1160 Amendments of Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law and thus to the strengthening of a European common legal culture based on the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law; considers that such training must be adequately funded and that the upcoming European judicial training strategy must put additional focus and resources on promoting the rule of law and judicial independence and include training on skills and non-legal issues so that judges are better prepared to resist undue pressure;

2020/07/17
Committee: JURI

2020/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas new powers to issue recovery debt, including green and social bonds – which make the EU the world’s biggest issuer of such debt –, require adequate implementation and enforcement capacities so as to avoid undermining the long-term credibility of the euro as a safe asset currency;

2020/12/18
Committee: ECON

2020/2037(INI)

Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Luis GARICANO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that the EU’s capacity to make the euro a widely used currency in international trade able to compete with the US dollar’s dominance, also depends on the development of strong domestic markets. Reiterates, in this context, the need to deepen and complete the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), the Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union (CMU), with a view to enhancing the international competitiveness of European markets and the attractiveness of the euro; and ultimately the Union’s strategic autonomy; welcomes in this regard the agreement reached in the Eurogroup on the reform of the European Stability Mechanism which will play a greater role in managing the macroeconomic crisis in the euro area and will be the lender of last resort for the Single Resolution Fund.

2020/12/18
Committee: ECON

2020/2037(INI)

Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Luis GARICANO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recall that making the Union the global leader and standard-setter in Green finance will strengthen the role of the euro on the international scene; Further stresses that the Commission’s decision to issue green bonds to finance the green part of the recovery plan will make it become the wold largest issuer of green bonds and thus will participate to strengthening the international role of the euro

2020/12/18
Committee: ECON

2020/2037(INI)

Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Luis GARICANO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is concerned that EMU’s lack of ability to speak as a unified voice with international institutions can hold back the international role of euro; calls on the Commission and the Council to provide detailed answers on the actions undertaken to follow up on the Parliament’s proposals in its resolution of 12 April 2016 on the EU role in the framework of international financial, monetary and regulatory institutions and bodies;

2020/12/18
Committee: ECON

2020/2037(INI)

Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Luis GARICANO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Stresses the need to create a euro-area budgetary capacity along with the role of a European Minister of Economy and Finance, in line with the Commission Communication of 6 December 2017.

2020/12/18
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Olivier CHASTEL, Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Engin EROGLU, Monica SEMEDO, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Protocol on Northern Ireland, is a prerequisite for and a basic component of a ~~future~~new partnership between the EU and the UK; expresses concern at the UK Government’s statements demonstrating a lack of political will to fully comply with its commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement, namely regarding border controls in the Irish Sea; notes that no concrete reassurances were given on this matter during the first meeting of the Joint Committee; underlines that trust between the Parties is essential in these negotiations;

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Olivier CHASTEL, Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Engin EROGLU, Monica SEMEDO, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Highlights the considerable level of integration and interdependence of the EU’s and UK’s economies, as well as the geographical proximity of the Parties; notes the acknowledgment of these circumstances by both Parties in the ‘Political Declaration setting out the Framework for the Future Relationship Between the EU and the UK’; recalls that the Political Declaration, based on the existing unique relationship, serves as the basis for an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership;

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Olivier CHASTEL, Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Engin EROGLU, Monica SEMEDO, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Caroline NAGTEGAAL, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has presented and published a comprehensive legal proposal for a ~~future relation~~new partnership, broadly in line with its negotiating mandate and the European Parliament’s resolution~~, and deeply regrets the fact that the UK Government has refused to accept a similar level of transparenc~~; urges the Commission to continue its transparency towards the co-legislators, as well as the financial services industry and consumers, and deeply regrets the fact that the UK Government has refused to accept a similar level of transparency; stresses that clarity and certainty are crucial to business continuity and a seamless provision of services to consumers, as well as to preventing market volatility;

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Olivier CHASTEL, Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Engin EROGLU, Monica SEMEDO, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Believes it to be in both Parties’ mutual interests to establish an ambitious ~~future~~new economic partnership covering a wide number of sectors; underlines that, in any case, a level playing field must be ensured and EU standards safeguarded in order to avoid a ‘race to the bottom’ and the acquisition of unfair competitive advantages through the undercutting of levels of protection or other regulatory divergences; considers that any ~~future~~new framework should safeguard EU financial stability, fair competition, investor and consumer protection, ~~and~~ the integrity of the single market, and commitments to combat climate change, while respecting the EU’s regulatory regime and decision- making autonomy;

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Caroline NAGTEGAAL, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Monica SEMEDO, Engin EROGLU, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Stresses the need to uphold common high standards in the field of state aid control and competition law; underlines that achieving a level playing field between the Parties will require a robust framework for state aid control, antitrust, and merger control that prevents unfair distortion of trade and competition;

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Caroline NAGTEGAAL, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Monica SEMEDO, Engin EROGLU, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Stresses that the resulting framework must be clear and transparent, and must not impose a disproportionate burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Caroline NAGTEGAAL, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Monica SEMEDO, Engin EROGLU, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls, in the context of financial services, that passporting rights, which are based on mutual recognition and harmonised prudential rules in the internal market, will cease to apply between the EU and the UK at the end of the transitional period; underlines that, thereafter, access to the European financial market must be based on equivalence decisions made within the EU’s legal framework; notes that equivalence examinations are a technical process which should be based on clear and transparent criteria; recalls that equivalence decisions are unilaterally granted and withdrawn by the European Commission, taking due account of the impact on the market and the need to preserve EU financial stability; recalls the importance of the EU maintaining its autonomy to adopt any measures for prudential reasons;

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Monica SEMEDO, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Gilles BOYER, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Welcomes the Parties’ commitment in the ‘Political Declaration setting out the Framework for the Future Relationship between the EU and the UK’ to endeavour to conclude the equivalence decision assessments by the end of June 2020; urges both Parties to continue their efforts to meet this objective;

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Monica SEMEDO, Engin EROGLU, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Recommends that the Parties establish a mechanism for continuous cooperation and dialogue amongst policy- makers, regulators and supervisors; such a mechanism would serve as a forum for enhancing regulatory alignment and sharing supervisory concerns and best practices, including on new innovative services such as crypto assets; believes it is of mutual benefit to both Parties to continue to share necessary and relevant information and data between supervisors;

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Olivier CHASTEL, Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Engin EROGLU, Monica SEMEDO, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Given the increasing digitisation of trade, including services, recommends that the Parties agree, as part of the governance framework of the new partnership, provisions for facilitating digital trade, addressing unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensuring an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers; these provisions should facilitate necessary data flows, subject to exceptions for legitimate public policy objectives, while not undermining the EU’s personal data protection rules, and should be subject to appropriate judicial control;

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Olivier CHASTEL, Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Engin EROGLU, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Monica SEMEDO, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)

6 e. Believes it is of mutual benefit to both Parties to continue to share any necessary and relevant information and data required to combat money- laundering and terrorist financing; recommends that the Parties establish a mechanism that will ensure full cooperation and communication in this regard;

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2023(INI)

Billy KELLEHER, Olivier CHASTEL, Gilles BOYER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Engin EROGLU, Monica SEMEDO, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Luis GARICANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Defends the need to extend the transition period in order to allow enough time to conclude the negotiations on a comprehensive futu~~In light of the impact of the Covid- 19 crisis on the societies, economies and politics of the Parties, asks the European Commission to pre par~~tnership, while safeguarding citizens’ rights, legal certainty and economic an~~e the scenario of a potential extension to the transition period fin~~ancial stability~~ case requested by the UK.

2020/04/23
Committee: ECON

2020/2019(INL)

Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

- having regard to Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR) and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR), and Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters,

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas ex-post competition law enforcement alone cannot effectively address the impact of the market dominance of certain online platforms on fair competition in the digital single market; whereas competition law applied to the digital economy sector needs to be redefined in order to equip the sector with effective means to take into account the market power of digital actors;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas content hosting platforms evolved from involving the mere display of content into sophisticated bodies and market players, in particular in the case of social networks that harvest and exploit usage data; whereas users have reasonable grounds to expect fair terms for the usage of such platforms; whereas users, whether private individuals or legal persons, have objective reasons to require fair terms with respect to access, transparency, pricing and conflict resolution;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas, in the context of transactions, the online marketplace contains grey areas, as some websites or online marketplaces are used to sell products in violation of the rules applicable in EU countries, and whereas it is therefore important that measures be taken against internet service providers to stop or prevent infringements of intellectual property rights and to ensure consumer safety;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas content hosting platforms may determine what content is shown to their users, thereby profoundly influencing the way we obtain and communicate information, to the point that content hosting platforms have de facto become a public spaces in the digital sphere, causing people to be dispossessed, deprived of their rights, and provoking increasingly serious interference in the functioning of democratic life and repeated violations of fundamental rights; whereas public spaces must be managed in a manner that respects all fundamental rights ~~and the civil law rights of the users~~;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas content hosting platforms often employ automated content removal mechanisms ~~that raise legi~~; whereas such mechanisms, which are highly sophistimcate ~~rule of law concerns, in particular when they are encouraged to employ such mechanisms~~d and supported by artificial intelligence, raise legitimate concerns, in particular when content hosting platforms employ them pro-actively and voluntarily, resulting in ~~content~~the removal taking place without a clear legal basis, which is in contravention of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties governing the exercise of freedom of expression and information must be prescribed by lawof illegal, illicit or counterfeit content;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas freedom of expression is a fundamental right enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which, however, cannot lead to the expression of hate, racist, anti- Semitic, xenophobic or homophobic content, and whereas appropriate ways and means are needed as a matter of urgency to tackle the extremely serious violations currently taking place;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital P

P. whereas access to data isand its retention are an important factor in the growth of the digital economy; whereas the interoperability of data can, by removing lock-in effects, play an important part in ensuring that fair market conditions exist, on condition that access to data and its retention can be regulated by means of appropriate legal standards;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Proposes that the Digital Services Act include a regulation that establishes contractual rights as regards content management, lays down transparent, binding and uniform standards and procedures for content moderation, and guarantees accessible and independent recourse to judicial redresbe preceded by an impact assessment to evaluate, analyse and propose appropriate European rules on content management, setting out the responsibility of each of the partners and the development of fair and transparent procedures between platforms, internet users and users;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Considers that, in the context of the development of online services and in a globalised digital world, the country of origin principle may be unsuitable for reasons recognised in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular as regards consumer protection and intellectual property. The objectives of these platforms are primarily driven by the search for countries where regulations are less restrictive in a number of areas, whether to do with taxation or in connection with illegal or illicit activities; whereas, as a result, it would certainly be useful, in sectors where it is not already established, to apply instead the principle of the country of destination, which would make it possible in future to remedy certain shortcomings in the principle of the law of the country of origin;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Notes that transparency requirements must be applied to certain platforms in order to ensure that their operation in a closed system does not affect consumer choice, influence their behaviour or constitute a barrier to the freedoms of opinion or expression; stresses that in the case of an online trading platform, the use of any identical product or service or a distinctive sign similar to a recognised trademark poses a risk of confusion on the part of the public and damage to the trademark itself; when the service provider becomes aware of such a risk, it must withdraw, or make it impossible to access, the information or the product as soon as possible;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recalls that currently content moderation at European level is done on the basis of injunctions which have no legal force, and that the Commission only requires platforms to moderate the distribution of hate content or remove of terrorist content; recalls that the power to moderate should be removed from the platforms themselves, and that, as part of the impact assessment, consideration should be given to the best way of entrusting this moderation to a fully independent external body;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Suggests that content hosting platforms regularly ~~submit transparency reports to the European Agenc~~publish and submit comprehensive transparency reports, including on their content policies, to the existing or new European Agency, or European body, concerning the compliance of their terms and conditions with the provisions of the Digital Services Act; further suggests that content hosting platforms make available, in an easily accessible manner, their content policies and publish their decisions on removing user-generated content on a publicly accessible database;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Takes the firm position that the Digital Services Act must ~~not~~ contain provisions forcing content hosting platforms to employ ~~any form of~~effective, transparent and fully automated ex-ante controls of content~~, and considers that any such mechanism voluntarily employed by pl~~; notes that the algorithms used today for the detection of harmful content and the actions carried out by human moderatforms ~~must be subject to audits by the European Agency to ensure that there is compliance with the Digital Services Act~~are becoming increasingly effective and precise; notes, however, that it is clear that the quality of content moderation is largely dependent on the databases, and therefore on the human work that develops them;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses, therefore, that the platforms must be transparent in the processing of algorithms and of the data which train them, and have effective means of moderation, which depend on the models developed by certain international platforms whose economic model is based on maximum extraction of data for immediate reinjection into the advertising services market; it is therefore in the interest both of internet users and the user to require the platforms to be transparent as regards the choice of the tools they prioritise for the processing of algorithms and the accompanying human actions;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Further calls for users to be guaranteed an appropriate degree of influence over the criteria according to which content is curated and made visible for them; affirms that this should also include the option to opt out from any content curation;deleted

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Encourages diversity of opinions and beliefs on digital platforms, but considers that freedom of expression does not justify the publication of all content and that measures must be taken to ensure a balance between freedom of expression and the rights of other users; considers that the new legislation should encourage the reporting of abuse by other users;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – part I – section 1 –indent 2 a (new)

- It should provide a dialogue between major content hosting platforms and the relevant, existing or new, European Agency or European body together with national authorities on the risk management of content management of legal content.

