BETA

929 Amendments of Mady DELVAUX

Amendment 14 #

2018/2169(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Considers it essential for Union institutions to be representative of EU citizens and accordingly underlines the importance of the objective set by Parliament and Council of achieving balanced representation of men and women in the appointment of General Court judges.
2018/11/19
Committee: JURI
Amendment 37 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that current international and national tax rules were mostly conceived in the early 20th century; asserts that there is an urgent need for reform of the rules, so that international, EU and national tax systems are fit for the new economic, social and technologic challenges of the 21st century; notes the broad understanding that current tax systems are not equipped to keep up with these developments and ensure that all market participants pay fairtheir fair share of taxes;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 50 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that Parliament has made a substantial contribution to the fight against financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance as uncovered in the LuxLeaks, Panama Papers and, Paradise Papers, Football Leaks, Bahamas Leaks, and CumEx cases, notably with the work of the TAXE, TAX2 and TAX3 Special Committees, the PANA inquiry committee and the ECON committee;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 77 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Deplores again ‘the lack of reliable and unbiased statistics on the magnitude of tax avoidance and tax evasion [and] stresses the importance of developing appropriate and transparent methodologies to quantify the scale of these phenomena, as well as their impact on countries’ public finances, economic activities and public investments’; further deplores the lack of reliable quantitative assessment of the extent of financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 133 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Recalls that the payment of taxes is both an essential corporate contribution to society and a tool for good governance and is therefore a requirement for responsible business practices; stresses the need to include harmful tax practices in the scope of mandatory reporting on corporate social responsibility (CSR);
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 142 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Reiterates its call on companies, as taxpayers, to fully comply with their tax obligations and refrain from aggressive tax planning leading to BEPS, and to consider fair taxation strategy as an important part of their corporate social responsibility and of their implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 148 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Urges furthermore the Member States taking part in the enhanced cooperation procedure to agree as quickly as possible on the adoption of a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT);
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 155 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that taxes must be paid in the jurisdictions where the actual substantive and genuine economic activity and value creation takes place or, in case of indirect taxation, where consumption takes place; highlights that this can only be achieved by adopting the common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB); advocates for the inclusion of fair allocation of taxing rights on the agenda of current international tax negotiations, notably at OECD and UN levels;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 170 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Stresses that between 1985 and 2018, the global average statutory corporate tax rate has fallen from 49% to 24%1a ; notes that nominal corporate tax rates have decreased by 46% since 2000 at EU level –from an average of 32% in 2000 to 21,9% in 20181b; is concerned about a growing race to the bottom on nominal corporate tax rates at both international and EU levels; regrets that international tax reform such as G20/OECD led BEPS project did not touch upon this unfair tax competition; calls for a second set of international tax reforms aiming at tackling tax competition among countries and ensuring a fair allocation of taxing rights; underlines it is necessary to give a greater role to the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters in the next reform of international tax rules; _________________ 1a Tørsløv, Wier and Zucman ‘Themissing profits of nations’, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 24701, 2018. 1b Taxation trend in the EU, Table 3:Top statutory corporate income tax rates (including surcharges), 1995- 2018,European Commission 2018
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 174 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16 b. Deplores the imbalance between taxes paid on corporate and capital income and on labour; points out that such distribution of tax burden is unsustainable in view of the expected massive changes in the labour market due to increased robotisation and digitalisation and poses a serious risk to social cohesion;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 177 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16 c. Affirms that a fair and effective solution to tax dumping and aggressive tax competition would reside in the setting of a minimum corporate tax rate; calls for the adoption of a coordinated level of minimum effective taxation at European level through a combination of anti-abuse measures and limitation to tax deductions; asks the European Commission to consider proposing a legislative package aiming at ensuring a minimum effective level of taxation;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 198 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that the G20/OECD 15-point BEPS action plan is being implemented and monitored and further discussions are taking place, in a broader context than just the initial participating countries, through the Inclusive Framework; calls on Member States to support a reform of both the mandate and the functioning of the Inclusive Framework to ensure that remaining tax loopholes and unsolved tax questions such as the allocation of taxing rights among countries are covered by the current international framework to combat BEPS practices; highlights the need to ensure that all countries participate on an equal footing;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 205 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Points out that some countries have recently adopted unilateral countermeasures against harmful tax practices (such as the UK’s Diverted Profits Tax and the Global Intangible Low- Taxed Income (GILTI) provisions of the US tax reform) to ensure that the foreign income of MNEs is duly taxed at a minimum effective tax rate in the parent’s country of residence; calls for an EU assessment of these measuresnotes that, in contrast to these unilateral measures, the EU generally promotes multilateral and consensual solutions to deal with a fair allocation of taxing rights, and, therefore, calls for an EU assessment of these measures; stresses that the EU prioritises a global solution when it comes to taxing the digital sector but is proposing a Digital Services Tax as global discussions seem currently locked;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 214 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Welcomes the provisions on Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) included in ATAD I to ensure that profits made by related companies parked in low or no-tax countries are effectively taxed; acknowledges that they prevent the absence or diversity of national CFC rules within the Union from distorting the functioning of the internal market beyond situations of wholly artificial arrangements as called for repeatedly by Parliament; deplores the coexistence of two approaches to implement CFC rules in ATAD I and calls on Member States to implement only the simpler and most efficient CFC rules as in ATAD I Article 7(2)(a); asks the European Commission to make a legislative proposal reinforcing CFC rules, including a criteria on an actual corporate tax paid on profits lower than 18%;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 218 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Welcomes the general anti-abuse rule for the purposes of calculating corporate tax liability included in ATAD I, allowing Member States to ignore arrangements that are not genuine and having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances aimed at obtaining a tax advantage; reiterates its repeated call for the adoption of a general and common anti- abuse rule, namely in existing legislation and in particular in the parent-subsidiary directive, the merger directive and the interest and royalties directive; calls on Member States to consider a general anti- abuse rule including a minimum effective tax rate of 18%;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 244 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Recognises that the new flow of information to tax authorities following the adoption of ATAD I and DAC4 creates the need for adequate resources to ensure the most efficient use of such information and to effectively reduce the current tax gap; calls on all Member States to evaluate if the tools of the authorities are sufficient and adequate to use this information; points out the importance of combining different sets of information in order to identify patterns which indicate suspicious activity and can thereby help to discover financial crimes, tax evasion or tax avoidance;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 263 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Calls on the Commission to issue a proposal aimed at repealing patent boxes, and calls on Member States to favour non- harmful and, if appropriate, direct support for R&D; stresses that tax reliefs for companies need to be carefully constructed and implemented only where their positive impact on jobs and growth is evident and any risk of creating new loopholes in the taxation system is excluded; reiterates, in the meantime, its call to ensure that current patent boxes establish a genuine link to economic activity, such as expenditure tests, and that they do not distort competition; welcomes the improved definition of R&D costs in the common corporate tax base (CCTB) proposal; however continues to express its concern about new deductions for R&D expenditure included in the CCTB proposal and which could create opportunities for artificially reducing the tax base;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 271 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32 a. Calls on the Council, assisted by the European Commission, to define a comprehensive and exhaustive list of potential harmful tax practices within the EU, to be updated every year; demands that criteria aiming at identifying harmful tax practices include, notably, schemes allowing for a large deduction of corporate income tax without benefiting the real local economy;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 284 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Welcomes the re-launch of the CCCTB project in a two-step approach, with the Commission’s adoption of interconnected proposals on CCTB and CCCTB; calls on the Council to swiftly adopt them,stresses that once implemented fully, the CCCTB will make it possible to attribute income to where the value is created and will eliminate loopholes between national tax systems, in particular transfer pricing; calls on the Council to swiftly adopt and implement the two proposals side by side taking into consideration Parliament’s opinion that already includes the concept of virtual permanent establishment that would close the remaining loopholes allowing tax avoidance to take place and level the playing field in light of digitalisation;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 300 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Notes that the phenomenon of digitalisation has created a new situation in the market, whereby digital and digitalised companies are able to take advantage of local markets without having a physical, and therefore taxable, presence in that market, creating a non-level playing field and putting traditional companies at a disadvantage; notes that digital businesses models in the EU face a lower effective average tax burden than traditional business models31 ; deplores that digital businesses pay almost no taxes in some Member States despite their significant digital presence and large revenues in those Member States; reminds that, when it comes to the digitalisation of the whole economy, the location of the value creation should take into account the input from users as well as information collected on consumers' behaviour online; _________________ 31 As evidenced in the impact assessment of 21 March 2018 accompanying the digital tax package (SWD(2018)0081), according to which on average, digitalised businesses face an effective tax rate of only 9.5 %, compared to 23.2 % for traditional business models.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 339 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 b (new)
36b. Calls on Member States to ensure that the ‘Digital Services Tax’ remains a temporary measure by including a ‘sunset clause’ to the proposal for a Council Directive on the common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services and by speeding up the discussion on a Significant Digital Presence1a ; _________________ 1a Proposal for a Council Directive laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence COM(2018) 147 final
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 376 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Notes the magnitude of the CumEx scandal, which according to some estimates, has taken EUR 55 billion from public coffers in the EU; observes that the "CumEx files" reveal a lack of cooperation between Member States' tax authorities and failures of the current system of exchange of information as some Member States were reportedly aware of these fraudulent tax practices but waited several years to inform other Member States; calls for a regulation of dividend arbitrage practices, preventing "CumEx" and "CumCum" schemes in the future, by putting the burden of proof of ownership of the dividends on the foreign beneficiary; calls on the European legislators to evaluate the possibility of implementing this measure at EU level;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 395 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
45. SRecalls that public CBCR is one of the key measures to find greater transparency on tax information of companies for all citizens; stresses that the proposal for public CBCR was submitted to the co-legislators just after the Panama papers scandal on 12 April 2016, and that Parliament adopted its position on it on 4 July 2017; recalls that this public nature is essential for civil society, investigative journalists, investors and other stakeholders, in particular, to whom the information is useful to assess potential risks and liabilities; recalls that the latter called for an enlargement of the scope of reporting and protection of commercially sensitive information; deplores the lack of progress and cooperation from the Council since 2016; urges for progress to be made in the Council so that it enters into negotiations with Parliament;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 407 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Calls on the Commission and the Council to create a mandatory standardised public European Business Register in order to gain up-to-date and trustworthy information on companies and to achieve transparency via cross- border access to comparable and reliable information of companies in the EU;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 444 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
52. Notes that there is no single definition of letterbox companieHighlights that companies create cross-border operations and corporate constructions including artificial arrangements in order to avoid or circumvent national tax law; stresses that company mobility should not lead to forum shopping; notes that there is no single definition of letterbox companies; reiterates its call for a clear definition; stresses that the requirement of genuine economic activity in the destination Member States can prevent the creation of a letterbox company through a cross- border operation, as proposed in the draft report for the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 552 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
74. WNotes that the Commission has recently proposed additional control tools and an enhanced role for Eurofisc as well as mechanisms for closer cooperation between customs and tax administrations and greater involvement of the European Public Prosecutor's Office; welcomes the adoption of the Protection of Financial Interests (PIF) Directive53 which clarifies the issues of cross-border cooperation and mutual legal assistance between Member States, Eurojust, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Commission in tackling VAT fraud; _________________ 53 Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29, in particular Articles 3 and 15 thereof.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 555 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
75. Points, however, to the need for better cooperation between the administrative, judicial and law- enforcement authorities within the EU, as highlighted by experts during the hearing held on 28 June 2018 and in a study commissioned by the TAX3 Committee; calls on the EPPO, OLAF, Eurofisc, Europol and Eurojust to closely cooperate with a view to coordinating their efforts against VAT fraud and to identifying and adapting to new fraudulent practices;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 567 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78 a (new)
78a. Calls on Member States to mandate Eurofisc to develop new strategies to track goods under Customs procedure 42, the mechanism which allows the importer to obtain a VAT exemption when the imported goods are intended to be eventually transported to a business customer in another Member State than the Member State of importation;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 581 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
81. Emphasises that natural persons do not generally exercise their freedom of movement for the purposes of tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning; underlines, however, that some natural persons have a tax base large enough to span several tax jurisdictions; stresses that tax evasion is highly concentrated among the rich, with the 0.01% richest households evading about 25% of their taxes1a; _________________ 1a Alstadsæter, Johannesen & Zucman: Tax Evasion and Inequality; October 2018
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 635 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87 a (new)
87a. Alerts for the dangers of CBI and RBI schemes allowing associated family reunification, whereby family members of CBI/RBI beneficiaries can acquire residence or citizenship with minimum or no checks;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 708 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 102
102. Calls on the Commission to table a legislative proposal to ensure the automatic exchange of information between the relevant authorities, including tax and customs authorities, on beneficial ownership and relevant transactions for taxation purposes taking place in free ports, customs warehouses or SEZs;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 711 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4.3
Tax Amnesties
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 721 #

2018/2121(INI)

104. Calls on the Commission to assess past amnesty programmes enacted by Member States, and, in particular, the public revenues recovered and their impact in the medium and long term on tax base volatility; urges Member States to ensure that relevant data related to the beneficiaries of previous and future tax amnesties is duly shared with the judiciary, law enforcement, and tax authorities, to ensure compliance with AML/CFT rules and possible prosecution for other financial crimes;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 747 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 110 a (new)
110 a. Welcomes the Action Plan adopted by the Council on the 4th of December 2018, including several non-legislative measures to better tackle money laundering and terrorist financing in the EU; requests the Commission to regularly update the Parliament on the progress of the implementation of the Action Plan;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 751 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 a (new)
111 a. Stresses the continued use of cash in cases of money laundering; highlights the new Regulation on controls on cash entering or leaving the Union, which harmonises and expands controls on large sums of cash and highly liquid stores of value; regrets that while rules on the EU external borders are harmonised, rules among Member States concerning cash movements within EU borders vary;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 759 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112 a (new)
112 a. Notes the positive results of the UK law establishing the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) in tracking proceeds of criminal activities; highlights that a UWO is a court order that requires a person who is reasonably suspected of involvement in, or of being connected to a person involved in, serious crime to explain the nature and extent of their interest in particular property, and to explain how the property was obtained, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property; calls on the Commission to assess the feasibility of proposing a similar measure through EU legislation and report back to Parliament;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 762 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112 b (new)
112 b. Welcomes the decision in some Member States to ban the issuing of bearer shares and to convert the current ones into nominal securities; reiterates its call on the Commission to propose EU- wide legislation to the same effect;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 763 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112 c (new)
112 c. Stresses the urgent need to create a more efficient system for communication and information exchange among judicial authorities within the EU, replacing the traditional instruments of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, which provide lengthy and burdensome procedures harming investigations of money laundering and other serious crimes; reiterates its call on the Commission to assess the need for legislative action in this field;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 764 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112 d (new)
112 d. Calls on the Commission to assess and report to Parliament about the role and particular risks presented by legal arrangements such as Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) and Non Charitable Purpose Trusts (NCPTs) in money laundering, particularly in the UK, and Crown Dependencies and Overseas territories;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 806 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121 a (new)
121 a. Notes that the recent scandals affecting banks in Malta, Latvia, Estonia, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark reveal the failure of supervision by national anti-money laundering authorities; highlights, at the same time, that ESAs have limited abilities to take a more substantial role in the anti-money laundering field due to tight resources coupled with a lack of appropriate powers;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 808 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122
122. Calls for an assessment of long- term objectives leading to an enhanced AML/CFT framework as mentioned in the ‘Reflection Paper on possible elements of a Roadmap for seamless cooperation between Anti Money Laundering and Prudential Supervisors in the European Union’, such as the establishment at EU level of a mechanism to better coordinate the activities of AML/CFT supervisors of financial sector entities, notably in situations where AML/CFT concerns are likely to have cross-border effects, and a possible centralisation of AML supervision via an existing or new Union body empowered to enforce harmonised rul; calls therefore for a European Anti-money Laundering Authority with adequate supervision, investigation and enforcement powers of both financial and non-financial obliged entities aund practiceser the AMLD;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 827 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5.2
Cooperation between financial intelligence units (FIUs) and law enforcement
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 833 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 126 a (new)
126 a. Highlights that the fight against money laundering and tax evasion also requires good cooperation between FIUs and customs authorities;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 858 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129 a (new)
129 a. Notes the Commission’s assessment of the framework for FIUs’ cooperation with third countries and obstacles and opportunities to enhance cooperation between FIUs in the Union including the possibility of establishing an EU level coordination and support mechanism; recalls that according to the AMLD5 this assessment should be ready by 1 June 2019; asks the Commission to consider this opportunity to make a legislative proposal for a EU Financial Intelligence Unit, creating a hub for joint investigative work and coordination, with its own remit of autonomy and investigatory competences on cross border financial criminality, and an early warning mechanism;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 863 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129 b (new)
129 b. Calls on the Commission to draw up a report assessing the necessity of uniformisation or harmonisation of the organisational status conferred to FIUs in Member States, to ensure better cooperation and exchange of information, without interfering with their independence;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 864 #

2018/2121(INI)

129 c. Calls on the Commission to propose legislation for the creation of a European Financial Police within the framework of Europol, with its own autonomous investigatory competence, based on the European legal framework to tackle cross-border tax fraud, money laundering, financing of terrorism and predicate offences;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 870 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 131 a (new)
131 a. Takes note of the repeated calls from obliged entities, namely financial institutions, for proper channels of enhanced dialogue, communication and exchange of information between private bodies and public authorities, on one hand, and among obliged entities themselves, on the other, to provide less fragmented information to FIUs; calls on the Commission to draw up guidelines in accordance with the AMLD5, for Member States to implement at national level in this regard, namely using the mechanisms provided in the General Data Protection Regulation for secure and lawful exchange of data;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 881 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 133 a (new)
133 a. Calls on Member States to ensure that registers of beneficial owners contain verification mechanisms to ensure the accuracy of the data; calls on the Commission to make assessment of verification mechanisms and reliability of the data in its reviews;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 890 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136
136. Underscores the problem of money laundering through investment in real estate in European cities through foreign shell companies; recalls that the Commission should assess the necessity and proportionality of harmonising the information in the land and real estate registers and assess the need for the interconnection of those registers; takes the view that Member States should have in place publicly accessible information on ultimate beneficial ownership of land and real estate; calls on the Commission, if appropriate, to accompany the report with a legislative proposal;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 916 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 140
140. Takes note of the expert-level work on electronic identification and remote KYC processes, which explores issues such as the possibility of financial institutions using electronic identification (e-ID) and of KYC portability to identify customers digitally; points out the advantages of having a European system of e-ID;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 982 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153
153. Welcomes the recent clarifications from the CoC Group on fair taxation criteria, especially regarding the lack of economic substance for jurisdictions having no corporate income tax rate or a rate close to 0 %; calls on the Member States to work towards the gradual improvement of the EU listing criteria to cover all harmful tax practices79 by determining a minimum level of effective taxation and by reviewing all potential harmful practices granting large tax exemptions or deductions which are disconnected from the domestic economy; regrets that the same criteria used to include the jurisdictions of third countries on the European list do not apply internally to Member States and that the EU consequently loses credibility to call on other countries to comply with standards of tax good governance; _________________ 79 Work on fair taxation criteria 2.1 and 2.2 of Council conclusions 14166/16 of 8 November 2016.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 984 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 a (new)
153 a. Welcomes the new OECD global standard on substantial activities factor to no or only nominal tax jurisdictions1a, largely inspired by the EU work on the EU listing process (Fair criterion 2.2 of the EU list); calls on EU Member States to push for a more ambitious global standard including a minimum level of effective taxation; _________________ 1a OECD, “Resumption of Application of Substantial Activities Factor to No or only Nominal Tax Jurisdictions Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 5”, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/resumption- of-application-of-substantial-activities- factors.pdf, 2018
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 997 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 b (new)
154 b. Welcomes the expected review of the EU list in the first quarter of 2019; asks the Council to release a detailed assessment of commitments from jurisdictions which committed to reform and were listed on Annex II when the first EU list was released on December 5th2017; demands that jurisdictions listed on Annex II thanks to commitments made in 2017 are listed on Annex I if the due reforms have not been implemented by the end of 2018 or the agreed timeline;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1000 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 c (new)
154 c. Notes that developing countries might not possess the resources to implement newly agreed international or European tax standards and /or might have more urgent tax gap issues to tackle to ensure they generate sufficient revenues to provide for essential public services; subsequently calls on the Council to exclude counter measures such as cuts in development aid;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1010 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156
156. Calls on the Member States to adopt a single set of strong countermeasures, including automatic CFC rulwithholding taxes, exclusion from public procurement calls and withdrawal of business licences, for blacklisted jurisdictionsthe intermediaries and companies present in blacklisted tax havens and automatic CFC rules applied to the latter, unless the taxpayers convey genuine economic activities there and are subject to increased audit requirements; invites both tax administrations and taxpayers to cooperate to gather the relevant facts in case the controlled foreign company carries out substantive real economic activity and has substantial economic presence supported by staff, equipment, assets and premises, as evidenced by relevant facts and circumstances;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1041 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 160 a (new)
160 a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to push for a second set of international tax reform gathering all countries interested on an equal footing and aiming at tackling the growing corporate tax race to the bottom and the allocation of taxing rights;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1045 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161
161. Believes that supporting developing countries in combating tax evasion and aggressive tax planning, as well as corruption and secrecy that facilitate illicit financial flows, is of the utmost importance for strengthening policy coherence for development in the EU and improving developing countries’ tax capacities and domestic resource mobilisation; stresses the need to increase the share, in terms of aid and development, of financial and technical assistance to the national tax administrations of developing countries;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1069 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 167
167. Recalls the need for fair treatment of developing countries when negotiating tax treaties, taking into account their particular situation and ensuring a fair allocation of tax rights according to genuine economic activity and value creation; calls, in this regard, for adherence to the UN model tax convention to be used as a minimum standard and for transparency around treaty negotiations to be ensured;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1103 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 b (new)
171 b. Reiterates its call on the European Union and its Member States to ensure that, when negotiating tax and investment treaties with developing countries, income or profits resulting from cross-border activities be taxed in the source country, where value is extracted or created; stresses, in this regard, that the UN Model Tax Convention ensures a fairer distribution of taxing rights between source and residence countries; stresses than when negotiating tax treaties, the European Union and its Member States should comply with the principle of policy coherence for development established in Article 208 TFEU;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1153 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 178 c (new)
178 c. Reiterates its call on the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal on the separation of accounting firms and financial or tax service providers as well as on all advisory services, including a Union incompatibility regime for tax advisers, in order to prevent them from advising both public revenue authorities and taxpayers and to prevent other conflicts of interest;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1158 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 179 a (new)
179 a. Points out that professional secrecy cannot be used for the purposes of protection, the covering up of illegal practices or violating the spirit of the law; urges that the client/attorney privilege principle should not impede adequate STRs or the reporting of other potentially illegal activities without prejudice to the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles of criminal law; calls on the Commission to issue guidance on the interpretation and application of the legal privilege principle for professionals and to introduce a clear demarcation line between traditional judicial advice and lawyers acting as financial operators, in line with case-law of European courts;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1159 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 179 b (new)
179 b. Calls on the Commission to assess the possibilities of blacklisting financial and non-financial intermediaries based in the EU which operate branches in countries blacklisted as non-cooperative jurisdictions or which are listed as high risk third countries by the Commission; Suggests further that intermediaries should be restricted from operating in the single market if convicted of financial crimes or of facilitating tax evasion;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1161 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 179 c (new)
179 c. Pays tribute to the brave actions of whistle-blowers and recognizes their fundamental role in a democratic and accountable society;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1174 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 181 a (new)
181 a. Is concerned by the impact of non- disclosure agreements in employment contracts and dismissal agreements, particularly in the financial sector; calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of proposing legislation banning abusive non-disclosure agreements and declared void agreements which limit the employee’s ability and right to report unlawful activity;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1228 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 197
197. Believes that the mandate of the CoC Group needs to be updated, since it addresses matters beyond the assessment of harmful EU tax practices, which is more than simply providing technical input to the decisions made by the Council; calls, based on the nature of the work undertaken by the Group which is also of a political nature, for such tasks to be brought back under a framework which enables democratic control or supervision, starting by applying transparency; invites Member States to update the mandate of the CoC Group to include a minimum level of effective taxation set at 18% of profits as well as an increased and improved work on harmful tax practices and on the EU listing process;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1233 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 199 a (new)
199 a. Reiterates its call for the creation of an EU Tax Policy Coherence and Coordination Centre (EUTPCCC) within the structure of the Commission1a,which would ensure effective and expeditious cooperation between Member States’ and facilitate early warning in cases like the Cum Ex scandal; urges Member States to support this call and for the Commission to present a legislative proposal for such a mechanism; _________________ 1a European Parliament resolution of 6 July 2016 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (2016/2038(INI))
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1280 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 207
207. Takes the view that the work of the TAXE, TAX2, PANA and TAX3 committees should be continued, in the forthcoming parliamentary term, in a permanent structure within Parliament such as a subcommittee to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), including Members from a diverse range of committees; considers that the Commissioner for Taxation, the Chair of the CoC Group and the Finance minister holding the rotating EU presidency should appear at least twice a year before the heretofore mentioned permanent structure;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 6 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
- having regard to the Luxembourg- EIB Climate Finance Platform established in September 2016,
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the power of finance can and should be used to facilitate the transition to a sustainable economy in the EU which extends beyond the climate transition into other areas of ecological crisiand ecological issues and also concerns social and governance issues;
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 53 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas the notion of profitability is focussed on short-term returns and sustainable investments would profit from a more long-term perspective;
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas institutional and retail investors are showing increased interest in investing in products observing ESG criteria;
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
B c. whereas increased transparency of ESG-related data on companies is needed to prevent "green-washing";
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 57 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
B d. whereas criteria on climate- mitigating investments seem most advanced and can be a good starting point, sustainable finance goes beyond climate and green investments and should quickly also take social and governance criteria on board;
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B e (new)
B e. whereas impact evaluation should be part of the taxonomy of sustainable financial products; whereas there is a growing expertise in how to calculate the impact of investments on ESG goals;
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 123 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to lead a multi-stakeholder process to establish by the end of 2019 a robust and credible green taxonomy, including a ‘Green Finance Mark’, through a legislative initiative; insists that, in a second step, further taxonomies need to be developed to cover all areas of ESG;
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 151 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the recent inclusion of sustainability issues in the PRIIPs and STS Regulations, as well as in Shareholders Rights Directive and the NFRD; applauds the inclusion in the IORPs Directive of recognition of stranded assets; asks for the transversal integration of sustainable finance criteria in all legislation related to the financial sector; suggests the revision of MiFID II's delegated act to explicitly include investors' preferences on sustainability;
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 185 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises that disclosure is a critical enabling condition for sustainable finance; applauds the work of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) and calls on the Commission and the Council to explicitly endorse its recommendations and to explore how to expand disclosure requirements to all areas of ESG; urges the Commission to include mandatory disclosure in the framework of the revision of the Accounting Directive and the NFRD; is of the opinion that such disclosure requirements should be streamlined globally;
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 238 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Notes the urgent need for a uniform minimum standard for green bonds; insists that such green bonds should include periodic reporting on the environmental impacts of the underlying assets; underlines that green bonds should also respect negative criteria and must not include any form of fossil fuel asset, nuclear power or investment in aviation infrastructure;
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 256 #

2018/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to establish a legally binding labelling systemn ESG label system, based on best practices from Member States, such as LuxFlag, FNG, Climetrics, SEImetrics and TEEC, available for personal bank accounts, investment funds, insurance, and financial products indicating their level of conformity with the Paris Agreement and ESG goals;
2018/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 28 #

2018/0113(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
(2) The use of digital tools and processes to more easily, rapidly and cost- effectively initiate economic activity by setting up a company or by opening a branch of that company in another Member State is one of the prerequisites for the effective functioning of a competitive Single Market and for ensuring the competitiveness and trustworthiness of companies.
2018/09/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 37 #

2018/0113(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) In order to facilitate the registration of companies and their branches and to reduce the costs and administrative burdens associated with the registration process, in particular by micro, small and medium- sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC32 , procedures should be put in place to enable registration to be completed fully online. Such costs and burdens derive not only from administrative fees charged for setting up a company, but also from other requirements which make the overall process longer to complete, in particular when the physical presence of the applicant or their representative is required. In addition, information on these procedures should be made available online and free of charge. _________________ 32 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).
2018/09/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 44 #

2018/0113(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) Enabling the fully online registration of companies and branches and the fully online filing of documents and information would allow companies to use digital tools in their contacts with competent authorities of Member States. In order to enhance trust, Member States should ensure that secure electronic identification and the use of trust services is possible for national as well as cross- border users in accordance with highest assurance level defined in Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . Furthermore, in order to enable cross- border electronic identification, Member States should set up electronic identification schemes which provide for authorised electronic identification means. Such national schemes would be used as a basis for the recognition of electronic identification means issued in another Member State. In order to ensure the high level of trust in cross-border situations, only electronic identification means which comply with Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 should be recognised. However, Member States may also recognise other identification means such as a scanned copy of a passportidentification via videoconference or other online means that provide a real- time audio-visual connection. In any event, this Directive should only oblige Member States to enable online registration of companies and their branches and online filing by Union citizens through the recognition of their electronic identification means. _________________ 34 Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73).
2018/09/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 70 #

2018/0113(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
(12) In order to respect Member States’ existing traditions of company law, it is important to allow flexibility as regards the manner in which they ensure a fully online system of registration of companies and branches and filing of documents and information, including in relation to the role of notaries or lawyers in such a process. Matters concerning online registration of companies and branches and filing of documents and information which are not regulated in this Directive should be governed by national law.
2018/09/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 98 #

2018/0113(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) In the interest of transparency and to promote trust in business transactions, including those with a cross-border nature within the Single Market, it is important that investors, stakeholders, business partners and authorities and organisations such as trade unions, can easily access company information. To improve the accessibility of that information, more information should be available free of charge in all Member States. Such information should include the website of the company, where applicable and, the legal status of the company and its branches in another Member States, where available in national registers. It should also include information concerning the persons authorised to represent companies and the number of employees where this information is available.
2018/09/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 127 #

2018/0113(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU)2017/1132
Article 13b – paragraph 4
4. Without phere judice to paragraphs 1 to 3, Member States may take measures which could require a physical presence for the purposes of verifying the identity ofstified by an overriding reason of public interest, Member States may require the applicants or their representatives to appear in persons before any authority competent tocompetent authority, or before any other person or body dealing with online, making or assisting in making the application for registration or online filing, in cases of genuine suspicion of fraud based on reasonable groundsfor procedural steps for which this physical presence is necessary. Member States shall ensure that physical presence may only be required on a case by case basis and that any other steps of the procedure can be completed online.
2018/09/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 222 #

2018/0113(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 13i – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall ensure that the origin and integrity of the documents filed online may be verified electronically; the requirements under applicable national law as to the authenticity, accuracy and due legal form of any submitted information or document shall remain unaffected.
2018/09/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 242 #

2018/0113(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) the number of employees of the company, where this is available in the company’s financial statements as required by national and Union law;
2018/09/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 262 #

2018/0113(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 28a – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall complete the online registration of a branch within the period of fiveten working days from the receipt of all the necessary documents and information required by a competent authority or, where applicable, by a person or a body mandated under national law to submit an application for the registration.
2018/09/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 265 #

2018/0113(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 28b
Member States shall ensure that documents and information, referred to in Article 30 or any modification thereof, may be filed online within the period provided by the laws of the Member State where the branch is established. Member States shall ensure that such filing may be completed online in its entirety without the necessity for the applicant or its representative to appear in person before any competent authority or before any other person or body dealing with, making or assisting in making the online filing, subject to the proviso laid down in Article 13b(4). The requirements under applicable national law as to the authenticity, accuracy and due legal form of any submitted document or information shall remain unaffected.
2018/09/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 42 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) The purpose of this Directive is to enable qualified entities, which represent the collective interest of consumers, to seek remedy through representative actions against infringements of provisions of Union law. The qualified entities should be able to ask for stopping or prohibiting an infringement, for confirming that an infringement took place and to seek redress for the economic and non-economic damages, such as compensation, repair or price reduction as available under national laws.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 47 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) The purpose of this Directive is to enable qualified entities, which represent the collective interest of consumers or citizens, to seek remedy through representative actions against infringements of provisions of Union law. The qualified entities should be able to ask for stopping or prohibiting an infringement, for confirming that an infringement took place and to seek redress for the economic and non-economic damage, such as compensation, repair or price reduction as available under national laws.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 52 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
(2) Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council29 enabled qualified entities to bring representative actions primarily aimed at stopping and prohibiting infringements of Union law harmful to the collective interests of consumers. However, that Directive did not sufficiently address the challenges for the enforcement of consumerUnion law. To improve the deterrence of unlawful practices and to reduce consumer or citizen detriment, it is necessary to strengthen the mechanism for protection of collective interests of consumers or citizens. Given the numerous changes, for the sake of clarity it is appropriate to replace Directive 2009/22/EC.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 55 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) The Commission has adopted legislative proposals for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air30 and for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail passengers' rights and obligations.31 It is therefore appropriate to provide that, one year after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission assesses whether the Union rules in the area of air and rail passengers' rights offer an adequate level of protection for consumers, comparable to that provided for in this Directive, and draws any necessary conclusions as regards the scope of this Directive. _________________ 30 31deleted COM(2013) 130 final. COM(2017) 548 final.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 55 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
(3) A representative action should offer an effective and efficient way of protecting the collective interests of consumers or citizens. It should allow qualified entities to act with the aim of ensuring compliance with relevant provisions of Union law and to overcome the obstacles faced by consumers or citizens within individual actions, such as the uncertainty about their rights and available procedural mechanisms, psychological reluctance to take action and the negative balance of the expected costs and benefits of the individual action.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 57 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
(4) It is important to ensure the necessary balance between access to justice and procedural safeguards against abusive litigation which could unjustifiably hinder the ability of businesses to operate in the Single Market. To prevent the misuse of representative actions, elements such as punitive damages and the absence of limitations as regards the entitlement to bring an action on behalf of the harmed consumers or citizens should be avoided and clear rules on various procedural aspects, such as the designation of qualified entities, the origin of their funds and nature of the information required to support the representative action, should be laid down. The unsuccessful party should bear the costs of the proceedings. However, the court or tribunal should not award costs to the unsuccessful party to the extent that they were unnecessarily incurred or are disproportionate to the claim. This Directive should not affect otherwise national rules concerning the allocation of procedural costs.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 61 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) Infringements that affect the collective interests of consumers or citizens often have cross-border implications. More effective and efficient representative actions available across the Union should boost consumer confidence in the internal market and empower consumers to exercise their rights. Moreover, it should enhance the efficiency of the Member States’ justice systems.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 66 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) This Directive should cover a variety of areas such as data protection, financial services, travel and tourism, energy, telecommunications, competition and environment. ItTherefore, Member States should ensure that organisations representing all these subject areas can be designated as qualified entities. The Directive should cover infringements of provisions of Union law which protect the interests of consumers and citizens, regardless of whether they are referred to as consumers or citizens as travellers, users, customers, retail investors, retail clients or other in the relevant Union law. To ensure adequate response to infringement to Union law, the form and scale of which is quickly evolving, it should be considered, each time where a new Union act relevant for the protection of the collective interests of consumers is adopted, whether to amend the Annex to the present Directive in order to place it under its scope.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 67 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) To increase the procedural effectiveness of representative actions, qualified entities should have the possibility to seek different measures within a single representative action or within separate representative actions. These measures should include interim measures for stopping an ongoing practice or prohibiting a practice in case the practice has not been carried out but there is a risk that it would cause serious or irreversible harm to consumers, measures establishing that a given practice constitutes an infringement of law and, if necessary, stopping or prohibiting the practice for the future, as well as measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement, including redress. If sought within a single action, qualified entities should be able to seek all relevant measures at the moment of bringing the action or first seek relevant injunctions order and subsequently and if appropriate redress order.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 72 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) The Commission has adopted legislative proposals for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air30 and for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail passengers' rights and obligations.31 It is therefore appropriate to provide that, one year after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission assesses whether the Union rules in the area of air and rail passengers' rights offer an adequate level of protection for consumers, comparable to that provided for in this Directive, and draws any necessary conclusions as regards the scope of this Directive.deleted
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 76 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) Building on Directive 2009/22/EC, this Directive should cover both domestic and cross-border infringements, in particular when consumers or citizens concerned by an infringement live in one or several Member States other than the Member State where the infringing trader is established. It should also cover infringements which ceased before the representative action started or concluded, since it may still be necessary to prevent the repetition of the practice, establish that a given practice constituted an infringement and facilitate consumer or citizen redress.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 79 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) Member States should be allowed to decide whether their court or national authority seized of a representative action for redress may exceptionally issue, instead of a redress order, a declaratory decision regarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement which could be directly relied upon in subsequent redress actions by individual consumers. This possibility should be reserved to duly justified cases where the quantification of the individual redress to be attributed to each of the consumer concerned by the representative action is complex and it would be inefficient to carry it out within the representative action. Declaratory decisions should not be issued in situations which are not complex and in particular where consumers concerned are identifiable and where the consumers have suffered a comparable harm in relation to a period of time or a purchase. Similarly, declaratory decisions should not be issued where the amount of loss suffered by each of the individual consumers is so small that individual consumers are unlikely to claim for individual redress. The court or the national authority should duly motivate its recourse to a declaratory decision instead of a redress order in a particular case.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 79 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) This Directive should not establish rules of private international law regarding jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of judgments or applicable law. The existing Union law instruments apply to the representative actions set out by this Directive preventing any increase in forum shopping.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 86 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) As only qualified entities can bring the representative actions, to ensure that the collective interests of consumers or citizens are adequately represented the qualified entities should comply with the criteria established by this Directive. In particular, they would need to be properly constituted according to the law of a Member State, which could include for example requirements regarding the number of members, the degree of permanence, or transparency requirements on relevant aspects of their structure such as their constitutive statutes, management structure, objectives and working methods. They should also be not for profit and have a legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with the relevant Union law. These criteria should apply to both qualified entities designated in advance and to ad hoc qualified entities that are constituted for the purpose of a specific action.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 93 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
(11) Independent public bodies and consumer, consumer organisations, environmental organisations and human rights organisations in particular should play an active role in ensuring compliance with relevant provisions of Union law and are all well placed to act as qualified entities. Since these entities have access to different sources of information regarding traders' practices towards consumers or citizens and hold different priorities for their activities, Member States should be free to decide on the types of measures that may be sought by each of these qualified entities in representative actions.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 95 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) Measures aimed at eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement may be sought only on the basis of a final decision, establishing an infringement of Union law covered by the scope of this Directive harming collective interest of consumers, including a final injunction order issued within the representative action. In particular. For example, measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement may be sought on the basis of final decisions of a court or administrative authority in the context of enforcement activities regulated by Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.32 _________________ 32 OJ L 345, 27.12.2017. OJ L 345, 27.12.2017.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 95 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
(12) Since both judicial and administrative procedures may effectively and efficiently serve the protection of the collective interests of consumers or citizens it is left to the discretion of the Member States whether the representative action can be brought in judicial or administrative proceedings, or both, depending on the relevant area of law or relevant economic sector. This shall be without prejudice to the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, whereby Member States shall ensure that consumers, citizens and businesses have the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, against any administrative decision taken pursuant to national provisions implementing this Directive. This shall include the possibility for the parties to obtain a decision granting suspension of enforcement of the disputed decision, in accordance with national law.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 97 #

