility of ensuring that providers of on-demand audiovisual media services under their jurisdiction also propose a share of European works in their catalogue, with that share to be established by the Member States;
Amendment 743 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may require providers of on-demand audiovisual media services under their jurisdiction to contribute financially to the production of national and European works, including via direct investment in content and contributions to national funds. Member States may require providers of on-demand audiovisual media services, targeting audiences in their territories, but established in other Member States to make such financial contributions. In this case, the financial contribution shall be based only on the revenues earned in the targeted Member States. If the Member State where the provider is established imposes a financial contribution, it shall take into account any financial contributions imposed by targeted Member States. Any financial contribution shall comply with Union law, in particular with State aid rules.
Amendment 749 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall reportforward to the Commission by [date – no later than three years after adoption] at the latest and every two years thereafter on the implementation of paragraphs 1 and 2.
Amendment 764 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 a (new)
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
(15a) In Article 14, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 1. Each Member State may take measures in accordance with UnionCommunity law to ensure that broadcasters under its jurisdiction do not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded by that Member State as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State of the possibility of following such events by live coverage or deferred coverage on free television. If it does so, the Member State concerned shall draw up a list of designated events, national or non-national, which it considers to be of major importance for society. It shall do so in a clear and transparent manner in due time. In so doing the Member State concerned shall also determine whether these events should be available by whole or partial live coverage or, where necessary or appropriate for objective reasons in the public interest, whole or partial deferred coverage. (Amendment aimed at amending a provision within the existing legislation – Article 14(1) –Or. fr that was not referenced in the Commission proposal)
Amendment 765 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 b (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 b (new)
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
(15b) In Article 14, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: 2. Member States shall immediately notify to the Commission any measures taken or to be taken pursuant to paragraph 1. Within a period of three3 months from the notification, the Commission shall verify that such measures are compatible with Union lawobjectively necessary, applied in a non-discriminatory manner and proportionate to the objectives pursued and communicate them to the other Member States. It shall seek the opinion of the contact committee established pursuant to Article 29. It shall forthwith publish the measures taken in the Official Journal of the European Union and at least once a year the consolidated list of the measures taken by Member States. (Amendment aimed at amending a provision within the existing legislation – Article 14(2) –Or. fr that was not referenced in the Commission proposal)
Amendment 781 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
“The transmission of films made for television (excluding series, serials and documentaries), cinematographic works, excluding children’s films and those with a large child audience, and news programmes may be interrupted by television advertising and/or teleshopping once for each scheduled period of at least 20 minutes.”;
Amendment 796 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 23 – paragraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. TMember States shall, according to their priorities as regards public health and cultural and education policy, determine the legal limit for television advertising spots and teleshopping spots. It is, however, recommended that the daily proportion of television advertising spots and teleshopping spots within the period between 720:00 and 23:00 shallould not exceed 20%.
Amendment 830 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
“(ca) public service announcements and charity appeals.”;
Amendment 854 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 28 a – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 28 a – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) protect all citizens from content containing incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to sex, race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, while fully protecting freedom of expression as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Council resolution of 1 July 2016 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet (A/HRC/32/L.20) and, subsidiarily, as set out in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 932 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 28 a – paragraph 5
Article 28 a – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall notmay impose on video-sharing platform providers measures that are stricter than the measures referred to in paragraph 1 and 2. Member States shall not be precluded from imposing stricter measures with respect to illegal content. When adopting such measures, they shall respect the conditions set by applicable Union law, such as, where appropriate, those set in Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC or Article 25 of Directive 2011/93/EU.
Amendment 939 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 28 a – paragraph 7
Article 28 a – paragraph 7
7. The Member States, the Commission and ERGA shall encourage video-sharing platform providers to exchange best practices on co- regulatory systems across the Union. Where appropriate, the Commission shall facilitate the development of Union codes of conduct.Member States shall work together to develop incentivising Union codes of conduct, with the Commission playing a coordinating role if necessary;
Amendment 947 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 28 a – paragraph 8
Article 28 a – paragraph 8
8. Video-sharing platform providers or, where applicable, the organisations representing those providers in this respect shall submit to the CommissionMember States draft Union codes of conduct and amendments to existing Union codes of conduct. The CommissionMember States may request ERGA to give an opinion on the drafts, amendments or extensions of those codes of conduct. The Member States and, secondarily, the Commission may give appropriate publicity to those codes of conduct.
Amendment 1018 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 30 a – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 30 a – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) to advise and assist the Member States and the Commission in its work to ensure a consistent implementation in all Member States of the regulatory framework for audiovisual media services;
Amendment 1024 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 30 a – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 30 a – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) to advise and assist the Member States and the Commission as to any matter related to audiovisual media services within the Commission's competence. If justified in order to advise the Commission on certain issues, the group may consult market participants, consumers and end-users in order to collect the necessary information;
Amendment 1029 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 30 a – paragraph 3 – point e
Article 30 a – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) to give opinions, when requested by the Member States or the Commission, on the issues envisaged in Articles 2(5b), 6a(3), 9(2), 9(4) and on any matter relating to audiovisual media services, in particular on the protection of minors and incitement to hatred.";
Amendment 1037 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 23
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 23
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
The Member States shall inform the Commission shallof the monitor Member States'ing of the application of the Directive, including its application of co-regulation and self- regulation through codes adopted at national level.