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – part I – section 2 – indent 4 – subi. 4

- failure to submit transparency reports to the ~~European Agenc~~relevant, existing or new, European Agency or European body;

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 9

(9) This Regulation should ~~not~~ contain provisions forcing content hosting platforms to employ ~~any form of fully~~ automated ex-ante control of content which is effective and transparent.

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2019(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 21

(21) ~~Action at Union level as set out in~~The application of this Regulation wshould be ~~substantially enhanced with the establishment of a Unio~~closely monitored by an existing or new European aAgency ~~tasked with monitoring and~~, or European body tasked, in particular, to ensur~~ing~~e compliance by content hosting platforms with the provisions of this Regulation. The ~~Agenc~~respective Agency or European body should review compliance with the standards laid down for content management on the basis of transparency reports and an audit of algorithms employed by content hosting platforms for the purpose of content management ‒

2020/06/05
Committee: JURI

2020/2017(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Underlines that~~Stresses that the European approach to artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies are a tool to serve the people and that algorithmic systems can enable access to information, including listings of different kinds of cultural objects; notes the risks of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringement when blending AI and different technologies with a multiplicity of sources (documents, photos, films)must be human- centred, so that AI genuinely becomes an instrument in the service of people and the common good; points out that AI can support content creation in the education, culture and audiovisual sectors; emphasises, therefore, the importance of establishing a European framework for the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) in connection with the use of AI;

2020/06/25
Committee: JURI

2020/2017(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that AI could ~~redefin~~benefit the research ~~by studying patterns in interest in the acquisition and movement of objects across borders; notes, furthermore, that predictive analytics can also play an important role in fine-tuning data analysis~~sector, for example through the role predictive analytics can play in fine- tuning data analysis; stresses that the EU must step up investment and foster partnerships between industry and academia in order to enhance research excellence at European level;

2020/06/25
Committee: JURI

2020/2017(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that AI-~~improved~~based software, such as image recognition software, could vastly enhance the ability of educational facilities and relevant actors to provide and develop modern and innovative schooling methods while ensuring quality sources and respecting the protection of IPRs; notes, however, that this recognition software must be used only for educational purposes and not under any circumstances to monitor access to establishments;

2020/06/25
Committee: JURI

2020/2017(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that, if the use of AI is to benefit the education and research sector, the EU must encourage training in the skills of the future, in particular an ethical and responsible approach to AI technologies; adds, with that aim in view, that this training must not be reserved for pupils focusing on scientific and technical subjects, who are already more familiar with these tools, but must instead target as many people as possible, in particular in the younger generations;

2020/06/25
Committee: JURI

2020/2017(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that the interaction between AI and the creative industries is complex and requires an in-depth assessment; welcomes the ongoing study ‘Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence - Challenges to the IPR Framework’ and the ‘Study on Copyright and New technologies: copyright data management and Artificial Intelligence’; ~~underlines the importance of clarifying the use of copyright-protected content as data input (images, music, films, databases etc.) and in the production of cultural and audiovisual outputs~~takes the view that consideration should be given to protecting AI-generated technical and artistic creations, in order to encourage this form of creativity;

2020/06/25
Committee: JURI

2020/2017(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Asks~~Calls for the intellectual property action plan announced by the Commission to assddress the ~~impact~~question of AI and ~~AI-~~its impact on the crelat~~ed technologies on the audiovisual and creative sector, in particular with regard to authorship and~~ive sectors, taking account of the need to strike a balance between protecting IPRs and encouraging creativity in the areas of education, culture and research; considers that the EU can be a leader in the creation of AI technologies if it adopts an operational regulat~~ed questions.~~ ory framework and implements proactive public policies, particularly as regards training programmes and financial support for research;

2020/06/25
Committee: JURI

2020/2015(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

- Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (OJL 123, 12.5.2016) and the Better Regulations Guidelines;

2020/05/27
Committee: JURI

2020/2015(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the European Union's global leadership in AI calls for an effective intellectual property system which is fit for the digital age, enabling innovators to bring new products to the market;

2020/05/27
Committee: JURI

2020/2015(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas strong safeguards are crucial to protect the European Union’s patent system against abuse to the detriment of innovative AI developers;

2020/05/27
Committee: JURI

2020/2015(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas AI technologies~~, as computer programs, cannot be patented, except under~~ may be protected by patents, except in the case of computer programs or mathematical methods claimed as such, Article 52(3) of the European Patent Convention;

2020/05/27
Committee: JURI

2020/2015(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Points out that mathematical methods are excluded from patentability, unless they ~~constitute inventions~~are used for a technical purpose in the context of a technical ~~nature~~inventions, which are then patentable if the applicable criteria relating to inventions are met; points out, further, that if a claim relates either to a method involving technical means or to a device, its purpose, considered as a whole, is technical in nature and it is therefore not excluded from patentability; consequently, notes that innovations in AI are patentable if the criteria relating to inventions are met;

2020/05/27
Committee: JURI

2020/2015(INI)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Stresses the need for strong safeguards to protect European AI developers from abusive patent practices, such as those deployed by Patent Assertion Entities, which are financial vehicles, not producing or selling any products, but which increasingly buy up patents with the aim of litigating against innovative companies, including SMEs, in order to obtain high settlement fees; calls on the Commission to assess its current guidance related to the application and enforcement of intellectual property rights with regards to such abusive practices;

2020/05/27
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies with the potential to ~~directly impact all aspects of our societies, including basic social and economic principles and values,~~generate opportunities for business and citizens while directly impact all aspects of our societies are being developed very quickly;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies can make a huge contribution to reaching our common goal of improving the lives of citizens and fostering prosperity within the EU;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

A. whereas, in areas such as health, agriculture, energy, transport, climate and various industrial processes artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies can contribute to the development of better strategies and innovations;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas the development of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies is also a condition to reach the sustainability goals of the European Green Deal in many different sectors; whereas digital technologies can boost the impact of policies in delivering environmental protection;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas a European operational framework is of key importance in avoiding the fragmentation of the Single Market, resulting from differing national legislations; whereas, an action at European level will help fostering much needed investment, data infrastructure, research and common ethical norms; whereas this framework should be established according to the better regulation principle;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas such a framework should include legislative actions, where needed, including mandatory measures to prevent practices that would undoubtedly undermine fundamental rights and freedoms as defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas a common European framework ~~for~~should ensure the development, the deployment and the use of ~~artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies within the Union shoul~~trustworthy, ethical and technically robust artificial intelligence, based on Union’s laws and values and guided boy the pr~~otect citizens from their potential risks and promote the trustworthiness of such technologies in the world~~inciples of transparency and explainability, fairness, accountability and responsibility;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas ~~for~~ the scope of that framework toshould be adequate, proportionate and thoroughly assessed; whereas while it should cover a wide range of technologies and their components, including algorithms, software and data used or produced by them, a targeted approach based on the concept of high risk is necessary to avoid hampering future innovations;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas that framework should ~~encompass all situations requiring due consideration of the Union’s principles and values, namely~~make sure that the development, the deployment and the use of ~~the~~ relevant technologies and their components are fully compliant with the Union’s principles and values;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas action at Union level is justified by the need for a homogenous application of common ethical principles when developing, deploying and using artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies; whereas clear rules are needed where major risks are at stake;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas the European Union needs to recognise, harness and promote the benefits of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies for the society, while democratically deciding on the limitations to be laid down and safeguards to be provided to ensure the development, deployment and use of ethically embedded technologies that respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas each Member State should des~~tablish~~ignate a national supervisory authority responsible for ~~ensuring, assessing and monitoring compliance~~assessing the compliance of high-risk technologies with the ethical framework, and for enabling discussion and exchange of points of view in close cooperation with the concerned stakeholders and the civil society;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas ~~Parliament continues to call for the establishment of a European Agency to~~the idea of entrusting an existing European body with the task of ensureing a harmonised approach across the Union ~~and addres~~should be assessed as regards the new opportunities and challenges, in particular those of a cross-border nature, arising from ongoing technological developments.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Believes that any legislative action, in particular, related to new technologies should be in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality; points out, in this respect, that the ethical framework considered in this report should be applicable to high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1a. Considers that such an approach will allow companies to introduce innovative products into the market and create new opportunities while ensuring the protection of the European values;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)

-1b. Considers that artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies should be considered« high risk technologies » when they are used in sectors, where given the characteristics of the activities typically undertaken, and are used in such a manner that significant risks can be expected to occur from the viewpoint of safety and fundamental rights and freedoms;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)

-1c. Asks the Commission to establish an exhaustive list of the technologies fulfilling these criteria in the form of annex to the Regulation on ethical principles for the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies; considers that the Commission should review the exhaustive list, if necessary, every six months by means of a delegated act to add new high- risk technologies or delete existing ones if they do not fulfil the criteria anymore; recalls that any changes to the annex should be thoroughly assessed and justified;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Declares that the development, deployment and use of high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including but not exclusively by human beings, should always respect human agency and oversight, as well as allow the retrieval of human control at any time;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the determination of whether artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies are to be considered high-risk as regards compliance with ethical principles should always follow from an impartial, regulated and external assessment;deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Maintains that ~~artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~high-risk technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies should be developed in a legal, secure, and technically r~~igor~~obust manner ~~and in good faith~~;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that transparency and explainability isare essential to ensur~~ing that~~e citizens’ trust in these technologies, even if the degree of explainability is relative to the complexity of the technologies, and that it should be complemented by auditability and traceability; considers that the respect of these principles is a precondition to guarantee accountability;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers that citizens should be informed when interacting with a system using artificial intelligence in particular to personalise a product or service to its users, whether they can switch off or restrain the personalisation; considers, furthermore, that transparency measures should be accompanied, as far as this is technically possible, by clear and understandable explanations of the data used, of the algorithm, of its purpose, of its outcomes, and of its potential dangers;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Recalls that~~Is concerned by the risks of biases and discrimination in the development, deployment and use of high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies,; recalls that, in all circumstances, they should respect human dignity and ensure equal treatment for all;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Affirm~~Considers that possible bias in and discrimination by software, and algorithms ~~and data sh~~could be addressed by setting rules ~~for the~~on data processes through which they are designed and used, as this approach would have the potential to turn software, algorithms and data into a considerable counterbalance to bias and discrimination, and a positive force for social changeing; points out also that the use of AI, robotics and related technologies has the potential to fight discrimination in certain situation;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5 a (new)

Right to redress

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Considers that any natural or legal person should be able to seek redress of a decision issued by a high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics or related technology at his or her detriment;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Emphasises that socially responsible artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies should aim at safeguarding and promoteing fundamental values of our society such as democracy, diverse and independent media and objective and freely available information, health and economic prosperity, equality of opportunity, workers’ and social rights, quality education, cultural and linguistic diversity, gender balance, digital literacy, innovation and creativity;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. States that ~~it is essential that~~ artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies can be used by government and businesses to support the achievement of sustainable development, climate neutrality and circular economy goals; the development, deployment and use of these technologies should be environmentally friendly, and contribute to minimising any harm caused to the environment during their lifecycle and across their entire supply chain;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Considers that the objectives of social responsibility, gender balance, environmental protection and sustainability should be without prejudice to existing general and sectorial obligations within these fields; believes that the Commission should establish non-binding guidelines to the intention of developers, deployers and users on the methodology for the achievement of these objectives;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8 a (new)

Public power decisions

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Points out that while the benefits of deploying artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies within the framework of public power decisions are unquestionable, severe misuses are also possible, such as mass surveillance, predictive policing and breaches of due process rights;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Considers that technologies which can replace decisions taken by public authorities should be treated with the utmost precaution, notably in the area of justice and law enforcement;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)

15c. Believes that Member States should have recourse to such technologies only if there is thorough evidence of their trustworthiness and if human verification is possible or systematic in cases where fundamental liberties are at stake; underlines the importance for national authorities to undertake strict fundamental rights impact assessment for high-risk artificial intelligence systems deployed in these cases;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 d (new)

15d. Is of the opinion that any decision taken by high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics or related technologies within the framework of prerogatives of public power should be subject to strict human verification and due process;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 e (new)

