Activities of Carmen AVRAM related to 2019/2131(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on competition policy – annual report 2019
Amendments (92)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
- having regard to the Preliminary Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 26 March 2014 on ‘Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data: The interplay between data protection, competition law and consumer protection in the Digital Economy’ and the Opinion 8/2016 of the European Data Protection Opinion of 23 September 2016 on ‘Coherent enforcement of fundamental rights in the age of big data’;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 b (new)
Citation 11 b (new)
- having regard to the Statement of the European Data Protection Board of 29 August 2018 on the data protection impacts of economic concentration;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the agricultural production sector is vulnerable due to the imbalance in the food supply chain given by the difference between the economic size of farmers and that of the other players of the chain. Such a disparity in terms of size results into a disparity in terms of market power and should be taken into account whenever competition rules are enforced by the European Commission and by national competition authorities;
Amendment 12 #
A b. whereas the ATMF urges the European Commission to take concrete initiatives to end the confusion that currently reigns about the limits of operability posed by competition rules over the mission of producers organisations (POs), association of producers organisations (APOs),and other forms of cooperation between producers in the agricultural sector;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
A c. whereas in the past mandate the EU adopted legislative proposals regarding the significant prevalence of abusive practices in the retail supply chain and the importance of the major trends towards consolidation in both online and offline retail; whereas these practices and their cascading effects affect all producers, including farmers, regardless of the size; whereas these practices are the focus of EU and national level investigations, and mentioned in the 15 July 2019 EU Commission Annual Competition Policy Report and Staff Working Document;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas competition policy must be tailored to tackle digital, ecological, industrial and social challenges, in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the EU green deal priority;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas in fast-moving digital markets competition policy could in some cases be excessively slow, and therefore at risk of being ineffective, in remedying systemic market failures and reinstate competition, and complementary ex-ante regulation and monitoring could prove beneficial to ensure a more effective oversight;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas European competition authorities should be equally attentive to avoid under-enforcement in digital markets as they are wary of over- enforcement;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the study on producer organisations and their activities in the olive oil, beef and veal, and arable crops sectors, which reaffirms the importance of these organisations and their associations in strengthening the position of primary producers in the food chainsupply chain and in contributing positively to CAP objectives set in article 39 TFEU;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Asks the European Commission to focus on establishing a fair trading environment for all actors, in support of innovation in the EU,value creation choice and quality for consumers and prepare a comprehensive analysis on the need to adapt EU competition policy to the most recent market developments in consumer retail, including concentration and abusive practices;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Draws the Commission’s attention to companies benefitting from favourable treatment in their home market entering European markets, thus distorting competition in those various markets; Calls on the Commission to increase scrutiny of investments by entrants from countries granting advantages not available to European operators to combat unfair practices;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers it essential to clarify the provisions governing producer organisations and their associations and interbranch organisations in Regulation (EU) No 1308/20131 , particularly as regards competition policy, and to consolidate the progress made by Regulation (EU) No 2017/23932 (the ‘Omnibus Regulation’), supplemented by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 November 2017 (‘the Endives Case’)3 , thereby providing greater legal certainty and improving the position of farmers in the food chain; _________________ 1 OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671. 2 OJ L 350, 29.12.2017, p. 15. 3 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November 2017, President de l’Autorité de la concurrence v Association des producteurs vendeurs d’endives (APVE) and Others.