Amendment 44 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) The effectiveness and efficacy of the mutual assistance mechanism should be improved. Information requested should be provided in a timely manner and the necessary enforcement measures should be adopted in a timely manner. The Commission should therefore set bindingcative time periods for competent authorities to reply to information and enforcement requests, and clarify procedural and other aspects of handling information and enforcement requests, by means of implementing measures,
Amendment 49 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Widespread infringements with a Union dimension may cause large scale harm to a majority of consumers in the Union. They therefore require a specific Union-level coordination procedure with the Commission as the mandatory coordinator. To ensure that the procedure is launched in a timely, coherent and effective manner and that the conditions are verified in a uniform manner, the Commission should be in charge of verifying whether the conditions for the launch of the procedure are fulfilled. Evidence and information collected during the common action should be used seamlessly in national proceedings when required,
Amendment 53 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
Amendment 102 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5
Article 11 – paragraph 5
Amendment 105 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Article 12 – paragraph 4
4. The requested authority shall reply to the request using the procedures for requests for enforcement measures and within the time limits set outindicated by the Commission in the implementing act.
Amendment 106 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Amendment 108 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6
Article 13 – paragraph 6
Amendment 113 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 7
Article 15 – paragraph 7
Amendment 121 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20
Article 20
Amendment 131 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27
Article 27
Amendment 133 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Amendment 135 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4
Article 32 – paragraph 4
Amendment 136 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 6
Article 34 – paragraph 6
Amendment 143 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 5
Article 35 – paragraph 5
Amendment 145 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 2
Article 36 – paragraph 2
Amendment 152 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 4
Article 37 – paragraph 4
Amendment 155 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 3
Article 39 – paragraph 3
Amendment 160 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4
Article 43 – paragraph 4
Amendment 166 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2
Article 46 – paragraph 2
Amendment 41 #
2016/0130(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) It is necessary to take smart protectionist measures to deal with any social dumping by third countries that do not have the same concern for protecting the health of their workers.
Amendment 72 #
2015/2352(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 83 #
2015/2352(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 1 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
— having regard to Articles 6, 165 and 166 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
Amendment 10 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas young people should be helped to tackle the challenges they face through a more coordinated and targeted use of resources at national and EU level; whereas, however, as the Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field makes clear, youth unemployment cannot be tackled without deep-rooted structural reforms, including a revision of the austerity policies which have destroyed jobs in most European countries;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas there is a need to reinforce the mainstreaming of youth policy andrequires cross sectorial cooperation within the EU in order to guarantee that policy making takes into account young people’s situations and needs;
Amendment 49 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the 2015 ‘Youth Report’ based on the Commission communication on the implementation of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018) of 15 September 2015, with the main results of the latest 3- year cycle of the EU Youth Strategy and proposing priorities for the next cycle (COM(2015)0492hich shows that so far the EU has failed to resolve the issue of youth unemployment: in some Member States the youth unemployment rate remains very high (50.1% in Greece), while in others, such as France, it has increased since the Youth Employment Initiative was established (21.5% in 2011 compared with 22.8% in 2014);
Amendment 55 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Views the Open Method of Coordination as an appropriate means for framing youth policies; reiterates its call for closer cooperation on youth issues at local, regional, national and EU level, in compliance with the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 59 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. StresRecognises the importance of the Structured Dialogue as a means of listening to young people, both youth organisations and non- organised individuals, about their real needs in order to conduct the implementation and development of youth policies more effectively at all levels and to foster active citizenship among young people; stresses, however, that the development of these policies should also take into account tried and tested experience, national education priorities and the intergenerational dialogue, as the older generation have much to pass on, especially in the areas of learning and training;
Amendment 71 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the importance of the role of family and its cooperation with schools, local communities and churches to guide young people towards full integration in society; points out that too often teachers and professors are having to act as replacement parents in areas where the family unit has proved inadequate, and that this additional role can undermine the status and profession of teacher;
Amendment 84 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the Member States to provide effective training in the national language, in according to the principles of multilingualism and non-discrimination and based on national legislation and European principles, and to maintain educational institutions that teach in the mother tongue of national or language minoritiesance with national law, given that, according to the indicators contained in the report entitled Education at a Glance 2015, on average across all OECD countries, an individual with the right skills in reading and writing will be 4.2 times more likely to find a job than an individual with little skill in this area;
Amendment 105 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for better coordination between education and training curricula and the needs of the changing labour markets; stresses, however, that while better coordination is necessary, it will not address the problem of job shortages, and that the main need is to implement structural reforms, including a revision of the posted workers directive, the actual effect of which has been to create social dumping, meaning that in some sectors young people are having to face unfair competition from labour which is 30% to 50% cheaper;
Amendment 118 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the need to include elements of entrepreneurial learning at all levels of education and training and the need to promote and uphold policies to foster youth entrepreneurship in the cultural and creative field in order to create jobs; stresses that the process of setting up a business differs greatly from one Member State to another, and that in some countries it is still very complicated for young entrepreneurs to start a business, particularly owing to administrative difficulties, problems obtaining credit and the burdens imposed by labour legislation;
Amendment 148 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Emphasises the importance of addressing skills shortages and mismatches by promot; points out that mobility for learners can be a good tool for training and facilitating mobility for learners through a better use of all EU tools and programmes; quiring new skills but that consideration should be given to the problems of 'brain drain' to which mobility programmes may give rise, depriving certain Member States of the human and economic resources which are essential to their prosperity;