15e. Believes that the technological advancement should not allow for the use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies to autonomously distribute rights or to impose legal obligations on individuals;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that appropriate governance of the development, deployment and use of high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including by having measures in place focusing on accountability and addressing potential risks of bias and discrimination, increases citizens’ safety and trust in those technologies;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Underlines the need to ensure that personal data is protected adequately, especially data belonging to vulnerable groups, such as people with disabilities, patients, children, minorities and migrants~~, are protected adequately~~;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Recalls that Parliament’s resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics asked the Commission to consider the designation of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence;deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Commission to ~~follow- up on that request, especially in view of the added-value of having a body at Union level coordinating the mandates and~~coordinate the actions of each national supervisory authority as referred to in the previous sub- section;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Calls on the Commission to assess whether a European body would be necessary to ensure a harmonised implementation of the European ethical framework for high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)

23b. Calls on the Commission to explore entrusting an existing EU body, such as ENISA, EDPS, or the European Ombudsman, to ensure the harmonised implementation of the European ethical framework for high-risk artificial intelligence, robots and related technologies;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Believes that such a body~~, as well as the certification referred to in the following paragraph,~~ would not only benefit the development of Union industry and innovation in that context but also increase the awareness of our citizens regarding the opportunities and risks inherent to these technologies;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Suggests that the European Agency for Artificial Intelligence develops common criteria and an application process relating to the granting of~~Calls on the Commission to explore the possibility to develop a European certificateion of ethical compliance ~~following a~~, to be granted at the request ~~by any~~of developer~~, deployer or user seeking to certify the positive assessment of compliance carried out by the respective national supervisory authority~~s of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, which comply with the European ethical framework;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Recalls that the opportunities and risks inherent to these technologies have a global dimension that requires a consistent approach at international level and thus calls on the Commission to work in bilateral and multilateral settings to advocate and ~~ensure~~promote the European model of ethical compliance.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Points out the added-value of a European ~~Agency~~regulatory framework for high- risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies as referred to above in this context as well.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Concludes, following the above reflections on aspects related to the ethical dimension of high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, that the ethical dimension should be framed as a series of principles resulting in a legal framework at Union level ~~supervised by national competent authorities, coordinated and enhanced by a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence and duly respected and certified within the internal market~~;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Recommends that the European Commission, after consulting with all the relevant stakeholders, review existing Union law applicable to high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies in order to review it when necessary and address the rapidity of their development in line with the recommendations set out in the annex hereto;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)

31a. Believes that a periodical assessment of the European regulatory framework related to artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies will be essential to ensure that the applicable legislation is up to date with the rapidly growing technological progress;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Considers that the requested proposal would have financial implications if a ~~new European Agency for Artificial Intelligence is set up~~n existing European body is entrusted with the above-mentioned functions in order to ensure the necessary technical means and human resources to fulfil its newly attributed tasks;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point I – indent 1

- to build trust in artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies by ensuring that when these technologies ~~will be~~entail a high-risk for the protection of safety and fundamental rights and freedoms their developedment, deployedment and used will be done in an ethical manner;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point I – indent 3

- to support deployment of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies in the Union by providing the appropriate and proportionate regulatory framework;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point II – indent 2

~~- a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence and a European certification of ethical compliance;~~deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point II – indent 5 a (new)

- annex establishing a list of high- risk technologies which fall under the scope of this Regulation;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point III – indent 2

- ~~risk~~compliance assessment of high- risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point III – indent 4 a (new)

- right to redress;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point III – indent 7 a (new)

- safeguards related to the use of high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies within the framework of public power decisions;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point IV – indent 1 a (new)

- regularly assessing and if necessary, reviewing the annex of the Regulation by means of a delegated act

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point IV – indent 2 a (new)

- engaging discussions on global ethical norms at international level;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point IV – indent 2 b (new)

- establishing binding guidelines on the methodology of the compliance assessment to be followed by the national supervisory authorities;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point IV – indent 2 c (new)

- establishing non-binding guidelines directed to the developers, the deployers and the users;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point V

V. The European Agency for Artificial Intelligence should be established following a detailed proposal from the Commission, which should include the following main tasks: - to supervise the application of the proposed Regulation; - to issue guidance as regards the application of the proposed Regulation; - to liaise with the “Supervisory Authority” in each Member State and coordinate their mandate and tasks; - to develop a European certificate of compliance with ethical principles; - concerned stakeholders and the civil society.deleted to support regular exchanges with

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point VI – indent 1

- to assess wthe~~ther~~ compliance of high- risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies~~, including software, algorithms and data u~~ with the ethical principles sedt o~~r produced by such technologies, developed, deployed and used in the Union are high-risk technologies~~ut in the proposed Regulation;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point VI – indent 2

~~- to monitor their compliance with the ethical principles set out in the proposed Regulation;~~deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point VI – indent 4

- to be responsible for establishing standards for the governance of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including by liaising with the maximum possible number of stakeholders and civil society representatives.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point VII

VII. The key role of stakeholders should be to engage with the Commission~~, the European Agency for Artificial Intelligence~~ and the “Supervisory Authority” in each Member State.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 1

(1) The development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, arshould be based on a desire to serve society. ~~They~~Some of these technologies can entail opportunities and risks, which should be addressed and regulated by a comprehensive legal framework of ethical principles to be complied with from the moment of the development and deployment of such technologies to their use.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 3

(3) In this context, the current diversity of the rules and practices to be followed across the Union poses a significant risk ~~to the protection of the well-being and prosperity of individuals and society alike~~of fragmentation of the Single Market , as well as to the coherent exploration of the full potential that artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies have in promoting ~~and preserving that well-being and prosperity~~innovation. Differences in the degree of consideration of the ethical dimension inherent to these technologies can prevent them from being freely developed, deployed or used within the Union and such differences can constitute an obstacle to ~~the pursuit of~~a level playing field and to the pursuit of technological progress and economic activities at Union level, distort competition and impede authorities in the fulfilment of their obligations under Union law. In addition, the absence of a common framework of ethical principles for the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies results in legal uncertainty for all those involved, namely developers, deployers and users.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 4

(4) Nevertheless, this Regulation should provide a margin of manoeuvre for Member States, including with regard to how the mandate of their respective national supervisory authority is to be carried out in view of the objectives it is to pursue as laid down herein.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 6

(6) A common understanding in the Union of notions such as artificial intelligence, robotics, related technologies, algorithms and biometric recognition is required in order to allow for a harmonized regulatory approach. However, the specific legal definitions need to be developed in the context of this Regulation without prejudice to other definitions used in other legal acts and international jurisdictions. They should be technologically neutral and also subject to review whenever necessary.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 8 a (new)

(8a) This Regulation should be strictly proportionate to its objective so as not to hamper innovation in the Union. In this respect, it should be based on a targeted risk-based approach focusing on specific sectors where major interests are at stake.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 8 b (new)

(8b) The scope of the Regulation should be limited to high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies used in sectors, where given the characteristics of the activities typically undertaken, significant risks can be expected to occur, and where their use is likely to create significant risk. A significant risk should be understood as directly endangering the protection of safety or fundamental rights and freedoms.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 8 c (new)

(8c) The sectors covered should be notably, but not exclusively, healthcare, transport, energy and finance. The high- risk technologies should be exclusively listed in the annex of this Regulation, which should be revised on a regular basis, keeping up with technological development.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 9

(9) ~~Any artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~High-risk technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, ~~which entails a high risk of breaching~~should respect the principles of safety, transparency, accountability, non-bias or non- discrimination, social responsibility and gender balance, ~~environmental friendliness and~~right to redress, sustainability, privacy and governance, should be considered high- risk from a compliance with ethical principles perspective where that is the conclusion of an impartial, regulated and external risk assessment by the national supervisory authority.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 9 a (new)

(9a) The Commission should prepare non-binding guidelines on the methodology for compliance with this Regulation intended to developers, deployers and users. In doing so, the Commission should consult relevant stakeholders.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 10

(10) Notwithstanding the risk assessment carried out in relation to compliance with ethical principles, artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies,High-risk technologies should always be assessed as to their risk on the basis of the objective criteria ~~and in line with~~laid down in this Regulation and without prejudice to the relevant sector-specific legislation applicable in different fields such as those of health, transport, employment, justice and home affairs, media, education and culture.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 10 a (new)

(10a) When a high-risk technology has been considered compliant with the principles laid out in this regulation, the software, algorithms and data which are used or produced by the technology should be presumed compliant with this regulation, unless the national supervisory authority decides to conduct an assessment at its own initiative or at the request of the developer, the deployer or the user.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 12

(12) Developers, deployers and users of high-risk technologies are responsible for compliance with safety, transparency, and accountability principles to the extent of their involvement with the artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies concerned, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies. Developers should ensure that the technologies concerned are designed and built in line with safety features, whereas deployers and users should deploy and use the concerned technologies in full observance of those features. To this end, developers of high- risk technologies should evaluate and anticipate the risks of misuse of their own technologies, in order to respond effectively if the problem arises.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 14

(14) To the extent that their involvement with those technologies influences the compliance with the safety, transparency and accountability requirements set out in this Regulation, users should use artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies in good faith. This means, in particular, that they should not use those technologies in a way that contravenes the ethical principles laid down in this legal framework and the requirements listed therein. Beyond such use in good faith, users should be exempt from any responsibility that otherwise falls upon developers and deployers as established in this Regulation.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 16

(16) Society’s trust in ~~artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~ high-risk technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, depends on the degree to which their assessment, auditability and traceability are enabled in the technologies concerned. Where the extent of their involvement so requires, developers should ensure that such technologies are designed and built in a manner that enables such an assessment, auditing and traceability. DWithin the limits of what is technically possible, developers, deployers and users should ensure that artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies are deployed and used in full respect of transparency requirements, and allowing auditing and traceability.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 16 a (new)

(16a) In order to ensure transparency and accountability, citizens should be informed when a system uses artificial intelligence, when AI systems personalise a product or service to its users, whether they can switch off or restrain the personalisation and when they are faced with an automated-decision making technology. Furthermore, transparency measures should be accompanied, as far as this is technically possible, by clear and understandable explanations of the data used, of the algorithm, of its purpose, of its outcomes, and of its potential dangers;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 17

(17) Bias in and discrimination by software, algorithms and data is unlawful and should be addressed by regulating the processes through which they are designed and usdeployed.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 18

(18) Software, algorithms and data used or produced by ~~artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~high-risk technologies1a should be considered biased where, for example, they display suboptimal results in relation to any person or group of persons, on the basis of a prejudiced personal, social or partial perception and subsequent processing of data relating to their traits. __________________ 1aFrom this point, “artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies” should be replaced by “high-risk technologies” throughout the recitals.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 28

(28) TWhere applicable, the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, should take into consideration their environmental footprint and should not cause harm to the environment during their lifecycle and across their entire supply chain. Accordingly, such technologies should be developed, deployed and used in an environmentally friendly manner that supports the achievement of climate neutrality and circular economy goals.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 29

(29) For the purposes of this Regulation, developers, deployers and users should be held responsible, to the extent of their involvement in the development, deployment or use of the artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies concerned, for any harm caused to the environment.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 30

(30) In particular, the developers who take decisions that determine and control the course or manner of the development of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, as well the deployers who are involved in their deployment with an operating or managing function, should be generally considered responsible for avoiding the occurrence of such harm, namely by respectively putting adequate measures in place during the development process and thoroughly respecting such measures during the deployment phase.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 31

(31) TWhere applicable, these technologies should also be developed, deployed and used with a view to supporting the achievement of environmental goals such as reducing waste production, diminishing the carbon footprint, preventing climate change and avoiding environmental degradation, and their potential in that context should be maximized and explored through research and innovation projects. The Union and the Member States should therefore mobilise their resources for the purpose of supporting and investing in such projects.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 34

(34) The ethical boundaries of the use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, should be duly considered when using remote recognition technologies, such as biometric recognition, to automatically identify individuals. When these technologies are used by public authorities during times of national emergency, such as during a national health crisis, the use should be proportionate and temporary. Clear criteria for that use should be defined in order to be able to determine whether, when and how it should take place, and such use should be mindful of its psychological and sociocultural impact with due regard for human dignity and the fundamental rights set out in the Charter.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 35

(35) Governance that is based on relevant standards enhances safety and promotes the increase of citizens’ trust in the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 35 a (new)

(35a) Public authorities should conduct fundamental rights impact assessment before deploying high-risk technologies which replace public power decisions and which have a direct and significant impact on citizen’s rights and obligations. In addition, these technologies should allow for human verification and due process, especially in the areas of justice and law enforcement, where fundamental rights protected by the Charter, are at stake.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Karen MELCHIOR

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 36

(36) ~~Among~~Developers, deployers and users should continue to observe the existing relevant governance standards are, for example, the ‘Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI’ drafted by the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence set up by the European Commission, and other technical standards adopted by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), at European level, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), at international level.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 38

(38) ~~The effective application of the ethical principles laid down in this Regulation will largely depend on~~ Member States’ should appoint~~ment of an~~ independent public authority to act as a supervisory authority. ~~In particular, e~~Each national supervisory authority should be responsible for assessing ~~and monitoring~~ the compliance of ~~artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies considered a high-risk in light of the obligations set out in~~high-risk technologies with this Rregulation.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 39