2018/0089(COD)

(13) To increase the procedural effectiveness of representative actions, qualified entities should have the possibility to seek different measures within a single representative action or within separate representative actions. These measures should include interim measures for stopping an ongoing practice or prohibiting a practice in case the practice has not been carried out but there is a risk that it would cause serious or irreversible harm to consumers, measures establishing that a given practice constitutes an infringement of law and, if necessary, stopping or prohibiting the practice for the future, as well as measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement, including redress. If sought within a single action, qualified entities should be able to seek all relevant measures at the moment of bringing the action or first seek relevant injunctions order and subsequently and if appropriate redress order.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 100 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
(14) Injunction orders aim at the protection of the collective interests of consumers or citizens independently of any actual loss or damage suffered by individual consumers or citizens. Injunction orders may require traders to take specific action, such as providing consumers or citizens with the information previously omitted in violation of legal obligations. Decisions establishing that a practice constitutes an infringement should not depend on whether the practice was committed intentionally or by negligence.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 104 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
(15) The qualified entity initiating the representative action under this Directive should be a party to the proceedings. Consumers or citizens concerned by the infringement should have adequate opportunities to benefit from the relevant outcomes of the representative action. Injunction orders issued under this Directive should be without prejudice to individual actions brought by consumers or citizens harmed by the practice subject to the injunction order.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 108 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
(17) The compensation awarded to consumers or citizens harmed in a mass harm situation should not exceed the amount owed by the trader in accordance with the applicable national or Union Law in order to cover the actual harm suffered by them. In particular, punitive damages, leading to overcompensation in favour of the claimant party of the damage suffered, should be avoided.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 113 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) Member States may require qualified entities to provide sufficient information to support a representative action for redress, including a description of the group of consumers or citizens concerned by an infringement and the questions of fact and law to be resolved within the representative action. The qualified entity should not be required to individually identify all consumers or citizens concerned by an infringement in order to initiate the action. In representative actions for redress the court or administrative authority should verify at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings whether the case is suitable for being brought as a representative action, given the nature of the infringement and characteristics of the damages suffered by consumers or citizens concerned.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 115 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) Member States should be allowed to decide whether their court or national authority seized of a representative action for redress may exceptionally issue, instead of a redress order, a declaratory decision regarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement which could be directly relied upon in subsequent redress actions by individual consumers. This possibility should be reserved to duly justified cases where the quantification of the individual redress to be attributed to each of the consumer concerned by the representative action is complex and it would be inefficient to carry it out within the representative action. Declaratory decisions should not be issued in situations which are not complex and in particular where consumers concerned are identifiable and where the consumers have suffered a comparable harm in relation to a period of time or a purchase. Similarly, declaratory decisions should not be issued where the amount of loss suffered by each of the individual consumers is so small that individual consumers are unlikely to claim for individual redress. The court or the national authority should duly motivate its recourse to a declaratory decision instead of a redress order in a particular case.deleted
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 123 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) Where consumers or citizens concerned by the same practice are identifiable and they suffered comparable harm in relation to a period of time or a purchase, such as in the case of long-term consumer contracts, the court or administrative authority may clearly define the group of consumers or citizens concerned by the infringement in the course of the representative action. In particular, the court or administrative authority could ask the infringing trader to provide relevant information, such as the identity of the consumers or citizens concerned and the duration of the practice. For expediency and efficiency reasons, in these cases Member States in accordance with their national laws could consider to provide consumers or citizens with the possibility to directly benefit from a redress order after it was issued without being required to give their individual mandate before the redress order is issued.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 132 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive shallaims at minimum harmonisation and shall therefore not prevent Member States from adopting or maintaining in force provisions designed to grant qualified entities or any other persons concerned other procedural means to bring actions aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers at national level.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 132 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) In low-value cases most consumers or citizens are unlikely to take action in order to enforce their rights because the efforts would outweigh the individual benefits. However, if the same practice concerns a number of consumers or citizens, the aggregated loss may be significant. In such cases, a court or authority may consider that it is disproportionate to distribute the funds back to the consumers or citizens concerned, for example because it is too onerous or impracticable. Therefore the funds received as redress through representative actions would better serve the purposes of the protection of collective interests of consumers or citizens and should be directed to athis relevant public purpose, such as a consumer or citizens legal aid fund, awareness campaigns or consumer movements.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 137 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) Measures aimed at eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement may be sought only on the basis of a final decision, establishingfor an infringement of Union law covered by the scope of this Directive harming collective interest of consumers, including a final injunction order issued within the representative action. In particular or citizens. For example, measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement may be sought on the basis of final decisions of a court or administrative authority in the context of enforcement activities regulated by Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004. 32 _________________ 32 OJ L 345, 27.12.2017. OJ L 345, 27.12.2017.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 141 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
(24) This Directive aims at a minimum harmonisation and does not replace existing national collective redress mechanisms. Taking into account their legal traditions, it leaves it to the discretion of the Member States whether to design the representative action set out by this Directive as a part of an existing or future collective redress mechanism or as an alternative to these mechanisms, insofar as the national mechanism complies with the modalities set by this Directive.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 147 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
(26) Collective out-of-court settlements aimed at providing redress to harmed consumers or citizens should be encouraged both before the representative action is brought and at any stage of the representative action. This possibility should under no circumstances jeopardize the right to access to justice.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 150 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) Member States may provide that a qualified entity and a trader who have reached a settlement regarding redress for consumers or citizens affected by an allegedly illegal practice of that trader can jointly request a court or administrative authority to approve it. Such request should be admitted by the court or administrative authority only if there is no other ongoing representative action regarding the same practice. A competent court or administrative authority approving such collective settlement must take into consideration the interests and rights of all parties concerned, including individual consumers. Individual consumers or citizens concerned shall be given the possibility to accept or to refuse to be bound by such a settlement.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 154 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
(28) The court and administrative authority should have the power to invite the infringing trader and the qualified entity which brought the representative action to enter into negotiations aimed at reaching a settlement on redress to be provided to consumers or citizens concerned. The decision of whether to invite the parties to settle a dispute out-of- court should take into account the type of the infringement to which the action relates, the characteristics of the consumers or citizens concerned, the possible type of redress to be offered, the willingness of the parties to settle and the expediency of the procedure.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 157 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
(29) In order to facilitate redress for individual consumers or citizens sought on the basis of final declaratory decisions regarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement issued within representative actions, the court or administrative authority that issued the decision should be empowered to request the qualified entity and the trader to reach a collective settlement.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 159 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
(30) Any out-of-court settlement reached within the context of a representative action or based on a final declaratory decision should be approved by the relevant court or the administrative authority to ensure its legality and fairness, taking into consideration the interests and rights of all parties concerned. Individual consumers or citizens concerned shall be given the possibility to accept or to refuse to be bound by such a settlement.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 164 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
(31) Ensuring that consumers or citizens are informed about a representative action is crucial for its success. Consumers or citizens should be informed of ongoing representative action, the fact that a trader's practice has been considered as a breach of law, their rights following the establishment of an infringement and any subsequent steps to be taken by consumers or citizens concerned, particularly for obtaining redress. The reputational risks associated with spreading information about the infringement are also important for deterring traders infringing consumer or citizens’ rights.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 166 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) To be effective, the information should be adequate and proportional to the circumstances of the case. The infringing trader should adequately inform all consumers or citizens concerned of a final injunction and redress orders issued within the representative action as well as of a settlement approved by a court or administrative authority. Such information may be provided for instance on the trader's website, social media, online market places, or in popular newspapers, including those distributed exclusively by electronic means of communication. If possible, consumers or citizens should be informed individually through electronic or paper letters. This information should be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities upon request.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 175 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
(35) Actions for redress based on the establishment of an infringement by a final injunction order or by a final declaratory decision regarding the liability of the trader towards the harmed consumers or citizens under this Directive should not be hindered by national rules on limitation periods. The submission of a representative action shall have the effect of suspending or interrupting the limitation periods for any redress actions for the consumers concerned by this action.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 180 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
(37) Evidence is an important element for establishing whether a given practice constitutes an infringement of law, whether there is a risk of its repetition, for determining the consumers or citizens concerned by an infringement, deciding on redress and adequately informing consumers or citizens concerned by a representative action about the ongoing proceedings and its final outcomes. However, business-to-consumer or business-to-citizens relationships are characterised by information asymmetry and the necessary information may be held exclusively by the trader, making it inaccessible to the qualified entity. Qualified entities should therefore be afforded the right to request to the competent court or administrative authority the disclosure by the trader of evidence relevant to their claim or needed for adequately informing consumers or citizens concerned about the representative action, without it being necessary for them to specify individual items of evidence. The need, scope and proportionality of such disclosure should be carefully assessed by the court or administrative authority overseeing the representative action having regard to the protection of legitimate interests of third parties and subject to the applicable Union and national rules on confidentiality.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 184 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
(39) Having regard to the fact that representative actions pursue a public interest by protecting the collective interests of consumers or citizens, Member States should ensure that qualified entities are not prevented from bringing representative actions under this Directive because of the costs involved with the procedures.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 191 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
(41) In order to effectively tackle infringements with cross-border implications the mutual recognition of the legal standing of qualified entities designated in advance in one Member State to seek representative action in another Member State should be ensured. Furthermore, qualified entities from different Member States should be able to join forces within a single representative action in front of a single forum, subject to relevant rules on competent jurisdiction. For reasons of efficiency and effectiveness, one qualified entity should be able to bring a representative action in the name of other qualified entities representing consumers or citizens from different Member States.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 196 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
(44) The objectives of this Directive, namely establishing a representative action mechanism for the protection of the collective interests of consumers or citizens in order to ensure a high level of consumer or citizens protection across the Union and the proper functioning of the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by actions taken exclusively by Member States, but can rather, due to cross-border implications of representative actions, be better achieved at Union level. The Union may therefore 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 that objective.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 197 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that qualified entities are entitled to bring representative actions seeking redress measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement. These measures shall be sought on the basis of any final decision establishing that a practice constitutes an infringement of Union law listed in Annex I harming collective interests of consumers, including a final injunction order referred to in paragraph (2)(b).
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 202 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to Article 4(4), Member States shall ensure that qualified entities are able to seek the measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement together with measures referred to in paragraph 2 within a single representative action.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 202 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive sets out rules enabling qualified entities to seek representative actions aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers or citizens, while ensuring appropriate safeguards to avoid abusive litigation.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 208 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive shallaims at minimum harmonisation and shall therefore not prevent Member States from adopting or maintaining in force provisions designed to grant qualified entities or any other persons concerned other procedural means to bring actions aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers or citizens at national level.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 210 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
For the purposes of Article 5(3), Member States shall ensure that qualified entities are entitled to bring representative actions seeking a redress order for the economic and non-economic damages, which obligates the trader to provide for, inter alia, compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination or reimbursement of the price paid, as appropriate. A Member State may require the mandate of the individual consumers concerned before a declaratory decision is made or a redress order is issuedredress order is issued. . If a Member State does not require a mandate of the individual consumer to join the representative action, this Member State shall nevertheless allow those individuals who are not habitually resident in the Member State where the action occurs, to participate in the representative action, in case they expressed their willingness to be part of the representative action within the applicable time limit.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 212 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive shall apply to representative actions brought against infringements by traders of provisions of the Union law including those listed in Annex I that harm or may harm the collective interests of consumers or citizens. Such interests may consist in, but are not limited to, the enforcement of rules of consumer protection, competition, environment protection, protection of personal data, protection in energy and telecommunications markets, passenger rights, product and food safety and information, health and medical services, financial services and investor protection. It shall apply to domestic and cross-border infringements, including where those infringements have ceased before the representative action has started or before the representative action has been concluded.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 220 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive shall not affect rules establishing contractual and non- contractual remedies available to consumers or citizens for such infringements under Union or national law.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 225 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. By derogation to paragraph 1, Member States may empower a court or administrative authority to issue, instead of a redress order, a declaratory decision regarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement of Union law listed in Annex I, in duly justified cases where, due to the characteristics of the individual harm to the consumers concerned the quantification of individual redress is complex.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 226 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
(1a) ‘citizen’ means any natural person holding the nationality of a Member State or habitually residing in a Member State in which the person concerned has the habitual centre of his interests.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 229 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply in the cases where: (a) consumers concerned by the infringement are identifiable and suffered comparable harm caused by the same practice in relation to a period of time or a purchase. In such cases the requirement of the mandate of the individual consumers concerned shall not constitute a condition to initiate the action. The redress shall be directed to the consumers concerned; (b) consumers have suffered a small amount of loss and it would be disproportionate to distribute the redress to them. In such cases, Member States shall ensure that the mandate of the individual consumers concerned is not required. The redress shall be directed to a public purpose serving the collective interests of consumers.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 233 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) ‘collective interests of consumers’ means the interests of a number oftwo or more consumers;
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 235 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
(3a) ‘collective interests of citizens’ means the interests of two or more citizens;
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 238 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Where consumers have suffered a small amount of loss and it would be disproportionate to distribute the redress to them, Member States shall ensure that the mandate of the individual consumers concerned is not required. The redress shall be directed to a public interest serving the collective interests of consumers. The same shall apply to any unclaimed or leftover funds.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 239 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘representative action’ means an action for the protection of the collective interests of consumers or citizens to which the consumers or citizens concerned are not parties;
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 244 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The qualified entity seeking a redress order as referred in Article 6(1) shall declare at an early stage of the action the source of the funds used for its activity in general and the funds that it uses to support the action. It shall demonstrate that it has sufficient financial resources to represent the best interests of the consumers concerned and to meet any adverse costs should the action fail.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 250 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The unsuccessful party shall bear the costs of the proceedings. However, the court or tribunal shall not award costs to the unsuccessful party to the extent that they were unnecessarily incurred or are disproportionate to the claim.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 251 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall ensure that in cases where a representative action for redress is funded by a third party, transparency as to the origin of the funds is ensured and that it is prohibited for the third party:
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 256 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that courts and administrative authorities are empowered to assess the circumstances referred to in paragraph 2 and accordingly require the qualified entity to refuse the relevant funding and, if necessary, reject the standing of the qualified entity in a specific case.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 265 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) it has an organisational structure ensuring its independence from other entities or persons other than consumers or citizens who might have an interest in the outcome of the representative actions.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 267 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The first paragraph does not prevent qualified entities from informing, from the beginning of the action, the individual consumers concerned, in order to ensure that they can come forward and that relevant documents and other information necessary for the action are kept.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 272 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c b (new)
(cb) it discloses publicly by any appropriate means, in particular on its website, in plain, intelligible language the information on the way it is financed, its organisational and management structure, its remuneration policy, its policy to promote gender balance, its objective and its working methods as well as its activities.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 277 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that a final declaratory decision referred to in Article 6(2) is deemed as irrefutably establishing the liability of the trader towards the harmed consumers by an infringement for the purposes of any actions seeking redress before their national courts against the same trader for that infringement. Member States shall ensure that such actions for redress brought individually by consumers are available through expedient and simplified procedures.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 290 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that procedural costs related to representative actions do not constitute financial obstacles for qualified entities to effectively exercise the right to seek the measures referred to in Articles 5 and 6, such asin particular limiting applicable court or administrative fees, granting them access to legal aid where necessary, or by providing them with public funding for this purpose.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 290 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that in particular consumer organisations, environmental organisations, human rights organisations and independent public bodies are eligible for the status of qualified entity. Member States may designate as qualified entities consumer organisations, environmental organisations and human rights organisations that represent members from more than one Member State.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 299 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. No later than one year after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall assess whether the rules on air and rail passenger rights offer a level of protection of the rights of consumers comparable to that provided for under this Directive. Where that is the case, the Commission intends to make appropriate proposals, which may consist in particular in removing the acts referred to in points 10 and 15 of Annex I from the scope of application of this Directive as defined in Article 2.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 300 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may set out rules specifying which qualified entities may seek all of the measures referred to in Articles 5 and 6, and which qualified entities may seek only one or more of these measures. Member State shall ensure that a sufficient number of qualified entities can seek all measures referred to in article 5 and article 6.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 304 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – title
Representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers or citizens
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 321 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that qualified entities are entitled to bring representative actions seeking redress measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement. These measures shall be sought on the basis of any final decision establishing that a practice constitutes an infringement of Union law listed in Annex I harming collective interests of consumers, including a final injunction order referred to in paragraph (2)(b).
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 327 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to Article 4(4), Member States shall ensure that qualified entities are able to seek the measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement together with measures referred to in paragraph 2 within a single representative action.deleted
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 334 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
For the purposes of Article 5(3), Member States shall ensure that qualified entities are entitled to bring representative actions seeking a redress order for the economic and non-economic damage, which obligates the trader to provide for, inter alia, compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination or reimbursement of the price paid, as appropriate. A Member State may require the mandate of the individual consumers concerned before a declaratory decision is made or a redress order is issued. or citizens concerned. If a Member State does not require a mandate of the individual consumer to join the representative action, this Member State shall nevertheless allow those individuals who are not habitually resident in the Member State where the action occurs, to participate in the representative action, in case they expressed their willingness to be part of the representative action within the applicable time limit.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 350 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. By derogation to paragraph 1, Member States may empower a court or administrative authority to issue, instead of a redress order, a declaratory decision regarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement of Union law listed in Annex I, in duly justified cases where, due to the characteristics of the individual harm to the consumers concerned the quantification of individual redress is complex.deleted
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 359 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply in the cases where: (a) consumers concerned by the infringement are identifiable and suffered comparable harm caused by the same practice in relation to a period of time or a purchase. In such cases the requirement of the mandate of the individual consumers concerned shall not constitute a condition to initiate the action. The redress shall be directed to the consumers concerned; (b) amount of loss and it would be disproportionate to distribute the redress to them. In such cases, Member States shall ensure that the mandate of the individual consumers concerned is not required. The redress shall be directed to a public purpose serving the collective interests of consumers.deleted consumers have suffered a small
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 372 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In cases where consumers or citizens have suffered a small amount of loss and it would be disproportionate to distribute the redress to them, Member States shall ensure that the mandate of the individual consumers or citizens concerned is not required. The redress shall be directed to a public interest serving the collective interests of consumers or citizens. The same shall apply to any unclaimed or leftover funds.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 383 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The qualified entity seeking a redress order as referred in Article 6(1) shall declare at an early stage of the action the source of the funds used for its activity in general and the funds that it uses to support the action. It shall demonstrate that it has sufficient financial resources to represent the best interests of the consumers concerned and to meet any adverse costs should the action fail.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 393 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The unsuccessful party shall bear the costs of the proceedings. However, the court or tribunal shall not award costs to the unsuccessful party to the extent that they were unnecessarily incurred or are disproportionate to the claim.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 396 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall ensure that in cases where a representative action for redress is funded by a third party, transparency as to the origin of the funds is established and that it is prohibited for the third party:
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 407 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that courts and administrative authorities are empowered to assessssess the absence of conflict of interest and the circumstances referred to in paragraph 2 and accordingly require the qualified entity to refuse the relevant funding and, if necessary, reject the standing of the qualified entity in a specific case.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 426 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6
6. IWithout prejudice to the right to access to justice, individual consumers or citizens concerned shall be given the possibility to accept or to refuse to be bound by settlements referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. The redress obtained through an approved settlement in accordance with paragraph 4 shall be without prejudice to any additional rights to redress that the consumers concerned may have under Union or national law.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 436 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the court or administrative authority shall require the infringing trader to inform affected consumers or citizens at its expense about the final decisions providing for measures referred to in Articles 5 and 6, and the approved settlements referred to in Article 8, by means appropriate to the circumstance of the case and within specified time limits, including, where appropriate, through notifying all consumers concerned individually.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 438 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Paragraph 1 does not prevent qualified entities from informing the individual consumers or citizens concerned already on beforehand in order to ensure that the relevant documents and other information necessary for the action are kept.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 441 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall include in intelligible language an explanation of the subject- matter of the representative action, its legal consequences and, if relevant, the subsequent steps to be taken by the consumers concernedor citizens concerned. The information note, as well as the time frame to inform, has to be approved by the judge or by the authority overseeing the case.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 447 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that an infringement harming collective interests of consumers or citizens established in a final decision of an administrative authority or a court, including a final injunction order referred to in Article 5(2)(b), is deemed as irrefutably establishing the existence of that infringement for the purposes of any other actions seeking redress before their national courts against the same trader for the same infringement.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 450 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that a final declaratory decision referred to in Article 6(2) is deemed as irrefutably establishing the liability of the trader towards the harmed consumers by an infringement for the purposes of any actions seeking redress before their national courts against the same trader for that infringement. Member States shall ensure that such actions for redress brought individually by consumers are available through expedient and simplified procedures.deleted
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 474 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to facilitate access to justice and shall ensure that procedural costs related to representative actions do not constitute financial obstacles for qualified entities to effectively exercise the right to seek the measures referred to in Articles 5 and 6, such asin particular limiting applicable court or administrative fees, granting them access to legal aid where necessary, or by providing them with public funding for this purpose.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 491 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. No later than one year after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall assess whether the rules on air and rail passenger rights offer a level of protection of the rights of consumers comparable to that provided for under this Directive. Where that is the case, the Commission intends to make appropriate proposals, which may consist in particular in removing the acts referred to in points 10 and 15 of Annex I from the scope of application of this Directive as defined in Article 2.deleted
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 537 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a (new)
(59a) Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 539 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 b (new)
(59b) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 541 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 c (new)
(59c) Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 543 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 d (new)
(59d) Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 545 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 e (new)
(59e) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 547 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 f (new)
(59f) Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 549 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 g (new)
(59g) Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 551 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 h (new)
(59h) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 of 21 June 1989 laying down common marketing standards for preserved sardines and trade descriptions for preserved sardines and sardine-type products
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 553 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 i (new)
(59i) Council Directive 75/324/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 555 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 j (new)
(59j) Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 557 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 k (new)
(59k) Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 559 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 l (new)
(59l) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1536/92 of 9 June 1992 laying down common marketing standards for preserved tuna and bonito.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 561 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 m (new)
(59m) Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 563 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 n (new)
(59n) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 565 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 o (new)
(59o) Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 567 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 p (new)
(59p) Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 relating to fertilisers.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 569 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 q (new)
(59q) Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 571 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 r (new)
(59r) Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 573 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 s (new)
(59s) Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 575 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 t (new)
(59t) Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 577 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 u (new)
(59u) Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 579 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 v (new)
(59v) Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 581 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 w (new)
(59w) Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 583 #

2018/0089(COD)

(59x) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 585 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 y (new)
(59y) Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 587 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 z (new)
(59z) Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 589 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a a (new)
(59aa) Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 591 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a b (new)
(59ab) Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 593 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a c (new)
(59ac) Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 595 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a d (new)
(59ad) Regulation (EU) No 1227/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on wholesale energy market integrity and transparency
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 597 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a e (new)
(59ae) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 599 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a f (new)
(59af) Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 601 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a g (new)
(59ag) Directive 2013/50/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and Commission Directive 2007/14/EC laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC;
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 603 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a h (new)
(59ah) Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 605 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a i (new)
(59ai) Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 607 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a j (new)
(59aj) Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 609 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a k (new)
(59ak) Directive 2000/43/EC against discrimination on grounds of race and ethnic origin.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 611 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a l (new)
(59al) Directive 2000/78/EC against discrimination at work on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 613 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a m (new)
(59am) Directive 2006/54/EC equal treatment for men and women in matters of employment and occupation.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 615 #

2018/0089(COD)

(59an) Directive 2004/113/EC equal treatment for men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 617 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 59 a o (new)
(59ao) Directive Proposal [COM(2008)426] against discrimination based on age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief beyond the workplace.
2018/11/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 83 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
(12 a) In order to assess the phenomenon of reverse solicitation and demand on the own initiative of an investor, as well as the potential to use them to circumvent provisions connected to the passport, including by third country entities, the Commission should publish a report on these issues two years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Fees or charges levied by competent authorities shall be proporin relationate to the expenditure relating to the authorisation or registration and the performance of the supervisory and investigatory powers pursuant to Articles 44, 45 and 46 of Directive 2011/61/EU and Articles 97 and 98 of Directive 2009/65/ECcross border activity of AIFMs, EuVECA managers, EuSEF managers and UCITS shall be consistent with overall costs relating to the performance of the functions of the competent authority.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 128 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 3 – point o
(o) ‘pre-marketing’ means a direct or indirect provision of information or communication on investment strategies or investment ideas by the manager of a qualifying venture capital fund, or on its behalf, to potential investors domiciled or with a registered office in the Union in order to test their interest in a not yet registered qualifying venture capital fund or in a registered qualifying venture capital fund, which is not yet notified for marketing in accordance with Article 15 in that Member State where the potential investors are domiciled or have their registered office, and which in each case does not amount to an offer or placement to the investor to invest in units or shares of that qualifying venture capital fund;
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 134 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) relates to established qualifying venture capital funds;deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 138 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) contains any reference to established qualifying venture capital funds;deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 142 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) amounts to the final form of a prospectus, constitutional documents ofr offering documents of a not yet registered qualifying venture capital funds, offering documents,r amounts to subscription forms or similar documents whether in a draft or a final form allowing investors to take an investment decisioninvest in the units or shares of a qualifying venture capital fund.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 144 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 345/2013
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Where a draft prospectus or offering document as referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph is provided, such documents shall not contain all relevant information allowing investors to take an investment decision and shall clearly state that the information presented is incomplete and should therefore not be relied upon, as well as that the document does not constitute an offer or an invitation to subscribe to units or shares of the qualifying venture capital fund.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 145 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 2
2. Competent authorities shall not requireA manager of a qualifying venture capital fund shall send a simple letter in paper form or by electronic means before it engagers of qualifying venture capital funds to notify their intention to engage inin pre-marketing activities, stating the Member State or Member States in which it will conduct these activities, to the competent authorities of its home Member State with a copy to the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States in which it will undertake those pre-marketing. activities.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 3
3. Subscription by investors to units or shareshat were subject to pre-marketing, within 18 months after the manager of a qualifying venture capital funds registered following the pre- marketing in accordance with paragraph 1 or to the engaged in pre- marketing, to units or shares of a qualifying venture capital funds managed and marketed by referred to in the information provided in the context of pre-marketing activities by the managers of qualifyingthe venture capital funds that engaged in pre- marketing of not yet registered qualifying venture capital funds with the similar featur or on its behalf, or of qualifying venture capital funds established as a result of those pre- marketing activities shall be considered the result of marketing.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 150 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. A manager of a qualifying venture capital fund shall ensure that information relating to its pre-marketing activities is available, and provided upon request, to the competent authorities of its home Member State and to the competent authorities of the Member States in which it has engaged in pre-marketing activities. A manager of a qualifying venture capital fund shall ensure that its pre-marketing activities are adequately documented, including references to the Member States, the periods of time in which the pre-marketing activities took place, as well as a brief summary description of those activities, including the information on the investment strategies presented and, where relevant, a list of the EuVECAs and compartments of EuVECAs presented.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 154 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) 346/2013
Article 3 – point o
(o) ‘pre-marketing’ means a direct or indirect provision of information or communication on investment strategies or investment ideas by the manager of a qualifying social entrepreneurship fund, or on its behalf, to potential investors domiciled or with a registered office in the Union in order to test their interest in a not yet registered qualifying social entrepreneurship fund or in a registered qualifying social entrepreneurship fund, which is not yet notified for marketing in accordance with Article 16 in that Member State where the potential investors are domiciled or have their registered office, and which in each case does not amount to an offer or placement to the investor to invest in units or shares of that qualifying venture capital fund;
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 161 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) relates to established qualifying social entrepreneurship funds;deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 163 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) contains any reference to established qualifying social entrepreneurship funds;deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 168 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) amounts to the final form of a prospectus, constitutional documents ofr offering documents of a not yet registered qualifying social entrepreneurship funds, offering documents,r amounts to subscription forms or similar documents whether in a draft or a final form allowing investors to take an investment decisioninvest in the units or shares of a social entrepreneurship fund.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 170 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Where a draft prospectus or offering document as referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph is provided, such documents shall not contain all relevant information allowing investors to take an investment decision and shall clearly state that the information presented is incomplete and should therefore not be relied upon, as well as that the document does not constitute an offer or an invitation to subscribe to units or shares of a qualifying social entrepreneurship fund.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 171 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 2
2. Competent authorities shall not requireA manager of a qualifying social entrepreneurship fund shall send a simple letter in paper form or by electronic means before it engagers of qualifying social entrepreneurship funds to notify their intention to engage inin pre-marketing activities, stating the Member State or Member States in which it will conduct these activities, to the competent authorities of its home Member State with a copy to the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States in which it will undertake those pre-marketing. activities.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 174 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
3. Subscription by investors to units or shareshat were subject to pre-marketing, within 18 months after the manager of a qualifying social entrepreneurship funds registered following the pre-marketing in accordance with paragraph 1 or to the engaged in pre-marketing, to units or shares of a registered qualifying social entrepreneurship funds managed and marketed by referred to in the information provided in the context of pre-marketing activities by the managers of qualifyingthe social entrepreneurship funds that engaged in pre-marketing of not yet registered qualifying social entrepreneurship funds with the similar featur or on its behalf, or of qualifying social entrepreneurship funds established as a result of those pre-marketing activities, shall be considered the result of marketing.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 176 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. A manager of a qualifying social entrepreneurship fund shall ensure that information relating to its pre-marketing activities is available, and provided upon request, to the competent authorities of its home Member State and to the competent authorities of the Member States in which it has engaged in pre-marketing activities. A manager of a qualifying social entrepreneurship fund shall ensure that its pre-marketing activities are adequately documented, including references to the Member States, the periods of time in which the pre-marketing activities took place, as well as a brief summary description of those activities, including the information on the investment strategies presented and, where relevant, a list of the EuSEFs and compartments of EuSEFs presented.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 185 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
By [PO: Please insert date 24 months after the date of entry into force] the Commission shall, on the basis of a consultation of competent authorities, ESMA and other relevant stakeholders, issue a report on the phenomenon of reverse solicitation and demand on the own initiative of an investor, specifying the extent of this form of subscriptions to funds, its geographical distribution, including third countries, and its potential to be used to circumvent provisions connected to the passport.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 30 #

2018/0044(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) This Regulation concerns the third- party effects of the assignment of claims. It does not cover the transfer of the contracts (such as derivative contracts), in which both rights (or claims) and obligations are included, or the novation of contracts including such rights and obligations. As this Regulation does not cover the transfer or the novation of contracts, trading in financial instruments, as well as the clearing and the settlement of these instruments, will continue to be governed by the law applicable to contractual obligations as laid down in the Rome I Regulation. This law is normally chosen by the parties to the contract or is designated by non-discretionary rules applicable to financial markets.
2018/06/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 33 #

2018/0044(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) Flexibility should be provided in the determination of the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims in the context of a securitisation in order to cater for the needs of all securitisers and facilitate the expansion of the cross-border securitisation market to smaller operators. Whilst the law of the assignor’s habitual residence should apply as the default rule to the third-party effects of assignments of claims in the context of a securitisation, the assignor (originator) and the assignee (special purpose vehicle) should be able to choose that the law of the assigned claim should apply to the third-party effects of the assignment of claims. The assignor and the assignee should be able to decide that the third-party effects of the assignment of claims in the context of a securitisation should remain subject to the general rule of the assignor’s habitual residence or to choose the law of the assigned claim in function of the structure and characteristics of the transaction, for example the number and location of the originators and the number of laws which govern the assigned claims.deleted
2018/06/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 40 #

2018/0044(COD)

1a. This regulation is without prejudice to EU and national law on consumer protection.
2018/06/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 41 #

2018/0044(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) assignment of claims arising from matrimonial property regimes, property regimes of relationships deemed by the law applicable to such relationships to have comparable effects to marriage, and including registered partnerships, wills and succession;
2018/06/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 53 #

2018/0044(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Third-party effects of an assignment of claims where the assignee is acting as a natural person for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession (consumer) and where the assignor is acting in the exercise of his trade or profession shall be governed by the law of the country where the assignee has his habitual residence, provided that the assignor: (a) pursues his commercial or professional activities in the country where the assignee has his habitual residence, or b) by any means, directs such activities to that country or to several countries including that country. Assignor and assignee may choose the law applicable which fulfils the requirements, in accordance with this Article. Such a choice may not, however, have the result of depriving the assignee of the protection afforded to him by provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement by virtue of the law which, in the absence of choice, would have been applicable on the basis of this paragraph.
2018/06/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 57 #

2018/0044(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The assignor and the assignee may choose the law applicable to the assigned claim as the law applicable to the third- party effects of an assignment of claims in view of a securitisation.deleted
2018/06/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 60 #

2018/0044(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The choice of law shall be made expressly in the assignment contract or by a separate agreement. The substantive and formal validity of the act whereby the choice of law was made shall be governed by the chosen law.deleted
2018/06/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 87 #

