Activities of Stanisław OŻÓG related to 2016/2244(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the functioning of franchising in the retail sector
Amendments (11)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the lack of homogeneity in its application across the Member States undermined the effectiveness of Commission Regulation No 330/2010Emphasises that Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 has not been uniformly applied in the Member States;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the regulation’s clauses on vertical restraints do not allow balanced representation of the two parties to the franchising and are not in line with recent market developments, in particular the exempted post-contractualDraws attention to Parliament's resolution of 11 December 2013, which emphasised the problems encountered by franchisees wishing to sell their business or change their business formula, whilst remaining active in the same sector; calls on the Commission to look into situations such as the ban on price-fixing mechanisms in franchise systems and the effects of long-term competition clauses and, purchasing conditionse options and the ban on multi- franchising;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the implementation of the regulation through a mechanism of assessment at European level should be improved, and stresses that the unsatisfactory follow-up action by the Commission prevents cross-border retail activity and failsshould be improved; calls on the Commission and the Member States to be more active in this area under the European Competition Network in order to create a level playing field within the single market;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is concerned at the facPoints out that some Member States have introducedalready have legislation on franchising that prevents homogeneity of the market; believes that an approach based on EU competition law enforcement and, which ultimately results in further fragmentation of the market; believes that better implementation of the regulation at national level wcould help improve distribution and increase market access for businesses from other Member States’ businesse; points out, at the same time, that legislation covering franchising as a business model varies among Member States, which can also discourage franchisees from entering into cross- border franchise networks;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out the comprehensiveness of competition rules that apply when the there is a risk to or a breach of the public interest with regard to ensuring that conditions suit the functioning of the economic market, rather than the situation of the individual entrepreneur;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to also ensure the recovery of any illegal state aid by means of tax advantagesconsider the functioning of franchising in the area of franchisestail sector, and, to show firmness in the conduct and result of ongoing inquiries, such as the McDonald’s case; stresses, moreover, that the EU needs to have more stringent legislation on tax rulings, providing also for an effective system and a debt recovery procedure in favour of EU budget own resources; calls on the Commission to rectify any infringementgether with the Member States, to encourage franchisees to form associations; stresses, furthermore, that the Commission should look into infringements of contractual terms and unfair trading practices in the area of franchising with the view to ensuring fair competition across the single market;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to review the regulation before 2018 and tocarry out a study and to inform Parliament as regards (1) verifying the impact of the horizontal approach on the functioning of franchising; (2) testing whether the model of franchising adopted in the regulation reflects the market reality, and correct it if necessary; (3) assessing the negative effects and proportionality of the permitted vertical restraints, taking into account also their impact on the functioning of franchising by establishing market standards, for example a revision of the definition of know-how and a reconsideration of the context of territorial exclusivity clauses and permitted options; (4) collecting market information in terms of new trends, market development regarding network organisation and technological advances; (5) considering that the subject is not covered at the national level, further assessing the new challenges franchisors and franchisees have to face in the context of e-commerce; (6) adapt the regulation in order to achieve a general improvement and align it with digitalisation of the economy;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that the European Parliament should be actively involved when regulations and directives on franchising are adapted's desire to be involved in all work on franchising in the retail sector;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to correct market failures through legislative action, either bpropose an EU approach aimed at effectively tackling unfair trading practices or by better regulating retail law, contract law or/and competition law;