(39) Each national supervisory authority ~~shall also carry the responsibility of regulating the governance of these technologies. They therefore~~will have an important role to play in promoting the trust and safety of Union citizens, as well as in enabling a democratic, pluralistic and equitable society.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 42 a (new)

(42a) The Commission should establish binding guidelines to be followed by the national supervisory authorities when conducting their compliance assessment.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 44

(44) The rapid development of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, as well as of the technical machine learning, reasoning processes and other technologies underlying that development are unpredictable. As such, it is both appropriate and necessary to establish a review mechanism in accordance with which, in addition to its reporting on the application of the Regulation, the Commission is to regularly submit a report concerning the possible modification of the scope of application of this Regulation. In addition, the Commission should review, if necessary, every six months the annex of this Regulation by means of delegated act.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 46

(46) Action at Union level as set out in this Regulation would be best achieved through the establishment of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence. Such a body would be essential in coordinating the mandates and actions of the national supervisory authorities in each Member State, outlining objective criteria for the risk assessment of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, developing and issuing a certification of compliance with the ethical principles laid down in this Regulation, supporting regular exchanges with concerned stakeholders and civil society, promoting the Union’s approach through international cooperation and ensuring a consistent reply worldwide to the opportunities and risks inherent in these technologies.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – before Article 1 – chapter title (new)

Chapter I: General provisions

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 2 – paragraph 1

1. This Regulation applies to high- risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, hereafter “high-risk technologies”1a including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, developed, deployed or used in the Union. 2. Within the meaning of this Regulation are considered being high- risk technologies, technologies that: (a) are used in sectors, where given the characteristics of the activities typically undertaken, significant risks can be expected to occur from the viewpoint of protection of safety and fundamental rights and freedoms, and (b) are used in such a manner, that such risks can be expected to occur from the viewpoint of protection of safety and fundamental rights and freedoms 3. The high-risk technologies mentioned in Paragraph 2 shall be listed in an Annex to this Regulation. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16(a), to amend the exhaustive list, by: (a) including new types of high-risk artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies; (b) deleting types of technologies that can no longer be considered to pose a high-risk; (c) changing the critical sectors for existing high-risk technologies. Any delegated act amending the Annex shall come into force six months after its adoption. When determining new critical sectors and/or high-risk technologies to be inserted by means of delegated acts in the Annex, the Commission shall take full account of the criteria set out in this Regulation, in particular those set out in paragraph 2 of this Article. __________________ 1aFrom this point “artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies” is replaced by “high-risk technologies” throughout the Regulation

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) ‘artificial intelligence’ means ~~software~~a systems that~~, inter alia, collect, process and interpret structured or unstructured data, identify patterns and establish models in order to reach conclusions or take~~ displays intelligent behaviour by analysing their environment and taking actions, with some degree of autonomy, to achieve specific goals; AI- systems can be purely software-based, acti~~ons~~ng in the ~~physical or virtual dimension bas~~virtual world, or can be embedded oin ~~such conclusion~~hardware devices;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point p

(p) ‘governance’ means the manner of ensuring that the highest standards and the appropriate protocols of behaviour are adopted and observed by developers, deployers and users, based on a formal set of rules, procedures and values, and which allows them to deal appropriately with ethical matters as or before they arise.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 5 – paragraph 3

3. The development, deployment and use of development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, shall be carried out in the best interest of citizens. In particular, the potential of such technologies and the opportunities that they provide shall be taken into consideration having regard at all times to the need to protect and foster the social, environmental and economic well-being of society.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – after article 5 – chapter title (new)

Chapter II: Obligations for high-risk technologies

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Any artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~High-risk technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, shall: (a) be developed, deployed and used in a human- centric manner with the aim of contributing to the existence of a democratic, pluralistic and equitable society by safeguarding human autonomy and decision-making and ensuring human agency.;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 6 – paragraph 2

~~2. The technologies listed in paragraph 1 shall~~(b) be developed, deployed and used in a manner that guarantees full human oversight at any time~~, in particular where that development, deployment or use entails a risk of breaching the ethical principles set out in this Regulation.~~; and

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 6 – paragraph 3

~~3. The technologies listed in paragraph 1 shall~~(c) be developed, deployed and used in a manner that allows human control to be regained at any time, including through the altering or halting of those technologies~~, when that development, deployment or use entails a risk of breaching the ethical principles set out in this Regulation~~.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 7

Annex I – part B – Article 7 1. Regulation, artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, which entail a significant risk of breaching the ethical principles set out in this Regulation shall be considered high-risk technologies. 2. Where artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies are considered high-risk technologies, an assessment of compliance of those technologies with the obligations set out in this Regulation shall be carried out and monitored by the national supervisory authorities referred to in Annex I – part B – Artdeleted Risk assessment For the purposes of this Without prejudicle 14. 3. the risk assessment of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, shall be carried out on the basis of objective criteria harmonised at Union level and in accordance with applicable sectorial legislation.to paragraph 1,

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) developed, deployed and used in a consistent manner so that they do not pursue aims or do not carry out activities other than those for which they have been conceived;~~deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) developed, deployed and used in a resilient manner so that they ensure an adequate level of security, and one that prevents any technical vulnerabilities from being exploited for ~~unfair or~~ unlawful purposes;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) developed, deployed and used in a manner that ensures ~~that there is trust that the performance is reliabl~~are reliable performance as regards reaching the aims and carrying out the activities they have been conceived for, including by ensuring that all operations are reproducible;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) developed, deployed and used in a manner that ensures that the performance of the aims and activities of the particular technologies is accurate; if occasional inaccuracies cannot be avoided, the system shall indicate, to the extent possible, the likeliness of errors and inaccuracies to deployers and users through an appropriate disclaimer message;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point g

(g) developed, deployed and used in a manner such that they ~~are capable of warning~~inform users that they are interacting with artificial intelligence systems, duly and comprehensively disclosing their capabilities, accuracy and limitations to ~~artificial intelligence~~ developers, deployers and users of high- risk technologies;

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. In accordance with Article 6(2b), ~~the~~high-risk technologies ~~mentioned in paragraph 1~~, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies shall be developed, deployed and used in transparent and traceable manner so that their elements, processes and phases are documented to the highest ~~standards, and that it is possible for the national supervisory authorities referred to in Article 14 to assess the compliance of such technologies with the obligations set out in this Regulation~~applicable standards. In particular, the developer, deployer or user of those technologies shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate, compliance with the safety features set out in paragraph 1.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 8 – paragraph 3

3. The developer, deployer or user of ~~the~~high-risk technologies ~~mentioned in paragraph 1~~ shall ensure that the measures taken to ensure compliance with the safety features set out in paragraph 1 can be audited by the national supervisory authorities referred to in Article 14.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 8 – paragraph 4

4. Users shall be presumed to have complied with the obligations set out in this Article where their use of artificial, robotics and related technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, is carried out in good faith and in no way contravenes the ethical principles laid down in this Regulation.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Any~~High-risk technologies, including software, algorithm or data used or produced by ~~artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~such technologies developed, deployed or used in the Union shall be such as to ensure respect for human dignity and equal treatment for all.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. ~~Any~~High-risk technologies, including software, algorithm ors and data used or produced by ~~artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~such technologies, developed, deployed or used in the Union shall be unbiased and, without prejudice to paragraph 3, shall not discriminate on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy, disability, physical or genetic features, age, national minority, ethnic or social origin, language, religion or belief, political views or civic participation, citizenship, civil or economic status, education, or criminal record.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Any artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~High-risk technologies, ,including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, shall be developed, deployed and used in the Union in compliance with the relevant Union law, principles and values~~, in a manner that ensures optimal social, environmental and economic outcomes and that does not result in injury or harm of any kind to being caused to individuals or society~~..

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. ~~Any artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~High-risk technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, developed, deployed or used in the Union shall be developed, deployed and used in a socially responsible manner. ~~In particular, such a manner shall mean that such technologies are:~~

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) developed, deployed and used in a manner that contributes to improving individual development, collective well- being and the healthy functioning of democracy, without interfering in political processes, decision-making and elections or contributing to the dissemination of disinformation;deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) developed, deployed and used in a manner that contributes to the achievement of a fair society by helping to increase citizens’ health and well-being, fostering equality in the creation and availability of economic, social and political opportunity and respecting workers’ rights;deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) developed, deployed and used in a manner that contributes to public debate, complements and empowers human cognitive skills, encourages quality education and promotes multilingualism while reflecting the cultural diversity of the Union;deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point d

~~(d) developed, deployed and used in a gender-balanced manner that narrows the gender gap by providing equal opportunities for all;~~deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point e

(e) developed, deployed and used in a manner that contributes to the narrowing of the digital divide among regions, age groups and social classes, the promotion of digital literacy and skills, innovation and creativity, while respecting intellectual property rights;deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 10 – paragraph 3

3. The Union and its Member States shall encourage research projects intended to provide solutions, based on artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, that seek to promote social inclusion, plurality, solidarity, fairness, equality and cooperation.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 10 – paragraph 4

4. The social effects of the ubiquitous presence of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, developed, deployed or used in the Union shall be monitored by the national supervisory authorities referred to in Article 14, in order to avoid disruptive effects on social agency and social relationships, as well as the deterioration of social skills.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 11 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Any artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~High-risk technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, shall be developed, deployed or used in the Union in compliance with Union law~~, principles and values, in a manner that ensures optimal environmentally friendly outcomes and~~ and commitments related to the protection of the environment and where applicable they shall pursue the objective of minimisesing their environmental footprint during their lifecycle and through their entire supply chain, in order to support the achievement of climate neutrality and circular economy goals.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 11 – paragraph 2

2. The Union and its Member States shall encourage and promote research projects intended to provide solutions, based on artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, seeking to address environmental issues such as waste production, the carbon footprint, climate change and environmental degradation.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 11 – paragraph 3

3. Any artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, shall be assessed as to their environmental friendliness and sustainability by the national supervisory authorities, referred to in Article 14, ensuring that measures are put in place to mitigate their general impact as regards natural resources, energy consumption, waste production, the carbon footprint, climate change and environmental degradation.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 11 a (new)

Article 11a Compliance assessment 1. The national supervisory authorities referred to in Article 14 shall assess whether high-risk technologies are compliant with the obligations set out in Chapter II of this Regulation. 2. The software, algorithms and data used or produced by high-risk technologies which have been assessed compliant within the meaning of this article shall be presumed compliant with this Regulation, unless the national supervisory authority decides to conduct an assessment at its own initiative or at the request of the developer, the deployer or the user. 3. When assessing the compliance with the obligations specified under Articles 9, 10 and 11, the national authority shall in particular consider the purposes pursued by the development, the deployment or the use the technologies, especially when it relates to: (a) individual development, collective well-being, democracy and political processes; (b) health and workers’ rights; (c) education. 4. The Commission shall prepare binding guidelines, in accordance with the applicable sectorial legislation, on the methodology to be used by the national supervisory authorities for the compliance assessment by the date of the entry into force of this Regulation.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 11 b (new)

Article 11b Implementation guidance The Commission shall prepare non- binding guidelines on the methodology for compliance with this Regulation intended to developers, deployers and users. In doing so, the Commission shall consult relevant stakeholders. The Commission shall publish the guidelines by the date of the entry into force of this Regulation.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B –After Article 12 – chapter title (new)

Chapter III: Specific requirements

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Motion for a resolution
Article 12 a (new)

Article 12a Public power decisions 1. Member States shall conduct an impact assessment on fundamental rights for high-risk technologies used within their prerogatives of public powers that have a significant and direct impact on the rights and obligations of natural or legal persons. 2. High-risk technologies that have a direct and significant impact on rights and obligations of natural and legal persons shall be subject to strict human verification, and due process.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 12 b (new)

Article 12b Right to redress 1. Any natural or legal person shall be able to seek redress for damages caused by a decision issued at her/his detriment by high-risk technologies.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Karen MELCHIOR

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B –After Article 12 b – chapter title (new)

Chapter IV: Institutional oversight

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. Artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies developed, deployed or used in the Union shall comply with relevant governance standards established by the national supervisory authorities referred to in Article 14 in accordance with Union law, principles and values.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. Data used or produced by ~~artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~high-risk technologies developed, deployed or used in the Union shall be managed by developers, deployers and users in accordance with the relevant ~~standards referred to in paragraph 1~~national, European and international rules, as well as with relevant industry and business protocols. In particular, developers and deployers shall carry out, where feasible, quality checks of the external sources of data used by artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, and shall put oversight mechanisms in place regarding their collection, storage, processing and use.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 13 – paragraph 3

