14 Amendments of Dominik TARCZYŃSKI related to 2020/2223(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that competition policy is vital to strengthening and ultimately completing the single market by providing a fair and level playing field for all market participants, enabling the growth of innovative businesses, ensuring competitiveness of EU companies at global level and guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and choice; Stresses that consumer welfare must remain the ultimate goal of the competition policy;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the changes both businesses and consumers are facing due to the digital transformation and welcomes the Commission’s focus on modernising its competition policy to adequately tackle serious problems and market failures in the digital sector;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that regulatory intervention or imposition of remedies in the competition area not supported by evidence demonstrating proven market failures, infringement of existing rules or significant consumer harm hampers innovation, growth, consumer welfare and investments in the market and may bring other unexpected consequences;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that efficient regulating digital markets constitutes a core responsibility of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection; in this context, highlights the adoption of the P2B Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/11501 ) and notes that ex ante regulatory intervention willshould address the identified gaps in ex post competition law enforcement, which cannot be addressed by revised competition policy or by full enforcement of existing rules; __________________ 1 OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 57.
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Highlights the need to prepare any legislative proposal based on data, in- depth impact assessments, best practices and analyses in order to promote consumer welfare and to avoid unnecessary administrative or regulatory burden;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the importance of a fewmajor online operators acting as gatekeeperintermediaries to the digital economy, including access to e- commerce markets and the positive and negative consequences on freedom of choice for consumers and access to markets for companies; underlines, therefore, the need for an internal market ex ante regulatory instrument to ensure that impacted markets remain fair and competitive; looks forward to seeingstresses that successful growth strategies, even leading to market dominance, scale and scope efficiencies, should not automatically trigger remedies as they can generate economic and consumer benefits and it may prevent companies from growing; underlines, therefore, the need to assess their potential gatekeepers´ role and the need for an internal market ex ante regulatory instrument to ensure consumer welfare and fair and competitive markets; acknowledges thise instrument in the forthcoming Digital Markets Act proposal;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recalls that profit-seeking behaviour should be accepted and should not be suspected of being anti-competitive without objective and facts-based reason, reminds that unlawful behaviour is often hypercompetitive rather than anti- competitive; reminds that particular offering attracting many consumers because of its convenience is not in itself sufficient ground for concern; calls on the Commission to distinguish those behaviours for antitrust enforcement;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Reminds that if market failures occur, EU State aid rules support the Competition policy objective of rendering European companies more innovative and competitive internationally;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Notes the Commission’s White paper on levelling the playing field as regards foreign subsidies; supports the intention to minimize the mirroring retaliation measures at the global level;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance of clear measures, predictable, future-proof and comprehensive EU framework to ensure effective enforcement and supervision of competition law at the EU level; underlines that the compliance of provisions must be reinforced with effective and proportionate penalties and that EU law should be equally enforced in all Member States; asks the Commission for establishing the clear guidance and best practices on enforcement in order to avoid legal uncertainty, arbitrary decisions and to prevent from the gaps between the Member States in terms of implementation and oversight of the ex- ante tool;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to ensure fair and secure access to data for all market participants; notes that it should empower consumers to control their data and provide them with additionalequate rights in terms of data portability and interoperabilitys laid down in Union law in order to ensure that the single market for data is based on European values and fair competition.;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Commission to fully consider the recommendations of the Court of Auditors, including improving performance reporting of its enforcement decisions, in order to enhance transparency and accountability to the European Parliament and citizens;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Asks the Commission to include the summaries and statistics of antitrust cases opened and closed in the Member States, including where relevant identified best practices and the total amount of imposed and paid fines for cartels in the Commission´s Annual Report on Competition Policy;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Highlights that State aid in the form of a financial injection for selective market competitors, including the financing of activities with environmental objectives, distorts competition; Recalls that these objectives can also be achieved, for example, by increasing fees for negative externalities.