Amendment 180 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Encourages the Member States to make full use of the Erasmus+ programme in order to improve the employment prospects of young people, foster cross- borde, which enables young people to gain new experiences and new skills, but stresses that mobility alone cannot solve the problem of unemployment and that priority should be given first to matching skills with the needs of the labour cmareer and labour mobilityket, enhancing learning and improving the acquisition of basic knowledge;
Amendment 186 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Urges the Member States to take the necessary measures to implement the Youth Guarantee scheme; calls for continued political commitment to thHas some doubts still about the effectiveness of the Youth Guarantee scheme; points out that that this scheme was originally designed to ensure sustainable labour-market integration through high quality offers, but that in some Ycouth Guarantee as a long-term, structural reform, ensuring sustainable labour-market integration through ntries, such as France, 75% of 'future-oriented jobs' are in the non-profit sector or lead to training only in a third of cases; calls for all youth initiatives not to lead in reality to insecure jobs for young people, whigch quality offersonly bring about a fictitious, short-term fall in unemployment;
Amendment 212 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses that young people’s voluntary activities, for example in the personal services sectors, should be supported and better recognised for their value as an important form of non-formal learning; emphasises, however, that these activities should not become a new tool for increasing the insecurity of youth employment;
Amendment 219 #
2015/2351(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Commission to take advantage of the dynamWelcomes the dynamism of young people's political participation through social media, but calls on the Commission to ensure that these platforms are no longer used for recruitment by terrorismt of social media in education, training and youth participationrganisations, given that, according to Europol, 46 000 Twitter accounts are regularly used by militants and sympathisers of the 'Islamic State' terrorist group;
Amendment 8 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 24 a (new)
Citation 24 a (new)
– noting that security and defence are matters relating to the national sovereignty of each Member State, it seems vital to operate on the basis of multilateral agreements validated via referendum in each Member State,
Amendment 13 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union is resolved to frame a common defence policy for the Member States, leading to a common defence which reinforces itsin order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and identity and autonomy in order to promote pean the world; noting that such an aim can only be achieved based around and in support of the only Member State armed forces capable of being deployed in all fields of action, and those are the French armed forces, securgiven that the British have opted for Brexity, and progress inthat the UK has furthermore opted for NATO, which is not a guarantee of independence and Europe and in the world defence;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Treaty on European Union clearpartially defines the objectives in the area of the CSDP – without defining the implementation arrangements – and the mechanisms and framework for their achievement;, and whereas very limited progress has been achieved in fulfilment of these objectivthere is therefore a need to pursue a realistic defence policy by calling on the Member States to support the special efforts made by the French armed forces;
Amendment 35 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the development of the CSDP requires shared values and common interests, and political will from the Member States, as well as the setting- up of robust institutional cooperation structures; whereas the CSDP should be a common policy and not a mere sum of the national policies of the Member Statesis not a philosophical issue, but patently an operational issue that calls for swift action and leaves no room whatsoever for prevarication; whereas the only effective response to the present dangers is that of the Member States providing genuine, reliable support to the two armies that are capable of immediate intervention and that have forces already in place all over the world;
Amendment 48 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the EU now has competence to define and implement a common security and defence policy that includes the progressive framing of a common Unionmust not under any circumstances render foreign and defence policy; whe procedureas the Union should use this competence to coordinate and supplement the actions of the Member States, without thereby prejudicing or superseding their competence in defencemore cumbersome, as that would hamper the effectiveness of the Member States concerned;
Amendment 68 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas EU citizens are calling for more European intervention in defence and security, with two thirds wishing to see greater EU engagement in matters of security and defence policy; whereas there is now an urgent need to identify what support can be provided to the French armed forces;
Amendment 72 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 84 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Parliament actively supports the European Defence Union and will continue to make appropriate proposals to that end; whereas the interparliamentary conference on the CFSP and CSDP should become the forum for the implementation of effective and regular interparliamentary cooperation on the CSDP and the progressive framing of a common Union defence policyforeign affairs and defence policies are related to issues involving the national sovereignty of each Member State; whereas this is not about forming a ‘pseudo’ army that would have neither the know-how nor the networks required to respond to the challenges of today, let alone those of tomorrow;
Amendment 98 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 100 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
Amendment 106 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the Union’s future annual and multiannual programming should include the defence policy; whereas the Commission should initiate the work on appropriate interinstitutional agreements, including an EU Defence White Book, for a first implementa of the Member States, with a view to the initial implementation of a genuine policy of support for the French armed forces, which are already constantly in action, under the next multiannual financial and political framework of the EU;
Amendment 111 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the European Parliament represents the European citizens and exercises legislative and budgetary functions as well as political control and consultation functionssubject to the sovereign powers of each Member State;
Amendment 116 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 124 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the EU Global Strategy should serve as a very clear and valuable strategic framework for the future development of the CSDPmust be developed in full agreement with the Member States that take the lead in the matters concerned;
Amendment 131 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the CSDP, as provided for in the Treaty on European Union (TEU), includes the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy that will lead to a future common defence when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides; calls on the Member States to commit as a matter of priority to the provisions of the TreaPoints out that the Member States enjoy national sovereignty and that historically there has not been equality among the CSDP, and to ensure tangible progress in the achievement of the objectivm in terms of armed forces asnd defined in those provisionsence;
Amendment 142 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the reform and innovation that the Lisbon Treaty brings to the CSDP does not constitute a sufficient and coherent framework and should set the path for a truly common policy, based on shared resources and capabilities as well as on coordinated planning at Union level; stresses that the progress of the CSDP within the current institutional and legal framework is dependent more on the political will of Member States than on legal considerations, but merely lays down the arrangements for cooperation among the countries concerned;