3. Without prejudice to portability rights and rights of persons whose usage of ~~artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~high-risk technologies has generated data, the collection, storage, processing, sharing of and access to data used or produced by artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies developed, deployed or used in the Union shall comply with the relevant ~~standards referred to in paragraph 1~~national, European and international rules, as well as with relevant industry and business protocols. In particular, developers and deployers shall ensure those protocols are applied during the development and deployment of ~~artificial intelligence, robotics and related~~high-risk technologies, by clearly defining the requirements for processing and granting access to data used or produced by these technologies, as well as the purpose, scope and addressees of the processing and the granting of access to such data, all of which shall at all times be auditable and traceable.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 1

1. Each Member State shall designate an independent public authority to be responsible for monitoring the application of this Regulation (‘supervisory authority’). In accordance with Article ~~7(1) and~~ (2), each national supervisory authority shall be responsible for assessing ~~whether artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, developed, deployed and used in the Union are~~and monitoring the compliance of high- risk technologies ~~and, if so, for assessing and monitoring their compliance~~ with the ethical principles set out in this Regulation.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 2

2. Each national supervisory authority shall contribute to the consistent application of this Regulation throughout the Union. For that purpose, the supervisory authorities in each Member State shall cooperate with each other, the Commission and other relevant institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union~~, in particular as regards establishing the governance standards referred to in Article 13(1)~~.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 3

3. Each national supervisory authority shall be responsible for supervising the application of governance standards to artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including by liaising with the maximum possible number of stakeholders. For that purpose, the supervisory authorities in each Member State shall provide a forum for regular exchange with stakeholders.deleted

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 4

4. Each national supervisory authority shall provide professional and administrative guidance ~~and support on the general implementation of the ethical principles~~for the implementation of the harmonised ethical framework set out in this Regulation, ~~including~~especially to small and medium-sized enterprises or start-ups.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 6

6. ~~Member States shall take all measures necessary to ensure the implementation of the ethical principles set out in this Regulation.~~ Member States shall support relevant stakeholders and civil society, at both Union and national level, in their efforts to ensure a timely, ethical and well- informed response to the new opportunities and challenges, in particular those of a cross-border nature, arising from technological developments relating to artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 17 a (new)

Article 17a Exercise of delegation 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 2(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from (date of entry into force of this Regulation). 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 2(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated act already in force. 4. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult experts designated by each Member State in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law Making. 5. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 6. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 2(3) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or, if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

2020/05/29
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) In particular, online intermediation services, online search engines, web browsers, operating systems, online social networking, video sharing platform services, number- independent interpersonal communication services, cloud computing services and online advertising services all have the capacity to affect a large number of end users and businesses alike, which entails a risk of unfair business practices. They therefore should be included in the definition of core platform services and fall into the scope of this Regulation. Online intermediation services should be covered irrespective of the technology used to provide such services. In this regard, virtual or voice activated assistants and other connected devices should fall within the scope of this Regulation irrespective of the software used as an operating system, an online intermediation service or a search engine. Online intermediation services may also be active in the field of financial services, and they may intermediate or be used to provide such services as listed non-exhaustively in Annex II to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council32 . In certain circumstances, the notion of end users should encompass users that are traditionally considered business users, but in a given situation do not use the core platform services to provide goods or services to other end users, such as for example businesses relying on cloud computing services for their own purposes. __________________ 32Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

(31) To ensure the effectiveness of the review of gatekeeper status as well as the possibility to adjust the list of core platform services provided by a gatekeeper, the gatekeepers should inform the Commission of all of their intended and concluded acquisitions ~~of other providers of core platform services or any other services provided within the digital sector~~prior to their application. Such information should not only serve the review process mentioned above, regarding the status of individual gatekeepers, but will also provide information that is crucial to monitoring broader contestability trends in the markets where gatekeepers operate, in particular in the digital sector and can therefore be a useful factor for consideration in the context of the market investigations foreseen by this Regulation.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33

(33) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are limited to what is necessary and justified to address the unfairness of the identified practices by gatekeepers and to ensure contestability in relation to core platform services provided by gatekeepers. Therefore, the obligations should correspond to those practices that are considered unfair by taking into account the features of the digital sector and where experience gained, for example in the enforcement of the EU competition rules, shows that they have a particularly negative direct impact on the business users and end users. The obligations laid down in the Regulation may specifically take into account the nature of the core platform services provided. In addition, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a regulatory dialogue with gatekeepers to tailor those obligations that are likely to require specific implementing measures in order to ensure their effectiveness and proportionality. The obligations should only be updated after a thorough investigation on the nature and impact of specific practices that may be newly identified, following an in-depth investigation, as unfair or limiting contestability in the same manner as the unfair practices laid down in this Regulation while potentially escaping the scope of the current set of obligations. In order to enhance the effectiveness of the updating process, the Commission should also use the reporting mechanism involving competitors, business users, end-users and competent national authorities, that would inform the Commission in the event of any of those detected practices.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37

(37) Because of their position, gatekeepers might in certain cases restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer their goods or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services, their own interface or direct channel. Such restrictions have a significant deterrent effect on the business users of gatekeepers in terms of their use of alternative online intermediation services, limiting inter-platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative distribution channels including alternative online intermediation channels for end users. To ensure that business users of online intermediation services of gatekeepers can freely choose alternative online intermediation services and differentiate the conditions under which they offer their products or services to their end users, it should not be accepted that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price. Such a restriction should apply to any measure with equivalent effect, such as for example increased commission rates or de-listing of the offers of business users.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38

(38) To prevent further reinforcing their dependence on the core platform services of gatekeepers, the business users of these gatekeepers should be free in promoting and choosing the distribution channel they consider most appropriate to interact with any end users that these business users have already acquired through core platform services provided by the gatekeeper. Conversely, end users should also be free to choose offers of such business users and to enter into contracts with them either through core platform services of the gatekeeper, if applicable, or from a direct distribution channel of the business user or another indirect distribution channel such business user may use. This should apply to the promotion of offers and conclusion of contracts between business users and end users. Moreover, the ability of end users to freely acquire content, subscriptions, features or other services or items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted notably through the use of technical restrictions. In particular, it should be avoided that gatekeepers restrict end users from access to and use of such ~~services via~~legally acquired digital content and services via hardware or a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application download or purchased from a software application store should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the gatekeeper’s core platform service simply because it was purchased outside such software application or software application store.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40

(40) Identification and ancillary services are crucial for the economic development of business users to conduct their business, as these can allow them not only to optimise services, to the extent allowed under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council33 , but also to inject trust in online transactions, in compliance with Union or national law. Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position as provider of core platform services to require their dependent business users to include any identification or ancillary services provided by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by these business users to their end users, where other identification services are available to such business users. __________________ 33 Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37).

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41

(41) Gatekeepers should not restrict the free choice of end users by technically preventing switching between or subscription to different software applications and services. Gatekeepers should therefore ensure a free choice irrespective of whether they are the manufacturer of any hardware by means of which such software applications or services are accessed and should not raise artificial technical barriers so as to make switching ~~impossibl~~more cumbersome or ineffective. The mere offering of a given product or service to end users, including by means of pre- installation, as well the improvement of end user offering, such as better prices or increased quality, would not in itself constitute a barrier to switching.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42

(42) The conditions under which gatekeepers provide online advertising services to business users including both advertisers and publishers are often non- transparent and opaque. This opacity is partly linked to the practices of a few platforms, but is also due to the sheer complexity of modern day programmatic advertising. The sector is considered to have become more non-transparent after the introduction of new privacy legislation, and is expected to become even more opaque with the announced removal of third-party cookies. This often leads to a lack of information and knowledge for advertisers and publishers about the conditions of the advertising services they purchased and undermines their ability to switch to alternative providers of online advertising services. Furthermore, the costs of online advertising are likely to be higher than they would be in a fairer, more transparent and contestable platform environment. These higher costs are likely to be reflected in the prices that end users pay for many daily products and services relying on the use of online advertising. Transparency obligations should therefore require gatekeepers to provide advertisers and publishers to whom they supply online advertising services, when requested and to the extent possible, with easily accessible and real-time information that allows both sides to understand the price paid for each of the different advertising services provided as part of the relevant advertising value chain.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46

(46) A gatekeeper may use different means to favour its own services or products on its core platform service, to the detriment of the same or similar services that end users could obtain through third parties. This may for instance be the case where certain software applications or ancillary services are pre-installed by a gatekeeper. To enable end user choice, gatekeepers should not prevent end users from un- installing any pre-installed software applications on its core platform service and thereby favour their own software applications.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48

(48) Gatekeepers are often vertically integrated and offer certain products or services to end users through their own core platform services, or through a business user over which they exercise control which frequently leads to conflicts of interest. This can include the situation whereby a gatekeeper offers its own online intermediation services through an online search engine. When offering those products or services on the core platform service, gatekeepers can reserve a better position or a differentiated treatment to their own offering, in terms of ranking, as opposed to the products of third parties also operating on that core platform service. This can occur for instance with products or services, including other core platform services, which are ranked in the results communicated by online search engines, or which are partly or entirely embedded in online search engines results, groups of results specialised in a certain topic, displayed along with the results of an online search engine, which are considered or used by certain end users as a service distinct or additional to the online search engine. Other instances are those of software applications which are distributed through software application stores, or products or services that are given prominence and display in the newsfeed of a social network, or products or services ranked in search results or displayed on an online marketplace. In those circumstances, the gatekeeper is in a dual- role position as intermediary for third party providers and as direct provider of products or services of the gatekeeper. Consequently, these gatekeepers have the ability to undermine directly the contestability for those products or services on these core platform services, to the detriment of business users which are not controlled by the gatekeeper.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49

(49) In such situations, the gatekeeper should not engage in any form of differentiated or preferential treatment in ranking on the core platform service, whether through legal, commercial or technical means, in favour of products or services it offers itself or through a business user which it co~~ntrols~~operates with. To ensure that this obligation is effective, it should also be ensured that the conditions that apply to such ranking are also generally fair and do not allow the gatekeeper’s own services or products to benefit from competition-relevant information about competing products or services. Ranking should in this context cover all forms of relative prominence, including among others display, rating, order, linking or voice results. To ensure that this obligation is effective and cannot be circumvented it should also apply to any measure that may have an equivalent effect to the differentiated or preferential treatment in ranking. The guidelines adopted pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 should also facilitate the implementation and enforcement of this obligation.34 __________________ 34Commission Notice: Guidelines on ranking transparency pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 424, 8.12.2020, p. 1).

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53

(53) The conditions under which gatekeepers provide online advertising services to business users including both advertisers and publishers are often non- transparent and opaque. This often leads to a lack of information for advertisers and publishers about the effect of a given ad. To further enhance fairness, transparency and contestability of online advertising services designated under this Regulation as well as those that are fully integrated with other core platform services of the same provider, the designated gatekeepers should therefore provide advertisers ~~and publishers, when requested, with free of charg~~, publishers, or third parties authorised by advertisers and publishers, when requested, with free of charge, continuous, detailed, comprehensive, accessible and real-time access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and the information necessary, including aggregated data and performance data, for advertisers, advertising agencies acting on behalf of a company placing advertising, as well as for publishers to carry out their own independent verification of the provision of the relevant online advertising services.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58 a (new)

(58a) During the implementation period of three months, designated gatekeepers should inform the Commission about what they intend to implement and how, in order to ensure effective compliance with their obligations. Such information should be made available to concerned third parties of undertakings, taking into account the protection of trade secrets of designated gatekeepers.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64

(64) The Commission should investigate and assess whether additional behavioural, or, where appropriate, structural remedies are justified, in order to ensure that the gatekeeper cannot frustrate the objectives of this Regulation by systematic non- compliance with one or several of the obligations laid down in this Regulation, which has further strengthened its gatekeeper position. This would be the case if the gatekeeper’s size in the internal market has further increased, economic dependency of business users and end users on the gatekeeper’s core platform services has further strengthened as their number has further increased and the gatekeeper benefits from increased entrenchment of its position. The Commission should therefore in such cases have the power to impose any remedy, whether behavioural or structural, having due regard to the principle of proportionality. Structural remedies, such as legal, functional or structural separation, including the divestiture of a business, or parts of it, should only be imposed either where there is no equally effective behavioural remedy or where any equally effective behavioural remedy would be more burdensome for the undertaking concerned than the structural remedy. Changes to the structure of an undertaking as it existed before the systematic non- compliance was established would only be proportionate where there is a substantial risk that this systematic non-compliance results from the very structure of the undertaking concerned.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65 a (new)

(65a) In case of urgency where a risk of serious and immediate damage for business users or end-users of gatekeepers could result from new practices that may undermine contestability of core platform services or may be unfair, it is also important to ensure that the Commission can implement interim measures and thus temporarily impose obligations to the gatekeeper concerned. These interim measures should be proportionate and limited to what is necessary and justified. They should apply pending the conclusion of the market investigation and the corresponding final decision of the Commission.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67