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Welcomes the “Study of the best ways for producers organisations to be formed, carry out their activities and be supported”, which recognizes the critical importance of POs and APOs in creating economical, technical or social benefit for their members, with indirect beneficial effects (competitive yardstick effects) also on farmers that do not adhere, as well as with positive externalities for other operators in the food supply chain.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Considers that an adequate size of a PO is necessary to benefit from economies of scale and therefore welcomes the consolidation between POs;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Calls the European Commission to take concretely into account the primacy of CAP objectives over those of competition policy, as stated by the European Court of Justice, by means of a more flexible, clear and predictable applications of competition rules to producers and producers organisations;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Calls on the European Commission to monitor the Member States legislations on the recognition of POs and APOs, which shall eliminate hurdles for the recognition while aiming at decreasing the danger of opportunities behaviors (without proper economic activities);
Amendment 56 #
3. Calls on the Commission to ensure reciprocity with third countries in public procurement and in investment policy, state aid, data protection and investment policy; all while paying particular attention to those least developed countries, which should not be harmed due to their inability to fulfil the reciprocity requirements;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2 e. Calls on the European Union institutions to provide agri-cooperatives and other types of POs some necessary and clear derogations from competition law, so that they can deliver on improving farmers’ income and their share of the value chain;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
2 f. Calls for the necessity of providing more clarity to POs and APOs with regard to the application of competition rules by issuing appropriate guidelines able to single out specific “safe harbor market shares” under which there are exemptions or derogations from competition rules. In this respect, the guidelines already published by the Commission for the olive oil, arable crops and beef and veal meat sectors should be extended also to other sectors, widened in scope and improved both in clarity and effectiveness;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)
Paragraph 2 g (new)
2 g. Maintains that the European Commission in his capacity of European Union competition rules’ enforcers, as well as national competition authorities, should be more lenient in applying article 101 TFEU to the agreements, practices and coordination conducts carried out by POs, APOs, agricultural cooperatives and consortia between producers, especially with regard to the fundamental objective of achieving concentration of supply inline with Article 39 TFEU;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Acknowledges that consumer welfare is a centre piece of competition law enforcement in the EU and that it is manifested not only on price outputs but also on consumers benefiting from wider choices and product quality in the Single Market; calls on the Commission to continue enforcing competition laws in benefit of consumers by ensuring that intervention is designed to protect the interest of consumers in Europe’s social market economy;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Calls the Commission to strictly safeguard fair competition, level playing field and equal treatment by the dominant platforms operating and making huge profits in the EU 500 million consumers digital single market;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the adoption of the Directive on unfair trade practices4 in the agricultural and food supply chain and calls on the Commission to monitor closely progress on transposition thereof; _________________ 4Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain (OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, p. 59.and adequate implementation thereof;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Welcomes the provisions of Article 6(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/23932 (the 'Omnibus Regulation') aimed at helping Member States to manage double standards issues with regard to agri-food products, for example; calls on the Commission to consider a regulation applicable at European level introducing a register of all products being sold on the European market, thereby giving a unique character to items marketed with the same name and packaging; registration should be completed through self-declaration by the economic operator first introducing the product on the EU market and should, in the case of food, contain the information found on the product label under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011; the measure should also be applied to third-country manufactures being sold on the Single Market; in this way, European consumers will have ongoing rapid access to a database indicating the characteristics of the product they wish to acquire, ensuring that they are in full possession of the facts on deciding to purchase and that competition will not will be affected by trading practices based on double standards;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Considers that the entry onto the European market of products from third countries which do not meet the same social, health, labour and environmental standards creates unfair competition for European producers; calls, therefore, for the protection of vulnerable sectors and the systematic application of the principles of reciprocity and compliance as regards agricultural products in both future and ongoing trade negotiations, including MERCOSUR; calls on the Commission to assess the impact of MERCOSUR trade agreement on all vulnerable EU agricultural sectors;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to ensure the balanced application of State aid control to European operators in order to avoid asymmetries with their foreign competitors, who are not subject to itat state aid control is applied equally to European and non-European operators and to prevent distortion of competition by firms receiving