Amendment 151 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls, therefore, on the VP/HR, the Council and the Member States to use all the possibilities provided for in the Treaty, especially the mechanisms contained in Article 42(6) TEU and, Article 46 TEU on Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), and in Article 44 TEU on the implementation of a CSDP task by a group of Member States, in order to achieve a faster, more efficient and more flexible deployment of missions and operations;
Amendment 158 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 170 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 179 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 183 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 189 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 198 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 203 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 218 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is convinced that the Union’s security and defence will be stronger as we stand united behind the Member States with the armed forces and know-how that are needed; takes the view that the EU needs to develop an effective system for European burden-sharing for its own security and defence, which is not yet the case;
Amendment 223 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises thate importance of the security and defence constitute an area where European added value can be easily demonstrated, in terms of economic and efficiency gains, by giving Member States increased and more cost-effective capacity, through greater coherence, coordination and interoperabiof the Member States for increased cooperation as regards coordination and interoperability, but above all as regards helping consolidate solidarity and cohesion within the EU, on condition that this politcy in security and defence, as well as s pursued in a clear manner using terms of contributing to consolidating solidarityhe armed forces of the Member States that have the necessary infrastructure, know-how and cohresipon within the Unionse capabilities;
Amendment 240 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Underlines that the reinforcement of the CSDP in line with the Treaties will not impinge on national sovereignty as this policy is driven by the Member States; is convinced that there is no greater respect for their sovereignty than defending the territorial integrity of the European Union through a common defence policy;
Amendment 250 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the projected increase in national defence expenditure to 2 % of EU GDP; highlights that this would mean extra expenditure of nearly EUR 100 billion on defence by the end of the coming decade; considers that this boost should be used to launch more strategic cooperative programmes within and through the Union, by better structuring the demand and supply sides and making both sides more efficient and more effective;
Amendment 264 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is convinced that the experience gained by Member States' armed forces, in particular France's, and the Union’s investment in defence should ensure that all Member States can participate in a balanced, coherent and synchronised improvement of their military capabilities; considers that this constitutes a strategic opportunity for the Union to improve its security and defence;
Amendment 274 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Highlights the continued need for the establishment of a Council format of Member State Defence Ministers, in order to provide sustained political leadership and coordinate the implementation of the CSDP with the armed forces concerned;
Amendment 277 #
Amendment 279 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 285 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 289 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 292 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 295 #
Amendment 296 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 303 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 307 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 324 #
Amendment 325 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 338 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 345 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 358 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 367 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that the European Parliament should play a prominent role in the supervision of implementation and in the evaluation of the CSDP; insists that Parliament must be consulted on major decisions in the area of the CSDP, including regarding military missions and strategic defence operation conjunction with the Member State parliaments;
Amendment 376 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls in this regard on the VP/HR to give full effect to Article 36 TEU, by ensuring that the views of Pparliaments' views are duly taken into consideration in the framework of the consultation of Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the CSDP as part of the CFSP; calls for more information to be provided to Parliament on a more regular basis, with a view to strengthening the available parliamentary and political control mechanisms;
Amendment 380 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls for reinforced cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments, as a crucial element for developing concrete results in the area of the CSDP and for its legitimation; notes that such cooperation should not undermine the implementation of the CSDP and the achievement of its objectives as a Union policy;
Amendment 383 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
Amendment 386 #
Amendment 388 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 405 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 409 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
Amendment 414 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Supports the proposal for a Coordinated Annual Review on Defence, in the context of which Member States would coordinate their defence spending and capability plans, in an open process involving both the European Parliament and the national parliaments;
Amendment 419 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
Amendment 429 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Notes the European Defence Action Plan put forward by the Commission in November 2016; calls in this regard on the Commission to further clarify the governance and financing of the possible European Defence Fund; considers that the effective implementation of that plan requires strong support and political commitment from the Member States and the EU institutions; regrets in this regard that the Commission, the EDA and the Member States have not yet delivered on all the tasks resulting from the European Council meetings on defence of 2013 and 2015can be handled only by the Member States and, more specifically, by the leading Member State in the area;
Amendment 437 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
Amendment 445 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Underlines the need for deeper discussions on the future relation between the Union and the United Kingdom in CSDP matters, and in particular in the field of military capabilities, should the UK decide to trigger Article 50 TEU; considers that new command arrangements need to be found with regard to the Northwood Operational Headquarters for Operation Atalanta;
Amendment 450 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Calls on the Council and the VP/HR to ensure coordination at all levels of interaction: civilian and military, EEAS/ Commission, and EU/ Member States; welcomes the internal/external security nexus established by the Global Strategy, and calls on the VP/HR and the Commission to ensure coherence and ensure that the internal and external aspects of security are duly coordinated, including at administrative level and Member States;
Amendment 455 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
Amendment 458 #
2015/2343(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the governments of the Member States, the European Council, the Council, the Commission, and the Vice- President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Secretary- General of the United Nations, the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the EU agencies in the space, security and defence fields, and the national parliaments.