2018/0043(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
(15) Another core feature of existing national covered bond frameworks is the fact that assets serving as collateral should be of very high quality in order to ensure the robustness of the cover pool. High quality assets are characterised by having specific features making them eligible to cover the claims attached to the covered bondrelating to the claim being secured and the collateral asset backing them. It is therefore appropriate to set out the general quality features that assets should respect in order to be eligible to serve as collateral. Assets listed in points (a) to (g) of Article 129(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 should be considered eligible to serve as collateral in the cover pool, within a covered bond framework, as should loans involving public undertakings as defined in Article 2(b) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC but also other assets of a similar high quality could be considered eligible under the Directive, provided that it is possible to determine either their market value or mortgage lending value. Furthermore, the Directive should include rules to ensure that assets, including guaranteed loans, can be repossessed or called in through an enforceable protection agreement, whether in the form of a traditional mortgage or by a charge, lien or guarantee providing the same level of legal protection, and thus ensuring the same level of safety for investors. However, those provisions on the eligibility of assets should not prevent Member States from allowing other categories of assets to serve as collateral in their national frameworks provided the assets comply with Union lawand loans to public undertakings as defined in Article 2(b) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC should be considered eligible as cover assets, within a covered bond framework. Other cover assets of a similar high quality such as loans and financings to undertakings promoting Commission Directive 2009/28/EC could also be considered eligible under the Directive, provided that they comply with the legal requirements and the requirements for the collateral backing the claim for payment, reflecting their nature as either physical assets or assets in the form of exposures. Member States should also be free to exclude assets in their national frameworks.
2018/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 114 #

2018/0043(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall ensure investor protection by requiring that covered bonds are at all times collateralised by high quality assets referred to in points (a) to (g) of Article 129(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 or by oand assets resulting of loans to public undertakings as defined in Article 2(b) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC. Other high quality assets thatve to meet at least the following requirements:
2018/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 123 #

2018/0043(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) a mortgage, charge, lien or other guarantee, guarantee or transfer of property for security purposes for the financing of renewable energy as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC for claims on the asset is enforceable;
2018/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 128 #

2018/0043(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) all legal requirements for establishing the mortgage, charge, lien or guarantee, guarantee or transfer of property for security purposes for the financing of renewable energy as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC for claims on the asset have been fulfilled;
2018/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 132 #

2018/0043(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) the mortgage, charge, lien or guarantee, guarantee or transfer of property for security purposes for the financing of renewable energy as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC securing the asset enable the credit institution issuing covered bonds to realise the value of the asset without undue delay.
2018/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 133 #

2018/0043(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d a (new)
(d a) for assets in the form of exposures to a counterparty, the counterparty's safety and soundness is inferred from being subject to either public supervision or an ongoing credit risk assessment based on regulator-permitted IRB approach as defined in Articles 143 and 144 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 or provided by an independent professional third party.
2018/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 134 #

2018/0043(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d a (new)
(d a) for physical assets, international valuation standards or a public register to record ownership and claims are available.
2018/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 146 #

2018/0043(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4 a (new)
For the purposes of point (da), Member States may decide for legal opinions to replace the registration in a public register, provided that the legal opinions ensure investor protection by confirming the enforceability of the claim. The credit institution issuing covered bonds shall provide, upon request of the competent authority, the most recent version of the independent, written and reasoned legal opinion or opinions that it used to replace the registration in a public register.
2018/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 76 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) The absence of clear and uniform conditions for the discontinuation of marketing of units or shares of a UCITS or an EU AIF in a host Member State creates economic and legal uncertainty for the fund managers. Therefore, this proposal lays down clear conditions, including thresholds, under which deregistration could take place. The thresholds are indicative of when a fund manager may consider that its activities have become insignificant in a particular host Member State. The conditions are set in such a way that they balance, on the one hand, the interests of fund managers to be able to deregister marketed funds when the established conditions are met, and on the other hand, the interests of investors in the fund from the host Member State concerned. In order to guarantee the protection of retail investors, funds should not be allowed to de-notify if retail clients in the host Member State concerned hold units or shares of the fund.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 78 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
(11) For pre-marketing to be recognised as such under this Directive, it should be addressed to a professional investor and concern an investment idea or strategy without having an actual AIF already establishAIF or compartment already established, or an established AIF or compartment which is not yet notified for marketing in the Member state concerned. Accordingly, during the course of pre-marketing, investors are unable to subscribe to the units or shares of an AIF because the fund does not exist yet, and no offering documents, even in a draft form,and no final versions of offering documents or any form of subscription documents should be permitted to be distributed to potential investors during this stage. However, when following the pre- marketing activities of the AIFM offers for, an investor subject to these activities subscriptionbes to units or shares of an AIF or compartment with the features akin to the pre-marketed investment idea or to an AIF or compartment referred to during the pre-marketing activities, the appropriate marketing notification procedure should be observed and the AIFM should not be able to invoke reverse solicitation. To ensure that national competent authorities can exercise their control over pre-marketing activities in their Member State, AIFMs should send an informal letter or e-mail informing the competent authorities of their home Member State and the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States where they will engage in pre-marketing activities, mentioning in which Member State or Member States they will conduct pre- marketing activities. AIFMs should furthermore ensure that their pre- marketing activities are appropriately documented and made available, upon request, to the national competent authorities concerned.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
(11 a) The harmonised rules on pre- marketing should not disadvantage an EU AIFM vis-à-vis a Non-EU AIFM in any case. This concerns both the current situation in which Non-EU AIFMs do not have passporting rights yet, and the situation where the provisions on passporting in Directive 2011/61/EU become applicable. To ensure this, the Commission should conduct a thorough investigation of all provisions in the Directive 2011/61/EU in the light of their application in the scenario of a passporting regime for Non-EU AIFM, and, if appropriate, propose legislative changes before Articles 35 and Articles 37 to 41 of Directive 2011/61/EU become applicable.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 89 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 92 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) their tasks are performed in the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State where the UCITS is marketed or in a language approved by the competent authorities of that Member State;
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 94 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 4
Where thea changes referred to in the first subparagraph does not affect the compliance of the UCITS with this Directive, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the UCITS shall, without undue delay, and no later than within 10 working days, inform the competent authorities of the host Member State of the UCITS of those changes.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 100 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2009/65/EU
Article 93a – paragraph 1– subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) no retail investor which is domiciled or has a registered office in ato the best knowledge, upon reasonable inquiry, of the UCITS is domiciled in that Member State where the UCITS has notified its activities in accordance with Article 93 holds units of that UCITS, or no more than 10 investors whichand professional investors which to the best knowledge, upon reasonable inquiry, of the UCITS are domiciled or have a registered office in that Member State hold units of the UCITS representing less than 15 % of assets under management of that UCITS;
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 106 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The information referred to in points (b) and (c) shall be provided in the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State where the UCITS has been marketed or in a language approved by the competent authorities of that Member State.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 112 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93a – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall allow for the use of all electronic or other distance communication means for the purposes of paragraph 4, provided the information and communication means are available for investors in the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State where the investor is located or in a language approved by the competent authorities of that Member State.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 115 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point aea
(aea) ‘pre-marketing’ means a direct or indirect provision of information or communication on investment strategies or investment ideas by an EU AIFM or on its behalf to potential professional investors domiciled or registered in the Union in order to test their interest in an AIF which is not yet established, or in a compartment of an AIF, which is not yet established or which is established, but not yet notified for marketing in accordance with Article 32, in that Member State where the potential investors are domiciled or have their registered office, and which in each case does not amount to an offer or placement to the investor to invest in the units or shares of that AIF or compartment.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 123 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) relates to an established AIF;deleted
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 126 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) contains reference to an established AIF;deleted
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) amounts to the final form of a prospectus, constitutional documents or offering documents of a not-yet- established AIF, offering documents,r amounts to subscription forms or similar documents whether in a draft or a final form allowing investors to take an investment decisioninvest in the units or shares of an AIF or compartment.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 134 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Where a draft prospectus or offering document as referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph is provided, such documents shall not contain all relevant information allowing investors to take an investment decision and shall clearly state that the information presented is incomplete and should therefore not be relied upon, as well as that the document does not constitute an offer or an invitation to subscribe to units or shares of an AIF or compartment.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that no requirement to notify the competent authoritian EU AIFM sends a simple letter in paper form or by electronic means before it engages ofin pre-marketing activities is necessary for an EU AIFM to engage in, stating the Member State or Member States in which it will conduct these activities, to the competent authorities of its home Member State with a copy to the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States in which it will undertake pre-marketing activities.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 138 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 3
3. Subscription by professional investors to units or shares of an AIF established following thehat were subject to pre- marketing in accordance with paragraph 1 or to the units or shares of AIFs managed or marketed by the EU AIFM that had engaged in pre-marketing of a not-yet- established AIF with the similar featur, within 18 months after the AIFM engaged in pre-marketing, to units or shares of an AIF referred to in the information provided in the context of pre-marketing activities by the EU AIFM or on its behalf, or of an AIF established as a result of those pre-marketing activities, shall be considered the result of marketing and shall be subject to the applicable notification procedures referred to in Article 31 and 32.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 141 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Member States shall ensure that an EU AIFM makes appropriate arrangements such that information relating to its pre-marketing activities is available, and provided upon request, to the competent authorities of its home Member State and to the competent authorities of the Member States in which it has engaged in pre-marketing activities. An EU AIFM shall ensure that its pre- marketing activities are adequately documented, including references to the Member States, the periods of time in which the pre-marketing activities took place, as well as a brief summary description of those activities, including the information on the investment strategies presented and, where relevant, a list of the AIFs and compartments of AIFs presented.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 146 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 32 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
If, pursuant to a planned change, the AIFM’s management of the AIF would no longer comply with this Directive or the AIFM would otherwise no longer comply with this Directive, the relevant competent authorities shall inform the AIFM within 2015 working days that it is not to implement the change. The competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State shall, without delay, inform the competent authorities of the AIFM host Member State about the planned change, its assessment of it and if it was implemented or not.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 147 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 32 – paragraph 7– subparagraph 4
If the changes do not affect the compliance of the AIFM’s management of the AIF with this Directive, or the compliance by the AIFM with this Directive otherwise, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall, within one monthout undue delay, and no later than within 15 working days, inform the competent authorities of the host Member State of the AIFM of those changes.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 150 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 32a – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that an EU AIFM may discontinue marketinge-notify its marketing activities of units or shares of an EU AIF that it manages in thein a Member State where a notification of its marketing activities has been transmitted in accordance with Article 32, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 152 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 32a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) no retail investor, which is domiciled or has a registered officeto the best knowledge, upon reasonable inquiry, of the AIFM, is domiciled in theat Member State, where a notification of its marketing activities has been transmitted in accordance with Article 32, holds units or shares of that AIF or no more than 10 investorsand professional investors, to the best knowledge, upon reasonable inquiry, of the AIFM, which are domiciled or have a registered office in that Member State, hold units or shares of the AIF representing less than 15 % of assets under management of that AIF;
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 159 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 43a – paragraph 1 – point ea (new)
(e a) act as contact point for communication with the competent authorities.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 160 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
(a) their tasks are performed in the official language or in one of the official languages of the Member State where the AIF is marketed or in a language approved by the competent authorities of that Member State;
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 162 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new)
Directive 2011/61/EU
Annex IV – point 1 – point h a (new)
(7a) In Annex IV, the following point is added: '(ha) information and the address necessary for the invoicing or communicating of any applicable regulatory fees or charges;'
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 163 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2011/61/EU
Annex IV – point 1 – point h b (new)
(7b) In Annex IV, the following point is added: '(hb) an indication of the facilities for performing the tasks referred to in Article 43a.'
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 165 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The Commission shall present a report, and if appropriate, legislative proposals, as a result of an investigation of all provisions in the Directive 2011/61/EU, in the context of their application in the scenario of a passporting regime for Non- EU AIFM, and before Article 35 and Articles 37 to 41 of Directive 2011/61/EU become applicable, especially focussing on the potential unlevel playing field between EU AIFMs and Non-EU AIFMs with the perspective that EU AIFMs should not be disadvantaged.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 166 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a Review By ... [date to be at least 12 months after the evaluation under Article 4], the Commission shall present a report on the application of this Directive. That report shall assess, inter alia, the possibility of harmonising provisions applicable to UCITS concerning pre-marketing to professional investors, keeping in mind the fact that UCITS is a product designed for retail clients and that this character should be preserved.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 91 #

2017/2226(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights, however, the persistent structural problem of insufficient growth of potential output and productivity, flanked by too low a level of investments and wages, leading to persistentincreasing social inequalities in most Member States;
2018/01/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 118 #

2017/2226(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of a wage increase at European level in order to boost private consumption as the main support for growth; is therefore concerned about the slow growth of wages which for many European citizens means a reduction of their purchasing power over the last years; points out the need to focus on the interaction between monetary, fiscal and incomes (including wage and profit development) policies rather than only fiscal issues;
2018/01/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 246 #

2017/2226(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Insists on a common effort to bring euro area expenditure on R&D closer to the EU2020 targets; stresses the importance of funding future-oriented areas, such as AI, robotics and cyber security; is concerned about reports describing a lack of access to funds especially for scale-ups in Europe, inciting companies to leave the Union or to be bought by foreign investors; highlights therefore the need of financial support not to be restricted to the development of new products, but also leading up to their commercialization; calls for proper policies and investment to ensure equal access to higher education and training;
2018/01/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 256 #

2017/2226(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls that the role of the Member States is to guarantee access to quality education and training; highlights the role of lifelong learning in a fast changing economy which requires the continuous development of new skills, especially e- skills; asks to develop models which help SMEs to provide adequate training for their staff; is concerned about the shortage of workforce in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects and in particular women trained in these subjects; is of the opinion that the European Union should actively develop programs which encourage especially women to study STEM subjects;
2018/01/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 281 #

2017/2226(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that the tools available are not yet equal to the task of fully addressing the EU’s cyclical and structural problems, in particular the need to strengthen inclusive growth and productivity, to boost jobthe creation of quality jobs, promote convergence, support sustainable investments and enhance resilience to shocks;
2018/01/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 311 #

2017/2226(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Is concerned that gaps and discrimination on the labour market remain high throughout the European Union, contributing to differences in remuneration, retirement, participation in decision- making and wealth between men and women; stresses the importance of preserving high standards in relation to the quality of the proposed employment; urges the European Union to be active in developing a regulatory model guaranteeing the respect of social standards in the platform and shared economy;
2018/01/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 329 #

2017/2226(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for the completion of the Banking Union, including a credible European deposit-insurance scheme and a common fiscal backstop; stresses the crucial role of a completed Banking Union in ensuring the stability of the European financial sector and thus the financing of the real economy; highlights the importance of equal protection of their deposits for all EU citizens;
2018/01/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 16 #

2017/2139(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomDeplores the flact that the Court is workingk of effort by Member States towards achieving gender balance in positions of high responsibility 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).
2017/12/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 18 #

2017/2139(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Considers that the Union institutions must be representative of their citizens; stresses, therefore, the importance of the goal set by Parliament and the Council.
2017/12/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 330 #

2017/2124(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Acknowledges that the current policy of low interest rates has a positive effect on thetemporarily alleviates the risks related to high levels of nonperforming loans (NPLs); calls for a European strategy involvingwelcomes the guidance by the ECB to banks on tackling NPLs of March 2017 and its actions concerning individual banks by setting objectives regarding the reduction of NPLs; points out that the ECB should be fully involved in the measures outlined by the Council on 11 July 2017 in its Action plan to tackle non-performing loans, notably in the establishment of a secondary market for NPLs in order to alleviate the burden of NPLs in some Member States;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 436 #

2017/2124(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Welcomes the amendment of Article 22 of the ECB Statute to provide a legal basis for the Eurosystem to carry out its role as central bank of issue in the proposed reform of the supervisory architecture for central counterparties (CCPs)Recommendation for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Article 22 of the ECB Statute to give the ECB the competence necessary to regulate the activity of the clearing systems, including the central counterparties (CCPs) in order to effectively counter risks posed by those systems to the smooth operation of payment systems and the implementation of the single monetary policy;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 444 #

2017/2124(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. Agrees with the ECBopinion issued by the ECB on 30 May 2017 on the limportance of physical money as the only legal tender, and reminds all Eurozitation of cash payments stating that measures limiting cash payments need to be carefully weighted against public benefit, especially because they potentially have a negative effect on social inclusione; countries that euro coins and banknotes must not be rejected in transactionsnsidering the difficulty to trace cash, however also acknowledges the benefits of reducing the use of cash to help the fight against anti-money laundering and terrorist financing;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 457 #

2017/2124(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32 a. Underlines the importance of cyber-security for the financial sector;welcomes the ECB’s work in this area, such as the launch of a pilot scheme for reporting significant cyber incidents in February 2016 and the collaboration in the framework of the G7;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 516 #

2017/2124(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
36. Considers that the ECB’s growing number of responsibilities and tasks necessitate appropriate resources and greater ECB transparency and accountability towards Parliament;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 18 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 28 a (new)
- having regard to the Opinion of the Legal Service of the European Parliament concerning the legal effects of the draft document entitled “Addendum to the ECB Guidance to banks on non- performing loans: Prudential provisioning backstop for non-performing exposures” issued by the European Central Bank,
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 19 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 28 b (new)
- having regard to the Commission’s targeted consultation on statutory prudential backstops addressing insufficient provisioning for newly originated loans that turn non- performing,
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 35 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas the stock of non- performing loans of significant institutions (SIs) stood at EUR 865 billion at the end of March 2017, having significantly decreased from 950 billion at the same time in 2016, showing a declining trend;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 47 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the 2017 banking cases have shown that the move from bail-out to bail-in has yet to be finalisdeleted;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the Banking Union remains incomplete; establishment of the Banking Union is an indispensable component of a monetary union and a fundamental building block of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union, whereas further efforts are needed as the Banking Union remains incomplete as long as it lacks a fiscal backstop and a third pillar, this being a European approach to deposit re-/insurance; whereas a completed Banking Union will be an important contribution to breaking the sovereign- risk nexus;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 71 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas both the Commission and the ECB provided feedback on Parliament’s 2016 Banking Union report;deleted
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 77 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas the primary responsibility of banks is to provide finance to the real economy;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
E b. whereas a coherent, fully-fledged framework for macroprudential supervision at European level is still lacking;whereas microprudential tools are insufficient to address macroeconomic risks;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 83 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)
E c. whereas the risks in the banking sector have already been substantially reduced since the start of the establishment of the Banking Union and the institutional and regulatory framework for European banks has been fundamentally reinforced;whereas advances on risk sharing however remain very limited;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 86 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E d (new)
E d. whereas Member States which have not yet adopted the euro are welcome to join the Banking Union;whereas financial institutions see advantages in being situated within the Banking Union;whereas Denmark, Sweden and Bulgaria are in discussions about the possibility to join the Banking Union;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 96 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the ECB’s ‘failing or likely to fail’ assessments in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A., Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto BancaAgrees with the Commission that procedures leading to decisions whether or not a bank is ‘failing or likely to fail’ need to be improved;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 107 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the ECB’s determination in the context of the precautionary recapitalisation of Monte dei Paschi di Siena that the bank is solvent and meets the capital requirements; notes, in this regard, that the determination of solvency leaves room for an element of subjectivity as this determinat use of asset quality reviews in order to determine whether the conditions for precautionary recapitalisation gareatly depends on how a bank’s assets are valu met should be clarified;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates its concerns about the high level of non-performing loans (NPLs) in certain jurisdictions; agrees with the Commission that whereas ‘Member States and banks themselves have a primary responsibility in tackling non-performing loans’4 ; welcomes, nonetheless, integrating national and European Union level efforts is warranted to make an impact on Non Performing Loan stocks and prevent the future build-up of new Non Performing Loans on banks' balance sheets’4;welcomes the progress made by some Member States; welcomes in general, the work done by different EU institutions and bodies on this issue, would however welcome better coordination between their efforts; calls on these actors and the Member States to duly implement the Council conclusions of 11 July 2017 on the action plan to tackle non-performing loans in Europe; reiterates the concerns of the EP and its legal service concerning the addendum to the ECB guidance on NPLs; recalls that the general principles of law making in the Union which require impact assessments and consultation, as well as the assessment of proportionality and subsidiarity are also relevant for 3rd level legislation; calls for more transparency in the elaboration of 3rd level guidance; _________________ 4 Commission communication on completing the Banking Union, 11 October 2017, p. 15 (COM(2017)0592).
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 153 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that there are risks associated with sovereign debt; notes that in some Member States financial institutions have overly invested in bonds issued by their own governments, constituting excessive ‘home bias’; recalls that one of the main objectives of the Banking Union is to break the bank- sovereign-risk-nexus; considers that the EU regulatory framework on prudential treatment of sovereign debt should be consistent with the international standard; awaits, therefore the results of the FSB’s work on sovereign debt with great interest in order to guide future decisions; stresses the crucial role of government bonds in providing high- quality and liquid assets for the financial sector and safe liabilities for governments; takes note, in this respect, of the Commission’s ongoing work on the idea of so-called sovereign bond-backed securities (SBBS);
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 180 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the work done by the ECB to assess the adequacy of internal models, including its new guide to the TRIM, with a view to addressing the variability in risk-weights applied to risk- weighted assets of the same class across credit institutions; calls for a rapid conclusion offollows with interest the ongoing negotiations on output floors within the BCBS;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 194 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the banking reform package proposed by the Commission in November 2016; underlines the importance of the fast-track procedure for the phasing-in of International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 9 in order to avoid cliff effects on the regulatory capital of credit institutions; supports the efforts made to reduce the reporting burden for smaller banks; is concerned, however, about the proposed amendments to the waivers in Articles 7 and 8 of the CRR, and more generally, about the proposed shift in the home-host balance;deleted
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 215 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. RIs of the opinion that banking activity should be supervised regardless the entity it is undertaken by; calls, in this regard, for an approach to FinTechs which strikes the right balance between protecting the consumers, maintaining financial stability and encouraging innovation; recalls its resolution of 17 May 2017 on FinTech; welcomes, in this respect, the work of the Commission, the proposed inclusion of technological innovation in the mandates of the ESAs and the ongoing public consultation on the ECB’s draft guidance to assessments of FinTech bank licence applications;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 224 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the work done by the EBA and E, ESMA and the SSMA on promoting supervisory convergence in the context of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU with a view to limiting the development of regulatory and supervisory arbitrage risks; believes that, in order to preserve financial stability, a new supervisory cooperation model should be developed between the EU and the UK and the creation of empty shells and letter box companies; believes that any further framework should safeguard financial stability in the Union and respect its regulatory and supervisory regime and standards and their application;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 227 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the proposals on the review of the ESFS; calls on the Union legislators to find an appropriate equilibrium between the tasks and powers of the national competent authorities (NCAs) and the ESAs;deleted
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 237 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Looks forward toIs concerned by developments showing trends for banking groups to use increasingly complex structures and entities that undertake largely the same activities as banks but escape bank supervision; awaits a clarification of this issue by the Commission’s forthcoming proposal on large investment firms;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 238 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Welcomes the progress made in allowing some delegation in the area of fit and proper decisions by the Decision of the ECB of June 2017;reiterates its assessment that a change in the regulations is needed to allow more and easier delegation of decision-making on certain routine issues, from the Supervisory Board to relevant officials; reiterates its favourable view of such a change which would contribute to making the ECB’s banking supervision more efficient and effective; calls on the ECB to specify tasks for the delegation of decision-making;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 247 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Acknowledges the high costs of implementing supervision requirements; is concerned that these costs can be especially difficult to handle for smaller banks; welcomes therefore the efforts of the Commission to introduce more proportionality in supervision;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 250 #

2017/2072(INI)

10c. Welcomes that the Commission in its reply to the Banking Union Annual Report 2016 shares the Parliament’s view that reporting requirements should be streamlined in order to avoid double reporting and unnecessary additional costs of regulation;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 253 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 d (new)
10d. Reiterates its stressing of the importance of strong and well- functioning IT systems corresponding to the needs of the supervisory functions of the SSM and security concerns; acknowledges that the increased digitalisation of all aspects of banking has left them significantly more vulnerable to cyber security risks; welcomes the progress made by many actors; however calls on them to be more ambitious;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 254 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 e (new)
10e. Welcomes the good functioning of the SSM; especially welcomes the excellent work of the JSTs; is however concerned about reports of insufficient staff allocations to JSTs; reiterates its call to dedicate more ECB personnel to the JSTs in order to strengthen the European element of supervision and to reduce reliance on staff from NCAs in order to further improve the independence of supervision; is concerned about the high level of external experts employed by the ECB on supervisory tasks;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 255 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 f (new)
10f. Is concerned that the Commission has not issued a proposal for on overall review of the macro-prudential framework which was planned for 2017;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 256 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 g (new)
10g. Welcomes that the Banking Union has significantly improved the collection and exchange of data on the European banking system, contributing for example to better benchmarking;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 257 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 h (new)
10h. Calls for an interinstitutional agreement between the ECB and the ECA to specify the exchange of information between both institutions;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 258 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Is concerned about the high number of legal applications lodged before the General Court of the EU in relation to the Banco Popular Español S.A. case; asks the Commission to assess whether this could endanger the effectiveness of the new resolution regime; calls on the SRB and the Commission to provide more transparency in future resolution decisions;deleted
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 268 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Notes that the lack of harmonisation of national insolvency laws in the field of banking results in different treatments of creditors depending on the jurisdictions where the institution in resolution is established; calls therefore on the Commission and Member States to take further steps towards the harmonisation of bank insolvency law in order to ensure a more level playing field within the banking union and within the Union as a whole across those institutions that will not be subject to resolution;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 276 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that, while the concern aboutRecalls the mismatch between sState aid rules and Union legislation as expressed in the previous report5 related to the ability of deposit guarantee schemes (DGSs) to participate in resolution as provided for in the BRRD and DGSD, the 2017 banking cases brought to light other areas of mismatch, in particular the possibility for Member States to avoid being subject to the discipline of the BRRD by paying ‘liquidation aid’; _________________ 5 European Parliament, Resolution of 15 February 2017 on ‘Banking Union – Annual Report 2016’, paragraph 38.; calls on the Commission to reconsider its interpretation of the State aid rules with reference to Articles 11(3) and11(6) of the DGSD to guarantee that preventive and alternative measures provided for by the European legislator can be actually implemented;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 284 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. CRecalls on the Commission to underneed to adhere to stakte as soon as possible the review referred to in the last subparagraph of Article 32(4) of the BRRD, taking into account the interplay between the new resolution regime and the 2013 Bid rules when dealing with banking crises, and that the public support measures shall be of precautionary and temporary nature and shall be proportionate to remedy the consequences of the serious disturbance and shall not be used to offset losses that ank ing Communication, in order to draw lessons from the 2017 banking casesstitution has incurred or is likely to incur in the near future;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 295 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the SRB’s prioritisation of enhancingwork on resolvability of credit institutions, as well as the progress made in developing individual minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) targets in the framework of institution- specific resolution strategiesat consolidated level;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 301 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the progress made iagreement reached on further harmonising the priority ranking of unsecured debt instruments through the Commission’s proposal of November 2016; calls for rapid implementation by Member States so that banks can issue debt in the new insolvency class and thereby build up the required buffers;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 310 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for progress to be made on theNotes ongoing legislative proposals for implementing total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) in Union law; supports the inclusion of a pre-resolution moratorium tool in the BRRD;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 319 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Notes the ongoing technical work byRegrets the lack of progress within the Council on athe common fiscal backstop for the Single Resolution Fund (SRF); recalls that the fiscal backstop is key to ensure a credible and efficient resolution framework in the Banking Union; considers that the backstop should be set within the community framework with adequate resources, including the ESM integrated within the EU legal framework;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 330 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Recalls that the substance of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) is to be ultimately incorporated into the Union legal framework; reiterates its calls on the Commission to reflect on ways of doing so;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 332 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Calls for an improvement of the practical modalities of cooperation and exchange of information between all European and national bodies involved in early intervention and resolution;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 333 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17c. Insists on the importance of improved cooperation for swift and effective coordination between supervisory and resolution authorities; would welcome in this respect change in the relevant SSM Regulation to allow for a representative of the Single Resolution Board as a permanent observer at meeting of the Supervisory Board of the SSM;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 334 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17d. Emphasises the importance of operational and credible resolution plans and in that context acknowledges the problems that single point of entry strategies could imply for the financial stability of host countries if not appropriately designed; calls therefore for the completion of the mechanisms foreseen in resolution plans by operational loss upstreaming mechanisms through sufficiently high buffers of internal MREL and by arrangements preventing that losses can be downstreamed within the resolution group when resolution tools are applied to the resolution entity;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 335 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 e (new)
17e. Is concerned about the influence that resolution decisions can have on the structure of the banking system; calls on the Commission to closely monitor this issue, follow-up on decisions taken and inform the European Parliament about its findings on a regular basis;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 343 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Asks the Commission to shed light on the applications for a target level lower than 0.8 % of covered deposits as received and approved by it in accordance with Article 10(6) of the DGSD; draws attention to the implications of the availability of such an exception for the potential design of an EDIS;deleted
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 356 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Recalls that deposit protection is a common concern for all EU citizens and that the Banking Union remains incomplete without its third pillar; is currently debating the proposal on an EDIS at committee level; notes, in this respect, the Commission’s more proportionate ‘new approach’ to an EDIS as put forward in its communication of 11 October 2017, while maintaining its original proposal;
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 371 #

2017/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Notes the potential benefits and the likely risks related to the introduction of an EDIS; considers, therefore, risk reduction measures to be essential building blocks laying the foundations for an EDIS;deleted
2017/11/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 59 #

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas it should be remembered that, contrary to the concerns expressed by some actors, not all 3D-printing production of objects is unlawful, nor are all operators in the sector producing counterfeit objects;
2018/03/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 81 #

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital M
M. whereas the question of liability for goods produced and forlegal consequences, beyond the damage resulting from a defective digital file, could, as regards consumers, be resolved with reference to Articles 10 and 14 of the Commission proposalin future EU legislation on certain aspects of contracts for the supply of digital content;.
2018/03/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 83 #

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Ma. whereas although the development of 3D printing makes industrial production possible, consideration should be given to the need to establish means of collective redress in order to provide compensation to consumers for damage;
2018/03/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 102 #

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that to anticipate 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, in particular the legislation on copyright currently applicable to 2D printing; adds that innovation needs to be accompanied by law, without the law acting as a brake or a constraint;
2018/03/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 114 #

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that it goes without saying that care should be taken in the 3D- printing sector, particularly with regard to the quality of the printed product and any dangers that the product may pose to users or consumers, and it would be appropriate to consider including identification means to make it possible to distinguish between objects produced in the traditional way and objects produced using 3D printingensure traceability of products;
2018/03/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 146 #

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Points out that 3D-printing technology has many economic advantages for the EU as it offers opportunities for customisation specifically meeting the requirements of European consumers, and that it could make it possible to repatriate production activities and thereby help to create new jobs that are less physically demanding and less dangerous.
2018/03/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 149 #

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Stresses the importance of creating a coherent legal framework to provide a smooth transition and legal certainty for consumers and businesses in order to promote innovation in the EU.
2018/03/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 33 #

2017/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for a clear definition of CBs in a European Directive; insists that the definition for securities henceforth called ‘covered bonds’ must not fall below the standards currently set by Article 12952(4) of the CRR; requests that securities incompatible with this definition but compatible with Article 52(4) of the UCITS DirectiUCITS Directive; CBs which are also compliant with Article 129 of the CRR should benefit from preferential risk weight treatment; for the achievement of the Capital Markets Union's objective, recognizes the potential of UCITS compliant dual recourse securities, with different requirements in terms of eligible cover aressets; calls on the Commission to properly defined them in the same directive under a name clearly distinct from ‘covered bonds’; suggests that this name may be ‘European Secured Notes’; (ESNs);
2017/04/28
Committee: ECON
Amendment 38 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) This regime should not impede on the obligation of designated market makers at trade venues under Directive 2014/65/EU Articles 17(3), 48(2) and 48(3) to provide quotes and be present in the market on a continuous basis.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 41 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) Investment firms should be considered small and non-interconnected for the purposes of the specific prudential requirements for investment firms where they do not conduct investment services which carry a high risk for clients, markets, Union taxpayers or themselves and whose size means they are less likely to cause widespread negative impacts for clients and, markets, and Union taxpayers in case risks inherent in their business materialise or in case they fail. Accordingly, small and non- interconnected investment firms should be defined as those that do not deal on own account or incur risk from trading financial instruments, have no client assets or money under their control, have assets under both discretionary portfolio management and non-discretionary (advisory) arrangements of less than EUR 1.2 billion, handle fewer than EUR 100 million per day of client orders in cash trades or EUR 1 billion per day in derivatives, and have a balance sheet smaller than EUR 100 million and total gross annual revenues from the performance of their investment services of less than EUR 30 million.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) All investment firms should calculate their capital requirement with reference to a set of K-factors which capture Risk-To-Customer (‘RtC’), Risk- to-Market (‘RtM’) and Risk-to-Firm (‘RtF’). The K-factors under RtC capture client assets under management and nongoing advice- discretionary (advisory) arrangements (K- AUM), assets safeguarded and administered (K-ASA), client money held (K-CMH), and customer orders handled (K-COH).
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) The K-factors under RtC are proxies covering the business areas of investment firms from which harm to clients can conceivably be generated in case of problems. K-AUM captures the risk of harm to clients from an incorrect discretionary management of customer portfolios or poor execution and provides reassurance and customer benefits in terms of the continuity of service of ongoing portfolio management and advicenon- discretionary (advisory) arrangements. K- ASA captures the risk of safeguarding and administering customer assets, and ensures that investment firms hold capital in proportion to such balances, regardless of whether they are on its own balance sheet or segregated in other accounts. K-CMH captures the risk of potential for harm where an investment firm holds the money of its customers, regardless of whether they are on its own balance sheet or segregated in other accounts. K-COH captures the potential risk to clients of a firm which executes its orders (in the name of the client, and not in the name of the firm itself), for example as part of execution- only services to clients or when a firm is part of a chain for client orders.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42 a (new)
(42a) With the aim of guaranteeing a level playing field and promote the transparency of the European market structure, Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should be amended in order to subject systemic internalisers' quotes and execution prices to the tick size regime when dealing in all sizes.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 97 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) CMH (or client money held) calculated in accordance with Article 18 is zero, except when a limited amount of client money is being held exceptionally and temporarily, for no more than 5 business days;
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 126 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. EBA, in consultation with ESMA, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the definitions of the K-factors in Title II of Part Three. The EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [nine months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
The RtM K-factor requirement for the trading book positions of an investment firm dealing on own account, whether for itself or on behalf of a client shall be the higher ofeither K-NPR calculated in accordance with Article 22 or K-CMG calculated in accordance with Article 23.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 150 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Investment firms shall have the option to simultaneously apply K-NPR to some of their positions and K-CMG to other positions.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 160 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
By way of derogation from Article 22, tThe competent authority may allow an investment firm to calculate K-CMG for positions that are centrally cleared subject to the following conditions:
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 161 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the execution and settlement of the transactions of the investment firm that are centrally clearemargined and take place under the responsibility of a clearing member and are either guaranteed by that clearing member or otherwise settled on a delivery- versus-payment basis;
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 163 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) the clearing member is a credit institution.deleted
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 195 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
For the purposes of calculating K-DTF, DTF shall be the rolling average of the value of the total daily trading flow, measured at the end of each business day over the previous 615 calendar months, excluding the 3 most recent calendar months.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 196 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
DTF shall be the average or simple arithmetic mean of the daily measurements for the remaining 312 calendar months
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 198 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
K-DTF shall be calculated within the first 14 days of each quarteyear.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 207 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
DTF shall exclude transactions executed by an investment firm providing portfolio management services on behalf of collective investment fundertakings.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 212 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. An investment firm dealing on own account, whether for itself or on behalf of a client, shall not incur an exposure to brown exposures, used for a unit that exists or was created to finance, refinance or operate brown assets, the value of which exceeds 25% of its regulatory capital, unless it meets the obligation to notify set out in Article 37 and the K-CON capital requirement set out in Article 38. Brown assets are defined in accordance with the relevant EU taxonomy classifying sustainable and non-sustainable assets. The EBA and EIOPA shall prepare draft technical regulatory standards for the application of this taxonomy in [prudential supervision] [the application of Regulation 575/2013, Directive 2013/36/EU, and Directive 2009/138/EC]. The EBA and EIOPA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [two years after entry into force of this Regulation]. The Commission is empowered to supplement this Regulation by adopting delegated acts in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 with the regulatory technical standards specified in this paragraph. Until such taxonomy is confirmed in European legislation, for the purpose of implementing the definition referred to in paragraphs [1 and 2] of this Article as from entry into force of this Regulation, “brown assets” shall be defined as energy production power plants using coal mining, oil and gas exploration and production, and nuclear energy.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 234 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Investment firms shall ensure that their remuneration policies and practices are gender neutral by ensuring that the same or similar type of jobs will be equally remunerated regardless of gender. They will disclose the following information regarding their remuneration policy and practices for those categories of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on investment firm's risk profile, in accordance with Article 45;
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 237 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the ratios between remuneration of employees and board members in accordance with Article 28(2a) of Directive ----/-- [IFD];
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 263 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) the impacts of the modification of the definition of "credit institution" in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 through Article 60 (2) (a) of this Regulation and potential unintended negative consequences;
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 266 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
(fb) the application of the K-AUM factor and especially the aspect if advice is appropriately considered or if it should be excluded from the K-AUM factor and be treated through a different K-factor;
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 268 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 1 – point f c (new)
(fc) the method of measuring the value of a derivative in Article 32 (2) (b) and Article 20 (2) (b), and the appropriateness of introducing an alternative metric and/or calibration;
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 269 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 1 – point f d (new)
(fd) the non-distinction between segregated and non-segregated accounts and the requirements in terms of harmonisation of insolvency law in the Union to guarantee an appropriate degree of harmonisation of provisions for segregated accounts;
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 272 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. By [5 years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation] and subsequently every 3 years, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of this Regulation, especially taking into consideration the impacts on particular business models and market entry opportunities in the European markets.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 277 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b – point i
(i) the total value of the assets in the Union of the undertaking exceeds EUR 30 billion, or
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 282 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b – point ii
(ii) the total value of the assets in the Union of the undertaking is below EUR 30 billion, and the undertaking is part of a group in which the combined total value of the assets of all undertakings in the group that carry out any of the activities referred to in points (3) and (6) of Section A of Annex I of Directive 2014/65/EU and have total assets below EUR 30 billion exceeds EUR 30 billion, or
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 286 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
(iii) the total value of the assets in the Union of the undertaking is below EUR 30 billion, and the undertaking is part of a group in which the combined total value of the assets of all undertakings in the group that carry out any of the activities referred to in points (3) and (6) of Section A of Annex I of Directive 2014/65/EU exceed EUR 30 billion, where the consolidating supervisor in consultation with the supervisory college so decides in order to address potential risks of circumvention and potential risks for the financial stability of the Union.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 289 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point 12 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 119 – paragraph 5
12a. In Article 119, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following: "5. Exposures to financial institutions authorised and supervised by the competent authorities and subject to prudential requirements comparable to those applied to institutions in terms of robustness shall be treated as exposures to institutions. For the purpose of this paragraph, the prudential requirements defined in Regulation (EU) ---/--- [IFR] shall be considered comparable to those applied to institutions in terms of robustness."
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 293 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014
Article 17 a (new)
(-1a) The following Article is inserted: "Article 17a Systemic internalisers' quotes, price improvements on those quotes and execution prices shall comply with tick sizes set in accordance with Article 49 of Directive 2014/65/EU."
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 323 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014
Article 47 – paragraph 5
5. ESMA shall be empowered to advise the Commission on equivalence decisions and monitor the regulatory and supervisory developments, the enforcement practices and other relevant market developments in third countries for which equivalence decisions have been adopted by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1 in order to verify whether the conditions on the basis of which those decisions have been taken are still fulfilled. The Authority shall submit a confidential report on its findings to the Commission on an annual basisreport on its findings to the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council on an annual basis. In case this report gives grounds to suggest an equivalence decision could be withdrawn, the Commission shall within a month give a reasoned statement on how it will proceed to the European Parliament and the Council.’’.
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 326 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014
Article 47 – paragraph 5 a (new)
(ca) the following paragraph is added: “5a. The Commission shall, on an annual basis, provide the European Parliament with a list of the decisions on equivalence granted, suspended or withdrawn, including an explanation on the rationale supporting those decisions; in case of disagreement with any of the decisions taken, the European Parliament shall ask the Commission to review those decisions, providing a reasoned justification for its request.’’
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 337 #