government subsidies abroad;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Highlights that in order to become more effective and to foster innovation, EU competition rules should provide a frame facilitating and encouraging the creation of European Projects;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Stresses that competition policy is about consumer welfare and consumer welfare is about innovation, quality, variety and price. However, competition law enforcement seems to be concentrated towards prices only and unable to deal with the new intermediaries (online and offline platforms) and their dual role and the impact of their practices on innovation, quality and variety; Indeed, other sectors such as the grocery retailing (offline supermarket platforms), in which dominance seems to be absent, have experienced the dual role conflict and similar practices for years in absolute impunity; calls on the Commission to reassess competition policy and to identify the current loopholes;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to adopt a more favourable approach to industrialbusiness cooperation in order to foster the emergence of European leaders that are globally competitive; notes however that clear rules are needed in this regard so that this does not come at the expense of EU citizens’ financial or consumer interests, so that start-ups, newcomers and innovation have a level playing field to enter the market and that this does not trigger any dominant or market abuse position;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Welcomes the publication of the Regulation (EU)2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services and the opening by the European Commission of a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Amazon's use of sensitive data from independent retailers who sell on its marketplace is in breach of EU competition rules; notes that Amazon has a dual role as a platform: (i) it sells products on its website as a retailer; and (ii) it provides a marketplace where independent sellers can sell products directly to consumers; Emphasizes that the example of this supposed dual role abuse sounds familiar to any supplier, including agri-food ones, dealing with European Supermarket platforms but to make matters worse the offline supermarkets control both their own brands' prices and those of third parties; stresses that vertical integration and differentiated (discriminatory) treatment in the offline supermarket world might distort competition in the market;
Amendment 90 #
4 c. Calls on the Commission to devote special attention to this dual role in the offline world (Supermarket platforms) as much as it did in the online world, as with offline supermarkets sovereignty comes the concern that they might be able to undertake actions that serve their own interests and not necessarily those of their customers. In particular, offline supermarkets sovereignty may permit deliberate damage to brand value, restrict product choice, cut corners on their own brands quality, limit price comparability, restrict innovation and allow for the manipulation of prices to distort category price architectures in their favour; stresses that the Commission and Competition Authorities have a crucial role to play in ensuring that such situations do not arise; takes note that the existence of a risk threshold or tipping point above which offline supermarkets own brands market shares in a product category might turn their nowadays positive effects into negative effects for the competitiveness of the EU agro-food Industrial system, for consumers and for the entire society as a whole has been constantly highlighted by economists in recent years;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Believes that to strengthen EU digital markets further cooperation and standardization with regard to data sharing should be enabled to ensure that full potential or the data economy in Europe;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls forWelcomes the Commission launch of a review of the definition of the relevant market in the Commission’s merger and antitrust enforcement (Market Definition Notice), so as to move towards a longer- term vision encompassing the global dimension, digital markets and potential future competition; highlights the need for particular attention to be given to zero price markets and multi-sided markets;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Calls on the Commission to review the notion of "abuse of dominance" and the "essential facilities" doctrine to ensure they are fit for the purpose in the digital age; in particular the concept of dominance should be examined with specific reference to online Platforms given that market power itself may present in a different manner compare to a more traditional market; recalls to the Commission indeed that an online platform may not be dominant in terms of value/turnover but may have access to data on an unprecedented scale, as well as large numbers of users; therefore, an online platform may not be dominant in accordance with the current dominance definition settled in the case law of the ECJ but it may lead to a significant asymmetry in contractual relations/negotiations, especially when dealing with SMEs;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Reiterates the importance of social objectives in our competition policy; believes that where suppliers of goods or services lack market power vis-a-vis purchasers, as is the case with many self- employed contractors, this can be remedied by coordinated pricing;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to review merger rules and strengthen antitrust action, taking into account the effects of market and network power associated with both personal and financial data; proposes that every merger in the market for such data should be subject to prior monitoring, regardless of thresholds; suggests a broader analysis of market power in connection to conglomerate and gatekeeper effects in digital markets, focusing on entry barriers and network effects of multi-sided platforms, to fight the abuse of dominance of a few large platform operators and create a competitive digital market in Europe;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to review merger rules and strengthen antitrust action, taking into account the effects of market and network power on individuals, society and democratic