Amendment 4 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 6 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 7 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Framework Agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission provides for sharing of information concerning all infringement procedures based on letters of formal notice, but does not cover the informal EU Pilot procedure which precedes the opening of formal infringement proceedings;
Amendment 12 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 13 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recognises that the primary responsibility for the correct implementation and application of EU law lies with the Member States, but points out that this does not absolve the EU institutions of their duty to respectPoints out that the EU institutions are required to comply with EU primary EU law when they produceadopt secondary EU law or impose policies on the Member States;
Amendment 16 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out that the EU institutions are bound by the subsidiarity principle and must not encroach on the prerogatives of the Member States; calls for closer dialogue with the national parliaments, in particular when they express concerns about compliance with the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Calls on the Commission, when drafting and assessing legislation, to take greater account of the burden it may impose on SMEs;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the Commission’s 32nd ‘Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of EU Law’, and notes that environment, transport, and internal market and services were the policy areas in 2013 in which most infringement cases remained open in 2014;
Amendment 29 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses the need to maintain a high level of environmental protection and warns against the tendency to associate frequent instances of infringements with a need to reduce the level of ambition of environmental legislation;
Amendment 34 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 45 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Deplores, more specifically, the fact that there has been no follow-up to its call for binding rules in the form of a regulation setting out the various aspects of the infringement and pre-infringement procedure – including notifications, binding time limits, the right to be heard, the obligation to state reasons, and the right for every person to have access to his or her file – so as to reinforce citizens’ rightthe rights of natural or legal persons from the Member States and guarantee transparency;
Amendment 49 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls, in this context, that the Committee on Legal Affairs has set up a new Working Group on Administrative Law which has decided to elaborate an actual draft regulation on the administrative procedure of the Union’s administration as a ‘source of inspiration’ for the Commission, not in order to question the Commission’s right of initiative, but to show that such a regulation would be both useful and feasible to enacadopt;
Amendment 52 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that the intent of this draft regulation is not to replace existing EU legislation, but rather to supplement this when there are gaps, and to bring more clarity and coherence to the interpretation of existing rules, for the benefit of citizepersons and businesses from the Member States and of the administration and its officials;
Amendment 60 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 1 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
– having regard to Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union,
Amendment 2 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 b (new)
Citation 1 b (new)
– having regard to Protocol No 2 of the TEU on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,
Amendment 22 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the continued consideration ofRecalls that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which are guiding principles for the European Union when it chooses to act and that they must be respected; stresses that subsidiarity and democratic legitimacy are closely intertwined concepts; highlights that subsidiarity checks canmust be considered an important tool for reducing the so- called ‘democratic deficit’in line with Protocol No 2; points out that national parliaments have a vital and indispensable role to play in ensuring that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen;
Amendment 30 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the decrease in the number of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2014; points out, however, that such a decrease might be as a result of the declining number of legislative proposals by the Commission and not of a loss of interest on the part of national parliaments; draws attention toregrets the fact that in 2014 no Commission proposal received a sufficient number of reasoned opinions to trigger the ‘yellow’ or ‘orange card procedures’ under Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 37 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is seriously concerned by the fact that some national parliaments have highlighted that, in a number of the Commission’s legislative proposals, the justification of subsidiarity and proportionality is insufficient or non- existent in substance; stresses, in this connection, the need for the European institutions to make it possible for national parliaments to scrutinise legislative proposals by ensuring that the Commission provides detailed and comprehensive grounds for its legislative decisions on subsidiarity and proportionality, in accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 2 to the TFEU;
Amendment 43 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses concern that the Impact Assessment Board (‘IAB’) considered more than 32 % of impact assessments (‘IAs’) reviewed by them in 2014 to have included an unsatisfactory analysis of the principles of subsidiarity or proportionality, or both; considers this to be unacceptable; notes the crucial importance of impact assessments as tools for aiding decision-making in the legislative process, and stresses the need, in this context, for proper consideration to be given to issues relating to subsidiarity and proportionality; welcomnotes, in this connection, the package of better regulation measures adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015, which place new emphasis on subsidiarity and proportionality in the context of impact assessments; calls for these measures to be implemented immediately;
Amendment 50 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls concerns raised in previous reports regarding the somewhat perfunctory character of the annual reports on subsidiarity and proportionality prepared by the Commission, which too often fail to pay detailed consideration to how the principles of subsidiarity and, in particular, proportionality are observed in EU policy- making; calls on the Commission to urgently produce more analytical annual reports;
Amendment 55 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the reports made by a number of national parliaments as a valuable and indispensable contribution to the debate on the role of national parliaments in the EU decision-making process and takes note of the proposals included therein; notes, in this connection, that these reports suggest that reasoned opinions should not only concern compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, but also compliance with the principle of proportionality and the legal basis for the proposal; believes that the practicability of these proposals depends on a revision of the Treaties and the Protocols thereto; strongly encourages other national parliaments to share their views on the role that national parliaments should play in the EU decision-making process;
Amendment 64 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Suggests that in any review of the Treaties and the Protocols thereto consideration should be given to whether reasoned opinions should be limited to examining subsidiarity grounds, to the appropriate number of national parliament responses required to trigger a ‘yellow’ or ‘orange card’ procedure, and to what the effect should be in cases where the threshold for these procedures is reached; believes that consideration should be given to theit is vital to introduction ofe a ‘red card’ mechanism whereby the consideration of a proposal by the EU co- legislators should be stayed if a significant number of national parliaments expresses concern on subsidiarity groundone or several national parliaments believe that the proposal harms their vital interests, unless the proposal is amended to accommodate those concerns;
Amendment 71 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the request from a number of national parliaments to extend the eight-week period in which they can issue a reasoned opinion under Article 6 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; notes, in this regard, that the current timeframe for national parliaments to carry out subsidiarity checks is often deemed insufficient; considers that a twelve-week period would be more appropriate; at the beginning of the legislative procedure; notes additionally that it would be necessary to extend the period in which the national parliaments can issue a reasoned opinion to the entire duration of the legislative process, or at the very least to its mid-term and to its end.