2017/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Article 61(-1) shall apply from ... [the date of entry into force of this Regulation].
2018/06/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 14 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
(4) Many of the requirements that stem from Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU framework are designed to address common risks faced by credit institutions. Accordingly, the existing requirements are largely calibrated to preserve the lending capacity of credit institutions through economic cycles and to protect depositors and taxpayers from possible failure, and are not designed to address the different risk-profiles of investment firms. Investment firms do not have large portfolios of retail and corporate loans and do not take deposits. The likelihood that their failure can have detrimental impacts for overall financial stability is lower than in the case of credit institutions, but they still pose a risk which has to be addressed through a robust framework. The risks faced and posed by investment firms are thus substantially different to the risks faced and posed by credit institutions and such difference should be clearly reflected in the prudential framework of the Union.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) To align remuneration with the risk profile of investment firms and to guarantee a level-playing field, investment firms should be subject to clear principles on corporate governance arrangements and rules on remuneration that are gender neutral and that take into account the differences between credit institutions and investment firms. Small and non- interconnected investment firms should however be exempted from those rules because the provisions on remuneration and corporate governance under Directive 2014/65/EU are sufficiently comprehensive for those types of firms.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 33 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall designate one or more competent authorities that carry out the functions and duties provided for in this Directive. The Member States shall inform the Commission, EBA and EBSMA of that designation, and where there is more than one competent authority, of the functions and duties of each competent authority.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 40 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
(4) Many of the requirements that stem from Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU framework are designed to address common risks faced by credit institutions. Accordingly, the existing requirements are largely calibrated to preserve the lending capacity of credit institutions through economic cycles and to protect depositors and taxpayers from possible failure, and are not designed to address the different risk-profiles of investment firms. Investment firms do not have large portfolios of retail and corporate loans and do not take deposits. The likelihood that their failure can have detrimental impacts for overall financial stability is lower than in the case of credit institutions, but they still pose a risk which has to be addressed through a robust framework. The risks faced and posed by investment firms are thus substantially different to the risks faced and posed by credit institutions and such difference should be clearly reflected in the prudential framework of the Union.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 42 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
The administrative penalties and other administrative measures shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and Member States shall apply a harmonised set of penalties for similar offences to avoid treaty shopping.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 44 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) in case of a legal person, administrative pecuniary penalties of up to 105% of the total annual net turnover, including the gross income consisting of interest receivable and similar income, income from shares and other variable or fixed-yield securities, and commissions or fees of the undertaking in the preceding business year;
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
(e) in the case of a legal person, administrative pecuniary penalties of up to twicehree times the amount of the profits gained or losses avoided due to the breach where those profits or losses can be determined;
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 46 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b – point iv
(iv) to interview any other person who consents to be interviewedrelevant person for the purposes of collecting information on the subject matter of an investigation;
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 48 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities publish on their official website any administrative penalties and measures imposed in accordance with Article 16 and which has not been appealed or can no longer be appealed, without undue delay. That publication shall include information on the type and nature of the breach and the identity of the natural or legal person on whom the penalty is imposed or against whom the measure is taken. The information shall only be published after that person has been informed of those penalties or measures and to the extent the publication is necessary and proportionate. Competent authorities shall ensure that the same information is published on the official website of the investment firm concerned.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 49 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. Where Member States permit the publication of administrative penalties or measures imposed in accordance with Article 16 against which there has been an appeal, competent authorities shall also publish on their official website information on the appeal status and on the outcome of the appeal. Competent authorities shall ensure that the same information is published on the official website of the investment firm concerned.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 51 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Competent authorities shall inform EBA of administrative penalties and measures imposed pursuant to Article 16, of any appeal against those penalties and measures and of the outcome thereof. EBA shall maintain a central database of administrative penalties and measures communicated to it solely for the purpose of exchanging information between competent authorities. That database shall be accessible to competent authorities onlyand ESMA, and it shall be updated regularly, at least on a quarterly basis.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) To align remuneration with the risk profile of investment firms and to guarantee a level-playing field, investment firms should be subject to clear principles on corporate governance arrangements and rules on remuneration that are gender neutral and that take into account the differences between credit institutions and investment firms. Small and non- interconnected investment firms should however be exempted from those rules because the provisions on remuneration and corporate governance under Directive 2014/65/EU are sufficiently comprehensive for those types of firms.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 57 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall designate one or more competent authorities that carry out the functions and duties provided for in this Directive. The Member States shall inform the Commission, EBA and EBSMA of that designation, and where there is more than one competent authority, of the functions and duties of each competent authority.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 70 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
The administrative penalties and other administrative measures shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and Member States shall apply a harmonised set of penalties for similar offences to avoid treaty shopping.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 71 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) in case of a legal person, administrative pecuniary penalties of up to 105% of the total annual net turnover, including the gross income consisting of interest receivable and similar income, income from shares and other variable or fixed-yield securities, and commissions or fees of the undertaking in the preceding business year;
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 73 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
(e) in the case of a legal person, administrative pecuniary penalties of up to twicehree times the amount of the profits gained or losses avoided due to the breach where those profits or losses can be determined;
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 75 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b – point iv
(iv) to interview any other person who consents to be interviewedrelevant person for the purposes of collecting information on the subject matter of an investigation;
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 76 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities publish on their official website any administrative penalties and measures imposed in accordance with Article 16 and which has not been appealed or can no longer be appealed, without undue delay. That publication shall include information on the type and nature of the breach and the identity of the natural or legal person on whom the penalty is imposed or against whom the measure is taken. The information shall only be published after that person has been informed of those penalties or measures and to the extent the publication is necessary and proportionate. Competent authorities shall ensure that the same information is published on the official website of the investment firm concerned.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 77 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. Where Member States permit the publication of administrative penalties or measures imposed in accordance with Article 16 against which there has been an appeal, competent authorities shall also publish on their official website information on the appeal status and on the outcome of the appeal. Competent authorities shall ensure that the same information is published on the official website of the investment firm concerned.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 78 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Competent authorities shall inform EBA of administrative penalties and measures imposed pursuant to Article 16, of any appeal against those penalties and measures and of the outcome thereof. EBA shall maintain a central database of administrative penalties and measures communicated to it solely for the purpose of exchanging information between competent authorities. That database shall be accessible to competent authorities onlyand ESMA, and it shall be updated regularly, at least on a quarterly basis.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 81 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall determine which investment firms are considered significant in terms of their size, internal organisation and the nature, scope and complexity of their activities. Member States shall require those firmsrequire all firms which do not fall under the criteria defined in Article 30(4)(a) to establish a risk committee composed of members of the management body who do not perform any executive function in the investment firm concerned.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Members of the risk committee referred to in the first subparagraph shall have appropriate knowledge, skills and expertise to fully understand, manage and monitor the risk strategy and the risk appetite of the investment firm. They shall ensure that the risk committee advises the management body on the investment firm’s overall current and future risk appetite and strategy and assists the management body in overseeing the implementation of that strategy by senior management. The management body shall retain overall responsibility for the firm’s risk strategies and policies. Investment firms shall aim at a gender balance in their risk committees.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 86 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the remuneration policy is clear and documented, documented and is gender neutral: same or similar type of jobs will be equally remunerated regardless of gender;
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 86 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall determine which investment firms are considered significant in terms of their size, internal organisation and the nature, scope and complexity of their activities. Member States shall require those firmsrequire all firms which do not fall under the criteria defined in Article 30(4)(a) to establish a risk committee composed of members of the management body who do not perform any executive function in the investment firm concerned.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 87 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Members of the risk committee referred to in the first subparagraph shall have appropriate knowledge, skills and expertise to fully understand, manage and monitor the risk strategy and the risk appetite of the investment firm. They shall ensure that the risk committee advises the management body on the investment firm's overall current and future risk appetite and strategy and assists the management body in overseeing the implementation of that strategy by senior management. The management body shall retain overall responsibility for the firm´s risk strategies and policies. Investment firms shall aim at a gender balance in their risk committees.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 88 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the remuneration policy should not only reflect short term profitability, but also take into account long term effects of the investment decisions taken, looking at the ESG criteria;
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 88 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the remuneration policy is clear and documented; , documented and is gender neutral: same or similar type of jobs will be equally remunerated regardless of gender;
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 89 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
(ia) the ratio of remuneration between an investment firm's employees and board members shall be proportionate;
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 90 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the ratio of remuneration between an investment firm’s employees and board members shall be proportionate;
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 91 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. For the purpose of point (ia), for those investment firms which do not comply with the criteria set in article 30(4)(a), Member States shall ensure that they set a maximum remuneration ratio and that investment firms shall apply it. The investment firm shall calculate its remuneration ratio as quotients of: i) the remuneration received by each individual member of its board; ii) and the median of the annual remuneration of all its employees with the exception of board members.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 93 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall ensure that where an investment firm benefits from extraordinary public financial support as defined to in Article 2(1)(28) of Directive 2014/59/EU, the following requirements apply:it does not pay any variable remuneration.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 94 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) where variable remuneration would be inconsistent with the maintenance of a sound capital base of an investment firm and its timely exit from extraordinary public financial support, variable remuneration of all staff shall be limited to a portion of net revenue;deleted
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 96 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) investment firms shall establish limits to the remuneration of the members of the management body of the investment firm;deleted
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 97 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. For the purposes of point (da), for those investment firms which do not comply with the criteria set in Article 30(4)(a), Member States shall ensure that they set a maximum remuneration ratio and that investment firms shall apply it. The investment firm shall calculate its remuneration ratio as quotients of: (i) the remuneration received by each individual member of its board; (ii) and the median of the annual remuneration of all its employees with the exception of board members.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 97 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the investment firm shall only pay variable remuneration to members of the management body of the investment firm where such remuneration has been approved by the competent authority.deleted
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 98 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2
For the purposes of point (c), competent authorities shall only approve payment of variable remuneration to members of the management body of the investment firm in exceptional circumstances.deleted
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 101 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) where variable remuneration is performance related, the total amount of variable remuneration shall be based on a combination of the assessment of the performance of the individual, -regardless the gender-, of the business unit concerned and of the overall results of the investment firm;
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 102 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall ensure that where an investment firm benefits from extraordinary public financial support as defined to in Article 2(1)(28) of Directive 2014/59/EU, the following requirements apply:it does not pay any variable remuneration.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 102 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new)
(ja) as a derogation from point (j) in case an investment firm does not issue any of those instruments, national competent authorities can approve the use of alternative arrangements fulfilling the same objectives;
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 104 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) where variable remuneration would be inconsistent with the maintenance of a sound capital base of an investment firm and its timely exit from extraordinary public financial support, variable remuneration of all staff shall be limited to a portion of net revenue;deleted
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 104 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) at least 450% of the variable remuneration shall be deferred over a three to five year period as appropriate, depending on the business cycle of the investment firm, the nature of its business, its risks and the activities of the individual in question, except in the case of a variable remuneration of a particularly high amount where the proportion of the variable remuneration deferred is at least 670%;
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 106 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) investment firms shall establish limits to the remuneration of the members of the management body of the investment firm;deleted
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 107 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities have the necessary powers to guarantee that investment firms which are determined as significant in accordance withdo not comply with the criteria in Article 26(430(4)(a) establish a remuneration committee. That remuneration committee shall exercise competent and independent judgment on remuneration policies and practices and the incentives created for managing risk, capital and liquidity. Within a group, the remuneration committee can also be a group-wide remuneration committee.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 108 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the investment firm shall only pay variable remuneration to members of the management body of the investment firm where such remuneration has been approved by the competent authority.deleted
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities have the necessary powers to guarantee that the remuneration committee is responsible for the preparation of decisions regarding remuneration, including decisions which have implications for the risk and risk management of the investment firm concerned and which are to be taken by the management body. The Chair and the members of the remuneration committee shall be members of the management body who do not perform any executive function in the investment firm concerned. Where employee representation in the management body is provided for by national law, the remuneration committee shall include one or more employee representatives. Investment firms shall aim at a gender balance in their remuneration committee.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 109 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. When preparing the decisions referred to in paragraph 2, the remuneration committee shall take into account the public interest and the long- term interests of shareholders, investors and other stakeholders in the investment firm and ensure that the remuneration policy decisions are gender neutral.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 110 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities collect the information disclosed in accordance with points (a), (b), (ba), (c), (d) and (f) of Article 51 of [Regulation (EU) ---/----[IFR] and use that information to benchmark remuneration trends and practices. Competent authorities shall provide that information to EBAthe EBA and the ESMA; the EBA shall publish an annual report on these trends and practices.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 111 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2
For the purposes of point (c), competent authorities shall only approve payment of variable remuneration to members of the management body of the investment firm in exceptional circumstances.deleted
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 111 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 3
3. EBA, in consultation with ESMA, shall issue guidelines on the application of sound and gender neutral remuneration policies. Those guidelines shall take into account at least the requirements referred to in Articles 28 to 31 and principles on sound remuneration policies set out in Commission Recommendation 2009/384/EC43 . _________________ 43 Commission Recommendation 2009/384/EC of 30 April 2009 on remuneration policies in the financial services sector (OJ L 120, 15.5.2009, p. 22).
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 114 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) the inclusive consideration of risks related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in the risk- mitigating arrangements of the investment firms.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 116 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) where variable remuneration is performance related, the total amount of variable remuneration shall be based on a combination of the assessment of the performance of the individual, regardless of the gender, of the business unit concerned and of the overall results of the investment firm;
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 116 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point l a (new)
(la) to require investment firms to reduce risks posed to the security of their network and information systems to ensure confidentiality, integrity and availability of the processes and data.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 117 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the investment firm is exposed to risks or elements of risks that are not covered or not sufficiently covered by the capital requirement set out in Part Three of [Regulation (EU) ---/----[IFR], especially taking into account risks in relation to environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors;
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 119 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 58 a (new)
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 2(1), point (3)
Article 58 a Amendment to Directive 2014/59/EU Directive 2014/59/EU is amended as follows: in Article 2(1), point (3) is replaced by the following: "(3) 'investment firm' means an investment firm as defined in point (2) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 that is subject to the initial capital requirement laid down in Article 8(1) of [Directive (EU) ---/---- [IFD]];".
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 120 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 60 – paragraph 1 a (new)
By [5 years from the date of application of this Directive] and subsequently every 3 years, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of this Directive and its impacts.
2018/06/12
Committee: JURI
Amendment 121 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new)
(ja) as a derogation from point (j) in case an investment firm does not issue any of those instruments, national competent authorities can approve the use of alternative arrangements fulfilling the same objectives;
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 123 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) at least 450% of the variable remuneration shall be deferred over a three to five year period as appropriate, depending on the business cycle of the investment firm, the nature of its business, its risks and the activities of the individual in question, except in the case of a variable remuneration of a particularly high amount where the proportion of the variable remuneration deferred is at least 670%;
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 133 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities have the necessary powers to guarantee that investment firms which are determined as significant in accordance withdo not comply with the criteria in Article 26(430(4)(a) establish a remuneration committee. That remuneration committee shall exercise competent and independent judgment on remuneration policies and practices and the incentives created for managing risk, capital and liquidity. Within a group, the remuneration committee can also be a group-wide remuneration committee.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 134 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities have the necessary powers to guarantee that the remuneration committee is responsible for the preparation of decisions regarding remuneration, including decisions which have implications for the risk and risk management of the investment firm concerned and which are to be taken by the management body. The Chair and the members of the remuneration committee shall be members of the management body who do not perform any executive function in the investment firm concerned. Where employee representation in the management body is provided for by national law, the remuneration committee shall include one or more employee representatives. Investment firms shall aim at a gender balance in their remuneration committee.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. When preparing the decisions referred to in paragraph 2, the remuneration committee shall take into account the public interest and the long- term interests of shareholders, investors and other stakeholders in the investment firm and ensure that the remuneration policy decisions are gender neutral.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 137 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities collect the information disclosed in accordance with points (a), (b), (ba), (c), (d) and (f) of Article 51 of [Regulation (EU) ---/----[IFR] and use that information to benchmark remuneration trends and practices. Competent authorities shall provide that information to EBAthe EBA and the ESMA; the EBA shall publish an annual report on these trends and practices.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 138 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 3
3. EBA, in consultation with ESMA, shall issue guidelines on the application of sound and gender neutral remuneration policies. Those guidelines shall take into account at least the requirements referred to in Articles 28 to 31 and principles on sound remuneration policies set out in Commission Recommendation 2009/384/EC43. _________________ 43 Commission Recommendation 2009/384/EC of 30 April 2009 on remuneration policies in the financial services sector (OJ L 120, 15.5.2009, p. 22).
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 144 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) governance arrangements and gender policy of investment firms and the ability of members of the management body to perform their duties.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 145 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) the risks posed to the security of network and information systems which investment firms use in their operations to ensure confidentiality, integrity and availability of its processes and data.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 147 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) the inclusive consideration of risks related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in the risk- mitigating arrangements of the investment firms.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 160 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point l a (new)
(la) to require investment firms to reduce risks posed to the security of their network and information systems to ensure confidentiality, integrity and availability of the processes and data.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 164 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the investment firm is exposed to risks or elements of risks that are not covered or not sufficiently covered by the capital requirement set out in Part Three of [Regulation (EU) ---/----[IFR], especially taking into account risks in relation to environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors;
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 200 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 58 a (new)
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 58a (new) Amendment to Directive 2014/59/EU in Article 2(1), point (3) is replaced by the following: “(3) ‘investment firm’ means an investment firm as defined in point (2) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 that is subject to the initial capital requirement laid down in Article 28(21) of [Directive 2013/36/EU; (EU) ---/---- [IFD]];” Or. en (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1528106699033&uri=CELEX:02014L0059-20171228)
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 205 #

2017/0358(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 60 – paragraph 1 a (new)
By [5 years from the date of application of this Directive] and subsequently every 3 years, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of this Directive and its impacts.
2018/06/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 548 #

2017/0230(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Regulation (EU) 1093/2010
Article 31a
(15) the following Article 31a is inserted: [...]deleted
2018/09/14
Committee: ECON
Amendment 930 #

2017/0230(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17
Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010
Article 31 a
(17) a new Article 31a is inserted: [...]deleted
2018/09/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1032 #

2017/0230(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Regulation (EU) 1095/2010
Article 31 a (new)
(15) new Article 31a is inserted: [...]deleted
2018/09/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1102 #

2017/0230(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 4
Article 4 […]deleted
2018/09/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1106 #

2017/0230(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5
Article 5 […]deleted
2018/09/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1140 #

2017/0230(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7
[...]deleted
2018/09/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1167 #