values associated with both personal and financial data; proposes that every merger in the market for such data should be subject to prior monitoring, regardless of thresholds;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Stresses that EU Competition rule should be reviewed in order to look into data concentration, aggregation and utilisation; when assessing digital antitrust and mergers, data utilisation1a by dominant platforms should also be looked at understanding potential negative affects on competition for new companies trying to enter and compete on a specific market; notes that the Commission should learn lessons from the past for example when they approved Facebook What’s- App2a acquisition and adapt their tools and criteria accordingly; _________________ 1ahttps://edps.europa.eu/press- publications/press-news/blog/sharing- caring-depends_en 2a https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/ cases/decisions/m7217_20141003_20310_ 3962132_EN.pdf
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Stresses that, by enabling personalised micro-targeted advertisements personal and behavourial data provide an important source of revenue for platforms; considers that such micro-targeting puts market power in the hands of the few platforms holding most personal data and, when it concerns political advertisements, endangers the functioning of our democracy by strengthening echo chambers and; calls on the Commission to draft legislation that severely constrains personalized and behavioural targeted advertisement;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Recognises the need to further develop a better understanding of different business models and dynamics within the digital economy in order to accelerate the identification of competition issues; calls on the Commission to carry out a stakeholder consultation to reflect the evolution of the digital economy, including the multi-sided nature of digital markets;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the buying-out of start- ups by dominant players operating according to business models, involving constant tracking, profiling and targeting of individuals which are incompatible with core European values and fundamental rights, dries up innovation and threatens sovereignty, and calls on the Commission to reverse the burden of proof with regard to such buy- outs;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the buying-out of start- ups by dominant players dries up innovation and threatens sovereignty, and calls on the Commission to reverse the burden of proof with regard to such buy- outs and to take into account transaction value as part of merger thresholds;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Recalls that abuse of market power can take place even when products or services are supplied for free; believes that the passing on of private data to third parties for marketing or commercial purposes is frequently done without the consumer’s proper consent, as alternatives to sharing data are often not provided; considers that in the digital economy, the concentration of data in a small number of companies leads to market failures, excessive rent extraction and a blocking of new entrants; calls on the Commission to consider the structural unbundling of digital monopolies to restore competition and a level playing field in the European digital market;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Asks the Commission to assess how more demanding regimes of data access, including data interoperability, can be imposed in particular where data access opens up secondary markets for complementary services or when data is confined to dominant firms;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. Stresses that concentration in digital markets for example for social media in favour of a few non-European companies has contributed to the dissemination of misinformation, online manipulation and the undermining of social cohesion and trust in democratic institutions;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that some entities, benefiting from dual status as both platforms and suppliers, abuse their position to discriminate in favour of their own products and services and impose unfair terms on competitors; calls on the Commission to penalise them; assess the possibility to impose ex-ante regulatory obligations where competition law is not enough to ensure contestability in digital markets avoiding competitors' foreclosure and ensuring that emerging bottlenecks are not perpetuated by the monopolization of future innovation;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Calls on the Commission to assess the long term effects of concentration especially in the case of platforms, intermediaries and retailers, online or offline; as stressed above, one of the key features of these markets is the dual status as both platforms, suppliers, and competitors to their users; increased concentration in these areas can lead to abuse and imposed unfair terms on competitors;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Recalls that some entities, benefiting from dual status as both search engines and search service suppliers abuse their position and distort the market by granting unjustified advantage to their own search functionalities;
Amendment 170 #
11. Calls on the Commission to introduce a centralised exconsider a possible introduction of ex- ante regulatory measures anted market monitoring system, to provide national authorities with the necessary means to gather data anonymously, and to introduce targeted regulation when practices become systemiconly if competition law turns out to be too slow and ineffective to remedy systemic and far-reaching distortions of competition; in particular, an ex-ante regulatory regime might be targeted to digital markets when companies holding a dominant position exercise a fundamental gatekeeper role in closed ecosystems and large online marketplaces;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Draws the Commission’s attention to recent acquisitions by foreign monopolies of digital operators of health and educational data and the privacy risks involved, over and above the damaging effects of these transactions on competition and calls on the Commission to prevent competition amongst companies to gather personal health and educational data;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. Notes that European citizens have now realised that there is no such thing as “free services” offered by platforms; European consumers pay a high price for these online services with their personal data1a; underlines that some recent scandals have shown how personal data is being collected, used, sold to third parties and misused by platforms; _________________ 1ahttps://edps.europa.eu/press- publications/press-news/blog/sharing- caring-depends_en