Amendment 109 #
2015/2283(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that legislative proposals may change substantially in the course of the legislative procedure and, in this connection, reiterates that consideration should be given to the introduction of further subsidiarity checks and impact assessments should be introduced when a major amendment is likely to be adopted and at the conclusion of the legislative negotiations and in advance of the adoption of the final text, in order that compliance with subsidiarity can be guaranteed and that assessments including proportionality can be made;
Amendment 6 #
2015/2087(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas, given the current divergences in relation to limitation rules and the types of problems that are directly related to the disparate national provisions governing trans-national personal injury and damage to property cases, a certain level of harmonisation is the only wayhelps to ensure an adequate degree of certainty, predictability and simplicity in the application of Member States’ rules of limitation in cases of cross-border traffic accidents;
Amendment 96 #
2015/2086(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas there is currently no European provision for the recognition – whether automatic or otherwise – of domestic adoption orders, i.e. concerning adoptions which are carried out within a single Member State;
Amendment 114 #
2015/2086(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas it is therefore of the utmost importance to adopt legislation providing forfacilitating the automatic recognition in a Member State of a domestic adoption order granted in another Member State,
Amendment 124 #
2015/2086(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the authorities of the Member States to take all decisions in adoption matters with in mind their conception of public policy and the best interests of the child in mind, and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case;
Amendment 129 #
2015/2086(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that children who have been put up for adoption should not be seen asall be seen as individuals in their own right, placed, owing to their being minors, under the propertytection of athe state, but as individuals in which they reside;
Amendment 164 #
2015/2086(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes, nevertheless, that problems often occur concerning the issuance of adoption certificates; calls, therefore, on the authorities of the Member States to ensure that the procedures and safeguards established by the Hague Convention are always followed in order to ensure thfacilitate recognition is automatic;
Amendment 177 #
2015/2086(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 199 #
2015/2086(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. States that there is a clear need for legislation to provide forfacilitate the automatic cross- border recognition of domestic adoption orders;
Amendment 208 #
2015/2086(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that the requested proposal does not have negative financial implications, as the automaticfacilitating the recognition of adoption orders will reduce costs;
Amendment 2 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 14 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 22 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas differences exist between the Member States’ legal provisions concerning jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of protection measures for adults; whereas the diversity of applicable laws and the multiplicity of competent jurisdictions may affect the right of vulnerable adults to move freely and to reside in the Member State of their choice;
Amendment 43 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas mechanisms could be introduced to facilitate the recognition, registration and use of mandates in anticipation of incapacity throughout the European Union; whereas a single mandate in anticipation of incapacity form should be created at EU level in order to ensure that such mandates are effective in all the Member States;
Amendment 46 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas single EU forms could be introduced to foster the provision of information on protection decisions and the circulation, recognition and enforcement of those decisions; whereas any person who is given responsibility for protecting the person or the property of a vulnerable adult should have the right to be issued with a certificate specifying his or her status and the powers which have been conferred on him or her; whereas this certificate should be issued at his or her request within a reasonable period;
Amendment 49 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
Amendment 53 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Z
Recital Z
Amendment 54 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AA
Recital AA
AA. whereas the time which has elapsed since Parliament adopted its resolution of 18 December 2008 should have enabled the Commission to obtain sufficient information concerning the functioning of the Hague Convention in the Member States which have ratified it and to draw up the report called for by Parliament in that resolution; whereas such inertia by the Commission, which says a great deal concerning its contempt for Parliament, is unacceptable and has to be condemned;
Amendment 61 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Member States to make sure that the protection measures for which their national law makes provision can be tailored to the circumstances of each vulnerable adult, so that the competent national authorities can take proportionate individual protection measures, thereby ensuring that Union citizenvulnerable adults are not stripped of a legal right that they are still capable of exercising;
Amendment 67 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reminds the Commission and the Member States that not all vulnerable adults are necessarily vulnerable by virtue of their advanced age, and calls on them for measures to be taken to strengthen the legal protection and rights not only of elderly vulnerable adults, but also of adults who are vulnerable by virtue of a serious mental and/or physical disability;
Amendment 83 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Deplores strongly the fact that the Commission has failed to act on Parliament’s call that it should submit to Parliament and the Council in due course a report setting out details of the problems encountered and the best practices noted in connection with the application of the Hague Convention, a report which should also have outlined proposals for Union measures to clarify the procedures, or create new procedures, for applying the convention; takes the view that this report could have included a discussion of the practical problems encountered by the Commission in obtaining information on the application of the Hague Convention;
Amendment 85 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 91 #
2015/2085(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 9 #
2015/2084(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 17 #
2015/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the national laws currently protecting non-agricultural products give rise to different degrees of protection in Member States and whereas that fact poses a difficulty to effective protection in Europe as a wholee high level of protection afforded in certain Member States should be maintained;
Amendment 38 #
2015/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Favours a broadclear and precise definition that would make it possible to recognise the link between a product and the area covered by the GI while expanding the scope of protection to include names which, though not geographical, clearly refer to the area covered;
Amendment 45 #
2015/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that under a scheme of the type described above, establishing GIs should be a matter for the businesses concerned, which should, in particular, be called upon to draw up the specifications that the GIs would have to meet, in accordance with existing national protection rules;
Amendment 6 #
2015/0906(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Adopts its position at first readUnder Article 257(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish specialised courts attached to the General Court to hear and determine at first instance certain classes of action or proceeding brought in specific areas. The treaty does not empower Parliament and the Council to dissolve a specialised court. Accordingly, Parliament and the Council do not have the power to dissolve the European Union Civil Service Tribunal established by Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom establishing thereinafter set out; European Union Civil Service Tribunal in accordance with Declaration No 16 relating to Article 225a of the EC Treaty 1 a, adopted when the Nice Treaty was signed on 26 February 2001. __________________ 1a OJ C 80, 10.3.2001, p. 80.
Amendment 97 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) As a response to recent terrorist acts which demonstratedConsidering some gaps in the implementation of Directive 91/477/EEC especially with regard to deactivation of weapons, convertibility and marking rules, the "European Agenda on Security" adopted in April 2015 and the Declaration of the Home Affairs Ministers Council of 29 August 2015 called forconsiders the revision of that Directive and for a common approach on the deactivation of firearms able to prevent reactivation and use by criminals and terrorists.
Amendment 159 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) BCollectors and bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established and holding in their possession firearms classified in category A acquired before the date of entry into force of this Directive should be able to keep those firearms in their possession subject to authorisation by the Member State concerned and provided that those firearms have been deactivated.
Amendment 171 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 182 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 219 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 281 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Furthermore, the risk of alarm weapons and other types of blank firing weapons being converted to real firearms is high, and in some of the terrorist acts converted arms were used. It is therefore essential to address the problem of converted firearms being used in criminal offences, notably by including them in the scope of the Directive. Technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons as well as for salute and acoustic weapons should be adopted by Member States in order to ensure that they cannot be converted into firearms.
Amendment 302 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Since the objectives of this Directive cannot be suefficiently achieved by the Member StatesEuropean Commission, but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the actionnegative consequences of wide opened borders, be better achieved at Unational levels, the Unionmeasures may be adopt measures,ed in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
Amendment 310 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 1b
Article 1 – paragraph 1b
1b. For the purposes of this Directive, "essential component" shall mean the barrel, frame, receiver, slide or cylinder, bolt or breaech block and any device designed or adapted to diminish the sound caused by firing a firearm which, being. Such separate objects, ar must be included in the same category ofas the firearms on which they are or are intended to be mountat from which the weapons are classified.
Amendment 352 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point c
Article 1 – point 1 – point c
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 1g
Article 1 – paragraph 1g
Amendment 359 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point c
Article 1 – point 1 – point c
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 1 h
Article 1 – paragraph 1 h
Amendment 383 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point d
Article 1 – point 1 – point d
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – Paragraph 2 – point i
Article 1 – Paragraph 2 – point i
(i) the manufacture, trade, exchange, hiring out, and repair or conversion of firearms;
Amendment 393 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point d
Article 1 – point 1 – point d
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point ii
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point ii
(ii) the manufacture, trade, exchange, hiring out, and repair or conversion of parts of firearms;
Amendment 398 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point d
Article 1 – point 1 – point d
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point iii
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point iii
(iii) the manufacture, trade, and exchange or conversion of ammunition.
Amendment 407 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive shall not apply to the acquisition or possession of weapons and ammunition, in accordance with national law, by the armed forcesnational defence forces, including the army, the police, the or public authorities or by collectors and bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons. Nor shall it apply to commercial transfers of weapons and ammunition of warproducts of the defence industry.
Amendment 458 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 518 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Without prejudice to Article 3, Member States shall authorise the acquisition and possession of firearms tonly by persons who have good cause and who:
Amendment 551 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall provide for standard medical tests for issuing or renewing authorisations as referred to in paragraph 1 and shall withdraw authorisationsthem if any of the conditions on the basis of which it wasthey were granted is no longer met.
Amendment 597 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take all appropriate steps to prohibit the acquisition and the possession of the firearms and ammunition classified in category A and to destroy those firearms and ammunition held in violation of this provison and seized, except in some cases permitted by Member States' authorities.
Amendment 616 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Member States may authorise collectors as well as bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established to keep in their possession firearms classified in category A acquired before [the date of entry into force of this Directive] provided they have been deactivated in accordance with the provisions that implement Article 10(b).
Amendment 626 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Amendment 655 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 7
Article 1 – point 7
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Amendment 683 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 8
Article 1 – point 8
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 10 a
Article 10 a
Amendment 685 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 8
Article 1 – point 8
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 10 a – paragraph 1
Article 10 a – paragraph 1
Member States shall take measures to ensure that alarm and signal weapons as well as salute and acoustic weapons cannot be converted into firearms.
Amendment 689 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 8
Article 1 – point 8
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 10 b
Article 10 b
Amendment 722 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 10
Article 1 – point 10
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 13 a – paragraph 2
Article 13 a – paragraph 2
Amendment 728 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall submit every five years submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals in particular as regards the categories of firearms of Annex I and the issues related to new technologies such as 3D printing. The first report shall be submitted by ... [two years after the date of entry into force of this Directive].
Amendment 735 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
The Commission shall, by [date], assess the necessary elements of a system for the exchange of information contained in the computerised data-filing systems referred to in Article 4(4) between the Member States. The Commission's assessment shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal taking into account existing instruments regarding exchange of information.
Amendment 742 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – points 6 – 8
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – points 6 – 8
Amendment 789 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point ii
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point ii
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category B – point 7
Annex I – part II – point A – category B – point 7
Amendment 810 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category C – point 5
Annex I – part II – point A – category C – point 5
Amendment 840 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 14 – point c a (new)
Article 1 – point 14 – point c a (new)
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – Part III – paragraph 3
Annex I – Part III – paragraph 3
(ca) the third paragraph is replaced by the following: "The Member States must apply their national laws to the firearms listed in this Part."
Amendment 841 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 14 a (new)
Article 1 – point 14 a (new)
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I a (new)
Annex I a (new)
(14a) The following Annex is inserted: "Annex Ia Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2403 is repealed."
Amendment 1 #
2015/0134(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/951laid down a uniform format for visas. This format is an inseparable feature of the Schengen area and so can be phased out along with it. __________________ 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 of 29 May 1995 laying down a uniform format for visas (OJ L 164, 14.7.1995, p. 1).
Amendment 2 #
2015/0134(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The current visa sticker, which has been in circulation for 20 years, has to be considered as compromised in view of serious incidents of counterfeiting and fraud, a problem which has been exacerbated by the migration crisis currently affecting the Member States.
Amendment 3 #
2015/0134(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2
Article 2
Visa stickers conforming to the specifications set out in the annex to Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 which are applicable until the date referred to in the second paragraph of Article 3 may be used for visas issued until sixthree months after that date.
Amendment 4 #
2015/0134(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
It shall apply from ninfive months after the adoption of the further technical specifications referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1683/95.
Amendment 137 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from civil society with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users11; __________________ 11Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.Points out that all the replies received in the Commission’s consultation should be carefully considered; asserts the importance of ensuring that the interests of the various stakeholders, especially those of the public and consumers, are taken into account, while, at the same time, the protection of authors as the drivers of intellectual and artistic creation is not called into question; notes that it is vital to promote access to culture and to secure authors’ remuneration; notes that the non-material wealth of our society, which is generated by the human imagination, must be protected; points out that Directive 2001/29/EC did not remove the disparities between countries in their treatment of copyright because it failed to address the many factors underlying the most significant disparities; notes, for example, that the concept of originality was not defined and that questions of ownership and moral rights were not resolved, with the result that parallel provisions for copyright and for ‘droit d’auteur’ could continue to exist;
Amendment 212 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 241 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 273 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. CallPoints onut the Commission to harmoniseat authors are entitled to profit from their work, and that they therm of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Conventionefore enjoy universally recognised property rights; advocates observance of the term of copyright extending 70 years from the date of the author’s death, as applicable in many EU countries;
Amendment 290 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that exceptions and limitations in the digital environment should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue worlddigital and analogue markets are different, and that therefore use should be made of the techniques introduced since the entry into force of Directive 2001/29/EC;
Amendment 309 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 311 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty and has direct negative effects on the funcRecalls that each Member State may continue to legislate on the basis of respect for and conservation and promotioning of the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activitiesits cultural identity, contributing to the cultural richness of Europe;
Amendment 332 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 372 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 397 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 413 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permittedNotes that the mere presence of a work in the public domain does not deprive the author of his rights;
Amendment 465 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education;
Amendment 493 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for the compensation of rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exceptiononsiders that the licensing system currently in use should be improved with care;
Amendment 511 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to rightonsiders that the right balance shoulders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards be struck between the interests of the author and those of the public; the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13; __________________ 13As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.ght of reproduction and adaption and the right to make back-up copies should be granted where the source of the copy is legal;
Amendment 534 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. StresseConsiders that the effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights protection, should not be hindered by technological measuresconcept of the principle of territoriality should be respected;
Amendment 550 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recommends making legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures conditional upon the publication of the source code or the interface specification, in order to secure the integrity of devices on which technological protections are employed and to ease interoperability; considers, in particular, that where the circumvention of technological measures is allowed, technological means to achieve such authorised circumvention must be availableNotes that the aims of the 2001 directive have not been attained; technologies which make it possible to limit unauthorised use of works, with the exception of software, must ensure interoperability;
Amendment 196 #
2014/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) for the purpose of revealing an applicant’s misconduct, wrongdoing or illegal activity, provided that the alleged acquisition, use or disclosure of the trade secret was necessary for such revelation and that the respondent acted in the public interest;
Amendment 214 #
2014/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
d a) disclosure of trade secrets of pharmaceutical or chemical companies which serves to improve public health, in particular the results of clinical or toxicity trials;
Amendment 49 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
Amendment 53 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Whilst the European Public Prosecutor's Office should have exclusive competence to investigate and prosecute crimes affecting the Union's financial interests, Eurojust should be able to support national authorities when they are investigating and proscrimes affecuting these forms of crime in accordance with the Regulation establishing the European Public Prosecut financial interests of the Union and prosecuting these for'ms Officof crime.
Amendment 72 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
Amendment 74 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 78 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. Eurojust shall support and strengthen coordination and cooperation between national investigating and prosecuting authorities in relation to serious crime affecting two or more Member States, or requiring a prosecution on common bases, on the basis of operations conducted and information supplied by the Member States' authorities and by Europol.
Amendment 81 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3. Eurojust shall exercise its tasks at the request of the competent authorities of the Member States or on its own initiative.
Amendment 104 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii
(ii) when the case involves investigations or prosecutions which have proven repercussions at Union level or which might affect Member States other than those directly concerned;
Amendment 117 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Amendment 123 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) ensure adequate follow-up to the findings and recommendations stemming from the internal or external audit reports, evaluations and investigations, including those of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF);
Amendment 127 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 7
Article 16 – paragraph 7
Amendment 131 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 8
Article 16 – paragraph 8
Amendment 141 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4 – point f
Article 18 – paragraph 4 – point f
(f) preparing an action plan following- up on the conclusions of the internal or external audit reports, evaluations and investigations, including those of the European Data Protection Supervisor and OLAF and reporting on progress twice a year to the Executive Board, the Commission and the European Data Protection Supervisor;
Amendment 148 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 7
Article 24 – paragraph 7
Amendment 151 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 8
Article 24 – paragraph 8
Amendment 162 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41
Article 41
Amendment 170 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 2
Article 42 – paragraph 2
Amendment 172 #
2013/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3
Article 42 – paragraph 3
Amendment 24 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) As a consequence of the progressive expansion of its jurisdiction since its creation, the number of cases before the General Court has been steadily increasing over the years, resulting over time in an increase in the number of cases pending before that Court. This has an impact on the duration of proceedings. but this increase has been largely offset by rationalisation measures and productivity gains in that Court already under way. It is thus not necessary to increase the number of Judges.
Amendment 26 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
Amendment 31 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
Amendment 36 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
Amendment 41 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 49 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
Amendment 56 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 64 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 71 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 75 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) It is highly recommended that 19 law clerks be appointed, in order that every Judge may have an additional law clerk (taking into account the nine already appointed in 2014). Staffing levels in the Registry and the translation services should also be increased.
Amendment 79 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point -1 (new)
Article 1 – point -1 (new)
Protocol No 3
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a (new)
-1) Article 4a is added: "Article 4a In order to respect the separation of powers, under no circumstances may a former Member of the European Parliament become a Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Likewise, EU officials directly involved in the decision-making and legislative process of the European Union may not become Judges at the Court of Justice of the European Union."
Amendment 110 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2
Article 2