2017/0230(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9
[...]deleted
2018/09/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 211 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) Priority should be given to further developing, strengthening and reforming the first (public) and second (occupational) pillars of the national pensions systems. These two pillars will remain paramount for the sustainability of national schemes as personal pension products will just represent an additional source of retirement income and will not aim at replacing them.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 232 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) PEPP providers should have access to the whole Union market with one single product authorisation issued by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA”), on the basis of a single set of rules and in cooperation with national competent authorities.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 247 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) In order to allow a smooth transition for PEPP providers, the obligation of providing PEPPs comprising compartments for each Member State will apply three years afterUpon launching a PEPP, the provider should provide information on which national compartments are immediately available in the econtry into force of this Regulation. However, upon launching a PEPP, the provider should provide information on which national compartments are immediately available, in order to avoid a possible misleading of consumersact, in order to avoid a possible misleading of consumers. PEPP savers willing to open a national compartment should be allowed to switch provider free of charge when this national compartment is not made available by the PEPP provider with whom the contract has been initially signed.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 252 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) In order to allow a smooth transition for PEPP providers, the obligation of providing PEPPs comprising compartments for eachat least a third of the Member States will apply three years after the entry into force of this Regulation. However, upon launching a PEPP, the provider should provide information on which national compartments are immediately available, in order to avoid a possible misleading of consumers.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 256 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) Taking into account the nature of the pension scheme established and the administrative burden involved, PEPP providers and distributors should provide clear and adequate information to potential PEPP savers and PEPP beneficiaries to support their decision-making about their retirement. For the same reason, PEPP providers and distributors should equally ensure a high level of transparency throughout the various phases of a scheme comprising pre-enrolment, membership (including pre-retirement) and post- retirement. In particular, information concerning accrued pension entitlements, projected levels of retirement benefits, risks (including those related to environmental, social and governance factors) and guarantees, and costs should be given. Where projected levels of retirement benefits are based on economic scenarios, that information should also include an unfavourable scenario, which should be extreme but plausible.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 257 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) Before joining a PEPP scheme, potential PEPP savers should be given all the necessary information to make an informed choice through the provision of advice assessing their saving demands and needs.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 267 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) PEPP providers should inform PEPP savers sufficiently in advance before retirement about their pay-out options. Where the retirement benefit is not paid out as a lifetime annuity, members approaching retirement should receive information about the benefit payment products available, in order to facilitate financial planning for retirement.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 272 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
(32) In order to protect adequately the rights of PEPP savers and PEPP beneficiaries, PEPP providers should be able to opt for an asset allocation that suits the precise nature and duration of their liabilities, including those having a long term horizon. Therefore, efficient supervision is required as well as an approach to investment rules that allows PEPP providers sufficient flexibility to decide on the most secure and efficient investment policy, while obliging them to act prudently. Compliance with the prudent person rule therefore requires an investment policy geared to the customers’ structure of the individual PEPP provider.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 274 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
(33) By setting the prudent person rule as the underlying principle for capital investment and making it possible for PEPP providers to operate across borders, the redirection of savings into the sector of personal retirement provision is encouraged, thereby contributing to economic and social progress. The prudent person rule should also take into consideration the role played by environmental, social and governance factors in the investment process.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 286 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
(36) Environmental, social and governance factors, as referred to in the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment, are important for the investment policy and risk management systems of PEPP providers. PEPP providers should be encouraged to consider such factors in investment decisions and to take into account how they form part of their risk management system. This risk assessment should also be made available to EIOPA and to the competent authorities as well as to PEPP savers. Where relevant, it should also include risks related to climate change, use of resources, the environment, social risks, and risks related to the depreciation of assets due to regulatory change (‘stranded assets’).
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 307 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
(47) In order to find better conditions for their investments, thus also stimulating the competition among PEPP providers, PEPP savers should have the right to switch providers during the accumulation and the decumulation phases, through a clear, quick, low cost and safe procedure.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 323 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67
(67) Tax incentives can take different forms and play an important decisive role in encouraging the take-up of personal pension products ((PPPs) in a number of Member States. In many Member States the contributions paid for PPPs qualify for some form of tax relief, be it explicit or implicit.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 359 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) “annuity” means a sum payable at specific intervalsmonthly, quarterly or yearly over athe period, such as of the PEPP beneficiary’s life or a certain number of years, in return for an investment;
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 377 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 24
(24) “default investment option” means an investment strategy applied when the PEPP saver has not provided instructions on how to invest the funds accumulating in his PEPP account and on how to benefit from the decumulation phase;
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 426 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) information on arrangements regarding portfolio and risk management and administration with regard to the PEPP, including the role played by environmental, social and governance factors in the investment process as well as the long term impact and the externalities of the investment decisions;
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 430 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) information about the investment strategies, the risk profile and other characteristics of the PEPP, including the role played by environmental, social and governance factors in the investment process as well as the long term impact and the externalities of the investment decisions;
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 451 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the proposed PEPP is based on an investment strategy that states to what extent environmental, social and governance factors are included in the proposed providers risk management system.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 507 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Three years at the latest after the entry into application of this Regulation, each PEPP shall offer national compartments for all Member States upon request addressed to thet least a third of all Member States, as case may be, in cooperation with local service providers, upon request addressed to the PEPP provider. The available compartments shall be listed in the contract between the PEPP saver and PEPP provider.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 515 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, PEPP providers may allow PEPP savers to switch to another PEPP provider outside the dates referred to in article 45(2) when changing their domicile by moving to another Member State. The switch of providers shall be free of charge for the saver in case the PEPP provider does not offer the national compartment of the saver’s new domicile.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 519 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Without prejudice to the deadline under Article 13(3), PEPP providers shall ensure that within each individual PEPP account a new compartment could be opened, corresponding to the legal requirements and conditions for using incentives fixed at national level for the PEPP by the Member State to which the PEPP saver moves.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 525 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to the deadline under Article 13(3), iImmediately after being informed about the PEPP saver’s intention to exercise his right of mobility between Member States, the PEPP provider shall inform the PEPP saver about the possibility to open a new compartment within the PEPP saver’s individual account and about the deadline within which such compartment could be opened.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 633 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 4 – section 3 – title
Advice and standards for sales where no advice is given
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 642 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Without prejudice to Article 26, advice shall aim at assessing the risk aversion and the financial skills of a PEPP saver as well as at making him able to choose the investment option which better correspond to his risk profile.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 643 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 b (new)
Through advice, a PEPP saver shall be informed about the main features of the product.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 644 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 c (new)
Advice may be provided also through digital channels.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 664 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – title
Concluding a contract for a PEPP without adviceAdvice for the basic PEPP
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 665 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Without prejudice to Article 25(1), the PEPP saver may waive his right to receive advice in relation to concludIn the case of a basic PEPP, a PEPP saver shall be informed whether this investment option is given by the provision of a capital guarantee or other safe risk- mitigation techniques ing a ccontract for the default investment oprdance to Article 37 of this Regulation.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 666 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
WhereIn any case, the PEPP saver waives his right to receive advice, PEPP providers or distributors referred to in Article 19(c) of this Regulation shall, when carrying out PEPP distribution activities, ask the PEPP saver or potential PEPP saver to provide information regarding that person’s knowledge and experience in the investment fshall be informed of the risks arising from the risk-mitigation techniques applield relevant to the PEPP offered or demanded so as to enable the PEPP provider or distributor to assess whether the PEPP envisaged is appropriate for the PEPP saverto the basic PEPP in accordance to Article 37 of this Regulation.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 667 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Where the PEPP provider or distributor referred to in Article 19(c) of this Regulation considers, on the basis of the information received under the first subparagraphArticle 25(1), that the product is not appropriate for the PEPP saver or potential PEPP saver, the PEPP provider or distributor shall warn the PEPP saver or potential PEPP saver to that effect. That warning may be provided in a standardised format.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 668 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Where PEPP savers or potential PEPP savers do not provide the information referred to in the first subparagraphArticle 25(1), or where they provide insufficient information regarding their knowledge and experience, the PEPP provider or distributor shall warn them that it is not in a position to determine whether the PEPP envisaged is appropriate for them. That warning may be provided in a standardised format.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 669 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to Article 25(1), where the PEPP saver has waived his right to receive advice in relation to the default investment option, the PEPP provider or distributor referred to in Article 19(c) of this Regulation may carry out PEPP distribution activities without the need to obtain the information or make the determination provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article where all the following conditions are met: (a) contracts concerning the default investment option which only provide investment exposure to the financial instruments deemed non-complex under Article 25(4)(a) of Directive 2014/65/EU and do not incorporate a structure which makes it difficult for the PEPP saver to understand the risks involved; (b) the initiative of the PEPP saver or potential PEPP saver; (c) saver has been clearly informed that, in the provision of the PEPP distribution activity, the PEPP provider or distributor is not required to assess the appropriateness of the PEPP or PEPP distribution activity provided or offered and that the PEPP saver or potential PEPP saver does not benefit from the corresponding protection of the relevant conduct of business rules. Such a warning may be provided in a standardised format; (d) complies with its obligations under the rules applicable to it, in accordance with this Chapter, concerning conflicts of interest in relation to PEPP distribution activities.deleted the activities relate to PEPP the distribution of the PEPP is at the PEPP saver or potential PEPP the PEPP provider or distributor
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 675 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) information on how the investment policy takes into account environmental, social and governance factors, including the role they play in the investment process as well as the long term impact and the externalities of the investment decisions.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 692 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) a summary on the PEPP provider’s investment-policy principles that are further described in the supplementary information in accordance with Article 29, point (c) of the present Regulation.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 699 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) where applicable, information about the assumptions used for amounts expressed in annuities, in particular with respect to the annuity rate, and the type of PEPP provider and the duration of the annuity;
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 702 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. One year prior to the retirement phase, a communication shall be sent to the PEPP saver in order to inform him about the upcoming start of the decumulation phase and the possible forms of out-payments.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 714 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) within the prudent person rule, PEPP providers shall take into consideration the potential long-term impact of investment decisions on environmental, social, and governance factors.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 735 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. PEPP providers shall offer up to fiveone or several investment options to PEPP savers.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 748 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. The terms for modification of the investment option shall be listed in the PEPP contract. In any case, the PEPP saver shall be able to opt for a different investment option once every five years of accumulation in the PEPP.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 762 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. The default investment option shall ensure capital protection for the PEPP saver, on thbasic PEPP shall be a simple and safe product that can be beasis of a risk-mitigation technique that results in a safely acquired, including through digital channels, in each Member State. It represents the default investment strategyoption.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 779 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. Capital protection shallfor the basic PEPP shall aim at allowing the PEPP saver to recoup the capital invested according to the draft regulatory technical standards established by EIOPA.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 793 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2
2. The alternative investment options shall include risk-mitigation techniques to be defined by PEPP providers according to the draft regulatory technical standards established by EIOPA.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 836 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2
2. The PEPP saver may switch PEPP providers no more frequently than once every five years after conclusion of the PEPP contract, except for situations referred to in Article 13 (3a) (new).
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 846 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 4
4. Fees and charges, if any, applied by the transferring or the receiving PEPP provider to the PEPP saver for any service provided under Article 46, other thanIn the context of the switching process, services given by those referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article,ceiving PEPP provider shall be freasonable and in line with the actual costse of tchat PEPP providerrge.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 873 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2
2. The choice of the formFor the basic PEPP a minimum of 50% of out- payments for the decumulation phase shall be exercised by PEPP savers upon conclusion of a PEPP contract and can be changed once every five years thereafter during the accumulation phase, if applicablein the form of annuities shall be mandatory.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 887 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In case the amount of the annuities would be disproportionally low, the form of out-payments can derogate from the provision in paragraph 2.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 906 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 1
FEvery five years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Regulation and, and after consulting EIOPA, present a Report on the main findings to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. In drafting the Report, the Commission may also consider to consult the national competent authorities.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 49 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) The content of eElectronic communications may reveal highly sensitive information about the natural persons involved in the communication, from personal experiences and emotions to medical conditions, sexual preferences and political views, the disclosure of which could result in personal and social harm, economic loss or embarrassment. Similarly, mMetadata derived from electronic communications may also reveal very sensitive and personal information. These metadata includes the numbers called, the websites visited, geographical location, the time, date and duration when an individual made a call etc., allowing precise conclusions to be drawn regarding the private lives of the persons involved in the electronic communication, such as their social relationships, their habits and activities of everyday life, their interests, tastes etc. The protection of confidentiality of communications is also an essential condition for the respect of other related fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the protection of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of expression and information.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 56 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) The Member States should be allowed, within the limits of this Regulation, to maintain or introduce national provisions to further specify and clarify the application of the rules of this Regulation in order to ensure an effective application and interpretation of those rules. Therefore, the margin of discretion, which Member States have in this regard, should maintain a balance between the protection of private life and personal data and the free movement of electronic communications data.deleted
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 62 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) This Regulation should apply to electronic communications data processed in connection with the provision and use of electronic communications services in the Union, regardless of whether or not the processing takes place in the Union. Moreover, in order not to deprive end-users in the Union of effective protection, this Regulation should also apply to electronic communications data processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services from outside the Union to end-users in the Union. This should be the case irrespective of whether the electronic communications are connected to a payment or not.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 69 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) Electronic communications data should be defined in a sufficiently broad and technology neutral way so as to encompass any information concerning the content transmitted or exchanged (electronic communications content) and the information concerning an end-user of electronic communications services processed for the purposes of transmitting, distributing or enabling the exchange of electronic communications content; including data to trace and identify the source and destination of a communication, geographical location and the date, time, duration and the type of communication. It should also include specific location data, such as for example the location of the terminal equipment from or to which a phone call or an internet connection has been made or the Wi-Fi access points that a device is connected to, as well as data necessary to identify the terminal equipment of users. Whether such signals and the related data are conveyed by wire, radio, optical or electromagnetic means, including satellite networks, cable networks, fixed (circuit- and packet- switched, including internet) and mobile terrestrial networks, electricity cable systems, the data related to such signals should be considered as electronic communications metadata and therefore be subject to the provisions of this Regulation. Electronic communications metadata may include information that is part of the subscription to the service when such information is processed for the purposes of transmitting, distributing or exchanging electronic communications content.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 81 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) It should be possible to oblige providers of electronic communications services to ensure a certain quality of service by, for example, ensuring that the service does not suffer degradation or that the traffic is not unduly slowed down. In this regard, it may be necessary, in some limited circumstances, to analyse metadata in real time and respond to fluctuations in traffic. Certain electronic communications metadata are necessary to enable providers to correctly bill end- users for the services used and to allow end-users to verify that the cost incurred corresponds to their actual usage. The processing and storage of such data for these purposes should therefore be permitted without requiring consent by the end-user concerned. This processing includes possible processing for customer service purposes. Metadata may also be processed to detect fraudulent use, or abusive use pursuant to Directive (EU) 2013/0309. Where a type of processing of electronic communications metadata, in particular using new technologies, and taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing, is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, a data protection impact assessment and, as the case may be, a consultation of the supervisory authority should take place prior to the processing, in accordance with Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Moreover, the parties involved in the processing of location data and other metadata should make public their methods of anonymisation and further aggregation, without prejudice to secrecy obligations safeguarded by law. The anonymisation method should, once the defined purposes of the processing have been fulfilled, technically prevent all parties from singling out a user within a set of data or from linking new data collected from the users' device to the existing set of data.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 82 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) The processing of electronic communications data can be useful for businesses, consumers and society as a whole. Vis-à-vis Directive 2002/58/EC, this Regulation broadens the possibilities for providers of electronic communications services to process electronic communications metadata, based on end-users consent. However, end-users attach great importance to the confidentiality of their communications, including their online activities, and that they want to control the use of electronic communications data for purposes other than conveying the communication. Therefore, this Regulation should require providers of electronic communications services to obtain end-users' consent to process electronic communications metadata, which should include data on the location of the device generated for the purposes of granting and maintaining access and connection to the service. Location data that is generated other than in the context of providing electronic communications services should not be considered as metadata. Examples of commercialExamples of such usages of electronic communications metadata by providers of electronic communications services may include the provision of heatmaps; a graphical representation of data using colours to indicate the presence of individuals. To display the traffic movements in certain directions during a certain period of time, an identifier is necessary to link the positions of individuals at certain time intervals. This identifier would be missing if anonymous data, provided that the data are immediately anonymised or anonymisation techniques are used where to bhe used and such movement could not be displayedr is mixed with others. Such usage of electronic communications metadata could, for example, benefit public authorities and public transport operators to define where to develop new infrastructure, based on the usage of and pressure on the existing structure. Where a type of processing of electronic communications metadata, in particular using new technologies, and taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing, is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, a data protection impact assessment and, as the case may be, a consultation of the supervisory authority should take place prior to the processing, in accordance with Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 90 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) It should be possible to process electronic communications data for the purposes of providing services explicitly requested by a user for personal or personal work-related purposes such as search or keyword indexing functionality, virtual assistants, text-to-speech engines and translation services, including picture-to-voice or other automated content processing used as accessibility tools by persons with disabilities. This should be possible without the consent of all users but may only take place with the consent of the user requesting the service. Such specific consent also precludes the provider from processing those data for different purposes.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 92 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) Terminal equipment of end-users of electronic communications networks and any information relating to the usage of such terminal equipment, whether in particular is stored in or emitted by such equipment, requested from or processed in order to enable it to connect to another device and or network equipment, are part of the private sphere of the end-users requiring protection under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Given that such equipment contains or processes informationvery sensitive data that may reveal details of an individual's emotional,the behaviour, psychological features, emotional condition and political, and social complexitiespreferences of an individual, including the content of communications, pictures, the location of individuals by accessing the device’s GPS capabilities of their device, contact lists, and other information already stored in the device, the information related to such equipment requires enhanced privacy protection. Furthermore, the so-called spyware, web bugs, hidden identifiers, tracking cookies and other similar unwanted tracking tools can enter end-user's terminal equipment without their knowledge in order to gain access to information, to store hidden information and to trace the activities. Information related to the end-user's device may also be collected remotely for the purpose of identification and tracking, using techniques such as the so-called 'device fingerprinting', often without the knowledge of the end-user, and may seriously intrude upon the privacy of these end-users. Furthermore, so-called spyware, web bugs, hidden identifiers and unwanted tracking tools can enter end- users' terminal equipment without their knowledge in order to gain access to information or to store hidden information. Techniques that surreptitiously monitor the actions of end- users, for example by tracking their activities online or the location of their terminal equipment, or subvert the operation of the end-users' terminal equipment pose a serious threat to the privacy of end-users. Therefore, any such interference with the end-user's terminal equipment should be allowed only with the end-user's consent and for specific and transparent purposes. End-users should receive all relevant information about the intended processing in clear and easily understandable language. Such information should be provided separately from the terms and conditions of the service.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 102 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) The methods used for providing information and obtaining end-user's consent should be as user-friendly as possible. Given the ubiquitous use of tracking cookies and other tracking techniques, end-users are increasingly requested to provide consent to store such tracking cookies in their terminal equipment. As a result, end-users are overloaded with requests to provide consent. The use of technical means to provide consent, for example, through transparent and user-friendly settings, may address this problem. Therefore, this Regulation should prevent the use of so- called "cookie walls" and "cookie banners" that do not help users to maintain control over their personal information and privacy or become informed about their rights. This Regulation should provide for the possibility to express consent by technical specifications, for instance by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application. Those settings should include choices concerning the storage of information on the user's terminal equipment as well as a signal sent by the browser or other application indicating the user's preferences to other parties. The choices made by end- users when establishing itsthe general privacy settings of a browser or other application should be binding on, and enforceable against, any third parties. Web browsers are a type of software application that permits the retrieval and presentation of information on the internet. Other types of applications, such as the ones that permit calling and messaging or provide route guidance, have also the same capabilities. Web browsers mediate much of what occurs between the end-user and the website. From this perspective, they are in a privileged position to play an active role to help the end-user to control the flow of information to and from the terminal equipment. More particularly, web browsers may be used as gatekeepers, applications or mobile operating systems may be used as the executor of the choices of an end- user, thus helping end-users to prevent information from their terminal equipment (for example smart phone, tablet or computer) from being accessed or stored.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 108 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) The principles of data protection by design and by default were codified under Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Currently, the default settings for cookies are set in most current browsers to 'accept all cookies'. Therefore providers of software enabling the retrieval and presentation of information on the internet should have an obligation to configure the software so that it offers the option to prevent third parties fromby default the cross-domain tracking and storing of information on the terminal equipment by other parties; this is often presented as 'reject third party trackers and cookies'. End-users should be offered, by default, a set of privacy setting options, ranging from higher (for example, 'never accept tracker and cookies') to lower (for example, 'always accept trackers and cookies') and intermediate (for example, 'reject third party cookies’ or ‘only accept first party cookies’)all trackers and cookies that are not strictly necessary to provide a service explicitly requested by the user' or 'reject all cross-domain tracking'). These options may also be more fine-grained. Privacy settings should also include options to allow the user to decide for example, whether Flash, JavaScript or similar software can be executed, if a website can collect geo- location data from the user, or if it can access specific hardware such as a webcam or microphone. Such privacy settings should be presented in an easily visible, objective and intelligible manner.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 111 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
(24) For web browsers to be able to obtain end-users’ consent as defined under Regulation (EU) 2016/679, for example, to the storage of third party tracking cookies, they should, among others, require a clear affirmative action from the end-user of terminal equipment to signify his or her freely given, specific informed, and unambiguous agreement to the storage and access of such cookies in and from the terminal equipment. Such action may be considered to be affirmative, for example, if end-users are required to actively select ‘accept third party cookies’ to confirm their agreement and are given the necessary information to make the choice. To this end, it is necessary to require providers of software enabling access to internet that, at the moment of installation, end-users are informed about the possibility to choose the privacy settings among the various options and ask them to make a choice. Information provided should not dissuade end-users from selecting higher privacy settings and should include relevant information about the risks associated to allowing third party cookies to be stored in the computer, including the compilation of long-term records of individuals' browsing histories and the use of such records to send targeted advertising. Web browsers are encouraged to provide easy ways for end-users to change the privacy settings at any time during use and to allow the user to make exceptions for or to whitelist certain websites or to specify for which websites (third) party cookies are always or never allowed.deleted
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 115 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) Accessing electronic communications networks requires the regular emission of certain data packets in order to discover or maintain a connection with the network or other devices on the network. Furthermore, devices must have a unique address assigned in order to be identifiable on that network. Wireless and cellular telephone standards similarly involve the emission of active signals containing unique identifiers such as a MAC address, the IMEI (International Mobile Station Equipment Identity), the IMSI etc. A single wireless base station (i.e. a transmitter and receiver), such as a wireless access point, has a specific range within which such information may be captured. Service providers have emerged who offer tracking services based on the scanning of equipment related information with diverse functionalities, including people counting, providing data on the number of people waiting in line, ascertaining the number of people in a specific area, etc. This information may be used for more intrusive purposes, such as to send commercial messages to end-users, for example when they enter stores, with personalizsed offers. While some of these functionalities do not entail high privacy risks, others do, for example, those involving the tracking of individuals over time, including repeated visits to specified locations. Providers engaged in such practices should display prominent notices located on the edge of the area of coverage informing end-users prior to entering the defined area that the technology is in operation within a given perimeter, the purpose of the tracking, the person responsible for it and the existence of any measure the end-user of the terminal equipment can take to minimize or stop the collection. Additional information should be provided where personal data are collected pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In addition, such providers should either obtain the end-user's consent or anonymise the data immediately while limiting the purpose to mere statistical counting within a limited time and space and offering effective opt- out possibilities.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 128 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
(37) Service providers who offer electronic communications services should inform end- users of meaprocess electronic communications data in such a way as to prevent unauthorised access, disclosure or alteration, ensures they can take to protect the security of their communications for instanceat such unauthorised access, disclosure or alteration is capable of being ascertained, and also ensure that such electronic communications data are protected by using specific types of software orand encryption technologies. The requirement to inform end-users of particular security risks does not discharge a service provider from the obligation to take, at its own costs, appropriate and immediate measures to remedy any new, unforeseen security risks and restore the normal security level of the service. The provision of information about security risks to the subscriber should be free of charge. Security is appraised in the light of Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The obligations of Article 40 of the [European Electronic Communications Code] should apply to all services within the scope of this Regulation as regards the security of networks and services and related security obligations thereto.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 135 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
3. The provisions of this Regulation particularise and complement Regulation (EU) 2016/679 by laying down necessary specific rules for the purposes mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 140 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation applies to the processing of electronic communications data carried out in connection with the provision and the use of electronic communications services and to information related to or processed by the terminal equipment of end-users.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 152 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the protection of information related to or processed by the terminal equipment of end- users located in the Union.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 155 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Where the provider of an electronic communications service, provider of a publicly available directory, software provider enabling electronic communications or person sending direct marketing commercial communications or collecting (other) information related to or stored in the end-users terminal equipment is not established in the Union it shall designate in writing a representative in the Union.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 188 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Electronic communications data shall be confidential. Any interference with electronic communications data, at rest or in transit, such as by listening, tapping, storing, monitoring, scanning or other kinds of interception, surveillance or any processing of electronic communications data, by persons other than the end-users, shall be prohibited, except when permitted by this Regulation.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 193 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Confidentiality of electronic communications data shall also include terminal equipment and machine-to- machine communications when related to a user.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 196 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Providers of electronic communications networks and services may process electronic communications data only if:
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 200 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) it is technically strictly necessary to achieve the transmission of the communication, for the duration necessary for that purpose; or
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 207 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) it is technically strictly necessary to maintain or restore the security of electronic communications networks and services, or detect technical faults and/or errors in the transmission of electronic communications, for the duration technically necessary for that purpose.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 220 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Providers of electronic communications services may process electronic communications metadata only if:
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 224 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) it is strictly necessary to meet mandatory quality of service requirements pursuant to [Directive establishing the European Electronic Communications Code] or Regulation (EU) 2015/212028 for the duration technically necessary for that purpose; or __________________ 28 Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ L 310, 26.11.2015, p. 1–18).
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 228 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) it is strictly necessary for billing, calculating interconnection payments, detecting or stopping fraudulent use, or abusive use of, or subscription to, electronic communications services; or
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 232 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the end-user concerned, after receiving all relevant information about the intended processing in clear and easily understandable language, provided separately from the terms and conditions of the provider, has given his or her consent to the processing of his or her communications metadata for one or more specified purposes, including for the provision of specific services to such end- users, provided that the purpose or purposes concerned could not be fulfilled bywithout the processing information that is made anonymousof such metadata.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 247 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. For the provision of a service explicitly requested by an end-user of an electronic communications service for his/her purely individual or individual work-related usage, the provider of the electronic communications service may process electronic communications data solely for the provision of the explicitly requested service and without the consent of all users only where such requested processing produces effects solely in relation to the end-user who requested the service and does not adversely affect the fundamental rights of another user or users. Such a specific consent by the end- user shall preclude the provider from processing these data for any other purpose.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 249 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Neither providers of electronic communications services nor any other party shall further process electronic communications data collected on the basis of this Regulation.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 257 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to point (b) of Article 6(1) and points (a) and (b) of Article 6(3), the provider of the electronic communications service shall erase electronic communications content or make that data anonymous after receipt of electronic communication content by the intended recipient or recipients. Such data may be recorded or stored by the end-users or by a thirdspecific other party entrusted by them to record, store or otherwise process such data, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 262 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Where the processing of electronic communications metadata takes place for the purpose of billing in accordance with point (b) of Article 6(2), the relevant metadatametadata that is strictly necessary may be kept until the end of the period during which a bill may lawfully be challenged or a payment may be pursued in accordance with national law.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 270 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The use of processing and storage capabilities of terminal equipment and the collection of information from end-users’ terminal equipment, including about' terminal equipment, or making information available through the terminal equipment, including information about or generated by its software and hardware, other than by the end-user concerned shall be prohibited, except on the following grounds:
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 283 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the end-user has given his or her consentspecific consent, which shall not be mandatory to access the service; or
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 294 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) if it is technically necessary for web audience measuring of the information society service requested by the end-user, provided that such measurement is carried out by the provider of the information society service requested by, or on behalf of the provider, or by an independent web analytics agency acting in the public interest or for scientific purpose; and further provided that no personal data is made accessible to any other party and that such web audience measurement does not adversely affect the fundamental rights of the end-user.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 300 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) if it is necessary for a security update, provided that: (i) security updates are discreetly packaged and do not in any way change the privacy settings chosen by the user; (ii) the user is informed in advance each time an update is being installed; and (iii) the user has the possibility to turn off the automatic installation of these updates;
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 314 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. No user shall be denied access to any information society service or functionality, regardless of whether this service is remunerated or not, on grounds that he or she has not given his or her consent under Article 8(1)(b) to the processing of personal information and/or the use of storage capabilities of his or her terminal equipment that is not necessary for the provision of that service or functionality.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 316 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) it is done exclusively in order to, for the time necessary for, and for the sole purpose of establishing a connection requested by the end-user; or
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 319 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) the user has been informed and has given consent; or
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 320 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a b (new)
(ab) the data are anonymised and the risks are adequately mitigated.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 323 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) a clear and prominent notice is displayed informing of, at least, the modalities of the collection, its purpose, the person responsible for it and the other information required under Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 where personal data are collected, as well as any measure the end-user of the terminal equipment can take to stop or minimise the collection.deleted
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 330 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. For the purpose of point (ab) of paragraph 2, the following controls shall be implemented to mitigate the risks: (a) the purpose of the data collection from the terminal equipment shall be restricted to mere statistical counting; (b) the tracking shall be limited in time and space to the extent strictly necessary for this purpose; (c) the data shall be deleted or anonymised immediately after the purpose is fulfilled; and (d) the end-users shall be given effective opt-out possibilities.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 332 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. The information referred to in points aa and ab of paragraph 2 shall be conveyed in a clear and prominent notice setting out at least the details of how the information will be collected, the purpose of collection, the person responsible for it and other information required under Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, where personal data are collected. The collection of such information shall be conditional on the application of appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks, as set out in Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 335 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The information to be provided pursuant to points (aa) and (ab) of paragraph 2 may be provided in combination with standardized icons in order to give a meaningful overview of the collection in an easily visible, intelligible and clearly legible manner.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 345 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, where technically possible and feasible, for the purposes of point (b) of Article 8(1), consent may be expressed by using the appropriate technical settings of a software application enabling access to the internetechnical specifications of electronic communications services. When such technical specifications are used by the end-user, they shall be binding on, and enforceable against, any other party.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 352 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. End-users who have consented to the processing of electronic communications data as set out in point (c)c of Article 6(2) and points (a)a and (b)b of Article 6(3), point b of Article 8(1) and point aa of Article 8(2) shall be given the possibility to withdraw their consent at any time as set forth under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and be reminded of this possibility at periodic intervals of 6 months, as long as the processing continues.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 360 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Software placed on the market permitting electronic communications, including the retrieval and presentation of information on the internet, shall offer the option to prevent third parties from storing information on the terminal equipment of an end-user or processing information already stored on that equipment.:
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 365 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. By default, offer privacy protective settings to prevent other parties from storing information on the terminal equipment of a user and from processing information already stored on that equipment;
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 366 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Upon installation, inform and offer the user the possibility to change or confirm the privacy settings options defined in point a by requiring the user's consent to a setting;
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 367 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Make the setting defined in points a and b easily accessible during the use of the software; and
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 368 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Offer the user the possibility to express specific consent through the settings after the installation of the software.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 373 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Upon installation, the software shall inform the end-userFor the purpose of points a and b of paragraph 1, the settings shall include a signal which is sent to the other parties to inform them about the user's privacy settings options and, to continue with th. These settings shall be binstallation, require the end-user to consent to a settingding on, and enforceable against, any other party.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 397 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) to block incoming calls from specific numbers, or numbers having a specific code or prefix identifying the fact that the call is a marketing call referred to in Article 16(3)(b), or from anonymous sources;
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 403 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. The providers of publicly available directories or the electronic communication service providers shall obtain the consent of end- users who are natural persons to include their personal data in the directory and, consequently, shall obtain consent from these end-users for inclusion of data per category of personal data, to the extent that such data are relevant for the purpose of the directory as determined by the provider of the directory. Providers shall give end-users who are natural persons the means to verify, correct and delete such data.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 405 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. NThe use by natural or legal persons may useof electronic communications services, including voice-to-voice calls, automated calling and communications systems, including semi-automated systems that connect the call person to an individual, faxes, e-mail or other use of electronic communications services for the purposes of presendting unsolicited or direct marketing communications to end-users who are natural persons that, shall be allowed only in respect of end- users who have given their prior consent.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 417 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) present the identity of a line on which they can be contacted; orand
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 420 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Unsolicited marketing communications shall be clearly recognisable as such and shall indicate the identity of the legal or natural person transmitting the communication or on behalf of whom the communication is transmitted. Such communications shall provide the necessary information for recipients to exercise their right to refuse further written or oral marketing messages.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 423 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4
4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States may provide by law that the placing of direct marketing voice-to-voice calls to end-users who are natural persons shall only be allowed in respect of end- users who are natural persons who have not expressed their objection to receiving those communications. Member States shall provide that end-users can object to receiving the unsolicited communications via a national Do Not Call Register, thereby also ensuring that the end-user is only required to opt out once.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 427 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 6
6. Any natural or legal person using electronic communications services to transmit direct marketing communications shall inform end-users of the marketing nature of the communication and the identity of the legal or natural person on behalf of whom the communication is transmitted and shall provide the necessary information for recipients to exercise their right to withdraw their consent, in an easy and free of charge manner, to receiving further marketing communications.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 442 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to any other administrative or judicial remedy, every end-user of electronic communications services shall have the same remedies provided for in Articles 77, 78, and 79 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority, in particular in the Member State of his or her habitual residence, place of work or place of the alleged infringements if the end-user considers that his or her rights under this Regulation have been infringed.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 447 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. End-users shall have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association to lodge the complaint on their behalf, to exercise the right referred to in paragraphs 1, 1a and 1b of this Article on their behalf, and to exercise the right to receive compensation referred to in Article 22 on their behalf where provided for by Member State law. Such bodies, organisations or associations shall be properly constituted in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned, have statutory objectives which are in the public interest, and be active in the field of the protection of data subjects' rights and freedoms with regard to the protection of their personal data and the protection of privacy.
2017/07/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 5 #

2016/2276(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the intermediaries of yesterday have become today’s providers of content and play an essential role in terms of access to content including cultural and audiovisual content;
2017/04/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 20 #

2016/2276(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital F
F. whereas, by giving intellectual property rights (IPR) infringers easy access to consumers, platforms allow a substantial number of platforms create certain challenges with regard to intellectual property rights protection and may allow infringements to take place, leading to an uneven and unfair sharing of value all along the supply chain;
2017/04/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 32 #

2016/2276(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital G b (new)
Gb. whereas a duty of care should be imposed under certain conditions to online service providers to detect and prevent illegal activities on platforms by any technically reliable means;
2017/04/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 33 #

2016/2276(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital G c (new)
Gc. whereas online counterfeiting is becoming increasingly sought after by criminal organizations as it is more profitable and has a smaller risk of incurring criminal penalties than racketeering or drug trafficking;
2017/04/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 66 #

2016/2276(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out the crucial importance of clarifying methods by which decisions based on algorithms are taken and promoting transparency on the use of these algorithms; therefore, asks the Commission and Member States to examine potential for errors and biases in the use of algorithms in order to prevent any kind of discrimination or unfair practice and any harm to privacy;
2017/04/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 198 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Stresses that despite the fact that more creative content is being consumed today than ever before, on services such as user-uploaded content platforms and content aggregation services, the creative sectors have not seen a comparable increase in revenues from this increase in consumption; stress that one of the main reasons for that is being referred to as a transfer of value that has emerged due to the lack of clarity regarding the status of these online services under copyright and e-commerce law; stress that an unfair market has been created, threatening the development of the Digital Single Market and its main players: the cultural and creative industries;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 221 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Considers that digital platforms are means of providing wider access to cultural and creative works and offer great opportunities for cultural and creative industries to develop new business models; highlights that consideration is to be made of how this process can function with more legal certainty and respect for right holders; underlines the importance of transparency and of ensuring a fair level playing field; considers in this regard that protection of right holders within the copyright and intellectual property framework is necessary in order to ensure recognition of values and stimulation of innovation, creativity, investment and production of content;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 35 #

2016/2247(INI)

A. whereas the establishment of the Banking Union has been a fundamental step taken towards the completion of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union; whereas further efforts are needed as the Banking Union remains incomplete as long as it lacks a fiscal backstop and the Third Pillar of a European Deposit Insurance scheme;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 44 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas a completed Banking Union will be an important contribution to breaking the sovereign-risk nexus;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 73 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas participation in the Banking Union is open to Member States that have not yet adopted the euro;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 74 #

2016/2247(INI)

D. whereas no non-euro area country has yet expressed a willingness to join the Banking Union;deleted
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 80 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the establishment of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) is necessary to provide homogenous protection of depositors and for the completion of the BU;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 83 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas recent data show that the estimated NPLs in the euro area is EUR 1132 € billion1a; _________________ 1a2017 independent Annual Growth Survey 5th Report, 23 November 2016.
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 90 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the high level of non- performing loans (NPLs) in some jurisdictions; considers that this issue is crucial and has yet to be sol; notes that notwithstanding the moderate economic recovery in some jurisdictions the latest data on NPLs have peaked or show a declining trend; considers that this issue is crucial but until now it has been only addressed at national levedl; welcomes the work of the SSM and its draft guidance on this issue; looks forward to the results of the work on a minimum EU insolvency framework; calls on Member States to improve their insolvency legislation and to stimulate growth in order to tackle NPLs; calls for the development of a NPL primary and secondary market, possibly at the European level, in the form of a securitisation market; suggests the establishment of dedicated asset management companies (or "bad banks") and enhanced supervision;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 111 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Encourages all Member States that have not yet adopted the euro to take all necessary steps to do so, or to join the BU, in order to progressively align the BU with the entire internal market;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 129 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that there are risks associated wiStresses the importance of the objective of the Banking Union to break the sovereign debt; notes, however,-risk nexus; notes that modifying its prudential treatment could have a significantly negative effect on the financial sector, which calls for caution in reform efforts; awaits with interest the results of the international work on this issue; considers that, in the end, a betterEU regulatory framework, be it European or international, will be neede should be consistent with the international standard;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 158 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that guidance provided by international fora should be used in order to avoid the risk of regulatory fragmentation; , but recalls the Parliament's resolution of 23 November 2016 on the finalisation of Basel III which recalled that the current revision should not bring about a significant increase in overall capital requirements, and underlined the principle of the BCBS to promote the level playing field at the global level by mitigating - rather than exacerbating - the differences between jurisdictions and banking models, and by not unduly penalising the EU banking model;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 165 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Insists on the importance of adequate representation of the European Union in international financial institutions and the need to coordinate positions, as stressed in its resolution of 12 April 2016 on the EU role in the framework of international financial, monetary and regulatory institutions and bodies;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 173 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that national options and discretions are hindering the creation of a level playing field between Member States; welcomes the ECB guidance and regulation harmonising the exercise of some of these within the Banking Union; looks forward to the upcoming amendments to the CRR as a means of closing the most significant ones; doubts that the amendments to the CRR proposed by the Commission on 22 November 2016 are ambitious enough as a means of closing the most significant ones; stresses that working towards the deepening of the single rulebook is crucial and underlines the need to streamline its current form of overlapping and intertwining of existing, amended and new legislation;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 189 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the need to clarify the objectives of Pillar 2 and its place within the stacking order of capital requirements; is of the view that the use of capital guidance is a relevant way forward in order to balance financial stability concerns with flexibility needs; encourages the ECB to clarify the criteria that underline the Pillar 2 guidance; recalls that this guidance does not constrain the Maximum Distributable Amount (MDA), therefore it should not be disclosed;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 217 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Points out thatWelcomes the progress made to prepare for allowing some delegation in the area of fit and proper decisions; nevertheless points out that a change in the regulations is needed to allow more and easier delegation of decision-making on some routine issues from the Supervisory Board to relevant officials c; would welcome such a change which would contribute to making ECB banking supervision more efficient;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 231 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls the need to find, in the exercise of supervision, a balance between the need for proportionality and the need for a consistent approach; welcomes the Commission's proposal of November 2016, which introduces more proportionality and reduces some of the regulatory costs for smaller institutions;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 239 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Encourages the streamlining of requirements to avoid double reporting and unnecessary additional costs of regulation; calls on the Commission to address the issue in due course in line with their conclusions from the call for evidence;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 248 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Reiterates its stressing of the importance of strong and well- functioning IT systems corresponding to the needs of the supervisory functions of the SSM and security concerns, regrets recent reports about persisting weaknesses in the IT system;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 253 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Welcomes the excellent work of the Joint Supervisory Teams (JSTs) which are a good example of European cooperation and knowledge building; points out that the proposed future use of a rotating system in the organisation of JSTs should guarantee objective supervision while taking into consideration the lengthy process of knowledge building in this very complex field of expertise;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 256 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 d (new)
9d. Recalls the need to dedicate more ECB personnel to the SSM to avoid over- reliance on staff from NCAs which potentially jeopardises the ECB supervisory tasks; welcomes the ECB's cooperation with the European Parliament on staff working conditions; underlines the importance of a good working environment that fosters professional cohesion in the ECB;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 258 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 e (new)
9e. Welcomes that the Banking Union has widely eliminated the home-host issue in supervision by the establishment of a single supervisor and the greatly improved exchange of relevant information between supervisory authorities, enabling a more holistic supervision of cross-border banking groups; stresses that, due to the current incomplete state of the Banking Union, the CRR review on liquidity and capital waivers needs to appropriately take into account concerns of consumer protection in host countries;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 261 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 f (new)
9f. Welcomes the establishment of national systemic risk boards; stresses that the establishment of the Banking Union reinforces the need to strengthen macro-prudential policy at the European level in order to properly address potential cross-border spill-overs of systemic risk;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 262 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 g (new)
9g. Encourages the Commission to propose a coherent and effective macro- prudential supervision in its overall review of the macro-prudential framework in 2017, calls on the Commission to be especially ambitious in order to enhance the current limited possibilities of the ESRB to intervene and reduce the complexity of the cooperation between ESRB, ECB/SSM and national authorities in the field of macro- prudential supervision, welcomes in this regard the progress already made on cross-border coordination by the ESRB recommendation on voluntary reciprocity;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 265 #

2016/2247(INI)

9h. Welcomes the ECB initiative to oblige supervised banks to report significant cyber-attacks under a real- time alert service and the SSM on-site inspections to supervise cyber-security; calls for the establishment of a legal framework which facilitates the exchange of sensitive information relevant to prevent cyber-attacks between banks;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 267 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 i (new)
9i. Stresses the crucial role of cyber- security for banking services and the need to incentivise financial institutions to be very ambitious in protecting consumer data and guaranteeing cyber-security;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 268 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 j (new)
9j. Points out that in the current environment non-banks are increasingly expanding their assets and, taking into account that they tend to be very sensitive to crises, encourages expanding regulation to all banking activities;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 277 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls the need to adhere to State aid rules in the context of bank resolution; takes the view that enoughDoubts that the current State aid rules are clear enough in the context of bank resolution; calls for the definition of efficient procedures between the SRB and the Commission for decision-making in the event of a resolution, especially concerning the timeframe; takes the view that the flexibility is embedded within the current framework to address specific situations and might beshould be clarified and better exploited, in particular in the case of preventive and alternative measures involving the use of DGS funds; as stated in DGSD Article 11(3) and (6);2a _________________ 2a OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, pp.166-167.
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 289 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Underlines the importance to clarify practical issues which are directly affecting resolution, such as the reliance on service providers which provide critical services for example in the case of out- sourced IT services;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 293 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Welcomes the full transposition of the BRRD by all Banking Union Member States;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 300 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Takes note of the differences between the FSB TLAC standard and the MREL; stresses, however, that both standards share the same objective; concludes therefore that a holistic approach to loss-absorption can be reached by combining the two; highlights that due consideration should be given to retaining the two criteria of size and risk-weighted assets; emphasizes that market disclosure should be made in an appropriate manner in order to avoid investor misinterpretation of the MREL requirements;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 307 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls for a careful calibration of MREL requirements considering that a disproportionate amount would entail unnecessarily high funding costs and could reduce the capacity of banks to finance the economy;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 351 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Regrets that the Commission did not allow for more time to assess the implementation of the DGSD before proposSupports the Commission's proposal of a three stages approach towards a fully mutualised European fund, which is the most effective option to protect all depositors ing the EDIS and did not conduct a proper impact assessment of the proposal; stands ready, however, to seize the opportunity generated by the proposal to discuss the DGSD and address some of the optBanking Union; stands ready to address some of the options and discretions in the DGSD with the objective of reducing them as an important step towards a genuine level playing field; appreciates the Commission's and discretions it includesdditional effect analysis on EDIS;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 368 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Is aware of the potential benefnecessitsy of an EDIS; is nevertheless of the opinion that risk reduction measures are an indispensable counterparty to its establishment in order toto prevent moral hazard; points out the progress made in risk reduction since the establishment of the Banking Union in particular with the SSM and the SRM and the wide range of prevudent moral hazard, and that such measures should preferably precede risk sharingial measures which have been taken with respect to banks; is of the opinion that risk sharing measures should now proceed speedily;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 407 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Highlights that Article 114 seems to be anis the appropriate legal basis for the establishment of both the EDIS and the DIF;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 415 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Recalls that the role of the Commission is to guarantee a level playing field across the EU and that it should avoid any fragmentation within the internal market;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 427 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Welcomes the establishment of loan facility agreements between the SRF and the Banking Union Member States; is of the opinion, nevertheless, that this solution is not sufficient to do away with the bank-sovereign vicious circle and that the work on a common fiscal backstop for the SRF, which should be fiscally neutral over the medium term, should continue step by step; calls for a more robust mutualised credit line via the European Stability Mechanism (ESM); reaffirms the need to have the common backstop fiscally neutral over the medium term and fully operational at the latest by the end of 2024 as agreed within the agreement on the SRF and confirmed by the European Council in June 2016; Calls on the Council and the Commission to speed up the work on this issue;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 434 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Is of the opinion that in order to restore trust, a fiscal backstop needs to work for the Banking Union as a whole;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 436 #

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24b. Underlines that the restrictive eligibility criteria of the ESM's direct bank recapitalisation instrument limit its effectiveness; highlights that a more easily accessible mechanism for direct bank recapitalisation would boost depositor confidence, contribute to breaking the sovereign-bank link and reinforce financial stability;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 25 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas a broad range of FinTech developments are underpinned by new technologies, such as distributed ledger technology (DLT) applications, innovative payments, robo-advice, Big Data, the use of cloud computing, innovative solutions in customer identification, crowdfunding platforms and many more;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas FinTech developments should contribute to the competitiveness of the European financial system and economy, without hampering financial stability and while maintaining the highest possible level of consumer protection;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 60 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas FinTech can serve as an effective tool for financial inclusion, if it openings up tailor-made financial services to those who could not access them before, it also bears the risk of increasing exclusion for example in case access to FinTech services is not equally granted to all citizens or if the use of big data challenges the mutualisation of risk particularly in insurance;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 73 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas increased access to finance for service providers and the innovative undertakings which supply them with the material needed to provide these services, is urgently needed to boost financial innovation in Europe, in particular for start-ups to become scale- ups;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 78 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas cyber-attacks are an increasing threat to all digital infrastructure, and therefore also to financial infrastructure; whereas the financial sector faces three times more attacks than any other sectoris particularly vulnerable to such attacks; whereas safety is a conditio sine qua non to guarantee the consumers' trust in goods and services;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 80 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas connected devices are an integral part of the FinTech services; whereas the Internet of Things (IoT) is especially vulnerable to cyber-attacks and therefore poses a particular challenge for cyber security; whereas a connected system is only as safe as its weakest element;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 141 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Recommends that the competent authorities allow controlled experimentation withtesting of new technologies both for new entrants and existing market participants; highlights that a pro-active dialogue with academia and market participants can help supervisors and regulators to develop technological expertise;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 157 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights that some central banks are already experimenting with virtual currencies as well as other new technologies; encourages the relevant authorities in Europe to experiment as well, in order to keep up with market developments; recommends that the European Central Bank conduct experimentests with a ‘virtual ecuro’rencies;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 164 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises the importance of supervisors having sufficient technical expertise to adequately scrutinise increasingly complex FinTech services; recommends in this respect a close cooperation of supervisors with national and European agencies which have the required technological know-how; considers it to be essential that the Union, together with the Member States by virtue of public funding, supports research in the area of FinTech; calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen financial instruments for research projects in this area, including public-private partnerships, and to implement in their research policies the principles of open science and responsible ethical innovation; emphasises that sufficient resources need to be devoted to the search for solutions to the social, ethical, legal and economic challenges that the technological development and its applications raise;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 177 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that innovative financial services should be available throughout the EU; calls on the Commission and Member States to apply, where applicable, passporting regimes for new financial services offered across the Union; stresses that FinTech innovation and its integration within the economy and the society require digital infrastructure that provides ubiquitous connectivity; calls on the Commission to guarantee a framework that will meet the connectivity requirements for the Union's digital future and to ensure that access to broadband and 5G networks is fully in line with the net neutrality principle;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 185 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Underlines the importance of boosting financial innovation in Europe; calls for facilitated access to finance for innovative financial service providers and the innovative undertakings which supply them with the material needed to provide these services;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 197 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the need for consistent, technology-neutral application of existing data legislation, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Revised Payment Service Directive (PSD2), the eIDAS Regulation, the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD4) and the Network and Information Systems (NIS) Directive; stresses that, in order to scale up innovative finance in Europe, a free flow of data within the Union is needed; emphasizes the importance of transparency in the collection and use of personal data; recalls Article 71 of the GDPR which grants the data subject the right to obtain an explanation of a decision reached by automated processing and to challenge this decision; stresses the necessity to guarantee that incorrect data can be changed; calls on all stakeholders to increase efforts to guarantee the enforcement of these rights; is of the opinion that consent given to the use of personal data needs to by dynamic and that a data subject has to be able to change and adapt its consent;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 216 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Acknowledges the increasing combination of personal data and algorithms in order to provide services such as robo-advice; emphasisnotes the efficiency potential of robo-advice and the positive effects on financial inclusivof robo-advice and the potential positive effects on financial inclusiveness, however underlines the necessity to use these innovations in line with an ambitious ethical framework in order to guarantee the freedom, privacy, integrity and dignity of the user and to avoid the potential risk of increasing exclusion and discrimination for example in case access to FinTech services is not equally granted to all citizens or if the use of big data challengess the mutualisation of risk particularly in insurance; stresses that errors or biases in algorithms can cause systemic risk and harm consumers; asks the Commission and the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to take these risks into account and assess the liability aspects of data use and use of AI;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 223 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Highlights that smart connected systems and AI which are needed for FinTech are becoming increasingly complex and autonomous; points out that those systems can fail and that the probable increasing difficultly to trace responsibility for damage caused by such failures back to a human agent questions the capacity of the current liability framework to deal with these situations; calls therefore on the Commission to address the issue of liability in order to prepare our society for the upcoming challenges and guarantee safety and trust in FinTech;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 232 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Emphasises the need for end-to-end security across the whole financial services value chain; points to the large and diverse risks posed by cyber-attacks, targeting our financial markets infrastructure, currencies and data; stresses that connected devices and the Internet of Things are an integral part of the infrastructure used to offer FinTech services and that they are especially vulnerable to cyber-attacks and therefore pose a particular cyber security challenge; recalls the fact that a connected system is only as safe as its weakest element; calls therefore for global security standards for connected and connectable devices; calls on the Commission to make cyber security the number one priority in the FinTech Action Plan;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 241 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the ESAs to regularly review operational standards covering ICT risks of financial institutions; calls furthermore, owing to the varying level of protection in the cyber security strategies of Member States, for ESA guidelines on the supervision of these risks; stresses the importance of encouraging and funding research especially in the area of cyber security in order to give the ESAs the technological know-how to fulfill these tasks;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 250 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Highlights the need for the exchange of information and best practices between supervisors and market participants and between, researchers and market participants themselves; calls on the Commission, the Member States, market participants and the EU Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) to set standards for major incident reporting and to remove barriers to information sharing; suggests exploring the potential benefits of a single point of contact for market participants in this regard;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 265 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Welcomes continuous efforts in standardisation which make connected devices safer; underlines however that safety needs to be granted beyond a minimum level of standardisation, especially because uniform standardised security precautions increase the risk of large security breaches due to a possible domino effect; strongly encourages companies to develop heterogeneous own responses to secure their devices and operations;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 287 #