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)
Paragraph 12 c (new)
12 c. Recalls that certain online intermediary service providers continue to engage in preferencing their own services and products, and invites the Commission to actively investigate new cases in which platforms engage in self-preferencing;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 d (new)
Paragraph 12 d (new)
12 d. Calls the Commission to actively investigate cross-usage of data, in cases where data originating from one service offered by a platform is used to expand the platforms’ offering to new services;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that, while intermediation platforms play a major role in access to consumers for online services, some abuse their privileged position by acting as gatekeepers; calls on the Commission to conclude its preliminary investigation into Spotify’s complaint about Apple’s anticompetitive practices and to launch a formal procedure as soon as possible; moreover notes that the behaviour of powerful digital platforms is jeopardising competition law in that they often act as bottlenecks for third-party services and favour their own services, preventing consumers from benefiting from unfettered competition and innovation; notes furthermore that the Commission has received a series of complaints that big digital platforms prevent their direct competitors from offering consumers their best deals and from directly communicating with their customers, and make it difficult for consumers to use rival services; expects the Commission to act urgently to stop these discriminatory practices;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that, while intermediation platforms play a major role in access to consumers for online services, some abuse their privileged position by acting as gatekeepers; calls on the Commission to give explicit attention in its competition policy to these gatekeepers and to conclude its preliminary investigation into Spotify’s complaint about Apple’s anticompetitive practices and to launch a formal procedure as soon as possible;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Notes that some dominant platforms have become gatekeepers of the Internet1a; addressing and solving urgently the abuses that certain dominant digital platforms exercise over smaller direct competitors is essential for the future of the European digital single market and most importantly in the interest of European consumers; platforms self-preferencing their own services over others or discriminating direct competitors such as competing Apps should be carefully assessed by competition authorities; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/ newsroom/image/document/2016- 7/uclouvain_et_universit_saint_louis_140 44.pdf
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that the heavy fines imposed are often discounted in advance by businesses and ultimately passed on to consumers; calls on the Commission to impose a new framework for fines, including the possibility of data fines which obliges companies to open source a specific percentage of their raw anonymised data in order to generate more competition;
Amendment 212 #
15 a. Notes also that in lengthy antitrust digital cases, fines have proven their limits in putting an end to certain discriminatory practices; underlines that fines are simply a calculated cost of doing business for dominant technology companies that see the European single market as a market worth paying for; urges the Commission to urgently look at alternative behavioural and structural remedies; in particular the cease-and- desist order should be much more prescriptive in upcoming remedies;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15 b. Welcomes the initiative of Commissioner Vestager to review the market definition concept; recalls that digitisation has indeed created new challenges; stresses that it can be difficult for consumers to switch from one ecosystem to another despite a specific ecosystem is not dominant apparently, however the ecosystems can leave consumers locked in, interoperability reduced and therefore consumer choices limited1a; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publicati ons/reports/kd0419345enn.pdf
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15 c. Calls on the Commission to take a particularly careful look at closed ecosystems, where the same providers control different layers of the market, such as operating systems, intermediation services and vertical services, as also underlined in the report “Competition policy for the digital era”1a; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publicati ons/reports/kd0419345enn.pdf
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 d (new)
Paragraph 15 d (new)
15 d. Calls on the Commission to take into consideration anti-competitive practices in the digital travel and transport sector harming consumer choice and to tackle them effectively in the ongoing evaluation of the Code of Conduct for CRS1a and the Regulation on Air Service1b; _________________ 1aRegulation (EC) No 80/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on a Code of Conduct for computerised reservation systems and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 1bRegulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses the slowness of the application of antitrust rules; stresses the financial and structural risk to which some actors are exposed if they initiate lengthy and costly proceedings; calls on the Commission to consider setting deadlines which take into account the economic timeframe of businesses; recalls that for example the antitrust investigation into the Google Shopping began in 20101a, while fully guaranteeing the right of defence, clearly competition authorities need to act faster if we want to avoid further Regulations; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publicati ons/annual_report/2017/part1_en.pdf