(67) Where, in the course of a proceeding into non-compliance or an investigation into systemic non- compliance, a gatekeeper offers commitments to the Commission, the latter should be able to adopt a decision making these commitments binding on the gatekeeper concerned, where it finds that the commitments ensure effective compliance with the obligations of this Regulation. Th~~is deci~~e Commission should ~~also find that there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission.~~, where appropriate, be entitled to require the commitments to be tested, including A/B tested in order to optimise their effectiveness. The commitments should be reviewed after they have been in place for an appropriate period. Should the review of the commitments by the Commission show that they have not led to effective compliance, the Commission shall be entitled to require their amendment or revoke them;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70

(70) The Commission should be able to directly request that undertakings or association of undertakings provide any relevant evidence, data and information. In addition, the Commission should be able to request any relevant information from any public authority, body or agency within the Member State, or from any natural person or legal person for the purpose of this Regulation. Those public authorities, bodies or agencies within Member States should have the possibility, on their own initiative, to provide the Commission with relevant information. When complying with a decision of the Commission, undertakings are obliged to answer factual questions and to provide documents.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) In particular, online intermediation services, online search engines, operating systems, online social networking, web browsers, video sharing platform services, number- independent interpersonal communication services, cloud computing services and online advertising services all have the capacity to affect a large number of end users and businesses alike, which entails a risk of unfair business practices. They therefore should be included in the definition of core platform services and fall into the scope of this Regulation. Online intermediation services should be considered irrespective of the technology used to provide such services. In this sense, virtual or voice activated assistants and other connected devices fall within the scope of this Regulation whether their software is considered an operating system, an online intermediation service or a search engine. Online intermediation services may also be active in the field of financial services, and they may intermediate or be used to provide such services as listed non-exhaustively in Annex II to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council32 . In certain circumstances, the notion of end users should encompass users that are traditionally considered business users, but in a given situation do not use the core platform services to provide goods or services to other end users, such as for example businesses relying on cloud computing services for their own purposes. _________________ 32Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5

5. Member States shall not impose on gatekeepers further obligations by way of laws, regulations or administrative action for the purpose of ensuring contestable and fair markets. This is without prejudice to rules pursuing other legitimate public interests, in compliance with Union law. In particular, nothing in this Regulation precludes Member States from imposing obligations, which are compatible with Union law, on undertakings, including providers of core platform services where these obligations are unrelated to the relevant undertakings having a status of gatekeeper within the meaning of this Regulation in order to protect consumers or to fight against acts of unfair competition and unfair trading practices in business- to-business relationships.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 6

6. This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. It is also without prejudice to the application of: national rules prohibiting anticompetitive agreements, decisions by associations of undertakings, concerted practices and abuses of dominant positions; national competition rules prohibiting other forms of unilateral conduct insofar as they are applied to undertakings other than gatekeepers or amount to imposing additional obligations on gatekeepers; Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200438 and national rules concerning merger control; Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 ~~and~~, Regulation (EU) …./.. of the European Parliament and of the Council39 ~~. __________________~~, Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Directive 2010/13/EU on the provision of audiovisual media services 1a. __________________ 1a OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1 38Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1). 39Regulation (EU) …/.. of the European Parliament and of the Council – proposal on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c a (new)

(ca) web browsers;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g a (new)

(ga) Payment aggregation services;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h

(h) advertising services, including any advertising networks, advertising exchanges and any other advertising intermediation services, provided by a provider where the undertaking to which it belongs to is also a provider of any of the core platform services listed in points (a) to (g);

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

(3a) ‘Virtual assistant’ means software that responds to oral or written commands expressed in a non-technical language by end-users and perform tasks or services by itself or mediates with IT systems if needed and on behalf of the end user;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new)

(7a) ‘Web browser’ means independent or embedded software applications to access and interact with information hosted on web servers and networks such as the internet;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25

(25) Such an assessment can only be done in light of a market investigation, while taking into account the quantitative thresholds. In its assessment the Commission should pursue the objectives of preserving and fostering the level of innovation, the quality of digital products and services, the degree to which prices are fair and competitive, and the degree to which quality or choice for business users and for end users is or remains high. Elements that are specific to the providers of core platform services concerned, such as extreme scale economies, very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multi-sidedness of these services, lock-in effects, a lack of multi- homing or vertical integration, can be taken into account. The potential negative and positive impacts of these elements for business users, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, and consumers should be taken into consideration. In addition, a very high market capitalisation, a very high ratio of equity value over profit or a very high turnover derived from end users of a single core platform service can point to the tipping of the market or leveraging potential of such providers. Together with market capitalisation, high growth rates, or decelerating growth rates read together with profitability growth, are examples of dynamic parameters that are particularly relevant to identifying such providers of core platform services that are foreseen to become entrenched. The Commission should be able to take a decision by drawing adverse inferences from facts available where the provider significantly obstructs the investigation by failing to comply with the investigative measures taken by the Commission.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new)

(11a) ‘Payment aggregation services’ means technical services as defined in Article 3(j) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which enable any business activity set out in annex I of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council within the framework of contracts between payment aggregation services providers and third- party providers.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 a (new)

(17a) ‘Competitor to the gatekeeper’s core platform service’ means any natural or legal person acting in a commercial or professional capacity providing a core platform service in the same category as the one of the gatekeeper;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Sandro GOZI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18

(18) ‘Ranking’ means the relative prominence given to goods or services offered through online intermediation services including software application stores and virtual assistants or online social networking services, or the relevance given to search results by online search engines, as presented, organised or communicated by the providers of online intermediation services including software application stores and virtual assistants or of online social networking services or by providers of online search engines, respectively, whatever the technological means used for such presentation, organisation or communication;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

(31) To ensure the effectiveness of the review of gatekeeper status as well as the possibility to adjust the list of core platform services provided by a gatekeeper, the gatekeepers should inform the Commission of all of their intended and concluded acquisitions ~~of other providers of core platform services or any o~~prior to their ~~services provided within the digital sector~~implementation. Such information should not only serve the review process mentioned above, regarding the status of individual gatekeepers, but will also provide information that is crucial to monitoring broader contestability trends in the markets where gatekeepers operate, in particular in the digital sector and can therefore be a useful factor for consideration in the context of the market investigations foreseen by this Regulation. and under EU Merger control Regulation

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Sandro GOZI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 a (new)

(23a) ‘National competent authority’ means any national authority that has been designated by a Member State as such within the meaning and for the purpose of this Regulation, notably in respect of Article 17;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33

(33) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are limited to what is necessary and justified to address the unfairness of the identified practices by gatekeepers and to ensure contestability in relation to core platform services provided by gatekeepers. Therefore, the obligations should correspond to those practices that are considered unfair by taking into account the features of the digital sector and where experience gained, for example in the enforcement of the EU competition rules, shows that they have a particularly negative direct impact on the business users and end users. The obligations laid down in the Regulation should specifically take into account the nature of the core platform services provided and the presence of different business models. In addition, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a regulatory dialogue with gatekeepers to tailor those obligations that are likely to require specific implementing measures in order to ensure their effectiveness and proportionality. The obligations should only be updated after a thorough investigation on the nature and impact of specific practices that may be newly identified, following an in-depth investigation, as unfair or limiting contestability in the same manner as the unfair practices laid down in this Regulation while potentially escaping the scope of the current set of obligations.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35

(35) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are necessary to address identified public policy concerns, there being no alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result, having regard to the need to safeguard public order, protect privacy and fight fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36

(36) The conduct of combining end user data from different sources or signing in users to different services of gatekeepers gives them potential advantages in terms of accumulation of data, thereby raising barriers to entry. To ensure that gatekeepers do not unfairly undermine the contestability of core platform services, they should enable their end users to freely choose to opt-in to such business practices by offering a less personalised ~~alternative~~but equivalent alternative . The less personalized alternative should not be different or of degraded quality compared to the service offered to the end users who provide consent to the combining of their personal data. The possibility should cover all possible sources of personal data, including own services of the gatekeeper as well as third party websites, and should be proactively presented to the end user in an explicit, clear and straightforward manner. Consent should be given in a clear, informed and specific way by the end user who should be informed that a refusal may lead to a less personalized offer but the quality and functionnalities of the core platform service will remain unchanged.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the ~~near~~ future.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. Where a provider of core platform services meets all the thresholds in paragraph 2, it shall notify the Commission thereof within ~~thre~~one months after those thresholds are satisfied and provide it with the relevant information identified in paragraph 2.. That notification shall include the relevant information relating to the quantitative thresholds identified in paragraph 2 for each of the core platform services of the provider that meets the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b). The notification shall be updated whenever other core platform services individually meet the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b).

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Sandro GOZI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Where the gatekeeper presents such sufficiently substantiated arguments to demonstrate that it does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1, the Commission shall apply paragraph 6 to assess whether the criteria in paragraph 1 are met.deleted

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37

(37) Because of their position, gatekeepers might in certain cases restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer their goods or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services, their own interface or direct channel. Such restrictions have a significant deterrent effect on the business users of gatekeepers in terms of their use of alternative online intermediation services, limiting inter-platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative distributive channels including alternative online intermediation channels for end users. To ensure that business users of online intermediation services of gatekeepers can freely choose alternative online intermediation services and differentiate the conditions under which they offer their products or services to their end users, it should not be accepted that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price. Such a restriction should apply to any measure with equivalent effect, such as for example increased commission rates or, de-listing or less favourable ranking of the offers of business users.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point d a (new)

(da) the ability of the undertaking to implement conglomerate strategies, in particular through its vertical integration or its significant leverage in related markets;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point f

(f) other structural market characteristics such as the degree of multi- homing among business and end-users of the core platform services provided.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3

Where the provider of a core platform service that satisfies the quantitative thresholds of paragraph 2 fails to comply with the investigative measures ordered by the Commission pursuant to Chapter V of this Regulation in a significant manner and the failure persists after the provider has been invited to comply within a reasonable time-limit and to submit observations, the Commission shall be entitled to designate that provider as a gatekeeper.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 4

Where the provider of a core platform service that does not satisfy the quantitative thresholds of paragraph 2 fails to comply with the investigative measures ordered by the Commission pursuant to Chapter V of this Regulation in a significant manner and the failure persists after the provider has been invited to comply within a reasonable time-limit and to submit observations, the Commission shall be entitled to designate that provider as a gatekeeper based on facts available.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38

(38) To prevent further reinforcing their dependence on the core platform services of gatekeepers, the business users of these gatekeepers should be free in promoting and choosing the distribution channel they consider most appropriate to interact with any end users that these business users have already acquired through core platform services provided by the gatekeeper. Conversely, end users should also be free to choose offers of such business users and to enter into contracts with them either through core platform services of the gatekeeper, if applicable, or from a direct distribution channel of the business user or another indirect distribution channel such a business user may use. This should apply to the promotion of offers, any communications and conclusion of contracts between business users and end users. Moreover, the ability of end users to freely acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted. In particular, it should be avoided that gatekeepers restrict end users from access to and use of such services via a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application download or purchased from a software application store should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the gatekeeper’s core platform service simply because it was purchased outside such software application or software application store.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) there is new relevant information that was not examined before the adoption of the decision;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission shall publish and update the list of gatekeepers and the list of the core platform services for which they need to comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 on an on-going basis and send it to the European Parliament.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Sandro GOZI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) refrain from combining personal data sourced from these core platform services with personal data from any other services offered by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services, and from signing in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data, unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and provided consent in the sense of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In the event that the end user has been presented with the specific choice and has not provided consent, or has withdrawn consent, the gatekeeper shall refrain from offering different or degraded services compared to the services offered to an end user that provided consent, unless such consent is indispensable to ensure the same quality of service;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39 a (new)

(39 a) The national competition authorities should gather complaints from third parties on unfair behaviours by gatekeepers that fall within the scope of this Regulation and report relevant cases to the Commission. Based on clearly defined conditions and investigation priorities, the Commission should then examine the complaints and act accordingly by, for example, opening a formal market investigation.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40

(40) Identification and ancillary services are crucial for the economic development of business users to conduct their business, as these can allow them not only to optimise services, to the extent allowed under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council~~33 ,~~ [1],but also to inject trust in online transactions, in compliance with Union or national law. Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position as provider of core platform services to require their dependent business users to include any ancillary and identification services provided by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by these business users to their end users, where other identification services are available to such business users. _________________ 33Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37).