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the ESAs to continue their ongoing work on monitoring technological developments and analysing their benefits and potential risks, in particular as regards consumer and investor protection; stresses that technological know-how is needed to fulfill these tasks; suggests that the ESAs cooperate closely and effectively with national and European agencies which have the required know-how in order to duly incorporate technological expertise;
2017/03/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
— having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Article 5 on the conferral of competences and subsidiarity, Article 10(1) on representative democracy, Article 10(2) on the representation of EU citizens, Article 12 on the role of national parliaments, Article 48(3) on the ordinary revision procedure and Article 48(7) (passerelle clause) thereof,
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 10 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas national parliaments play an essential role in granting and completing the democratic legitimacy of the Union, thereby ensuring its good constitutional functioningcontributes actively to the good functioning of the European Union (Article 12 TEU);
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 17 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the inherent pluralism of national parliaments is remarkably beneficial to the Union, as the alignment of different political stances across the Member States strengthens and broadens cross-sectional debates at European level;deleted
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 20 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas the underrepresentation of parliamentary minorities in European affairs should be counterbalanced while fully respecting the majorities in each national parliament, and in accordance with the principle of proportionality;deleted
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 31 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas the implementation of the EWS could be greatlyhas improved, as demonstrated by the limited usageatest figures ofn the yellow card procedure and the ineffectiveness of the orange card procedurtotal number of opinions submitted by national Parliaments under the political dialogue;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 33 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas the eight-week period laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 has proven to be inis adequate for timely monitoring of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 34 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L
L. whereas the EWS could be supplemented by further interinstitutional cooperation at an earlier stage of European legislative procedures, under which several Member States have taken informal initiatives by availing themselves of their right to present proposals and suggestions to the European Institutions;deleted
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 35 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
L a. Whereas that several national parliaments have expressed their interest in an instrument in the context of improving political dialogue, which would afford national parliaments, having first secured the support of the European Parliament, the opportunity to suggest constructive proposals for the Commission's consideration and with due regard for the Commission's right of initiative;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 36 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital N
N. whereas the implementation of a red card procedure is not conceivable at this stage of the European integration process;deleted
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 38 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital O
O. whereas the comprehensive range of information rights provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon could be enhanced if national parliaments were given more resources and time to cope with the documents forwarded to them by the European Institutionsnational parliaments in the Treaty of Lisbon has been enhanced;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 41 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital R
R. whereas national parliaments occasionally raise grievances about their relations with the European Union, claiming that they are highly complex and on occasion troublesome and inefficientcomplex;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 55 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that national parliaments should be granted enough time and powers to scrutinisehave the right to scrutinise and to control the activity of their national governments also when they act at European level, whether in the Council or in the European Council, in full compliance with the Member States’ constitutions; believes that anthe exchange of best practices between national parliaments should be promoted in this respectstrengthened;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 69 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Underlines that during the last COSAC plenary meeting in Tallin, COSAC recognise that the majority of national Parliaments debate EU matters at the plenary whether at regular intervals or on an ad hoc basis and acknowledges that more plenary debates on EU matters raise the visibility of the Union and give citizens the opportunity to learn more about the agenda of the EU and the positions of political parties on these issues;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 76 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the fact that the binding will of parliamentary majorities should be expressed in the opinions issued by national parliaments, within or outside the framework of the EWS; believes, however, that national parliamentary minorities could be given the possibility to express dissenting points of view, which would then be incorporated into the annexes to such opinions, while fully abiding by the principle of proportionality and in accordance with the rules of procedure of each parliamentary chamber;deleted
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 81 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Backing reformImplementation of the EWS
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 82 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. UnderlinesTakes note the fact that the EWS has seldom been used since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, and believes that it could be reformed within the current constitutional framework;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 85 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that prior experience with the EWS has proven that drawing a line between the political dimension of the principle of subsidiarity and the legal dimension of, with regard to any new legislative initiative, the Commission is obliged to examine whether the EU has the principle of proportionality is, on occasion, difficult and troublesomeght to take action and whether this is also justified; calls on the Commission, therefore, to reschew an overly narrow interpretation ofpect the principle of subsidiarity, and to make use of reasonable criteria of self-restraint while examiningproportionality, and to take into account the reasoned opinions issued by national parliaments within the EWS;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 87 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the Commission should not be granted the discretion to give notice of the date on which a draft legislative act is transmitted to national parliaments; believes, accordingly, that the Commission should not have the competence to monitor the eight-week period within which national parliamentary chambers may issue reasoned opinions on compliance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls, therefore, for the implementation of a technical notification period within the EWS, in order to accommodate the time delay between the date on which the draft legislative acts are sent by the Commission and the date on which they are actually received by national parliamentary chambers;deleted
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 92 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Takes note of the request from certain national parliaments to extend the eight-week period in which they can issue a reasoned opinion under Article 6; recalls, in this regard, that national parliaments may intervene and consider the question of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity before the presentation of a legislative initiative by the Commission in the form of Green and White Papers or the annual presentation of the Commission’s work programme;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 99 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Suggests the implementaRecalls the discussions regarding a possible introduction of a proceduresystem whereby national parliaments could submit reasoned opinionconstructive proposals to the Commission with the aim of positively influencing its powers of legislative initiative, and whereby the Commission could either legislate in line with such opinions or issue a reasoned veto underlining its reasons for not doing sothe European Debate; points out that such a procedure cannot consist of a right to legislative initiative, or a right to withdraw or amend legislation, as it would otherwise subvert the Union method and violate the Treaties; Underlines, however, that it is already possible for national parliaments to present a proposal asking the Commission to act;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 108 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the existing cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments in the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC), in the Interparliamentary Conference on Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP-IPC), and within the framework of Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union; stresses that such cooperation should be developed on the basis of the principles of consensus, information-sharing and consultation, in order to exercise control over their respective administrations;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 109 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Reiterates, however, the need to simplify the current framework of relations between the Union and national parliaments, as evidenced by the disproportionate number of entities, bodies and meetings at present;deleted
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 113 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Insists, however, on a clear delineation of the respective decision- making competences of the national parliaments and the European Parliament, where the former should exercise their European function on the basis of their national constitutions, in particular via the control of their national governments as members of the European Council and the Council, which is the level where they are best placed to directly influence the content of and exercise scrutiny over the European legislative process; is therefore against the creation of joint parliamentary decision-making bodies for reasons of transparency, accountability and ability to act;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 115 #

2016/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that strengthening political and technical dialogue between parliamentary committees, both at national and at European level, would be a greatly productive step towards full interparliamentary cooperation; takes the view that additional budgetary resources should be allocated to the Committees of the European Parliament, with the aim of allowing rapporteurs to undertake missions in order to informally discuss with national parliamentary committees the content of their reports;
2018/01/10
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 83 #

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 42 – paragraph 2
2. TOnly the committee responsible for respect of the principle of subsidiarity may decide to make recommendations for the attention of the committee responsible for the subject-matter in respect of any proposal for a legislative act.
2016/09/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 1041 #

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 118 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. In the event of a change in the financial interests of a Commissioner during her/his term of office, this situation shall be subject to scrutiny by Parliament in accordance with Article 1(3) to (6) of Annex XVI. If a conflict of interests is identified during a Commissioner's term of office and the Commission fails to implement Parliament's recommendations for resolving that conflict of interests, Parliament may ask the President of the Commission to withdraw confidence in the Commissioner in question, pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission.
2016/09/27
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 1278 #

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Annex XVI – paragraph 1 – point a – interpretation –subparagraph 1 a (new)
The confirmation by the Committee responsible for Legal Affairs of the absence of any conflict of interests is an essential precondition for the holding of the hearing by the committee responsible. In the absence of such confirmation or if the Committee responsible for Legal Affairs identifies a conflict of interests, the procedure for appointing the Commissioner-designate shall be suspended.
2016/09/27
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 1279 #

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Annex XVI – paragraph 6 b (new)
The following guidelines shall be applied when the declarations of financial interests are scrutinised by the Committee responsible for Legal Affairs: (a) if, when scrutinising a declaration of financial interests, the Committee responsible for Legal Affairs deems, on the basis of the documents presented, the declaration to be accurate, complete and to contain nothing indicating an actual or potential conflict of interests in connection with the portfolio of the Commissioner-designate, its Chair shall send a letter confirming this fact to the committees responsible for the hearing or to the committees involved in the event of a procedure taking place during a Commissioner's term of office; (b) if the Committee responsible for Legal Affairs deems the declaration of interests of a Commissioner-designate to contain information which is incomplete or contradictory, or if there is a need for further information, it shall request this information from the Commissioner- designate and shall consider this before making its decision; (c) if the Committee responsible for Legal Affairs identifies a conflict of interests based on the declaration of financial interests or the supplementary information supplied by the Commissioner-designate, it shall draw up recommendations aimed at resolving the conflict of interests; the recommendations may include renouncing the financial interests in question and/or changes being made to the portfolio of the Commissioner-designate by the President of the Commission;
2016/09/27
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 367 #

2016/2100(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Calls on the Commission to investigate the nature and substance of distortions in the retail market, to include considering the potential of territorial supply constraints on retailers to lead to market fragmentation and the potential for large supermarkets which dominate the market to distort competition within supply chains; emphasises the importance of all stakeholders disclosing relevant information;
2016/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 214 #

2016/2099(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the strong increase in EIB lending to innovative projects, which stood at EUR 18.7 billion in 2015, as compared to less than EUR 10 billion in 2008; urges the EIB to continue this effort and to focus on the development of technologies for the future such as energy- efficiency transport, the digital economy, industrial innovation such as robotics, and new medical treatments for a better life; believes that concentrating on InnovFin and FinTech will attract projects with added value in the Member States;
2016/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 31 #

2016/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers it essential that the Committee on Legal Affairs has enough time to ensure that this detailed assessment is effective.
2016/09/14
Committee: JURI
Amendment 38 #

2016/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point a
(a) if, when scrutinising a declaration of financial interests, the Committee on Legal Affairs deems the declaration to be accurate, complete and to contain nothing indicating an actual or potential conflict of interests in connection with the portfolio of the Commissioner-designate, its Chair shall send a letter confirming this fact to the committees responsible for the hearing or to the committees involved in the event of a procedure taking place during a Commissioner's term of office;
2016/09/14
Committee: JURI
Amendment 46 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas authors and performers are at the origin and the very source of CCIs;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 63 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas it is increasingly rare for cultural and creative artists to be in permanent employment; whereas they are, to an increasing extent, self-employed, alternating between self-employed and employed activity or engaged in part-time or irregular activity;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 143 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that the cultural and creative industries benefit considerably from public funding for culture, which also contributes significantly to cultural diversity in the European Union; urges the Commission and Member States therefore, within their respective spheres of competence, to continue a earmark an adequate share of their budgets for public funding for culture;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 144 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Points out that the atypical employment of cultural and creative artists is becoming increasingly common; urges the Commission and the Member States therefore, within their respective spheres of competence, to devote greater attention to legislative provisions regarding the employment and working conditions of cultural and creative artists and in particular their social protection; calls in addition for their position to be strengthened by means of collective representation;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 163 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that technology and infrastructure rely on the content provided by creators; calls, therefore, on the Commission to establish a legal framework for the value chain in the digital age that takes into account the specificities of the sector and leads to an improvement in the remuneration of authors and creators, i.e. through the introduction of an unwaivable right of authors to remuneration;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 164 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Encourages the Commission to establish legal provisions which create a fairer environment governing the transfer of rights and the contractual remuneration of authors and performers; calls therefore to create a contract adjustment mechanism, which allows authors and performers to claim additional remuneration in case the revenues yielded out of the exploitation of the works are disproportionally high compared to the remuneration agreed in the initial contract; recommends also to provide for a transparency obligation for publishers and producers to detail on a regular basis timely, adequate and comprehensive information on the exploitation of works, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due; calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of entitling unions or associations representing creators to a kind of collective bargaining related to the definition of appropriate remuneration; asks the Commission to introduce a rights reversion mechanism which would enable creators to terminate a contract, namely in case of lack of exploitation, lack of payment of the remuneration foreseen, in established case of inappropriate remuneration as well as lack of regular reporting;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 168 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of entitling unions or associations representing creators to file legal complaints on behalf of creators;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 180 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Asks the Commission, in view of the upcoming copyright reform, to create legal solutions which will suit creators, right holders, right users and consumers alike in order to make clear that liability exemptions can only apply to genuinely neutral and passive online service providers and not to services that play an active role in distributing, promoting and monetising content at the expense of creators;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 189 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Highlights that the majority of organisations in the CCI sector are SMEs; stresses that SMEs often face major challenges with regard to rights clearance; asks the Commission, therefore, to simplify rights clearance systems in the upcoming copyright reform;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 192 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Highlights that research on right holders and intransparent rules on copyright represent administrative burdens entailing high expenses and a lot of efforts, especially for SMEs working on cross-border basis; recommends, therefore, to establish a common pan- European database with all available information on right holders for each sector in order to facilitate rights clearance;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 195 #

2016/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Stresses that Directive 2014/26/EU has led to improvements in the rights clearance system of musical works in the online environment; asks the Commission to also improve good governance, efficiency, transparency and accountability of collective rights management organisations in other sectors;
2016/09/09
Committee: ITRECULT
Amendment 85 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) In view of the risk that the application of Directive 91/308/EEC would lead to an increase in cash movements for illicit purposes which could pose a threat to the financial system and the internal market, that Directive was complemented by Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council20 . That Regulation aims at preventing and detecting money laundering and the financing of terrorism by laying down a system of controls applicable to natural persons who enter or leave the Union carrying amounts of cash equal to or bgrearter- negotiable instruments equal to or greater than 10 000 EUR or its equivalent in other currencies. The term 'entering or leaving the Union' should be defined in function of the territory of the Union as defined in Art.355, TFEU, in order to ensure that this Regulation has the broadest possible scope of application and that no areas such as free zones, international transit areas and similar areas would be exempt from its application and present opportunities to circumvent applicable controls. __________________ 20 Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 9).
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 86 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) The importance to control cash movements into and leaving the EU is highlighted by the anomalies reported by Europol, namely that : in spite of a steady increase of the use of non-cash payment methods and a moderate decline in the use of cash for payments, the total value of euro banknotes in circulation continues to rise beyond the rate of inflation, and the demand for high denomination notes, not commonly associated with payments, has been sustained, which could indicate a link to criminal activities.1a __________________ 1aEuropol Report “Why is Cash still King?”, 2015
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 91 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Considering their presence at the external borders of the Union, their expertise in carrying out controls on passengers and freight crossing the external border and experience gained in the application of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005, customs authorities should continue to act as the competent authorities for the purposes of this Regulation. At the same time, the Member States should continue to be able also to designate other national authorities present at the external border to act as competent authorities. Resources from custom authorities and other national authorities should receive specific training on how to identify cash- based money laundering and Member States should allocate resources according to a risk analysis, and not disregard necessary controls of private aircrafts and yachts entering and leaving their territories.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 114 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) That information should be passed on to the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Member State in question, which should promptly make it available to the Financial Intelligence Units of the other Member States. Those units are designated as the hub elements in the fight against money-laundering and terrorist financing who receive and process information from various sources such as financial institutions and analyse it in order to determine if there are grounds for further investigation that may not be apparent to the competent authorities who collect the declarations and perform controls under this Regulation. For that purpose, an interconnection between the information exchange systems used by, respectively, competent authorities and Financial Investigations Units should be put in place. In order to further strengthen the cooperation between the Financial Intelligence Units, the Commission should assess the adequacy of establishing a Union Financial Intelligence Unit, and present a legislative proposal, if appropriate.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 130 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) IWhile most Member States use already a harmonized declaration form, the EU currency Declaration From (EU- CDF), on a voluntary basis, in order to ensure uniform application of controls and the efficient processing, transmission and analysis of the declarations by competent authorities, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt the template of declaration and disclosure forms, to determine the criteria of a common risk management framework, to establish the technical rules and modalities and the template of the forms to be used for the declarations, for the information exchange andbetween competent authorities and for the interconnection between the information exchange systems used by, respectively, competent authorities and Financial Investigations Units, as well as to establish the rules and the format to be used for the provision of statistical information to the Commission. This should include the establishment of appropriate electronic systems. The powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 . __________________ 23 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 181 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The controls shall be based primarily on risk analysis, with the purpose of identifying and evaluating the risks and developing the necessary counter- measures, and shall be performed within a common risk management framework in accordance with the criteria laid down pursuant to Article 15(b), as defined in Article 46 of Regulation 952/2013. This framework shall take into account the risk assessment analysis carried out under articles 6 and7 of Directive (EU) 2015/849.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 197 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authorities shall record the information obtained under Articles 3, 4, 5(3) or 6 and transmit it to the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Member State in which it was obtained, in accordance with the technical rules laid down pursuant to Article 15(c)paragraph 1a.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 199 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. For the purposes of paragraph 1, an interconnection between the system competent authorities use to exchange information pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No515/97[1]and the system Financial Intelligence Units use to exchange information pursuant to Council Decision 2000/642/JHA[2]shall be put in place in accordance with the technical rules laid down by the Commission pursuant to Article 15(c).[1] Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters, OJ L 82 of 22.3.1997, p. 1, lastly amended by Regulation (EU) No 2015/1525 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015, OJ L 243 of18.9.2015, p. 1.[2] Council Decision 2000/642/JHA of17 October 2000 concerning arrangements for cooperation between financial intelligence units of the Member States in respect of exchanging information. OJ L 271 of24.10.2000, p. 4.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 210 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The competent authority shall communicate the information referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 in accordance with the technical rules laid down pursuant to Article 15(ca) and using the form laid down pursuant to Article 15(d).
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 223 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Each Member State shall introduce penalties to apply in the event of failure to comply with the obligation to declare or disclose laid down in Articles 3 and 4. Such penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall provide for competent authorities to have the power to impose pecuniary administrative sanctions which shall be equal to at least 20% and not higher than 40% of the value of the undeclared or wrongfully declared or the wrongfully disclosed cash.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 239 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the technical rules for the exchange of information under Articles 8 and 9, including the establishment of an appropriate electronic systeminterconnection referred to in Article 8(1a);
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 242 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) the technical rules for the exchange of information under Article 9, via the Customs Information System, as laid down referred to in Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97;
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 51 #

2016/0364(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) The principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is laid down in art 157 TFEU. This needs to be applied in a consistent way by credit institutions and investment firms. Therefore they should demonstrate a gender neutral remuneration policy.
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 103 #

2016/0364(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 3 – point 64 a (new)
(64a) Gender neutral remuneration policy in a credit institution or investment firm means a remuneration policy based on equal pay for women and men for equal work or work of equal value.
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 105 #

2016/0364(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 9 – paragraph 2
(5) In Article 9, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: ‘ 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the taking of deposits or other repayable funds by any of the following: (a) (b) a Member State's regional or local authority; (c) public international bodies of which one or more Member States are members; (d) up and pursuit of the business of which is explicitly covered by Union law, other than this Directive and Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (e) the activity of which is governed by national law.. ’deleted a Member State; persons or undertakings the taking entities referred to in Article 2(5),
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 127 #

2016/0364(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 21b – paragraph 3
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply where the total value of assets in the Union of the third country group is lower than EUR 3045 billion, unless the third country group is a non-EU G-SII.
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 138 #

2016/0364(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 21b – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) the total assets of each branch of the third country group authorised in the Union.deleted
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 171 #

2016/0364(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new)
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 74
(11a) Article 74 is amended as follows: "1. Institutions shall have robust governance arrangements, which include a clear organisational structure with well- defined ,transparent and consistent lines of responsibility, effective processes to identify, manage, monitor and report the risks they are or might be exposed to, adequate internal control mechanisms, including sound administration and accounting procedures, and remuneration policies and practices that are consistent with and promote sound and effective risk management. Those remuneration policies and practices shall be gender neutral. .2. The arrangements, processes and mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 shall be comprehensive and proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of the risks inherent in the business model and the institution's activities. The technical criteria established in Articles 76 to95 shall be taken into account 3. EBA shall issue guidelines on the 3. arrangements ,processes and mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1, in accordance with paragraph 2. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0036&from=EN)One year after the adoption of this directive, EBA will issue guidelines on gender neutral remuneration policy for credit institutions and investment firms. Two years after the publication of these guidelines and based on the information collected by the national competent authorities, EBA will draft a report about the application of gender neutral remuneration policies by credit institutions and investment firms. " Or. en
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 172 #

2016/0364(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 75 – paragraph 1
1. Competent authorities shall collect the information disclosed in accordance with the criteria for disclosure established in points (g), (h), (i) and (k) of Article 450(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and shall use its well as the information provided by credit institutions and investment firms on the gender pay gap and shall use this information to benchmark remuneration trends and practices. The competent authorities shall provide EBA with that information.
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 208 #

2016/0364(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point b a (new)
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 92 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(ba) In paragraph 2, the following point (aa) is inserted: (aa) the remuneration policy is gender neutral: female and male workers will be equally remunerated for equal work or work of equal value.
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 271 #

2016/0364(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 21 – point a
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 104 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For the purposes of Article 92(2)(b), Article 97, Article 98(4), Article 101(4) and Article 102 and the application of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, competent authorities shall have at least the following powers:
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 275 #

2016/0364(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 21 – point a
Directive 2013/36/EU
Article 104 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) to require institutions to limit variable remuneration as a percentage of net revenues where it is inconsistent with the maintenance of a sound capital base; and, to require credit institutions and investment firms to comply with the guidelines issued by EBA on gender neutral remuneration policies.
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 185 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 22 a (new)
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point g a (new)
22 a. In Article 44(2), the following point (ga) is added: ‘(ga) liabilities to institutions or entities referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) that are part of the same resolution group without being themselves resolution entity, regardless of their maturity;'.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 247 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the extent to which the Deposit Guarantee Scheme could contribute to the financing of resolution in accordance with Article 109;deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 256 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the resolution entity orand its subsidiaries that are institutions, but not resolution entities are recapitalised to a level necessary to enable them to continue to comply with the conditions for authorisation and to carry out the activities for which they are authorised under Directive 2013/36/EU, Directive 2014/65/EU or equivalent legislation ('recapitalisation');
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 258 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where the resolution plan provides that the entity shall be wound up under normal insolvency proceedings, or under other equivalent national procedures, the resolution authority shall assess whether it is justified to limit the requirement referred to in Article 45(1) for that entity, shallo that it does not exceed an amount sufficient to absorb losses in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph. The assessment by the resolution authority shall, in particular, evaluate the limit referred to in the previous subparagraph as regards any possible impact on financial stability and any risk of contagion, including through reputational risk, to the financial system.
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 349 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
The resolution authority may reduce the requirement referred to in Article 45(1) to take account of the amount which a deposit guarantee scheme is expected to contribute to the financing of the preferred resolution strategy in accordance with Article 109 of Directive 2014/59/EU.deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 355 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
The size of any such reduction shall be based on a credible assessment of the potential contribution from the deposit guarantee scheme, and shall at least: (a) the potential losses which the deposit guarantee scheme would have had to bear, had the institution been wound up under normal insolvency proceedings, taking into account the priority ranking of the deposit guarantee scheme pursuant to Article 108 of Directive 2014/59/EU; (b) be less than the limit on deposit guarantee scheme contributions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 109(5) of Directive 2014/59/EU; (c) take account of the overall risk of exhausting the available financial means of the deposit guarantee scheme due to contributing to multiple bank failures or resolutions; and (d) relevant provisions in national law and the duties and responsibilities of the authority responsible for the deposit guarantee scheme. (e) after consulting the authority responsible for the deposit guarantee scheme, document its approach as regards the assessment of the overall risk of exhausting the available financial means of the deposit guarantee scheme and apply reductions in accordance with subparagraph 1, provided that that risk is not excessive.deleted be less than a prudent estimate of be consistent with any other The resolution authority shall,
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 420 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 2
2. The requirement referred to in Article 45(1)of entities referred to in the first paragraph shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) the consolidated requirement referred to in Article 45f; (b) applied to the resolution group's subsidiaries shall be covered by and not exceed the consolidated requirement referred to in Article 45f unless this is only due to the effects of the consolidation at the level of the resolution group in accordance with Article 45f(1). (c) the contribution of the subsidiary to the consolidated requirement referred to in Article 45f(1). (d) it shall fulfil the eligibility criteria provided in paragraph 3.deleted the resolution entity complies with the sum of all requirements to be the requirement shall not exceed
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 432 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 3 – point a – point i
(i) are issued to and bought by the resolution entity; either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group that bought the liabilities from the entity subject to this Article or by an existing shareholder that is not part of the same resolution group as long as the exercise of the power of write down or convert in accordance with Articles 59 to 62 does not affect the control of the subsidiary by the resolution entity;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 437 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) own funds instruments that) are issued to and bought by other entities than the resolution entity when: (i) that are included in the same resolution group, or (ii) that are not included in the same resolution group as long as the exercise of the power of write down or conversion in accordance with Articles 59 to 62 does not affect the control of the subsidiary by the resolution entity.
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 440 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 4
4. Subject to the agreement of the resolution authorities of the subsidiary and the resolution entity, the requirement may be met with a guarantee of the resolution entity granted to its subsidiary, which fulfils the following conditions: (a) least the equivalent amount as the amount of the requirement for which it substitutes; (b) the subsidiary is unable to pay its debts or other liabilities as they fall due or a determination has been made in accordance with Article 59(3) in respect of the subsidiary, whichever is the earliest; (c) through a financial collateral arrangement as defined in point (a) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2002/47/EC for at least 50 per cent of its amount; (d) collateral arrangement are governed by the laws of the Member State where the subsidiary is established unless specified otherwise by the resolution authority of the subsidiary; (e) guarantee fulfils the requirements of Article 197 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which, following appropriately conservative haircuts, is sufficient to fully cover the amount guaranteed; (f) guarantee is unencumbered and in particular is not used asdeleted the guarantee is provided for at the guarantee is triggered when the guarantee is collateralised the guarantee and financial the collateral to back any other guarantee; (g) maturity that fulfils the same maturity condition as that for referred to in Article 72c(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 , and (h) operational barriers to the transfer of the collateral from the resolution entity toing the the collateral backing the the collateral has an effective the relevant subsidiary, including when resolution action is taken in respect of the resolution entity. are no legal, regulatory or
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 566 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 28
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 59 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The power to write down or convert eligible liabilities independently of resolution action may be exercised only in relation to eligible liabilities that meet the conditions referred to in Article 45g(3)(a), except the condition related to the remaining maturity of liabilities. and, when exercised, shall comply with point (g) of Article 34(1). Where relevant capital instruments and eligible liabilities have been purchased by the resolution entity indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group, the power to write down or convert shall be exercised together with the exercise of the same power at the level of the parent undertaking of the entity concerned or subsequent parents that are not resolution entities so that the losses are effectively passed on to and the entity concerned is recapitalised by the resolution entity. The amount written down or converted at the level of an entity that is not a resolution entity shall count towards the thresholds laid down in Article 37(10) and point (a) of Article 44(5) applicable to the entity concerned. ".
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2016/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5 Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
(e) the extent to which the Deposit Guarantee Scheme could contribute to the financing of resolution in accordance with Article 79;deleted
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 68 #

2016/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
Article 12 d – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the resolution entity orand its subsidiaries that are institutions, but not resolution entities are recapitalised to a level necessary to enable them to continue to comply with the conditions for authorisation and carry out the activities for which they are authorised under Directive 2013/36/EU, Directive 2014/65/EU or equivalent legislation ('recapitalisation');
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 70 #

2016/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
Article 12 d – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where the resolution plan provides that the entity shall be wound up under normal insolvency proceedings, or other equivalent national procedures, the Board shall assess whether it is justified to limit the requirement referred to in Article 12a(1) for that entity, shallo that it does not exceed an amount sufficient to absorb losses in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph. The assessment by the Board shall, in particular, evaluate the limit referred to in the previous subparagraph as regards any possible impact on financial stability and any risk of contagion, including through reputational risk, to the financial system.
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 104 #

2016/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
Article 12 d – paragraph 8
8. The Board may reduce the requirement referred to in Article 12a(1) to take account of the amount which a deposit guarantee scheme is expected to contribute to the financing of the preferred resolution strategy in accordance with Article 109 of Directive 2014/59/EU. The size of any such reduction shall be based on a credible assessment of the potential contribution from the deposit guarantee scheme, and shall at least: (a) the potential losses which the deposit guarantee scheme would have had to bear, had the institution been wound up under normal insolvency proceedings, taking into account the priority ranking of the deposit guarantee scheme pursuant to Article 108 of Directive 2014/59/EU; (b) guarantee scheme contributions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 109(5) of Directive 2014/59/EU; (c) exhausting the available financial means of the deposit guarantee scheme due to contributing to multiple bank failures or resolutions; and (d) relevant provisions in national law and the duties and responsibilities of the authority responsible for the deposit guarantee scheme. The Board shall, after consulting the authority responsible for the deposit guarantee scheme, document its approach as regards the assessment of the overall risk of exhausting the available financial means of the deposit guarantee scheme and apply reductions in accordance with subparagraph 1, provided that that risk is not excessive.deleted be less than a prudent estimate of be less than the limit on deposit take account of the overall risk of be consistent with any other
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 140 #

2016/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
Article 12 h – paragraph 2
2. The requirement referred to in Article 12a(1) of entities referred to in the first paragraph shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) the consolidated requirement referred to in Article 12g; (b) applied to the resolution group's subsidiaries shall be covered by and not exceed the consolidated requirement referred to in Article 12g unless this is only due to the effects of the consolidation at the level of the resolution group in accordance with Article 12g(1); (c) provided in paragraph 3; (d) of the subsidiary to the consolidated requirement referred to in 12g(1).deleted the resolution entity complies with the sum of all requirements to be it shall fulfil the eligibility criteria it shall not exceed the contribution
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 142 #

2016/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
Article 12 h – paragraph 3 – point a – point i
(i) are issued to and bought by the resolution entity; either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group that bought the liabilities from the entity subject to this Article or by an existing shareholder that is not part of the same resolution group as long as the exercise of the power of write down or conversion in accordance with Article 21 does not affect the control of the subsidiary by the resolution entity;
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 143 #

2016/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
Article 12 h – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) eligible own funds instruments that are issued to and bought by other entities tha(i) that are included in the same resolution entity whengroup, or (ii) that are not included in the same resolution group as long as the exercise of the power of write down or conversion in accordance with Article 21 does not affect the control of the subsidiary by the resolution entity.
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 147 #

2016/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
Article 12 h – paragraph 4
4. Subject to the agreement of the Board, the requirement referred to in Article 12a(1) may be met with a guarantee of the resolution entity granted to its subsidiary, which fulfils the following conditions: (a) least the equivalent amount as the amount of the requirement for which it substitutes; (b) the subsidiary is unable to pay its debts or other liabilities as they fall due or a determination has been made in accordance with Article 21(3) in respect of the subsidiary, whichever is the earliest; (c) through a financial collateral arrangement as defined in point (a) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2002/47/EC for at least 50 per cent of its amount; (d) collateral arrangement are govdeleted the guarantee is provided for at the guarantee is triggerned by the laws of the Member State where the subsidiary is established unless otherwise specified by the Board; (e) guarantee fulfils the requirements of Article 197 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which, following appropriately conservative haircuts, is sufficient to fully cover the amount guaranteed; (f) the collateral backing the guarantee is unencumberedwhen the guarantee is collateralised the guarantee and fin particular is not used as collateral to back any other guarantee; (g) the collateral has an effective maturity that fulfils the same maturity condition as that referred to in Article 72c(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; and (h) operational barriers to the transfer of the collateral from the resolution entity to the relevant subsidiary, including when resolution action is taken in respect of the resolution entity.ancial the collateral backing the there are no legal, regulatory or
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 175 #

2016/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 9 – point f
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
Article 21 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
The power to write down or convert eligible liabilities independently of resolution action may be exercised only in relation to eligible liabilities that meet the conditions referred to in point (a) of Article 12(3), except the condition related to the remaining maturity of liabilities.. and, when exercised, shall comply with point (g) of Article 15(1). Where relevant capital instruments and eligible liabilities have been purchased by the resolution entity indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group, the power to write down or convert shall be exercised together with the exercise of the same power at the level of the parent undertaking of the entity concerned or subsequent parents that are not resolution entities so that the losses are effectively passed on to and the entity concerned is recapitalised by the resolution entity. The amount written down or converted at the level of an entity that is not a resolution entity shall count towards the thresholds laid down in point (a) of Article 27(7) applicable to the entity concerned.'
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 178 #

2016/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 9 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – point g a (new)
9a. In Article 27(3), the following point is added: ‘(ga) liabilities to institutions or entities referred to in points (b) or (c) of Article 2 that are part of the same resolution group without being themselves resolution entity, regardless of their maturity.’.
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 218 #

2016/0360A(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
(56) In light of the strengthened group supervision resulting from the reinforcement of the prudential regulatory framework and the establishment of the Banking Union, it is desirable that institutions take ever more advantage of the benefits of the single market, including for ensuring an efficient management of capital and liquidity resources throughout the group. Therefore the possibility to waive the application of requirements on an individual level for subsidiaries or parents should be available to cross-border groups, provided there are adequate safeguards to ensure that sufficient capital and liquidity will be at the disposal of entities subject to the waiver. Where all the safeguards are met, it will be for the competent authority to decide whether to grant such waivers. Competent authorities' decisions should be duly justified.deleted
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 262 #

2016/0360A(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 7 – paragraphs 1 and 2
(5) In Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following: [...]deleted
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 268 #

2016/0360A(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 8
(6) Article 8 is replaced by the following: [...]deleted
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 414 #

2016/0360A(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 27
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 72e – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Where an EU parent institution or a parent institution in a Member State that is subject to Article 92a has direct, indirect or synthetic holdings of own funds instruments or eligible liabilities instruments of one or more subsidiaries which do not belong to the same resolution group as that parent institution, the resolution authority of that parent institution, after consultingin agreement with the resolution authorities of any subsidiaries concerned, may permit the parent institution to derogate from paragraphs 1(c), 1(d) and 2 by deducting a lower amount specified by the home resolution authority. That lower amount must be at least equal to the amount (m) calculated as follows:
2018/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 936 #