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses the urgent need to adopt precautionary measures to adapt to the rapid development of new markets and to stop any practice which would seriously harm competition; calls on the Commission to relax the criteria for these measures in order to avoid any irreversible damagere- evaluate an use more frequently of specific measures such as interim measures as well as other structural and behavioural remedies, in addition to fines to prevent irreversible distortions of competition capable of irrevocably destroying the competition on the market, by harming competing European companies and in particular SMEs, and resulting in consumer detriment; calls on the Commission to relax the criteria for these measures in order to avoid any irreversible damage; calls on the Commission to revise the Notice on Remedies (2008/C 267/01) by taking into account the developments and evolution of the digital sector over the last years;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Urges the Commission to be more attentive to the phenomenon of companies grabbing significant market shares through questionable practices; whilst antitrust rules cannot stop companies from exploiting workers, operating without the required licenses, ignoring data privacy regulations, or circumventing taxes, any position built on violating the law or fundamental rights should be considered illegitimate;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Deplores the fact that, despite repeated requests, the Commission has still not completed the investigation into Google Shopping which began in 2010; stresses that, in the absence of targeted and effective behavioural remedies that have been tested in advance with the undertaking which is the victim, a complete structural separation of general and specialised research services may be necessary; Given the limits of "cease and desist" orders; encourages the Commission to prescribe an effective behavioural remedy to address the abuse in Google Shopping1a and restore competition to the comparison shopping services market; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publicati ons/annual_report/2017/part1_en.pdf
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Deplores the fact that, despite repeated requests, the Commission has still not completed the investigation into Google Shopping which began in 2010; stresses that, in the absence of targeted and effective behavioural remedies that have been tested in advance with the undertaking which is the victim, a complete structural separation of general and specialised research services may be necessary; calls on the Commission to launch a formal procedure against Google for abuse of dominance in other specialised search services, including local search;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Deplores the fact that, despite repeated requests, the Commission has still not completed the investigation into Google Shopping which began in 2010achieved proper remedies in some case reported (Google Shopping case1a); stresses that, in the absence of targeted and effective behavioural remedies that have been tested in advance with the undertaking which is the victim, a complete structural separation of general and specialised research services may be necessary; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publicati ons/annual_report/2017/part1_en.pdf
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Calls on the Commission to inquire about this new checking account service that will be provided to consumers by some of the world’s biggest tech companies in forthcoming years; in particular their entry into this new digital financial market and the huge amount of data they will gather from their consumers and the potential use of it;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Calls on the European Commission to revise its policy when it comes to commitments and remedies in digital antitrust cases; calls for the cease- and-desist order to be revised, become much more prescriptive and include obligations and indications in order to change discriminatory conducts;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18 b. Reaffirms the need for the EC Directorate General for Competition to be fully equipped also with experts on artificial intelligence and tech engineer’s specialists in order to fully understand and evaluate the remedies that are presented by the dominant technology companies with the aim to ensure fair competition in the digital sector;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to make more systematic use of investigations in sectors that are essential to the everyday life of citizens, such as digital travel, transport, and the media, in the digital age;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Stresses the importance of metasearch comparison platforms in digital travel and tourism as drivers of competition which lead to an informed marketplace by offering transparency and more choices to European consumers;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19 b. Calls on the Commission to implement measures that effectively tackle anti-competitive practices by dominant players that may undermine European consumers’ ability to make informed choices using a variety of online channels, including metasearch comparison services and online travel agents;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Reiterates that taxation is sometimes used to grant indirect State aid, creating an uneven playing field in the internal market; and promulgating a race to the bottom in corporate taxation levels; calls upon the Commission to be particularly strict in investigating tax benefits to multinational corporations;
Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Reiterates that taxation is sometimes usedDeplores the usage of tax rulings and advanced pricing arrangements to grant indirect State aid, creating an uneven playing field in the internal market;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. Stresses that in order to achieve a more coherent EU economic policy; fair tax policy should be implemented at the European level in particular with regard to digital businesses; recalls the principle that companies should be taxed where their profits are generated should be applied; supports the commitment of the Commission President to propose an EU solution for a fair taxation in a digitalised and globalised economy, should an international deal not be reached by the end of 2020, on the condition that this EU solution is not limited to digital businesses; understands that such solution would strengthen the Single Market through the establishment of a minimum level of tax that would prevent unilateral measures;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to fully mobilise the state aid modernisation strategy, in particular for the energy transition and apply flexibility when Member States will want to give state aid to companies for green sustainable projects trying to achieve EU green deal targets, in particular for the energy transition and taking into account the EU Green Deal; stresses the need for the Commission to also monitor potential negative side-effects where certain big companies will go “green” but then use public aid for other objectives such as reinforcing its dominant position in a given sector;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. With regard to the food sector, calls on the Commission to guarantee fair competition and greater transparency in supermarket and hypermarkets chains commercial practices; European farmers should receive a fair price for their products; stresses the need for the Commission to look at hypermarkets powers in the distribution chain and commercial practices in placing competing products on the shelves;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21 b. Calls on the Commission to devote special attention to supermarkets and hypermarkets bargaining powers with their clients and suppliers; notes that supermarkets and hypermarkets actions often serve their own interests and not necessarily those of their customers; in particular, hypermarkets sovereignty may permit deliberate damage to brand value, restrict product choice, cut corners on their own brands quality, limit price comparability, restrict innovation and allow for the manipulation of prices to distort category price architectures in their favour;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)
Paragraph 21 c (new)
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 d (new)
Paragraph 21 d (new)
21 d. Welcomes the recent announcement to revise the Energy Taxation Directive in the Communication on the European Green Deal; calls on the Commission examine whether the current tax exemptions, notably on kerosene for the aviation and maritime sectors, provide for unfair cross-sector competition conditions; asks that the Commission includes legal instruments to remedy any such distortion in its review of the EU competition rules in order to swiftly close any identified loopholes;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to examine the discrepancies between the rules on State aid in the area of liquidation aid and the resolution regime under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, and following that to revise its 2013 Banking Communication accordingly; taking into account the need to allow for the orderly resolutions for struggling, systemically important banks;
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Calls the Commission to have a close look at the banking sector in Romania where consumers face high interest rates and lack of transparency when it comes to loans because of potential bank cartels tendencies when it comes to deceptive selling practices of credit; notes that Romanian banks have the highest margin between deposit interest rates and loans interest rates in the EU, this is twice the European average as stated by the European Banking Authority in its 2018 report1a; _________________ 1a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/E-9-2019-002931_EN.html
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22 b. Calls on the Commission to bring forward a proposal requiring competition, data protection and consumer authorities to cooperate proactively with each other, including in enforcement cases raising questions of compliance with more than one area of law; in particular, the competition authorities should carefully assess antitrust and merger cases where there may be negative impact on both the interests of consumers and the democratic rights of citizens;
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to report regularly to Parliament and on its website on the implementation and monitoring of cooperation agreements with reference to competition and to involve it in its international activity;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Insists on a more regular and transparent exchange with Directorate General for competition and its responsible Commissioner beside the existing structural dialogue inter- institutional agreement; notes that the Economic committee competition working group could be an appropriate place for a deeper and more detailed cooperation; stresses that the European Parliament representing directly the500 million EU citizens should be considered a privilege partner for the Commission, precisely because competition has consumers at its heart;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls on the Commission to organise multisectoral and interinstitutional forums involving national regulators and national consumerincluding data protection authorities and national consumer groups and civil liberties groups and to decompartmentalise competition policy;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27 a. Stresses that the current complaint form for state aid cases asks for many specific details on when state aid has been accorded, which ordinary citizens can’t possibly know and therefore calls on the Commission to simplify the complaint form, in order to give ordinary citizens the possibility to send in complaints;
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)
Paragraph 27 b (new)
27 b. Regrets the lack of information provided during the Commission’s investigation of submitted complaints; calls on the Commission to give the complainant a confirmation of receipt as well as a notification upon the launch of the investigation, including an expectation of the length of the investigation;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Recognizes that preventing distortion of competition as the paramount objective of EU competition policy requires a measure of political independence for the Commission and public scrutiny of lobbying efforts in all EU institutions, reiterates calls for an enhanced Transparency Register;