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users ~~through third party online int~~by any other me~~diation service~~ans at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) refrain from requiring business users to inform the gatekeeper of the differentiated prices or conditions they choose to apply on their own channel of distribution or through any other means;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users or receive payments for services provided regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Sandro GOZI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) refrain from preventing or restricting business users and end-users from raising issues with any relevant public authority relating to any practice of gatekeepers including through the reporting mechanism for business users and end-users pursuant to Article 21a;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42

(42) The conditions under which gatekeepers provide online advertising services to business users including both advertisers and publishers are often non- transparent and opaque. This opacity is partly linked to the practices of a few platforms, but is also due to the sheer complexity of modern day programmatic advertising. The sector is considered to have become more non-transparent after the introduction of new privacy legislation, and is expected to become even more opaque with the announced removal of third-party cookies. This often leads to a lack of information and knowledge for advertisers and publishers about the conditions of the advertising services they purchased and undermines their ability to switch to alternative providers of online advertising services. Furthermore, the costs of online advertising are likely to be higher than they would be in a fairer, more transparent and contestable platform environment. These higher costs are likely to be reflected in the prices that end users pay for many daily products and services relying on the use of online advertising. Transparency obligations should therefore require gatekeepers to provide advertisers and publishers to whom they supply online advertising services, when requested and to the extent possible, with easily, accessible and real-time information that allows both sides to understand the price paid for each of the different advertising services provided as part of the relevant advertising value chain.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) refrain from requiring business users to use, offer or interoperate with an ~~identification service~~y ancillary service as defined in points (14) and (15) of Article 2 of the gatekeeper in the context of services offered by the business users using the core platform services of that gatekeeper;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) refrain from requiring business users or end users to subscribe to or register with any other core platform services ~~identi~~as defined ~~pursuant to~~in Article 32 or ~~which meets the thresholds in Article 3(2)(b)~~any ancillary services provided by the gatekeeper as a condition to use, access, sign up or register to any of their core platform services identified pursuant to that Article;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g

(g) provide advertisers and publishers, or third parties authorised by advertisers and publishers, to which it supplies advertising services, upon their request~~, with~~ and free of charge, with continuous, detailed, comprehensive, real-time and easy to access information concerning the price paid by the advertiser and publisher, as well as the amount or remuneration paid to the publisher, for the publishing of a given ad and for each of the relevant advertising services provided by the gatekeeper. , including aggregated data and performance data in a manner that would allow advertisers and publishers to run their own verification and measurement tools to assess performance of the core services provided for by the gatekeepers;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Sandro GOZI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)

(ga) refrain from imposing on business users or end users software applications or services, which are used in the context of or together with core platform services, or contractual licensing agreements, which would limit end users' ability or economic incentive to use third party software applications or service and/or give preferential treatment to the gatekeeper’s own products or services;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46 a (new)

(46 a) Securing default positions across the main search access points of an operating system, such as the pre-installed browser, the home screen bar widget, or the voice assistant, can entrench the dominant position of an established core platform service and prevent contestability on digital markets. Even where users can change the default manually, they rarely do so, due to behavioral bias. In order to ensure contestability, end users should be able to select their preferred core platform service default through a preference menu when they set up their device. End users should be able to access such preference menu after the device is set up. A gatekeeper may not offer compensation or benefits to hardware manufacturers or network operators, or otherwise require them to offer its core platform service pre- installed or set as a default as these practices prohibit third-party business users to bid for pre-installation or for a default position.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) refrain from using, in competition with business users, any data not publicly available, which is generated through or in connection with activities by those business users, including by the end users of these business users, of its core platform services or of its ancillary services or which is provided by those business users of its core platform services or its ancillary services or by the end users of these business users;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) refrain from exclusively enabling its own core platform services as default services when equivalent alternative services which perform the same function can be proposed in non-discriminatory manner;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) allow and technically enable the installation and effective use and interoperability of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow and enable these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper , provided that such proportionate measures are duly justified;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48 a (new)

(48 a) Gatekeepers can offer software applications or services which may be used on, or in conjunction with, a core platform service, such as operating systems or cloud computing services, offered by the same gatekeeper. If, in such circumstances, the gatekeeper prevents end users being able to use their software applications or services on, or in conjunction with, products or services of alternative providers under equal conditions as with the products or services of the gatekeeper, this could significantly undermine choice for end users and innovation by alternative providers. It should therefore be ensured that gatekeepers do not restrict to their advantage and to the detriment of alternative providers, end users and business users in choosing the products or services of alternative providers which they use in conjunction with the core platform service offered by the gatekeeper.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) refrain from treating differently or more favourably in ranking, display, installation, activation, or default settings, services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself or by any third party belonging to the same undertaking compared to similar services or products of third party and apply fair and non- discriminatory conditions to such ranking, display, installation, activation and default settings;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) refrain from technically restricting the ability of end users to switch between and subscribe to different software applications and services to be accessed using the operating system or the cloud computing services of the gatekeeper, including as regards the choice of Internet access provider for end users or using its virtual assistant;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) allow business users, end users and providers of ancillary services access to and interoperability with the same operating system, hardware or software features, including near-field communication antennas or technology related to these antennas, that are available or used in the provision by the gatekeeper of any ancillary services or industry-standard features of its core platform services; in such cases, access and interoperability conditions shall be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g

(g) provide advertisers and publishers, ~~upon their request and free of charge, with~~or third parties authorised by advertisers and publishers, upon their request and free of charge, with continuous, detailed, comprehensive, accessible and real-time access information access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and the information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent verification of the ad inventory, including aggregated data and performance data in a manner that would allow advertisers and publishers to run their own verification and measurement tools to assess performance of the core services provided for by the gatekeepers;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h

(h) provide effective portability of data provided for or generated through or in the context of the activity of a business user or end user and shall, in particular, provide ~~tools f~~free of charge and technically accessible tools for business users, or third parties authorised by business users or end users to facilitate the exercise of data portability, in line with Regulation EU 2016/679, including by the provision of continuous and real-time access;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i

(i) provide business users, or third parties authorised by a business user, free of charge, with effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time access and use of aggregated or non-aggregated data, that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant core platform services or of ancillary services offered by the gatekeeper by those business users and the end users engaging with the products or services provided by those business users; for personal data, provide access and use only where directly connected with the use effectuated by the end user in respect of the products or services offered by the relevant business user through the relevant core platform service, and when the end user opts in to such sharing with a consent in the sense of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k

(k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its ~~software application store~~or of ancillary services offered by the gatekeeper software application store, cloud computing services, online search engines and online social networking services designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)

(ka) provide its business users and end users with clear, fair and non- discriminatory licensing conditions, including in terms of charges and fees, preventing material changes limiting the use of software applications or services in conjunction with a core platform service, and safeguarding the reasonably expected use of the software application or service, including after its transfer to another end user, where applicable.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Before implementing any change to fees or fee structures charged to business users and which follow from the gatekeeper’s obligations pursuant to paragraph 1, the gatekeeper shall notify the Commission and the affected business users at least one month in advance of such changes;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Within six months after its designation pursuant to paragraph 8 of Article 3, the gatekeeper shall provide the Commission with detailed information on the measures to be taken in order to ensure compliance with its obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6. This information shall be provided in the form of a report and shall be updated on an annual basis, whereby a summary of this report shall be published on the Commission’s website without undue delay.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Where the Commission finds that the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement pursuant to paragraph 1, or has implemented, do not ensure effective compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in Article 6, it may by decision specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned shall implement in order to comply with the obligations laid down in Article 6. In view of adopting the decision, the Commission shall take into account the information provided by all relevant stakeholders, such as interested third parties, governments or national authorities. The Commission shall adopt such a decision within six months from the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Sandro GOZI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4

4. In view of adopting the decision under paragraph 2, the Commission shall communicate its preliminary findings within three months from the opening of the proceedings. In the preliminary findings, the Commission shall explain the measures it considers to take or it considers that the provider of core platform services concerned should take in order to effectively address the preliminary findings. Legitimate third parties with direct implication shall be able to provide comments to the national competent authorities with regard to the preliminary findings. Member States shall define the rules to exercise such consultation procedure.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57

(57) ICore platform services provided by gatekeepers, and in particular gatekeepers which provide access to software application stores, serve as an important gateway for business users that seek to reach end users. In view of the imbalance in bargaining power between those gatekeepers and business users of their ~~software application stor~~core platform services, those gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, data usage conditions or conditions related to the licensing of rights held by the business user that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation. Pricing or other general access or treatment conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of ~~software application stores~~the relevant core platform service; prices charged or conditions imposed by the ~~provider of the software application store~~gatekeeper for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the ~~provider of the software application store~~gatekeeper for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper offers to itself. This obligation should not establish an access right and it should be without prejudice to the ability of providers of ~~software application stor~~core platform services to take the required responsibility in the fight against illegal and unwanted content as set out in Regulation [Digital Services Act].

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7

7. A gatekeeper may request the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18 for the Commission to determine whether the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement or has implemented under Article 6 are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances. A gatekeeper ~~may~~shall, with its request, provide a reasoned submission to explain in particular why the measures that it intends to implement or has implemented are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

In assessing the request, the Commission shall take into account, in particular, the impact of the compliance with the specific obligation on the grounds in paragraph 2 as well as the effects on the gatekeeper concerned and on third parties. The suspension may be made subject to conditions and obligations to be defined by the Commission in order to ensure a fair balance between the goals pursued by the grounds in paragraph 2 and the objectives of this Regulation. Such a request may be made and granted at any time pending the assessment of the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1. The Commission shall review any exemption decision adopted according to paragraph 1 on an annual basis and may amend its decision in accordance with its findings.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 347 to update the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 where, based on a market investigation pursuant to Article 17, it has identified the need for new obligations addressing practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Sandro GOZI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. A gatekeeper shall inform the Commission of any intended concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ~~involving another provider of core platform services or of any other services provided in the digital sector~~ irrespective of whether it is notifiable to a Union competition authority under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 or to a competent national competition authority under national merger rules.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59 a (new)

(59 a) Within the implementation timeframe of their obligations, designated gatekeepers should inform the Commission about the measures implemented to achieve effectiveness. Such information should be made available to concerned third parties of undertakings regarding the protection of their business secrets.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

A gatekeeper shall inform the Commission of such a concentration within at least 2 months prior to its implementation and following the conclusion of the agreement, the announcement of the public bid, or the acquisition of a controlling interest. The Commission shall make this information available to relevant national authorities.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2

2. The notification of information pursuant to paragraph 1 shall at least describe for the acquisition targets their EEA and worldwide annual turnover, for any relevant core platform services their respective EEA annual turnover, their number of yearly active business users and the number of monthly active end users, as well as the rationale of the intended concentration.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. The Commission shall inform the competent national authorities of any information received pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2. With due respect to the protection of trade secrets, the Commission shall publish annually the list of acquisitions of which it has been informed by gatekeepers which have fallen below the notification thresholds of Council Regulation No 139/2004.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1

Within six months after its designation pursuant to Article 3, a gatekeeper shall submit to the Commission an independently audited description of any techniques for profiling of consumers that the gatekeeper applies to or across its core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3. ~~This description~~Without prejudice to trade secrets protection, the gatekeeper shall make an overview of the audited description of applied profiling techniques of consumers publicly available. This description and its publicly available overview shall be updated at least annually.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62

(62) In order to ensure the full and lasting achievement of the objectives of this Regulation, the Commission should be able to assess whether a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper without meeting the quantitative thresholds laid down in this Regulation; whether systematic non- compliance by a gatekeeper warrants imposing additional remedies; and whether the list of obligations addressing unfair practices by gatekeepers should be reviewed and additional practices that are similarly unfair and limiting the contestability of digital markets should be identified; and whether the prior designation of gatekeepers or introduction of obligations has had a significant impact on business users, especially on small and medium-sized enterprises, or consumers. Such assessment should be based on market investigations to be run in an appropriate timeframe, by using clear procedures and deadlines, in order to support the ex ante effect of this Regulation on contestability and fairness in the digital sector, and to provide the requisite degree of legal certainty.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)

(ba) a significant number of unfair practices alerts have been raised by national authorities pursuant the reporting mechanism or other relevant stakeholders.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63

(63) Following a market investigation, an undertaking providing a core platform service could be found to fulfil all of the overarching qualitative criteria for being identified as a gatekeeper. It should then, in principle, comply with all of the relevant obligations laid down by this Regulation which are appropriate and necessary to guarantee contestability. However, for gatekeepers that have been designated by the Commission as likely to enjoy an entrenched and durable position in the near future, the Commission should only impose those obligations that are necessary and appropriate to prevent that the gatekeeper concerned achieves an entrenched and durable position in its operations. With respect to such emerging gatekeepers, the Commission should take into account that this status is in principle of a temporary nature, and it should therefore be decided at a given moment whether such a provider of core platform services should be subjected to the full set of gatekeeper obligations because it has acquired an entrenched and durable position, or conditions for designation are ultimately not met and therefore all previously imposed obligations should be waived.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new)

(bb) there is new relevant information that was not examined before the adoption of the decision;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission and national competition authorities may conduct a market investigation for the purpose of examining whether a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3(6), or in order to identify core platform services for a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3(7) and Article 3 (8). It shall ~~endeavour to~~ conclude its investigation by adopting a decision in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) within twelve months from the opening of the market investigation.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64

(64) The Commission should investigate and assess whether additional behavioural, or~~, where appropriate,~~ structural remedies are justified, in order to ensure that the gatekeeper cannot frustrate the objectives of this Regulation by systematic non- compliance with one or several of the obligations laid down in this Regulation, which has further strengthened its gatekeeper position. This would be the case if the gatekeeper’s size in the internal market has further increased, economic dependency of business users and end users on the gatekeeper’s core platform services has further strengthened as their number has further increased and the gatekeeper benefits from increased entrenchment of its position. The Commission should therefore in such cases have the power to impose any remedy, whether behavioural or structural, having due regard to the principle of proportionality. Structural remedies, such as legal, functional or structural separation, including the divestiture of a business, or parts of it, should only be imposed either where there is no equally effective behavioural remedy or where any equally effective behavioural remedy would be more burdensome for the undertaking concerned than the structural remedy. Changes to the structure of an undertaking as it existed before the systematic non- compliance was established would only be proportionate where there is a substantial risk that this systematic non- compliance results from the very structure of the undertaking concerned. The Commission should be able to impose interim measures at any time during proceedings to prevent serious or immediate damages for business users or end users.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3

3. Where the provider of core platform services satisfies the thresholds set out in Article 3(2), but has presented significantly substantiated arguments in accordance with Article 3(4), the Commission shall endeavour to conclude the market investigation within five months from the opening of the market investigation by a decision pursuant to paragraph 1. In that case the Commission shall ~~endeavour to~~ communicate its preliminary findings pursuant to paragraph 2 to the provider of core platform services within three months from the opening of the investigation.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4

4. When the Commission pursuant to Article 3(6) designates as a gatekeeper a provider of core platform services that does not yet enjoy an entrenched and durable position in its operations, but it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position ~~in the near future~~, it shall declare applicable to that gatekeeper ~~only~~specific obligations laid down in Article 5~~(b)~~ and Article 6~~(1) points (e), (f), (h) and (i)~~ as specified in the designation decision. The Commission shall only declare applicable those obligations that are appropriate and necessary to prevent that the gatekeeper concerned achieves by unfair means an entrenched and durable position in its operations. The Commission shall review such a designation in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65 a (new)

(65 a) Interim measures can be an important tool to ensure that, while an investigation is ongoing, the infringement being investigated does not lead to serious and immediate damage for business users or end users of gatekeepers. In case of urgency, where a risk of serious and immediate damage for business users or end-users of gatekeepers could result from new practices that may undermine contestability of core platform services, the Commission should be empowered to impose interim measures by temporarily imposing obligations to the gatekeeper concerned. These interim measures should be limited to what is necessary and justified. They should apply pending the conclusion of the market investigation and the corresponding final decision of the Commission pursuant to Article 17.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1

1. Where the market investigation shows that a gatekeeper has systematically infringed ~~the~~any obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 ~~and has further strengthened or extended its gatekeeper position in relation to the characteristics under Article 3(1)~~, the Commission may by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) impose on such gatekeeper any behavioural or structural remedies which are proportionate to the infringement committed and necessary to ensure compliance with this Regulation. The Commission shall, where appropriate, be entitled to require the remedies to be tested to optimise their effectiveness. The Commission shall conclude its investigation by adopting a decision within twelve months from the opening of the market investigation.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3

3. A gatekeeper shall be deemed to have engaged in a systematic non- compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6, where the Commission has issued at least t~~hree~~wo non-compliance or fining decisions pursuant to Articles 25 and 26 respectively against a gatekeeper in relation to any of its core platform services within a period of five years prior to the adoption of the decision opening a market investigation in view of the possible adoption of a decision pursuant to this Article.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1

The Commission and competent national authorities may conduct a market investigation with the purpose of examining whether one or more services within the digital sector should be added to the list of core platform services or to detect types of practices that may limit the contestability of core platform services or may be unfair and which are not effectively addressed by this Regulation. It shall issue a public report at the latest within 24 months from the opening of the market investigation.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67 a (new)

(67 a) The Commission shall, where appropriate, be entitled to require the commitments to be tested, for example, by using split-run tests and other randomised experiments, in order to optimise their effectiveness. The commitments should be reviewed after they have been in place for an appropriate period. Where the review of the commitments by the Commission shows that they have not led to effective compliance, the Commission should be entitled to require amendment or revocation thereof.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4

4. Where the Commission requires undertakings and associations of undertakings to supply information by decision, it shall state the purpose of the request, specify what information is required and fix the time-limit within which it is to be provided. Where the Commission requires undertakings to provide access to its data-bases and algorithms, it shall state the legal basis and the purpose of the request, and fix the time- limit within which it is to be provided. ItThe decision shall also indicate the penalties provided for in Article 26 and indicate or impose the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 27. It shall further indicate the right to have the decision reviewed by the Court of Justice.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 6

6. At the request of the Commission~~, the governments and authorities~~ or on their own initiative, relevant public authorities, bodies or agencies within of the Member States shall provide the Commission with all the necessary information to carry out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1

The Commission, and competent national authorities, may interview any natural or legal person which consents to being interviewed for the purpose of collecting information, relating to the subject-matter of an investigation, pursuant to Articles 7, 16, 17, 25 and 26, including in relation to the monitoring, implementing and enforcing of the rules laid down in this Regulation.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72

(72) The Commission should be able to take the necessary actions to monitor the effective implementation and compliance with the obligations laid down in this Regulation. Such actions should include the ability of the Commission to appoint independent external experts, such as ~~and~~ auditors to assist the Commission in this process, including where applicable from competent independent authorities, such as data or consumer protection authorities.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2

2. On-site inspections may also be carried out with the assistance of auditors or experts appointed by the Commission pursuant to Article 24(2) as well as competent national authorities in the territory of that Member State, where the gatekeeper has its premises.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 a (new)

Article 21a Reporting mechanism for business users, end-users and relevant stakeholders 1. Business users, competitors and end- users of the core platform services as defined in Article 2(2) may notify to the Commission as well as to the competent national authority any malpractice or behaviour by gatekeepers, which could possibly undermine the contestability of a core platform service, may be unfair pursuant to Article 10 (2) , or give rise to concerns with regard to non-compliance pursuant to Article 25. 2. The Commission shall share the information received pursuant to paragraph 1 with the competent national authorities through the European Competition Network. 3. The Commission may be able to prioritise investigations and may decide to not undertake investigations at all. 4. Without prejudice to Article 33, the competent national authority may request the Digital Markets Advisory Committee to adopt a reasoned opinion in this regard within one month after having received the request. 5. If the reasoned opinion states that the circumstances would justify an enforcement priority, the Commission shall within a further delay of four months examine whether there are reasonable grounds to open such investigation. Where the Commission does not follow the reasoned opinion of the Advisory Committee, it shall give its reasons.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1

1. In case of urgency due to the risk of serious and i~~rreparabl~~mmediate damage for business users or end users of gatekeepers, the Commission may, by decision adopt in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), order interim measures against a gatekeeper on the basis of a prima facie finding of an infringement of Articles 5 or 6.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. In case of urgency due to the risk of serious and immediate damage for business users or end-users of gatekeepers, resulting from new practices implemented by one or several gatekeepers that may undermine contestability of core platform services or may be unfair pursuant to Article 10 (2), the Commission may, by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), order interim measures on the concerned gatekeepers in order to avoid the materialization of the said risk.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. A decision pursuant to paragraph 3 may only be adopted in the context of a market investigation pursuant to Article 17 and within 6 months of the opening of such an investigation. The interim measures shall apply for a specified period of time and, in any case, shall be replaced by the new obligations that may arise under the final decision resulting from the market investigation pursuant to Article 17.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1

1. If during proceedings under Articles 16 or 25 the gatekeeper concerned offers commitments for the relevant core platform services to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6, the Commission may by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) make those commitments binding on that gatekeeper and declare that there are no further grounds for action. The Commission shall, where appropriate, be entitled to require the commitments to be tested to optimise their effectiveness.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75

(75) In the context of proceedings carried out under this Regulation, the undertakings concerned should be accorded the right to be heard by the Commission and the decisions taken should be widely publicised. While ensuring the rights to good administration and the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned, in particular, the right of access to the file and the right to be heard, it is essential that confidential ~~information~~and sensitive commercial information, which could affect the privacy of trade secrets, be protected. Furthermore, while respecting the confidentiality of the information, the Commission should ensure that any information relied on for the purpose of the decision is disclosed to an extent that allows the addressee of the decision to understand the facts and considerations that led up to the decision. Finally, under certain conditions certain business records, such as communication between lawyers and their clients, may be considered confidential if the relevant conditions are met.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. The Commission shall regularly review the commitments with regard to their purpose and where, following investigation, it finds that they are not effective, shall be entitled to require amendments to the commitments or revoke them where appropriate;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

(ca) there is new relevant information that was not examined before the adoption of the decision;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2

2. The actions pursuant to paragraph 1 may include the appointment of independent external experts and auditors to assist the Commission, including ones from competent national authorities, to monitor the obligations and measures and to provide specific expertise or knowledge to the Commission.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78

(78) The Commission should periodically evaluate this Regulation and closely monitor its effects on the contestability and fairness of commercial relationships in the online platform economy, in particular with a view to determining the need for amendments in light of relevant technological or commercial developments. This evaluation should include the regular review of the list of core platform services and the obligations addressed to gatekeepers as well as enforcement of these, in view of ensuring that digital markets across the Union are contestable and fair. In order to obtain a broad view of developments in the sector, the evaluation should take into account the experiences of Member States and relevant stakeholders. The Commission may in this regard also consider the opinions and reports presented to it by the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy that was first established by Commission Decision C(2018)2393 of 26 April 2018, by Eurostat, and by the national statistics offices of the countries where the service providers operate. Following the evaluation, the Commission should take appropriate measures. The Commission should to maintain a high level of protection and respect for the common EU rights and values, particularly equality and non-discrimination, as an objective when conducting the assessments and reviews of the practices and obligations provided in this Regulation.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2

2. Before adopting the decision pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall communicate its preliminary findings to the gatekeeper concerned. In the preliminary findings, the Commission shall explain the measures it considers to take or it considers that the gatekeeper should take in order to effectively address the preliminary findings. The Commission shall take into account the views of relevant third parties such as end-users or business users before adopting a decision.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)

(ea) the obligation to provide within the time-limit information that is required for assessing their designation as gatekeepers pursuant to Article 3(2) or supply incorrect, or misleading information;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. The Commission may by decision impose on undertakings and associations of undertakings fines not exceeding 1% of the total turnover of the undertakings or association of undertakings concerned in the preceding financial year where they intentionally or negligently:

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1

1. The powers conferred on the Commission by Articles 26 and 27 shall be subject to a ~~thre~~five year limitation period.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 a (new)

(79 a) The Commission shall apply the provisions of this Regulation in close cooperation with the competent national competition authorities, acting within the framework of the European Competition Network, to ensure effective enforceability as well as coherent implementation of this Regulation and to facilitate the cooperation with national authorities.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. If the Commission considers it necessary, it may also hear other natural or legal persons before taking the decision as provided in paragraph 1.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 b (new)

(79 b) Without prejudice to the budgetary procedure and through existing financial instruments, adequate human, financial and technical resources should be allocated to the Commission to ensure that it can effectively perform its duties and exercise its powers as necessary for the enforcement of this Regulation.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 a (new)

Article 31a Commission cooperation with competent national authorities 1. The Commission may be assisted by the competent national authorities, designated for this purpose by the Member States, with regard to human, financial and organisational resources. 2. The Commission may, in particular, develop a close cooperation with national competent authorities with regard to the enforcement of this Regulation. Competent national authorities shall, at the request of the Commission, be entitled to exercise the powers of Articles 12, 15, 16 and 17. 3. Where requested by the Commission to assist in any investigation pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, the competent national authorities shall have the power to enforce the obligations deriving from Articles 19, 20, 21 and 24. 4. Competent national authorities shall also be empowered to receive complaints and information on possible cases of non- compliance by gatekeepers from end users and business users in their territory for transmission to the Commission.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1

1. When three or more Member States request the Commission to open an investigation pursuant to Articles 15, 16 and 17 or to institute proceedings in respect of possible non-compliance pursuant to Article 25 because they consider that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper, that new services or practices should be included within the scope of this Regulation or that a gatekeeper is not complying with its obligations, the Commission shall within four months examine whether there are reasonable grounds to open such an investigation.

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. The Commission may adopt implementing acts concerning: Articles 3, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25 and 30 with respect to:

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the form, content and other details of the technical measures that gatekeepers shall implement in order to ensure compliance with ~~points (h), (i) and (j) of~~ Article 6(1).

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) related to electronic communications services as defined in point (4) of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 other than those related to number-independent interpersonal communication services as defined in point (~~4)(b~~7) of Article 2 of that Directive.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) the form, content and other details of the regulatory reports delivered pursuant to Article 7.1 a;

2021/06/30
Committee: JURI

2020/0374(COD)

Andrus ANSIP, Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. This Regulation shall not apply to the data that is used to maintain or improve security of online transactions and prevent fraud.

2021/07/09
Committee: IMCO

2020/0374(COD)