2016/0360A(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 116
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 430 a – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the total value of the institution's assets is equal to or larger than EUR 5 billion and the ratio of its total assets relative to the GDP of the Member State where it is established is on average equal to or larger than 20 % over the four-year period immediately preceding the current annual disclosure period.deleted
2018/02/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 26 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 access to television and radio programmes both live and on- demand, using traditional channels such as satellite or cable and also through online services. Broadcasting organisations are therefore increasingly offering, in addition to their own broadcasts of television and radio programmes, online services ancillary to their broadcasthat are complementary to their traditional linear output, such as simulcasting, webcasting and catch-up services. Furthermore, broadcasting organisations are also making television- and radio-like programmes available only online or online first, which represent a growing reality due to changing market realities and consumer demands. 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. The distribution of and access to television and radio programmes is therefore increasingly done on a multi- platform and technology-neutral basis. On the part of users, there is a growing demand for access to broadcasts of television and radio programmes on any platform in a borderless environment, therefore 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 origin.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 29 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 access to television and radio programmes both live and on- demand, using traditional channels such as satellite or cable and also through online services. Broadcasting organisations are therefore increasingly offering, in addition to their own broadcasts of television and radio programmes, online services ancillary to their broadcast, such as 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 and need for access to broadcasts of television and radio programmes, including catch-up services, not only originating in their Member State but also in other Member States of the Union, includingespecially from members of linguistic minorities of the Union as well as from, persons who live in another Member State than their Member State of origin as well as persons who study other languages than their mother tongue.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 40 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 other protected subject matter. Often the rights need to be cleared in a short time-frame, in 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 relevant territories which further increases the complexity of the rights' clearance.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 61 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) 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 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.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 70 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) Therefore, cross-border provision of online services ancillary tof broadcasters and retransmissions of television and radio programmes originating in other Member States should be facilitated by adapting the legal framework on the exercise of copyright and related rights relevant for those activities.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 76 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) The ancillary online services covered by this Regulation are exclusively those services offered by broadcasting organisations which have a clear and subordinate relationship to the broadcast. They include services giving access to television and radio programmes in a linear manner simultaneously to the broadcast and services giving access, within a defined time period in a non linear manner during, before or after the broadcast, to television and radio programmes which have been previously or will be broadcast by the broadcasting organisation (so-callede.g. catch- up services). In addition, ancillary online services, webcasting or previews). In addition, they include services which give access to material which enriches or, otherwise expands or improves the accessibility of television and radio programmes broadcast by the broadcasting organisation, including by way of previewing, extending, supplementing or reviewing the relevant programme's content. The provision of access tIn order to reach younger audiences, which mainly consume audio iandi audiovidsual works or other protected subject matter that have been incorporated in a television or radio programme should not be regarded as an ancillary online service. Similarly, tcontent online, it is crucial to enable broadcasting organisations to also disseminate across borders content designed for the online environment. Therefore, online services also include services by or under the control and responsibility of a broadcasting organisation giving access only online to audio and audiovisual content. The provision of access to individual works or other protected subject matter independently of broadcast, such as services giving access to individual musical or audiovisual works, music albums or videos, by service providers other than broadcasting organisations, e.g. video-on-demand or music-streaming platforms, do not fall under the definition of ancillary online service for the purpose of this Regulation.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 78 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) The ancillary online services covered by this Regulation are those services offered by broadcasting organisations which have a clear and subordinate relationship to the broadcast. They include services giving access to television and radio programmes in a linear manner simultaneously to the broadcast and services giving access, within a defined time period after the broadcast, to television and radio programmes which have been previously broadcast by the broadcasting organisation (so-called catch- up services). In addition, ancillary online services include services which give access to material which enriches or otherwise expands television and radio programmes broadcast by the broadcasting organisation, including by way of previewing, extending, supplementing or reviewing the relevant programme's content. The provision of access to individual works or other protected subject matter that have been incorporated in a television or radio programme should not be regarded as an ancillary online service. Similarly, the provision of access to works or other protected subject matter independently of broadcast, such as services giving access to individual musical or audiovisual works, music albums or videos, do not fall under the definition of ancillary online service.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 107 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Through the principles of territorial exploitation of rights and contractual freedom it will beremain possible to continue limiting the exploitation of the rights affected by the principle of country of origin laid down in this Regulation, as the implementation of Council Directive 93/83/EEC has proven, especially as far as certain technical means of transmission, such as geo-blocking and geo-filtering, or certain language versions are concerned, provided that any such limitations of the exploitation of those rights are in compliance with Union law.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 111 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11a (new)
(11 a) The underlying rationale of many international co-production agreements is that the rights in the co-production are exercised separately and independently by each co-producer, by dividing the exploitation rights between them along territorial lines. In exercising the rights of each co-producer, the rights of another co-producer have to be taken into account while respecting the financing share of the parties. In the situation where authorisation of communication to the public or making available of co-produced audiovisual works by one co-producer would seriously prejudice the value of the exploitation rights of another co- producer, agreements between the co- producers could foresee that the latter co- producer has to give his consent to the authorisation by the former co-producer. This is for example the case where the language version or versions of the making available, including where the version is dubbed or subtitled, coincide with the language or the languages widely understood in the territory allotted by the agreement to another co-producer. Therefore, agreements between the co- producers could request, to the extent compatible with Union law, the use of technical measures in order to prevent the party from interfering in other party's agreed territorial exploitation.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 121 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) Operators of retransmission services offered on satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based, mobile and similar networks and via an internet access service in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council, provide services whichthat are equivalent to those provided by operators of cable retransmission services when they retransmit simultaneously, in an unaltered and unabridged manner, for reception 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 excludingas well as online transmissions, 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 whichthat are offered on the open internet should only 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 toif they cannot ensure a controlllosed environment is limited when compared for example to cable or closed circuit IP-based networks.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 141 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13a (new)
(13 a) In order to meet with consumer demands, the exercise of retransmission rights as defined in this Regulation and in Council Directive 93/83/EEC should also apply to functionalities, which are closely connected to the linear broadcast for which the retransmission rights are obtained. Time shifted services, which are only made available for a certain period of time, as agreed by contract between the parties, during or after the retransmission, such as internet-based PVR (personal video recording) and restart-TV, should be regarded as such functionalities. A functionality which substitutes a broadcasting organisation's online services should not be considered as a functionality, which is closely connected to the linear broadcast for which the retransmission rights are obtained. The exercise of retransmission rights should therefore not apply to such a functionality offered by a retransmission operator.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 142 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13b (new)
(13 b) Nevertheless, there is a growing demand for the re-use of online services offered by broadcasting organisations, in particular their catch-up services, on a cross-platform basis. The licensing system therefore needs to be facilitated in order to be able to respond to this user expectation. Extended collective licensing (ECL) has proved to be a flexible and effective mechanism to facilitate voluntary collective agreements where individual licensing would be cumbersome and inefficient. These agreements can be extended by law to non-represented right-holders, who have a possibility to opt out of such arrangements and exercise their rights differently.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 144 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) Any rights held by broadcasting organisations themselves in respect of their broadcasts, including rights in the content of the programmes, should be exempted from the mandatory collective management of rights applicable for retransmissions. Operators of retransmission services and broadcasting organisations generally have ongoing commercial relations and 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 that are necessary for each means of retransmission and for each service or functionality, 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 programmes. Therefore, there is no need for the simplification of the licensing process with regard to rights held by broadcasting organisations.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 164 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) In order to prevent circumvention of the application of the country of origin principle through the extension of the duration of existing agreements concerning the exercise of copyright and related rights relevant for the provision of an ancillary online service as well as the access to or the use of an ancillary online service, it is necessary to apply the principle of country of origin also to existing agreements but with a transitional period.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 177 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) In order to achieve the objective of promoting the cross-border provision of ancillary online services and of facilitating retransmissions of television and radio programmes originating in other Member States, it is appropriate to adopt a Regulation, which directly applies in Member States. A Regulation is necessary in order to guarantee a uniform application of the rules across Member States and their entering into force at the same time with regard to all the concerned transmissions and retransmissions. The direct applicability of a Regulation reduces legal fragmentation and provides greater uniformity by introducing a harmonised set of rules which promote the free circulation of television and radio programmes as well as of audio and audiovisual content exclusively disseminated online originating in other Member States.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 199 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) "ancillary online service" means an online service consisting in the provision to the public, by or under the control and responsibility of a broadcasting organisation, of radio or television programmes simultaneously with or for a defined period of timetheir broadcast, during their broadcast, before and/or after their broadcast by the broadcasting organisation as well as, of any material produced by or for the broadcasting organisation which is ancillary to such broadcast; supplementing the linear broadcast as well as of any content produced by or for the broadcasting organisation for the online dissemination only;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 203 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) "ancillary online service" means an online service consisting in the provision to the public, by or under the control and responsibility of a broadcasting organisation, of linear and non-linear radio or television programmes before, simultaneously with or for a defined period of time after their broadcast by the broadcasting organisation as well as of any material produced by or for the broadcasting organisation which is ancillary to such broadcast;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 208 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) "retransmission" means any simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged retransmission, other than cable retransmission as defined in Directive 93/83/EEC and other than retransmission provided over an internet access service as defined in Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council19 , intended for reception by the public of an initial transmission from another Member State, by wire or over the air, including that by satellite but excluding online transmissionrrespective of the retransmission technology or network used providing that the retransmission takes place in a closed environment, of television or radio programmes intended for the reception by the public, provided that such retransmission is made by a party other than the broadcasting organisation which made the initial transmission or under whose control and responsibility such transmission was made. _________________ 19 Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union, OJ L 310, 26.11.2015, p. 1.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 220 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) "closed environment" means any environment in which a retransmission operator only provides a retransmission service to a definable group of consumers;
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 236 #
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 237 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – title
Application of the principle of 'country of origin' to ancillary online services
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 246 #

2016/0284(COD)

(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 in which the broadcasting organisation has its principal establishment.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 247 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 in which the broadcasting organisation has its principal establishment.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 248 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
(1 a) Paragraph 1 shall not undermine the contractual freedom in copyright law and shall be without prejudice to the rights set out in Directive 2001/29/EC.Rights holders and rights users may therefore agree to limit the geographical scope of rights affected by the principle of country of origin, provided that they respect the relevant rules.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 251 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 b (new)
(1 b) Paragraph 1 shall not undermine the possibility of co-producers to exercise the rights separately and independently from each other.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 261 #

2016/0284(COD)

(2) When fixing the amount of the payment to be made for the rights subject to the country of origin 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.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 272 #

2016/0284(COD)

Exercise of the rights in retransmission and in re-use of broadcasting organisations' on-demand services by right holders other than broadcasting organisations
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 298 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 a (new)
(5 a) The rights clearance mechanism regarding the exercise of the rights in retransmission by rightholders other than broadcasting organisations established in paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Article as well as in Chapter III of Council Directive 93/83/EEC also applies to functionalities that are closely connected to the linear retransmission and made available for a limited period of time after or during the retransmission.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 299 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 b (new)
(5 b) A Member State shall provide, for the integral re-use of broadcasting organisation's on-demand services by third parties, that a collective agreement between a representative association of collecting societies and an association of rights-users or individual rights-users concerning a given category of works may be extended to right holders of the same category who are not represented by the representative association of collecting societies, provided that the unrepresented rightholder shall, at any time, have the possibility of excluding the extension of the collecting agreement to his works and of exercising his rights either individually or collectively.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 300 #

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 a (new)
(5 a) The principles of paragraphs 1 to 5 shall apply also to the integral re-use of the broadcasting organisation’s on- demand services by a party other than the broadcasting organisation under whose control and responsibility such services were primarily made available.
2017/06/23
Committee: JURI
Amendment 370 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37 a (new)
(37 a) Despite the fact that more creative content is being consumed today than ever before, on services such as user- uploaded content platforms and content aggregation services, yielding significant profits, the creative sectors have not seen a comparable increase in revenues from this increase in consumption. The value of cultural and creative works has been diverted away from the authors, artists, producers and others rights holders, generating an unsustainable "value gap". This transfer of value, due to the lack of clarity regarding the status of these online services under copyright and e-commerce law, undermines the efficiency of the online market, distorts competition and drives down the overall value of cultural content online. It also limits consumer choice for new and innovative legitimate services in the European Digital Single Market and puts at risk cultural and creative industries that create significant jobs and growth for EU economy, as underlined by the European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2016 on a "coherent EU policy for cultural and creative industries (2016/2072(INI))"
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 376 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37 b (new)
(37 b) Digital platforms are means of providing wider access to cultural and creative works and offer great opportunities for cultural and creative industries to develop new business models; consideration is to be made of how this process can function with more legal certainty and fairness and respect for right holders; importance of transparency and of ensuring a level playing field is necessary; in this regard, protection of right holders within the copyright and intellectual property framework is necessary in order to ensure recognition of values and stimulation of innovation, creativity, investment, to guarantee the success of a Digital Single Market, offering all diverse and quality cultural and creative works.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 388 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where iInformation society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject- matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing anintervening in the act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 initiated by their users uploading such works and other subject matter. These service providers are thus obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders both for the communication to the public and reproductions rights in which they play an indispensable role, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . In order to provide legal certainty for users, the authorization granted to these service providers shall cover the liability of their users for the relevant copyright acts, when the user is acting on a non-commercial basis. _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 407 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service providerthe application of Article 14 of the Directive 2000/31/EC, unless it has been ascertained that the role of the service provider is of a purely passive nature, the service provider would not be eligible for the liability exemption of Article 14 of the Directive 2000/31/EC and would be deemed to plays an active role, including by optimising. An active role includes, inter alia, optimisation for the purpose of the presentation by the service of the uploaded works or subject-matter or their promoting themon by the service, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor. A service provider can be deemed active even where it has no editorial control over the content which it makes available.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 451 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39 a (new)
(39 a) The use of technical measures is essential for online licensing and rights management purposes, and content recognition technologies in particular are readily available and affordable. Such technical measures do not require the identity of uploaders and involve targeted technical cooperation between rightholders and information service providers, based on the data provided by rightholders. Provided they are used in such a way, the use of technical measures is fully compatible with Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In order to promote collaboration between rightholders and information society services providers, Member States should encourage industry agreements between rightholders and information society services, and if necessary the Commission may bring forward proposals for a Code of Conduct at a later date.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 747 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall 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 and shall ensure that a fair share of the revenue derived from the uses of the press publishers right is attributed to journalists and other employees.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 759 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Member States shall ensure that the private and non-commercial use of content through links and other means, such as citations, are excluded from the provisions and rights laid down in paragraph 1 .
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 819 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate, and shall ensure the protection of individual user data as far as possible, in compliance with Directive 95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC, and the General Data Protection Regulation. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 867 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a Licensing agreements for information society service providers that store and/or provide access to the public to significant amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users 1. Information society service providers that store and/or provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public and of reproduction, shall conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 2. Service providers that play an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, are not eligible for the safe harbour liability exemption. 3. Licenses acquired by information society service providers shall cover all the acts of their individual users, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 882 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive on a regular basis, and no less than once a year and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate and sufficientaccurate and comprehensive information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights, including subsequent transferees or licensees, notably as regards modes of exploitation, promotion, revenues generated and remuneration due.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 918 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may decide that the obligation in paragraph 1 does not apply when the contribution of the author or performer is not significant having regard to the overall work or performanceshall ensure that the representative organisations of relevant stakeholders determine sector- specific standard reporting statements and procedures and foster automated processing making use of digital technologies and international identifiers of works.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 929 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1 Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to a proportionate remuneration of the revenues derived from all modes of exploitation and every use of their works.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 940 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to request additional, appropriatequitable remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 956 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall ensure that representative organisations of authors and performers may make the claim for additional, equitable remuneration on behalf of their members.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 964 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Member States shall provide that disputes concerning the transparency obligation under Article 14 and the contract adjustment mechanism under Article 15 may be submitted to a voluntary,n alternative dispute resolution procedure.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 969 #

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall ensure that representative organisations of authors and performers may represent their members in the alternative dispute resolution procedure.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 147 #

2016/0152(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. The purpose of this Regulation seekis to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by preventing discrimination based, directly or indirectly, on the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of customers. This Regulation defines situations in which differences in conditions of access cannot be justified by objective criteria under the provisions of article 20(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC. Insofar as the provisions of this Regulation conflict with the provisions of Article 20(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC, the provisions of this Regulation shall prevail. Article 20(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC continues to fully apply to situations that are not covered by this Regulation and that fall within the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC.
2017/02/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 153 #

2016/0152(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation applies to the following situations: (a) where the trader sells goods, provides services, or seeks to do so, in a Member State other than the Member State in which the customer has the place of residence or the place of establishment; (b) where the trader sells goods, provides services, or seeks to do so, in the same Member State as the one in which the customer has the place of residence or place of establishment, but the customer is a national of another Member State; (c) where the trader sells goods or provides services, or seeks to do so, in a Member State in which the customer is temporarily located without residing in that Member State or having the place of establishment in that Member State.deleted
2017/02/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 160 #

2016/0152(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
5. This Regulation shall not affect acts of Union law concerning judicial cooperation in civil matters. Compliance with this Regulation shall not be construed as implying that a trader directs his or her activities to the Member State where the consumer has the habitual residence or domicile within the meaning of point (b) of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 and point (c) of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012.deleted
2017/02/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 165 #

2016/0152(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 6
6. Insofar as the provisions of this Regulation conflict with the provisions of Article 20(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC, the provisions of this Regulation shall prevail.deleted
2017/02/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 185 #

2016/0152(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. TWithin each of their points of sale, traders shall not 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:
2017/02/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 188 #

2016/0152(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) where the trader sells goods, and those goods are not delivered cross-border to tin his or her Member State of establishment to the customer by, in the trader or on his or her behalfs premises or at any other physical location in that Member Sate;
2017/02/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 198 #

2016/0152(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Traders shall have the possibility not to deliver goods or provide services across borders in cases where the delivery or the provision creates additional costs and/or requires additional arrangements on the trader's behalf.
2017/02/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 206 #

2016/0152(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a The prohibition set out in in paragraph 1 shall not apply in cases where the trader, before concluding a contract with the consumer: a) asked for the consumer's explicit consent to submit contractual obligations to the law and to the jurisdiction proposed in the trader's general conditions of access, and b) the consumer refused to give his/her explicit consent to the trader's proposal.
2017/02/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 207 #

2016/0152(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 b (new)
Article 4 b In cases where contractual disputes arise between traders and consumers, and where judicial proceedings are started, the applicable law and place of jurisdiction: a) are those proposed by the trader in his/her general conditions of access, if the consumer explicitly agreed to submit contractual obligations to the law and the jurisdiction proposed in the trader's general conditions of access, or b) are determined according to the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) 593/2008 "Rome I" and Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 "Brussels I", if the trader did not receive the consumer's explicit consent to submit the contract to a specific law or place of jurisdiction. In this case compliance with this Regulation shall not be construed as implying that a trader directs his or her activities to the Member State where the consumer has his habitual residence or domicile within the meaning of point (b) of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, and point (c) of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012.
2017/02/10
Committee: JURI
Amendment 25 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) The last substantive amendment to Directive 89/552/EEC of the Council27, later codified by Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council28, was made in 2007 with the adoption of Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council29. Since then, the market of audiovisual media services has evolved significantly and rapidly. Technical developments allow for new types of services and user experiences. The viewing habits, particularly of younger generations, have changed significantly. While the main TV screen remains an important device to share audiovisual experiences, many viewers have moved to other, portable devices to watch audiovisual content. Traditional TV content accounts still for a major share of the average daily viewing time. However, new types of content, such as short videos or user-generated content, gain increasing importance and new players, including providers of video-on- demand services and video-sharing platforms, are now well-established. An updated legal framework is therefore required in order to reflect developments in the market and to achieve a balance between access to online content services and consumer protection. __________________ 27 Directive 89/552/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23). 28 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1). 29 Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ L 332, 18.12.2007, p. 27).
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 32 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
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 Commission can ask the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) should therefore be empowered to provide opinions on jurisdiction upon the Commission's request.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 35 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) In its Communication to the European Parliament and to the Council on Better Regulation for Better Results – an EU Agenda31, the Commission stressed that when considering policy solutions, it will consider both regulatory and well- designed non-regulatory means, modelled on the Community of practice and the Principles for Better Self- and Co- regulation32. A number of codes set up in the areas coordinated by the Directive have proved to be well designed, in line with the Principles for Better Self- and Co- regulation. The existence of a legislative backstop has been considered an important success factor in promoting compliance with a self- or co-regulatory codes' period. Member States should ensure the enforcement of self-regulatory or co- regulatory codes. It is equally important that the codes establish specific targets and objectives allowing for the regular, transparent and independent monitoring and evaluation of the objectives aimed by the codes. Graduated sanctions which maintain an element of proportionality are usually considered to be an effective approach in enforcing a scheme. These principles should be followed by the self- and co-regulatory codes adopted in the areas coordinated by this Directive. __________________ 31 COM(2015) 215 final COM(2015) 215 final 32 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single- market/communities/better-self-and-co- regulation
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 39 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) In order to empower viewers, including particular parents and minors, in making informed decisions about the content to be watched, it is necessary that audiovisual media service providers provide 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.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 51 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) The market for TV broadcastingaudiovisual media services 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.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 63 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
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 order to promote European production and preserve and encourage cultural diversity.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 97 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
(38) This Directive is without prejudice to the ability of Member States to impose obligations to ensure discoverability and accessibility of content of general interest under defined general interest objectives such as mediaguaranteeing media independence and pluralism, freedom of speech and expression and cultural diversity. Such obligations should only be imposed where they are necessary to meet general interest objectives clearly defined by Member States in conformity with Union law. In this respect, Member States should in particular examine the need for regulatory intervention against the results of the outcome of market forces. Where Member States decide to impose discoverability rules, they should only impose proportionate obligations on undertakings, in the interest of legitimate public policy considerations.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 110 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3 – point b
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 5 a
5a. ‘5a. Member States shall communicate to the Commission a list of the audiovisual media service providers under their jurisdiction and the criteria set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 on which their jurisdiction is based. They shall subsequently inform the Commission without undue delay of any changes to that list. The Commission shall ensure that the competent independent regulatory authorities have access to this information. In accordance with the principle of transparency, the Commission shall make the list referred to in this paragraph publicly accessible.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 114 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Where the Commission considers the notification as incomplete, it shall without delay request all necessary additional information. The Commission shall inform the Member State of the receipt of the response to that request.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 117 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 5 – point c
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) the Commission has decided, after having consulted ERGAthe contact committee established pursuant to Article 29, that the measures are compatible with Union law, in particular that assessments made by the Member State taking those measures under paragraphs 2 and 3 are correctly founded.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 142 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 11 a (new)
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 9 a (new)
(11a) The following article is inserted : Article 9a Member States may take appropriate measures to ensure discoverability and accessibility of audiovisual media services of general interest. These measures shall be proportionate and meet general objectives such as media independence and pluralism, freedom of speech and information and cultural diversity and shall be clearly defined by Member States in accordance with Union law. Member States may require providers of audiovisual media services which target audiences in their territories but are established in another Member State to comply with those measures.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 194 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 19
Directive 2010/13/EU
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 Commission draft Union codes of conduct and amendments to existing Union codes of conduct. The Commission may request ERGA to give an opinion on the drafts, amendments or extensions of those codes of conduct. The Commission may give appropriate publicity toWith due regard for the principle of transparency, the Commission shall make those codes of conduct public.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 203 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 21
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 30 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities exercise their powers independently, impartially and transparently and in accordance with the objectives of this Directive, regarding in particular media independence and pluralism, cultural diversity, consumer protection, internal market and the promotion of fair competition.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 210 #

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 21
Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 30 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities have adequate enforcement powers to carry out their functions effectively in accordance with this Directive and Union law.
2016/11/11
Committee: JURI
Amendment 14 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 53(1) and 62, Article 62, Article 151 and points (a) and (b) of Article 153(1) thereof,
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 36 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) In view of the long duration of certain posting assignments, it is necessary to provide that, in case of posting lasting for periods higher than 246 months, the host Member State is deemed to be the country in which the work is carried out. In accordance with the principle of Rome I Regulation, the law ofapplicable terms and conditions of employment should be those established by the host Member States therefore applies to the employment contract of such posted workers if no other choice of law was made by the parties. In case a different choice was made, it cannot, however, have the result of depriving the employee of the protection afforded to him by provisions that, without prejudice to more favourable terms and conditions of employment afforded to the worker under provisions from which the parties cannot be derogated from by agreement under the law of the host Member State. This should apply from the start of the posting assignment whenever it is envisaged for more than 24 months and from the first day subsequent to the 24 months when it effectively exceeds this duration. This rule does not affect the right of undertakings posting workers to the territory of another Member State to invoke the freedom to provide services in circumstances also where the posting exceeds 24 months. The purpose is merely to create legal certainty in the application of the Rome I Regulation to a specific situation, without amending that Regulation in any way. The employee will in particular enjoy the protection and benefits pursuant to the Rome I Regulationnational law which would have applied otherwise. This rule does not affect the right of undertakings posting workers to the territory of another Member State to invoke the freedom to provide services.
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 63 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) In the interests of transparency and in accordance with Directive 2014/67/EU1a of the European Parliament and of the Council, the continuity of the undertaking which posts the workers should be ensured in order to fight against the creation of letterbox companies. In addition, every employer should be able to demonstrate that a worker has an adequate length of service with the undertaking posting him or her. _________________ 1aDirective 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System ('the IMI Regulation') (OJ L 159, 28.5.2014, p. 11).
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 64 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14 b (new)
(14b) Abuse and legal uncertainty in cases of chain postings and postings involving several jurisdictions should be prevented. Therefore, in cases where a posting situation falls under more than two national jurisdictions, the applicable terms and conditions of employment should be those established by the host Member State where the service is provided, without prejudice to more favourable conditions afforded to the worker under provisions from which the parties cannot derogate by agreement under the national law which would have applied otherwise.
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 75 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 2 a – title
Posting exceeding twenty-foursix months
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 76 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 2 a – paragraph 1
1. When the anticipated or the effective duration of posting exceeds twenty-four months, the Member State to whose territory a worker is posted shall be deemed to be the country in which his or her work is habitually carried outsix months, or when the posting is not considered to be genuine under Directive 2014/67/EU, the terms and conditions of employment of the Member State to whose territory a worker is posted and where the service is provided shall apply as long as they are more favourable for the worker than those pursuant to the law under which the individual employment contract was agreed.
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 81 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 2 a – paragraph 2
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, in case of replacement of posted workers performing the same or a similar task at the same place, - be it by another posted worker or the same posted worker returning after a break - the cumulative duration of the posting periods of the workers concerned shall be taken into account, with regard to workers that are posted for an effective duration of at least six months.
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 86 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that, whatever the law applicable to the employment relationship, the undertakings referred to in Article 1 (1) guarantee workers posted to their territory at least the terms and conditions of employment which covering the following matters which,laid down in the Member State where the work is carried out, are laid down:
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 95 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1 - point g a (new)
(ga) allowances associated with the posting including reimbursement of expenditure actually incurred on account of the posting, such as expenditure on travel, board and lodging.
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 98 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
For the purpose of this Directive, remuneration means all the elements of remuneration rendered mandatory by national law, regulation or administrative provision, collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been declared universally applicable and/or, in the absence of a system for declaring collective agreements or arbitration awards to be of universal application, other collective agreements or arbitthe concept of remuneration shall be determined by the national law and/or praction awards within the meaning of paragraph 8 second subparagraph, ince of the Member State to whose territory the worker is posted.
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 114 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 b
1b. Member States shall provide that the undertakings referred to in Article 1(3)(c) guarantee posted workers the terms and conditions which apply pursuant to Art. 5 Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work to temporary workers hired-out by temporary agencies established in the Member State where the work is carried out. In so doing, equality of treatment shall be guaranteed between these temporary agency workers and national temporary agency workers.
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 115 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c a (new)
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 c
(ca) The following paragraph is inserted: "1c. Member States may also, in accordance with national law and practice and on a non-discriminatory basis, base themselves on collective agreements or arbitration awards which are, as defined by the Member State where the work is carried out, representative in the geographical area, the profession or industry concerned and which offer the most favourable terms and conditions of employment to the worker".
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 117 #

2016/0070(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d a
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 9 a (new)
(da) The following paragraph is inserted: ‘"9a. If a posting situation falls under more than two national jurisdictions, the terms and conditions of employment of the Member State to whose territory a worker is posted and where the service is provided, shall apply as long as they are more favourable for the worker than those pursuant to the law under which the individual employment contract was agreed".’
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 119 #

2016/0070(COD)

(2b) The following Article is inserted: ‘"Article 6 b This Directive shall be without prejudice to the Member States' ability to apply or introduce laws and administrative provisions which are more favourable to workers or allow to promote the use of collective agreement provisions that are more favourable to workers".’
2017/03/17
Committee: JURI
Amendment 8 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas in 2014 three, of the 41 national chambers, three (the Danish Folketing, the Dutch Tweede Kamer and the UK House of Lords) issued reports with detailed proposals on how to strengthen the role of national parliaments in the decision- making process;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 10 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas national parliaments continue to observe that the increasing number of delegated powers in the Union’s legislative acts makes it difficult to effectively evaluate whether final rules would comply with the principle of subsidiarity;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 17 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the continued consideration of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which are among the guiding principles for the European Union when it chooses to act; stresses that subsidiarity and democratic legitimacy are closely intertwined concepts; highlights that subsidiarity checks can be considered an important tool for reducing the so- called ‘democratic deficit’; points out that national parliaments can have a vital role to play in ensuring that decisions are taken at the level that is most effective and as closely as possible to the citizen;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 27 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 to the fact that in 2014 no Commission proposal received a sufficient number of reasoned opinions to trigger thewas subject to ‘yellow’ or ‘orange card procedures’ under Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; recalls that the fact that the yellow card procedure was triggered twice in the past (2012 and 2013) is a sign that the system is already functional while national parliaments are worried about the subsidiarity principle.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 32 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned by the factNotes that some national parliaments have highlighted that, in a numbersome 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 ensuringensure 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;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 40 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses concern thatWelcomes 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; 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 ikage of measures aimed at improving regulation which was adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015 and which addresses the concerns raised by the Impact Assues relating tosment Board concerning subsidiarity and proportionality; welcomes, in this connecti the Commission’s new line on, the package of better regulation measures adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015, which place new emphasisubject which gives greater prominence to the principles onf subsidiarity and proportionality, in the context of impact assessments;cluding in its impact analyses.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 46 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. RecCalls concerns raised in previous reports regarding the somewhat perfunctory character of the annual reports on subsidiarity and proportionality prepared by the Commission, which often fail to pay detailed consideration to how the Commission to provide more detailed annual reports on subsidiarity and proportionality that provide a thorough analysis of the principles of subsidiarity and, in particular, proportionality are observed in EU policy-making; calls on the Commission to produce more analytical annual reports;proportionality.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 51 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the reports made by a number of national parliaments as a valuable 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; encourages other national parliaments to share their views on the role that national parliaments should play in the EU decision-making process;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 61 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 maintaining the threshold for 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 the introduction of 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 grounds, unless the proposal is amended to accommodate those concerns;s set by Article (7)2 of Protocol No. 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 66 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Is of the opinion that the introduction of a ‘green card’ mechanism could also be considered, which would afford national parliaments the opportunity to propose the introduction, amendment or repeal of Union legislation; suggests, in this connection, that consideration should be ga legislative initiativen to the number of national parliaments needed in order to trigger such a procedure, and to the extent of its impact;Commission.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 74 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the request from a number of national parliaments to extend the eight-week period in which theyRecalls that the period in which the national parliaments can issue a reasoned opinion underis eight weeks according to 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;. Stresses that this period is the result of striking a balance between the desire to consult national parliaments and the need to avoid an excessively slow legislative process.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 79 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that reasoned opinions issued by national parliaments in accordance with Article 7(1) of Protocol No 2 are to be duly taken into accountconsideration by all institutions involved during the decision- making process of the Union and, in this connection, calls on the EU institutions to make the appropriate arrangements to ensure this;.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 80 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) requires ‘that the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties’; emphasises that the Court of Justice has stated that the principle of proportionality ‘requires that measures implemented through provisions of European Union law be appropriate for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them’ and that ‘in the fields in which the European Union legislature has a broad legislative power’ the lawfulness of a measure adopted in this context can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate with respect to the objective which the competent institutions are seeking to pursue, although the European legislator must nonetheless ‘base its choice on objective criteria’ and, when assessing the burdens associated with various possible measures, ‘examine whether objectives pursued by the measure chosen are such as to justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain operators’;.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 81 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to systematically carry out enhanced proportionality assessments with detailed evaluations of the different legislative options at its disposal so as to discard alternatives with a disproportionate impact or which are unnecessarily burdensome on the individuals and undertakings concerned, in particular SMEs, and to provide a sufficiently detailed description of all the different alternatives that had been considered so as to allow better scrutiny of its proposals on proportionality grounds; considers that the enlargement of the scope of reasoned opinions so as to includeRecalls the importance of impact studies, particularly as regards respect of the principle of proportionality would be desirable;.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 90 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Welcomes the Declaration from the Presidents of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, the French National Assembly, the German Bundestag, and the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies, which underlined „that more, not less, Europe is needed to respond to the challenges we face, both internally and externally";
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 91 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Reiterates that several initiatives could already be introduced to improve the evaluation of European issues by national parliaments, and in particular: suggests that each legislative act published in the Official Journal should contain a note detailing those national parliaments which had responded and those which had raised subsidiarity concerns; proposes forwarding the reasoned opinions of national parliaments sent under Article 6 of Protocol No 2 annexed to the TEU and the TFEU to the co- legislators without delay; suggests that guidelines could be prepared outlining criteria for reasoned opinions on subsidiarity issues; proposes mobilising national parliaments to undertake comparative evaluations of ex ante assessments which they have conducted and ex post assessments drawn up by the Commission;deleted
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 93 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 1
– suggests that each legislative act published in the Official Journal should contain a note detailing those national parliaments which had responded and those which had raised subsidiarity concerns;deleted
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 96 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 2
proposes forwarding the reasoned opinions of national parliaments sent underrecalls that pursuant to Rule 42(3) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure ‘If a national parliament sends the President a reasoned opinion in accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union and Article 6 of the Protocol No 2 annexed to the TEU and the TFEU to the co- legislators without delay;on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, that document shall be referred to the committee responsible for the subject- matter and forwarded for information to the committee responsible for respect of the principle of subsidiarity’.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 97 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 3
– suggests that guidelines could be prepared outlining criteria for reasoned opinions on subsidiarity issues;deleted
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 100 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 4
– proposes mobilising national parliaments to undertake comparative evaluations of ex ante assessments which they have conducted and ex post assessments drawn up by the Commission;deleted
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 101 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 4
proposes mobilisingencourages national parliaments to undertake comparative evaluations of ex ante assessments which they have conducted and ex postshare their remarks on the assessments drawn up by the Commission;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 105 #

2015/2283(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 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;impact assessments at the beginning of the legislative procedure are an important and necessary instrument for compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Stresses that these guiding principles, which ensure that the European Union is close to its citizens, must guarantee the effectiveness of the EU institutions while avoiding excessive bureaucracy.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 4 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
— having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A8-0000/2016),
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 19 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas in the short to medium term robotics and AI promise to bring benefits of efficiency and savings, not only in production and commerce, but also in areas such as transport, medical care, education and farming, while making it possible to avoid exposing humans to dangerous conditions, such as those faced when cleaning up toxically polluted sites; whereas in the longer term there is potential for virtually unbounded prosperity;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 27 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas over the past 200 years employment figures had persistently increased due to the technological development; whereas the development of robotics and AI may have the potential of job creation; whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influence;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 64 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas ultimately there is a possibility that within the space of a few decadesin a long-term perspective AI could surpass human intellectual capacity in a manner which, if not prepared for, could pose a challenge to humanity's capacity to control its own creation and, consequently, perhaps also to its capacity to be in charge of its own destiny and to ensure the survival of the species;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 100 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital S
S. whereas the more autonomous robots are, the less they can be considered simple tools in the hands of other actors (such as the manufacturer, the operator, the owner, the user, etc.); whereas this, in turn, makes the ordinary rules on liability insufficient and calls for new rules which focus on how a machine can be held – partly or entirely – responsible for its acts or omissions; whereas, as a consequence, it becomes more and more urgent to address the fundamental question of whether robots should possess a legal status;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 116 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital U
U. whereas under the current legal framework robots cannot be held liable per se for acts or omissions that cause damage to third parties; whereas the existing rules on liability cover cases where the cause of the robot’s act or omission can be traced back to a specific human agent such as the manufacturer, the operator, the owner or the user and where that agent could have foreseen and avoided the robot’s harmful behaviour; whereas, in addition, manufacturers, operators, owners or users could be held strictly liable for acts or omissions of a robot if, for example, the robot were categorised as a dangerous object or if it fell within product liability rules;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 135 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to propose a common European definition of smart autonomous robots and their subcategories by taking into consideration the following characteristics of a smart robot: o acquires autonomy through sensors and/or by exchanging data with its environment (inter-connectivity) and trades and analyses data o is self-learning (optional criterion) o has a physical support o adapts its behaviours and actions to its environment o is not alive in the biological sense;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 181 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Highlights the principle of transparency, that it should always be possible to supply the rationale behind any decision taken with the aid of AI that can have a substantive impact on one or more person´s lives; considers that it must always be possible to reduce the AI system´s computations to humanly- comprehensible form;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 211 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Considers that the European Agency for robotics and artificial intelligence should also be the authority responsible for awarding a certified and controlled "transparency label" to suppliers in order to identify products and services that guarantee data transparency;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 252 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that human contact is one of the fundamental aspects of human care; believes that replacing the human factor with robots could dehumanise caring practices, on the other hand, recognises that robots could support performing automated tasks of care and could facilitate the work of care assistants;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 265 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Notes the great potential of robotics in the field of repairing and compensating for damaged organs and human functions, but also the complex questions raised in particular by the possibilities of human enhancement; asks for theunderlines the importance of establishment ofing committees on robot ethics in hospitals and other health care institutions tasked with considering and assisting in resolving unusual, complicated ethical problems involving issues that affect the care and treatment of patients; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop guidelines to aid in the establishment and functioning of such committees;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 271 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses the importance of a European framework for remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS)the use of drones to protect the safety, security and privacy of EU citizens, and calls on the Commission for a follow- up to the recommendations of the European Parliament resolution of 29 October 2015 on safe use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), in the field of civil aviation5 ; __________________ 5 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0390. Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0390.
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 303 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Asks the Commission to submit, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a legislative instrument on legal questions related to the development of robotics and artificial intelligence foreseeable in the next 10-15 years, following the detailed recommendations set out in the annex hereto; further calls on the Commission, once technological developments allow the possibility for robots whose degree of autonomy is higher than what is reasonably predictable at present to be developed, to propose an update of the relevant legislation in due time;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 312 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that the future legislative instrument should provide for the application of strict liability as a rule, thus requiring only proof that damage has occurred andbe based on an in-depth evaluation by the Commission defining whether the establishment of a causal link between the harmful behaviour of the robot and the damage suffered by the injured partyrict liability or the risk management approach should be applied;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 314 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Notes at the same time that strict liability requires only proof that damage has occurred and the establishment of a causal link between the harmful functioning of the robot and the damage suffered by the injured party;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 315 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)
27b. Notes that the risk management approach does not focus on the person "who acted negligently" as individually liable but on the person who is able, under certain circumstances, to minimize risks and deal with negative impact;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 321 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Considers that, in principle, once the ultimately responsible parties have been identified, their liability would be proportionate to the actual level of instructions given to the robot and of its autonomy, so that the greater a robot's learning capability or autonomy is, the lower other parties' responsibility should be, and the longer a robot's 'education' has lasted, the greater the responsibility of its 'teacher' should be; notes, in particular, that skills resulting from 'educationtraining' given to a robot should be not confused with skills depending strictly on its self-learning abilities when seeking to identify the person to whom the robot's harmful behaviour is actually due;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 343 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point b
b) ensuring that a compensation fund would not only serve the purpose of guaranteeing compensation if the damage caused by a robot was not covered by an insurance – which would in any case remain its primary goal – but also that of allowing various financial operations in the interests of the robot, such as investments, donations or payments made to smart autonomous robots for their services, which could be transferred to the fund;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 351 #

2015/2103(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point f
f) proposing an update of the relevant legislation once technological developments allow the possibility for robots whose degree of autonomy is higher than what is reasonably predictable at present to be developed; creating a specific legal status for robots, so that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations, including that of making good any damage they may cause, and applying electronic personality to cases where robots make smart autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties independently;
2016/10/26
Committee: JURI
Amendment 28 #

2015/2084(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Considers that the lack of clarity about limitation periods for citizens, consumers and companies in disputes having cross-border implications can hinder access to justice. Calls thus on the Commission and Member States to assess the feasibility and desirability of harmonising those limitation periods in civil proceedings;
2017/03/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 47 #

2015/2084(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Part B – Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Where it is not possible for the parties to be physically present, Member States shall ensure that oral hearings can be held by making use of any appropriate distance communication technology, such as videoconference or teleconference, available to the court or tribunal, unless the use of such technology, on account of the particular circumstances of the case, is not appropriate for the fair conduct of the proceedings.
2017/03/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 50 #

2015/2084(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Part B – Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The court fees charged in Member States for civil disputes shall not discourage citizens from bringing a case before a court or hinder in any way access to justice.
2017/03/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 57 #

2015/2084(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Part B – Article 19 a (new)
Article 19a Right to interpretation and translation Member States shall ensure that all concerned parties have full understanding of the proceedings. This objective includes the right to have the assistance of an interpreter free of charge and the access to all the documents in a language that is intelligible for the party if that party cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
2017/03/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 3 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
- having regard to the 5 Presidents’ report of June 2015 calling for the consolidation of the external representation of the euro,
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point a (new)
(a) Considers that, as well as geographical disparity in representation, there are also certain sectors - notably civil society, consumer representatives and employee representatives - who are underrepresented in international discussions regarding financial, monetary and regulatory bodies; calls on the Commission to act to redress this balance as well;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 74 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point a (new)
(a) Considers that if the Union is not able to speak through ‘one mouth’, it should at least speak with ‘one voice’ in international organisations;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 93 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 1
- Calls on the Commission to draw on existing best practices at European and national levels to draft a European code of conduct on transparency and accountability designed to guide the action of European representatives in international organisations; requests that the European Parliament should be closely associated in the drafting process;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 102 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 2
- Recommends, on the basis of the code, working towards global standards of transparency and accountability, regarding the statute, financing and operation of those organisations (including their rela, their interactions with the sector concernedauthorities, stakeholders and the public, their communication and access to their documents) as well as their dialogue with the authorities;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 2 a (new)
- Requests that the transparency of international organisations is strengthened, notably by setting up mandatory transparency registers to monitor exchanges with stakeholders and civil society;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 110 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 2 b (new)
- Recommends that the dialogue between international organisations and stakeholders needs to be diversified, notably by fostering the dialogue with the civil society and NGOs such as consumer organisations;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 111 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 2 c (new)
- Calls on the Commission to set up or support an NGO with adequate technical expertise and financial means to strengthen the voice of civil society in herein mentioned organisations and to counter-balance one-sided influence by the private sector; endorses the creation of ‘Finance Watch’ as best practice;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 112 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 2 d (new)
- Calls on the European institutions and agencies as well as Member States to promote accountability of each and every international organisation towards democratically elected bodies;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 113 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 2 e (new)
- Calls on the Commission to perform an impact assessment in the next 3 years determining if private organisations act in the public interest;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 120 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 3
- Calls for a formalised and regular ‘financial dialogue’ to be organised in - and with - the European Parliament for the purpose of establishing guidelines regarding the adoption of European positions in the run- up to major international negotiations, making sure that these positions are known and ensuring follow-up; the European institutions, the Member States and, where appropriate, the heads of the international organisations concerned would be invited to attend; the nature (public or in camera) and frequency of this dialogue would depend on practical requirements;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 145 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 6
- Urges the Commission to use its right of initiative to propose, in accordance with Article 138(2) TFEU and the undertakings given by its President to the European Parliament in 2014, appropriate measures to ensure unified representation of the Union within international financial instituorganisations and conferences; considers it imperative to progress towards single representation of the euro area within the IMF, the first step being to group member countries within specific constituencies and then within a single constituency, without prejudice to the creation of a single European Union constituency in the long term; considers that both the ECB, on monetary issues, and the Euro Group, on fiscal matters, shall hold this role; points out that, under Protocol N° 14 of the Treaty, closer coordination between Member States is the responsibility of the Euro Group; advocates that eventually a Euro finance minister, member of the European Commission and accountable to the European Parliament, should take on the role of the Euro Group;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 171 #

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 8
- Calls on the EU institutions and Member States to reflect on the practicalities of creating a global financial organisation with wide-ranging powers of coordination, recommendation, arbitration and, where appropriate, penalisation through independent panels; highlights that powers of arbitration should not be delegated to private arbitrage such as ISDS; claims that the aim of this organisation should be to coordinate work and objectives of international organisations mentioned in this report in order to generate global consistency and to create a real level- playing field for all market actors and consumers; stresses that this organisation, as with all such national and international organisations, should be subject to the highest standards of transparency and accountability;
2015/10/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 170 #

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Believes that the members of the Advisory Committee chosen from among Members of the European Parliament should be complemented by a majority of externally chosen members who must be qualified experts in the field of ethics regulation and should be drawn from an open call and include members of civil society; omposed of MEPs should be chosen according to their expertise, inter alia in accounting, legal affairs and ethics regulation; underlines that the composition of the Advisory Committee must at the same time reflect the political balance in the European Parliament, for example through a rotation system;
2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 181 #

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that the Code of Conduct should be amended to empower the enlarged Advisory Committee to adopt final decisions instead of the Presidentccess all the data it requires in order to analyse all aspects of a matter, including the findings of any investigations conducted by OLAF, so that it can take final decisions in full knowledge of the facts;
2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 183 #

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that the Code of Conduct should be amended to additionally empower the enlarged Advisory Committee to adopt final decisions instead of the Presidentinitiate the procedure for investigating a possible breach of the code of conduct for MEPs, and to empower the Conference of Presidents to adopt final decisions instead of the President; requests that the Advisory Committee is informed about the final decision in due course;
2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 186 #

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Deems it necessary that the Advisory Committee has access to information and documents relevant to cases it has to examine, including the results of OLAF investigations;
2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 232 #

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Recommends that the transitional allowance should be taken away from Members who take up a gainful occupation after leaving Parliament, from the moment that they take up that occupation;
2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 244 #

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Believes that the Code of Conduct should be amended to provide for a three- year ‘cooling-off period’ during which Members may not engage in lobbying work in the area of their parliamentary responsibilities, and that that period should be of equivalent length to that during which they are theoretically eligible for a transitional allowance (between six and 24 months, depending on their length of service – Article 13(2) of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament);
2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 149 #

2015/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) possess qualities and performance capabilitifeatures, including functionality, durability and security features, which are normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer may expect given the nature of the goods, taking into account, where relevant, any existing technical standards or, in the absence of such technical standards, applicable industry codes of conduct and good practices, and taking into account any public statement made by or on behalf of the seller or other persons in earlier links of the chain of transactions, including the producer, unless the seller can shows that:
2017/03/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 160 #

2015/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. Any lack of conformity with the contract which becomes apparent within not less than two years from the time indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2 ishall be presumed to have existed at the time indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2 unless this is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with the nature of the lack of conformity.
2017/03/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 161 #

2015/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point a (new)
(a) Member States may maintain or introduce time limits that are longer than those laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 where the goods concerned are fixtures.
2017/03/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 170 #

2015/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Where the seller remedies the lack of conformity with the contract by replacement, the seller shall take back the replaced goods at the seller's expense unless the parties have agreed otherwise after the lack of conformity with the contract has been brought to the seller's attention by the consumer.
2017/03/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 58 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) There are a number of barriers which hinder the provision of these services to consumers temporarily present in another Member State. Certain online services include content such as music, games or films which are protected by copyright and/or related rights under Union law. In particular, the obstacles toThe problems associated with cross- border portability of online content services stem from the fact that the rights for the transmission of content protected by copyright and/or related rights such as audiovisual works are often licensed on a territorial basis as well as from the fact that online service providers may choose to serve specific markets only. differ from one sector to another: whereas the music industry began to resolve these problems by proposing multi-territorial or pan-European licenses following the implementation of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, the audiovisual sector, where the model of exclusive territorial licensing predominates, is currently confronted with barriers in providing their content services on a portable basis across the Union. This Regulation aims to solve all the difficulties of adjusting to portability in all sectors concerned through a legal fiction, without affecting the high level of protection guaranteed by the copyright and related rights in the Union, especially the existing territorial licensing model. _____________________ 1aDirective 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).
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 67 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) The acquisition of a licence for the relevant rights is not always possible, notably when rights in content are licensed on an exclusive basis. In order to ensure the territorial exclusivity, online service providers often undertake, in their licence contracts with right holders, including broadcasting organisations or events organisers, to prevent their subscribers from accessing and using their service outside the territory for which the service provider holds the licence. These contractual restrictions imposed on service providers require providers to take measures such as disallowing access to their services from IP addresses located outside the territory concerned. Therefore, one of the obstWhile ensuring that the principle of territoriality is respected, which is essential for the proper development and sustainable financing of the European audiovisual and cinematographic sector, this Regulation should satisfy the demand for aclcess to the cross-border portability, and use of, online content services is to be found in the contracts concluded between the online service providers and their subscribers, which in turn reflect the territorial restriction clauses included in contracts concluded between those service providers and right holderson a portable basis across the Union for any subscriber temporarily present in a Member State other than his or her Member State of residence.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 73 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) Therefore, the objective of this Regulation is to adapt theprovide a legal framework in order to ensure that the licensing of rights no longer presents barrifor the provision of online content services to subscribers temporarily present in a Member State others to cross-border portability of online content services in the Union and that the cross- border portability can be ensuredhan their Member State of residence by providing a strictly interpretable legal fiction aiming to remove barriers to portability of legally acquired online content related to the licensing of rights.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 79 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) The concept of cross-border portability should be distinguished from the concept of cross-border access to online content, which does not fall within the scope of this Regulation. This Regulation does not aim to change and should not affect the existing system of territorial licensing, which is key in the financing, production and distribution of European audiovisual works.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 81 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) This Regulation should, therefore, apply to online content services that a service provider, after having obtained the relevant rights from right holders in a given territory, provides to its subscribers on the basis of a contract, by any means including streaming, downloading or any other technique which allows use of that content. A registration to receive content alerts, a simple registration based on general personal information such as the user's email-address or name, or a mere acceptance of HTML cookies should not be regarded as a contract for the provision of online content service for the purposes of this Regulation.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 87 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) This Regulation should apply to online content services which are provided against payment of money. Providers of such services are in a position to verify the Member State of residence of their subscribers. The right to use an online content service should be regarded as acquired against payment of money whether such payment is made directly to the provider of the online content service, or to another party such as a provider offering a package combining a telecommunications service and an online content service operated by another provider. The payment of a mandatory fee such as a broadcasting licence fee should not be regarded as a payment of money to receive access to those online content services on a cross-border portable basis.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 97 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) OProviders of online content services which are provided without payment of money are also included in the scope of this Regulation to the extent that providers verify the Member State of residence of their subscribers. Online content services which are provided without the payment of money and whose providers do not verify the Member State of residence of their subscribers should be outsidegenerally do not verify the Member State of residence of their users. The inclusion of such online content services in the scope of this Regulation as their inclusion would involve a major change to the way these services are delivered and involve disproportionate costs. As concerns verification of the subscrib. To encourage these service providers to offer their online content services to their user's Member State of residence, information such as a payment of a licence fee for other services provided in theon a portable basis across the Union, they should have the option to be included in the scope of this Regulation provided that they effectively verify the user’s Member State of residence,. If they existence of a contract for internet or telephone connection, IP address or other means of authentication, should be relied upon, if they enable the provider to have reasonable indicators as to the Member Stercise that option, they should be obliged to comply with the provisions of this Regulation in the same way as providers of online content services, which are provided against payment of money. Furthermore, they should inform subscribers, the relevant holders of copyright and related rights and those holding any other rights in the content of online content service of their decision to exercise thate of residence of its subscribersption. Such information could be provided on the provider's website.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 108 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) Service providers should ensure that their subscribers are properly informed about the conditions of enjoyment of online content services in Member States other than the Member State of residence of the subscribers. Requiring that the delivery of online content services to subscribers temporarily present in Member States other than their Member State of residence be of the same quality as in the Member State of residence could result in high costs for service providers and thus ultimately for subscribers. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this Regulation to require that the provider of an online content service take measures to ensure quality of delivery of such services beyond the quality available via the local online access chosen by a subscriber while temporarily present in another Member State. In such cases the provider shall not be liable if the quality of delivery of the service is lower. Nevertheless, if the provider expressly agrees to guarantee certain quality of delivery to subscribers while temporarily present in other Member States, the provider shall be bound by such agreement.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 112 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20 a (new)
(20a) This Regulation should not be interpreted as restricting a service provider from offering its services to a customer permanently located in another Member State, provided that the necessary licences have been acquired in accordance with Directives of the European Parliament and of the Council 2001/29/EC1a and 2014/26/EU1b and that they have authorisation from the rightholders to use their content. _______________________ 1aDirective 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). 1b 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).
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 115 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) For the licensing of copyright and related rights, this means that relevant acts of reproduction, communication to the public and making available of works and other protected subject-matter, as well as the acts of extraction or re-utilization in relation to databases protected by sui generis rights, which occur when the service is provided to subscribers when they are temporarily present in a Member State other than their Member State of residence, should be deemed to occur in the subscribers' Member State of residence. The service providers, therefore, should be deemed to carry out such acts on the basis of the respective authorisations from the right holders concerned for the Member State of residence of these subscribers. Whenever service providers can carry out acts of communication to the public or reproduction in the Member State of the subscriber on the basis of an authorisation from the right holders concerned, a subscriber who is temporarily present in a Member State other than his Member State of residence should be able to access and use the service and where necessary carry out any relevant acts of reproduction such as downloading which he would be entitled to do in his own Member State of residence. TProvided that the Member State of residence of the subscriber has been effectively verified in accordance with this Regulation, the provision of an online content service by a service provider to a subscriber temporarily present in a Member State other than his or her Member State of residence and the use of the service by such a subscriber in accordance with this Regulation should not constitute a breach of copyright and related rights or any other rights relevant for the use of the content in the service.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 117 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) Service providers should not be liable for breach of any contractual provisions contrary to the obligation to enable their subscribers to use the service in the Member State of their temporary presence. Therefore clauses in contracts designed to prohibit or limit the cross- border portability of online content services across the Union should be unenforceable. With regard to present and future arrangements between online content service providers and rightholders, the decision to provide portability to subscribers temporarily present in another Member State cannot be made subject to contractual provisions. Online content service providers and rightholders should not be allowed to circumvent the application of this Regulation by opting for the law of a non- Member State of the Union as the law applicable to contracts which they conclude.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 121 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) This Regulation defines several concepts which are necessary for its application, including that of Member State of residence. The Member State of residence should be determined, taking into account the objectives of this Regulation and the need to ensure its uniform application within the Union. Regarding current and future arrangements related to online content services, the provision of portability to subscribers temporarily present in another Member State should not give rise to any special contractual provisions, especially with regard to a certain time limit during which service providers grant portable access to their online content services across the Union.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 124 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) Service providers should ensure that their subscribers are properly informed about the conditions of enjoyment of online content services in Member States other than the Member State of residence of the subscribers. The Regulation enables right holders toThis Regulation requires that the service provider makes use of effective means in order to verify that the online content service is provided in conformity with this Regulation. It is necessary, however, to ensure that the required means are reasonable and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve this purpose. Examples of the necessary technical and organisational measures may include sampling of IP address instead of constant monitoring of location, transparent information to the individuals about the methods used for the verification and its purposes, and appropriate security measures. Considering that for purposeThe online content service providers should be free to choose between the verification means listed in article 3b in order to verify the subscriber's Member State of residence. It is necessary, however, to ensure that those required means of the verification what matters is not the location, but rather, in which Member State the subscriber is accessing the service, precise location data should not be collected and processed forof the subscriber's Member State of residence are reasonable and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve this purpose. Similarly, wWhere authentication of a subscriber is sufficient in order to deliver the service provided, identification of the subscriber should not be required.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 133 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23 a (new)
(23a) The provider of an online content service may request the subscriber to provide information necessary in order to sufficiently verify the subscriber's Member State of residence. If the subscriber fails to provide that information and as a consequence, the provider is unable to verify the subscriber’s Member State of residence as required under this Regulation, the provider should not provide cross-border portability of the online content service concerned to that subscriber under this Regulation.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 141 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)
(25a) This Regulation should not affect the application of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council1a and in particular Title III thereof relating to multi-territorial licensing of online rights. This Regulation is fully consistent with the objective of facilitating the lawful access to content, which is protected by copyright and related rights, as well as services linked thereto. ____________________ 1a 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).
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 158 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1
This Regulation introduces a common approachlegal framework to ensuring that subscribers to online content services in the Union, when temporarily present in a Member State, can access and use these servicesportable and legally acquired online content services in their Member State of residence can access and use these services when temporarily present in another Member State.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 163 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
This Regulation applies to all online content services provided to a subscriber against payment of money.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 164 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 b (new)
This Regulation also applies to online content services provided without payment of money as long as the service provider has chosen to enable his subscribers, who are temporarily present in a Member State other than their Member State of residence, to access and use the online content service in question and as long as he verifies the subscriber's Member State of residence in accordance with Article 3b.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 165 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point a
(a) "Subscriber" means any consumer who, on the basis of a contract for the provision of an online content service with a provider, maycan access and use such service in the Member State of residence;
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 177 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point d
(d) "Temporarily present" means a non-permanent presence of a subscriber in a Member State other than this or her Member State of residence;
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 180 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point e
(e) "Online content service" means a service as defined by Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that a service provider is lawfully providing online in tto a subscriber in his or her Member State of residence on a portable basis and which is an audiovisual media service within the meaning of Directive 2010/13/EU or a service the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of works, other protected subject matter or transmissions of broadcasting organisations, whether in a linear or an on- demand manner,
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 185 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point e – subparagraph 2 – point 2
(2) without payment of money provided that the subscribonline content service provider decides to offer portable access and use of his online content services to his users across the Union and that the user's Member State of residence is verified by theat provider;
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 190 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
(1)1. The provider of an portable online content service shall enable a subscriber who is temporarily present in a Member State to access and use the online content serviceother than his or her Member State of residence to access and use the online content service available in his or her Member State of residence without imposing additional costs.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 195 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Paragraph 1 is without prejudice to the possibility for a service provider to allow a subscriber to also access and use the content licensed to the service provider in the Member State where the subscriber is temporarily present.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 198 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
(2)2. The obligation set out in paragraph 1 shall not extend to any quality requirements applicable to the delivery of an online content service that the provider is subject to when providing this service in the Member State of residence, unless otherwise expressly agreed by the providetween the online content service provider and the subscriber.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 215 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3a Option to enable cross-border portability of online content services provided without payment of money 1. The provider of an online content service provided without payment of money may choose to enable its subscribers who are temporarily present in a Member State other than their Member State of residence to access and use its online content services in accordance with this Regulation. 2. If a provider of an online content service provided without payment of money opts to provide that service in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall inform its users and the rightholders before actually providing that service. The information shall be provided by means which are adequate and proportionate. 3. If a provider of an online content service provided without payment of money opts to provide that service in accordance with paragraph 1, this Regulation shall apply to it.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 218 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 b (new)
Article 3b Verification of the subscriber's Member State of residence 1. Providers of online content services shall use effective means to verify the Member State of residence of their subscribers when granting portable access to their services across the Union. Those means shall be reasonable, proportionate and shall not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that purpose. Those means shall not constitute an excessive burden for the subscribers. 2. In order to comply with the obligations laid down in paragraph 1, the online content service provider shall be free to choose one of the following verification criteria: (a) an identity card, electronic identity card or any other valid document confirming the subscriber's Member State of residence; (b) banking particulars such as the bank account or credit or debit card of the subscriber in his Member State of residence; (c) the place of installation of a decoder or any similar equipment used by the subscriber to access the online content services concerned; (d) an internet or telephone contract or any similar type of contract linking the subscriber to a Member State; (e) the fact that the subscriber pays a licence fee for other services provided in the Member State, such as public service broadcasting; (f) a public utility bill of the subscriber confirming his or her actual address; (g) proof of payment of local taxes, if this information is publicly available; 3. The provider shall be entitled to request the subscriber to provide the information necessary for the verification of his or her Member State of residence. If the subscriber fails to provide that information and as a consequence of this, the provider is unable to verify the subscriber's Member State of residence, the provider shall not enable this subscriber to access or use the online content service when he or she is temporarily present in a Member State other than his or her Member State of residence for as long as he or she is unable to deliver the requested information.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 224 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
(1)1. Any contractual provisions including those between holders of copyright and related rights, those holding any other rights relevant for the use of content in online content services and service providers, as well as between service providers and subscribers which are contrary to Articles 3(1), 3a, 3b and 4 shall be unenforceable.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 227 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Clauses in contracts between a service provider and a subscriber designed to prohibit or limit the cross-border portability of online content services shall be unenforceable under this Regulation.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 228 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1b (new)
1b. The application of this Regulation cannot be circumvented by virtue of the choice of the law of a non-Member State of the Union as the law applicable to contracts signed between service providers and rightholders or to contracts between service providers and subscribers.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 235 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6
The processing of personal data carried out within the framework of this Regulation including, in particular, for purposes of verification of the Member State of residence under Article 5(2)3b, shall be carried out in compliance with Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC.
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 239 #

2015/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, and every three years thereafter, the Commission shall assess the application of this Regulation and submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the application of this Regulation. The report shall include, inter alia, an assessment of the effectiveness of the verification means of the Member State of residence, including newly developed industry standards and practices. The Commission's report shall be accompanied, if appropriate and necessary, by legislative or non-legislative proposal(s).
2016/10/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 67 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society was aimed at adapting legislation on copyright and related rights to reflect technological developments, while providing for a high level of protection of intellectual property, taking as a basis the rights of creators, to foster investment in creativity and innovation and creative developments, and to safeguard employment and encourage job creation;
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 127 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Emphasises that any revision of Directive 2001/29/EC should continue to safeguard the principle of fair remuneration for rightholders; calls for a reaffirmation of the principle of territoriality, enabling each Member State to safeguard the fair remuneration principle within the framework of its own cultural policy;
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 130 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Points out that the existence of copyright and related rights inherently implies territoriality; emphasises that there is no contradiction between that principle and measures to ensure the portability of content;
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 193 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Acknowledges the necessity for authors and performers to be provided with legal protection for their creative and artistic work; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remunerfair compensation for all categories of rightholders; calls for improvements to the conton the Member States to explore practuical position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholders and intermediariesmeasures for ensuring that authors and performers receive fair remuneration;
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 222 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. ConsidersInvites the Commission to explore the introduction of a single European Copyright Title on the basised ofn Article 118 TFEU that would apply directly and uniformly across the EU, in accordancUnion as a legal means to remedy the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/EC and to improve legal certainty in line with the Commission's objective of better regulation, as a legal means to reme; therefore calls on the Commission to study the limpackt of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/ECa single European Copyright Title on digital jobs and innovation, and on the preservation of consumers' access to regional cultural diversity;
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 233 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 f (new)
4f. Draws attention to the fact that multi- territorial licensing, as provided for in Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management of copyright, is an option when broadcasters want Europe-wide coverage;
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 351 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 g (new)
11g. Calls on the Commission to consider with care the possibility of making certain exceptions mandatory where the purpose is to protect fundamental rights, particularly to combat discrimination or protect freedom of the press; realls in this context that fair compensation should be provided for these exceptions;
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 383 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future-compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly includeConsiders that the exception for quotation should continue to be strictly defined, while including the possibility of its extension to audio- visual quotations in its scope;
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 409 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that the ability to freely link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; calls on the EU legislator to make it clearincorporate the case-law of the Court of Justice into its positive law so that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12; observes that this option must be strictly limited to links which lead to freely available content; observes that the online intermediaries liability regime applicable to links to illicit content should be tightened up, particularly by revising the e-commerce directive; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 426 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the non-commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted;
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 448 #

2014/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) for all purposes which are not directly commercial, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired;
2015/03/05
Committee: JURI
Amendment 15 #

2014/2252(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that the reasoned opinions submitted by national parliaments considerably vary with regard to the form and the types of arguments raised; regrets the absence of common "patterns" which makes it more difficult to evaluate on which basis national parliaments intervene; Believes therefore that it is necessary to establish more precise "criteria" to better understand how national parliaments apply and interpret the principles on subsidiarity and proportionality;
2015/06/03
Committee: JURI
Amendment 25 #

2014/2151(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas there is a certain level of tolerance among a substantial minority of Europeans for the idea that IPR infringements could be considered legitimate, especially among the young generation8; __________________ 8See OHIM Report ‘European Citizens and intellectual property: perception, awareness and behaviour’, November 2013.acceptable;
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 77 #

2014/2151(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that the lack of a competitive supply of non-infringing products and content makes it difficult to deter consumers from buying unlawful goods or using unlawful content; takes the view that sufficient progress has not been made in this area, and reiterates its demand that the Commission and Member States put more pressure on the industry to develop, in all Member States, licit offers that are both diversified and attractive;deleted
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 85 #

2014/2151(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Takes the view as well that opportunities for infringement should not be created, and that business models should be reconsidered by the industry in certain sectors;deleted
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 182 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
(31) Separation has a significant impact on banking groups’ legal, organisational and operational structure. To insure an effective and efficient application of separation and to prevent separation of groups along geographic lines, separation decisions should be taken at group leveljointly by the consolidating supervisor, having consulte and the competent authorities of a banking group’s significant subsidiaries as appropriate.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 345 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The restrictions laid down in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall not apply with regard to closed-ended and unleveraged AIFs as defined in Directive 2011/61/EUAIFs that do not use leverage on a substantial basis as defined in Article 111 of the Commission Delegated Regulation 231/2013 where those AIFs are established in the Union or, if they are not established in the Union, they are marketed in the Union according to Articles 35 or 40 of Directive 2011/61/EU , to qualifying venture capital funds as defined in Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) No 345/2013, to qualifying social entrepreneurship funds as defined in Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) No 346/2013, and to AIFs authorized as ELTIFs in accordance with Regulation (EU) No [XXX/XXXX].
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 776 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
For the purposes of this Regulation, the consolidating supervisor shall be deemed to be the competent authority with regard to all group entities that belong to the same group as the EU parent and that are subject to this Regulation. The consolidating supervisor and the competent authorities responsible for the supervision on an individual basis of subsidiaries in a Member State shall do everything within their power to reach a joint decision on the application of Articles 9, 10 and 18. The joint decision referred to in sub- paragraph 1 shall be reached within four months after submission by the consolidating supervisor of a report containing the assessment conducted in accordance with Article 9 to the competent authorities responsible for the supervision on an individual basis of the subsidiaries. The joint decision shall be set out in a document containing full reasons, which shall be provided to the EU parent institution by the consolidating supervisor. The joint decision shall duly consider the assessment of subsidiaries performed by their respective competent authorities in accordance with Articles 9 and 10. The joint decision procedure set out in Article 113, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Directive 2013/36/EU [CRD IV] shall apply. A decision or joint decision on the application of Article 9, 10 or 18 shall not have disproportionate impact on any Member State.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 224 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
This Regulation applies to collective investment undertakings that require authorisation as UCITS under Directive 2009/65/EC or are AIFs under Directive 2011/61/EU, invest in short term assets and have as distinct or cumulative objectives offering returns in line with money market rates orand preserving the value of the investment and label or market themselves as money market funds.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 240 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) ‘constant Net Assets Value Money Market Fund’ (CNAV MMF) means a money market fund that seeks to maintains an unchanging net asset value (NAV) per unit or share; where income in the fund is accrued daily orand can either be paid out to the investor, or used to purchase more units in the funds; and where assets are generally valued according to the amortised cost method orand the NAV is rounded to the nearest percentage point or its equivalent in currency term;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 273 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
A UCITS or AIF shall use a designation that suggests a money market fund or use terms such as ‘cash’, ‘liquid’, ‘money’, ‘ready assets’, ‘deposit-like’ or similar words only where they have been authorised in accordance with this Regulation.deleted
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 275 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The use of the designation ‘money market fund’, ‘MMF’ or of a designation that suggests a MMF or the use of terms referred to in paragraph 1 ‘or ‘MMF’ shall comprise its use in any external or internal documents, reports, statements, advertisements, communications, letters or any other material addressed to or intended for distribution to prospective investors, unit- holders, shareholders or competent authorities in written, oral, electronic or any other form.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 276 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. The manager of the MMF shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Regulation. The manager shall be liable for any loss or damage resulting from non-compliance with this Regulation.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 282 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) units of other MMFs authorised under this Regulation;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 340 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the credit institution has its registered office in a Member State or, where the credit institution has its registered office in a third country it is subject to prudential rules considered equivalent to those laid down in Union law in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 107(4) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013by the competent authorities of the MMF home Member State as equivalent to those laid down in Union law.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 412 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) where aa manager of a MMF shall monitor the credit rating of at least four credit rating agencyies registered with the European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) assigns a credit rating to an issuer of money market instruments, t.The downgrade below the two highest short term credit ratings used by thatese agencyies shall be considered to be a material change for the purposes of point (c) and require the manager to undertake a new assignment procedurereview its internal credit quality;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 473 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23
The MMF or the manager of the MMF shall not solicit or finance a credit rating agency for rating the MMF.Article 23 deleted MMF credit ratings
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 479 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The manager of the MMF shall establish, implement and apply procedures and exercise all due diligence to identify the number of investors in a MMF, their needs and behaviour, the amount of their holdings with a view to correctly anticipate the effect of concurrent redemptions by several investors, taking at least into account the type of investors, the number of shares in the fund owned by a single investor and the evolution of inflows and outflows. To this effect the manager of the MMF shall consider at least the following factors:
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 486 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. The manager of the MMF shall ensure that: (a) the value of the units or shares held by a single investor does not exceed at any time the value of daily maturing assets; (b) redemption by an investor does not materially impact the liquidity profile of the MMF.deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 517 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
When marking to model, no valuation models based on amortised cost shall be used.deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 524 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5
5. In addition to the marking to market method referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 and marking to model method referred to in paragraph 4, the assets of a CNAV MMF may also be valued by using the amortised cost method, where its board of directors or the board of directors of the management company determines in good faith that the methodology reflects accurately the fair value of the relevant money market instruments held in the portfolio in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 756 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1
1. Within the six24 months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation, an existing UCITS or AIF that invests in short term assets and has as distinct or cumulative objectives offering returns in line with money market rates or preserving the value of the investment shall submit an application to its competent authority together with all documents and evidence necessary to demonstrate the compliance with this Regulation.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 800 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) take into account the impact of the regulation on the short-term financing markets
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 69 #

2011/0901B(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) Partial replacements in the General Court should be organised in such a way that the governments of Member States gradually begin to nominate two Judges for the same partial replacement. In order therefore to ensure a balance between women and men within that Court [joint declaration of... 1 a ], the governments of Member States should aim to choose one woman and one man, providing the conditions and procedures laid down by the Treaty are respected. __________________ 1a * OJ: insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 113 #

2011/0901B(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point a
(a) The term of office of six of the twelve additional Judges to be appointed as from … 4, shall end on 31 August 2016. Those six Judges shall be chosen by lot. in such a way that the governments of six Member States nominate two Judges for the partial replacement of the General Court in 2016.The term of office of the other six Judges shall end on 31 August 2019; __________________ 4* OJO: insert "1 September 2015", or the date of entry into force of this Regulation if that date is after 1 September 2015.
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 116 #

2011/0901B(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point b
(b) The term of office of three of the seven additional Judges to be appointed as from 1 September 2016 shall end on 31 August 2019. Those three Judges shall be chosen by lotin such a way that the governments of three Member States nominate two Judges for the partial replacement of the General Court in 2019. The term of office of the other four Judges shall end on 31 August 2022;
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 119 #

2011/0901B(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point c
(c) The term of office of four of the nine additional Judges to be appointed as from 1 September 2019 shall end on 31 August 2022. Those four Judges shall be chosen by lotin such a way that the governments of four Member States nominate two Judges for the partial replacement of the General Court in 2022. The term of office of the other five Judges shall end on 31 August 2025.
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 121 #

2011/0901B(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2 a 1. By [five years after the entry into force of this Regulation] at the latest, the Court of Justice shall draw up a report, using an external consultant, for the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the functioning of the General Court. In particular, this report shall focus on the efficiency of the General Court, the necessity and effectiveness of the increase to 56 judges, the use and effectiveness of resources and the further establishment of specialised chambers and/or other structural changes. The Court of Justice shall make legislative proposals to amend its Statute accordingly. 2. By [two years after the entry into force of this Regulation] at the latest, the Court of Justice shall draw up a report for Parliament, the Council and the Commission on possible changes to the distribution of competence for preliminary rulings under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The report shall be accompanied, where appropriate, by legislative proposals.
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI