Activities of Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)

(2a) Good faith negotiations between parties willing to participate occur in many FRAND cases, yet in other instances, SEPs become the subject of legal proceedings. This Regulation aims to provide advantages to both Union SEP holders and SEP implementers by introducing mechanisms designed to address two key issues: firstly, situations where SEP implementers unreasonably delay or decline FRAND licenses; and secondly, scenarios where SEP holders impose non-FRAND royalties due to the threat of injunction and a lack of transparency.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) There are well established commercial relationships and licensing practices for certain ~~use cases of standards, such as the standards for wireless communications, with iterations over multiple generation~~standards leading to considerable mutual dependency and significant value visibly accruing to both SEP holders and implementers. There are other~~, typically more novel use cases – sometimes of the same standards or subsets thereof -~~ standards such as e.g. Wi-Fi, HEVC, and cellular standards, including LTE and 5G, with less mature markets, more diffuse and less consolidated implementer communities, for which unpredictability of royalty and other licensing conditions and the prospect of complex patent assessments and valuations and related litigation weigh more heavily on the incentives to deploy standardised technologies in innovative products. Therefore, in order to ensure a proportionate and well targeted response, certain procedures under this Regulation, namely the aggregate royalty determination and the compulsory FRAND determination prior to litigation, should not be applied to identified ~~use cases of certain~~ standards or parts thereof for which there is sufficient evidence that SEP licensing negotiations on FRAND terms and conditions do not give rise to significant difficulties or inefficiencies.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) ~~To facilitate the implementation of this regulation~~As the agency of the European Union in charge of intellectual property rights, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) should perform the relevant tasks by means of a competence centre and facilitate the implementation of this Regulation. The EUIPO has extensive experience with managing databases, electronic registers and alternative dispute settlement mechanisms, which are key aspects of the functions assigned under this Regulation. It is ~~necessary~~crucial to equip the competence centre with necessary human and financial resources to ~~fulfil~~efficiently perform its tasks.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) The competence centre should set up and administer an electronic register and an electronic database containing detailed information on SEPs in force in one or more Member States, ~~including essentiality check results,~~ opinions, reports, available case-law from jurisdictions across the globe, rules relating to SEPs in third countries, and results of studies specific to SEPs. In order to raise awareness and facilitate SEP licensing for SMEs, the competence centre should offer assistance to SMEs. The setting up and administering ~~a system for essentiality checks and~~of processes for aggregate royalty determination and FRAND determination by the competence centre should include actions improving the system and the processes on a continuous basis, including through the use of new technologies. In line with this objective, the competence centre should establish training procedures for ~~evaluators of essentiality and~~ conciliators for providing opinions on aggregate royalty as well as on FRAND determination and should encourage consistency in their practices.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) The competence centre should be the subject of Union rules on access to documents and data protection. Its tasks should be designed to increase transparency by making existing information relevant to SEPs available to all stakeholders in a centralised and systematic way. Therefore, a balance would have to be made between the free public access to basic information and the need to finance the functioning of the competence centre. In order to cover the maintenance costs a registration fee should be requested to access detailed information contained in the database, such as results of any ~~essentiality checks and~~ non- confidential FRAND determination reports.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20 a (new)

(20a) Regardless of the position within the supply chain at which a potential licensee operates, an SEP holder must not decline to grant a FRAND license to any party seeking one, for any standard to which the SEP holder or a prior holder has made a FRAND commitment

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) A SEP holder may also request the modification of a SEP registration. An interested stakeholder may also request the modification of a SEP registration, if it can demonstrate that the registration is inaccurate based on a definitive decision by a public authority. A SEP can only be removed from the register at the request of the SEP holder, if the patent is expired, was invalidated or found non-essential by a final decision or ruling of a competent court of a Member State ~~or found non- essential under this Regulation~~. Information on modifications to SEP registration shall be maintained to preserve transparency.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) To further ensure the quality of the register and avoid over-registration, essentiality checks should also be conducted randomly by independent evaluators selected according to objective criteria to be determined by the Commission. Only one SEP from the same patent family should be checked for essentiality.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25

(25) These essentiality checks should be conducted on a sampling from SEP portfolios to ensure that the sample is capable of producing statistically valid results. The results of the sampled essentiality checks should determine the ratio of positively checked SEPs from all the SEPs registered by each SEP holder. The essentiality rate should be updated annually.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

(26) SEP holders or implementers may also designate annually up to 100 registered SEPs for essentiality checks. If the pre-selected SEPs are confirmed essential, the SEP holders may use this information in negotiations and as evidence in courts, without prejudicing the right of an implementer to challenge the essentiality of a registered SEP in court. The selected SEPs would have no bearing on the sampling process as the sample should be selected from all registered SEPs of each SEP holder. If a preselected SEP and a SEP selected for the sample set are the same, only one essentiality check should be done. Essentiality checks should not be repeated on SEPs from the same patent family.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26 a (new)

(26a) The technical conciliation procedure could also help the parties to discuss the relevant technical details for their specific licensing negotiation, e.g., how the SEP portfolio relates to the specific product and/or service implementation. The processes would be similar to current industry practices: following the execution of a mutual Non- Disclosure Agreement provided by the competence centre, SEP holders shall provide a relevant sample of claim charts for the patent families that it offers to license. In the event the licensor-SEP holder that enforces its patent-rights is an SME, the competence centre shall advice such SME in relation to the evaluation and exercise of its IP rights. The parties should be allowed to bring external technical advisors to the procedure.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) Any assessment of essentiality of SEPs conducted by an independent entity prior to the entry into force of the Regulation, for example through patent pools, as well as essentiality determinations by judicial authorities should be indicated in the register. Those SEPs should not be re-checked for essentiality after the relevant evidence supporting the information in the register is provided to the competence centre.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27 a (new)

(27a) The technical conciliation procedure should not take more than 5 months, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, and should be offered separately or combined with the FRAND determination procedure. The overall timing for the combined procedure should not go beyond the timing of 9 months foreseen in Article 37(1).

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28

(28) The evaluators should work independently in accordance with the rules of procedure and Code of Conduct to be determined by the Commission. The SEP holder would be able request a peer evaluation before the issuance of a reasoned opinion. Unless a SEP is the subject of a peer review, there would be no further review of the essentiality check results. The results of the peer evaluation should serve to improve the essentiality check process, to identify and remedy shortcomings and improve consistency.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29

(29) The competence centre would publish the results of the essentiality checks, whether positive or negative, in the register and the database. The results of the essentiality checks would not be legally binding. Thus, any subsequent disputes with regard to essentiality would have to be addressed in the relevant court. The results from the essentiality checks, whether requested by a SEP holder or based on a sample, may, however, be used for the purpose of demonstrating essentiality of those SEPs in negotiations, in patent pools and in court.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30

(30) It is necessary to ensure that the registration and ensuing obligations provided for in this Regulation are not circumvented by removing a SEP from the register. When an evaluator finds a claimed SEP non-essential, only the SEP holder can request its removal from the register and only after the annual sampling process has been completed and the proportion of true SEPs from the sample has been established and published.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 a (new)

(30a) Recognizing the complexity and technical specificity inherent in negotiations surrounding SEPs, it is imperative to institute a structured ‘Technical Conciliation Procedure’, thereby facilitating more streamlined, transparent, and efficient discussions between concerned parties. This specialized procedure shall be organized and overseen by the competence centre, ensuring that both SEP holders and implementers have a fair and knowledgeable platform for negotiation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 b (new)

(30b) The Technical Conciliation Procedure aims to mediate disputes by enabling parties to present their respective standpoints concerning the technical dimensions crucial to SEP licensing negotiations. By appointing a skilled technical conciliator from its roster, the competence centre ensures that the discussions are guided by technical expertise and a balanced perspective, essential for reaching mutually agreeable licensing terms.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 c (new)

(30c) To maintain the inclusivity and efficacy of this procedure, provision is designed for the participation of SMEs, either as SEP holders or implementers, guaranteeing their right to request this mandatory procedure. Conversely, entities other than SMEs may opt for this procedure upon mutual consent, reinforcing its role as a versatile tool for resolving disputes and aiding license agreement renewals. The procedure is designed to be time-efficient, with a maximum duration of five months for a standalone process, and not exceeding nine months when combined with a FRAND determination procedure, as per Article 37(1). This stipulation ensures that the parties involved are incentivized towards expedient and constructive engagement, minimizing potential delays in reaching licensing agreements.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 d (new)

(30d) The procedure hinges on detailed technical discussions where parties scrutinize the relevance of the SEP portfolio to their specific products or services. The competence centre shall provide the necessary resources, including a mutual NDA and assistance for SMEs, thereby ensuring that negotiations are based on a thorough understanding of the patents in question. Post-procedure, the technical conciliator shall compile a comprehensive report detailing the discussions, arguments, and a recommendation based on the deliberations. While maintaining confidentiality under the mutual NDA, this report shall be admissible in subsequent FRAND Determination procedures or ensuing litigation, ensuring continuity and reference to the insights gained during conciliation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 e (new)

(30e) For SMEs, the procedure is particularly advantageous when combined with additional training and resources provided by the competence centre. By enhancing their understanding of SEP licensing and reducing financial burdens through reduced fees or pro bono services, SMEs are better positioned to engage in standard development, thereby aligning with broader EU objectives of technological innovation and SME participation. Additionally, the consistent application of the TPC enables the EUIPO’s competence centre to gain invaluable expertise in various technical realms pertinent to SEP licensing. This accumulated knowledge is instrumental in refining the centre’s approaches and methodologies, ultimately contributing to more sophisticated and informed handling of SEP-related matters

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46

(46) SMEs may be involved in SEP licensing both as SEP holders and implementers. While there are currently a few SME SEP holders, the efficiencies produced with this Regulation are likely to facilitate the licensing of their SEP. Additional conditions are necessary to relieve the cost burden on such SMEs such as reduced or waiver of administration fees and potentially reduced fees for essentiality checks and conciliation in addition to free support and trainings. The SEPs of micro and small enterprises should not be the subject of sampling for essentiality check, but they should be able to propose SEPs for essentiality checks if they wish toconciliation related fees in addition to free support and trainings. SME implementers should likewise benefit from reduced access fees and free support and trainings. Finally, SEP holders should be encouraged to incentivise licensing by SMEs through low volume discounts or exemptions from FRAND royalties.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49

(49) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council46 should be amended to empower EUIPO to take on the tasks under this Regulation. The functions of the Executive Director should also be expanded to include the powers conferred on him under this Regulation. Furthermore, the EUIPO’s arbitration and mediation centre should be empowered to set up processes such as the aggregate royalty determination, technical conciliation procedure and the FRAND determination. __________________ 46 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1.)

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

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

(c) a ~~procedure to evaluate the essentiality of registered SEPs;~~technical conciliation procedure

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7

(7) ‘implementer’ means a natural or legal person that implements, or intends to implement, a standard in a product, process, service or system; regardless of where in the supply chain the potential licensee operates.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 a (new)

Article 2a License to all Standard essential patent holders, whether their patents pertain to standards covered by this Regulation or not, and where they or previous owners have committed to FRAND terms, must not decline to grant a FRAND license to any party seeking one, regardless of the position of the potential licensee within the supply chain.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) set up and manage rosters of ~~evaluators and conciliators;~~conciliators for the technical conciliation and FRAND determination procedures

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) set up and administer a ~~system for assessment of the essentiality of SEPs;~~technical conciliation procedure

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point e

(e) provide training to ~~evaluators and conciliators~~conciliators for the technical conciliation procedure and FRAND determination;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point g – point i

(i) publishing the results and reasoned opinions of the ~~essentiality checks and~~ non-confidential reports of the FRAND determinations;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c

(c) information on whether an essentiality check ~~or peer evaluation have been performed~~has been performed by a competent court of a Member State and reference to the result; if from a final judgement

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point j

~~(j) SEPs selected for essentiality checks pursuant to Article 29, the reasoned opinions or the final reasoned opinions pursuant to Article 33;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) administering the registrations of SEPs~~, essentiality checks~~ and conciliation proceedings pursuant to this Regulation;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – title

~~Non-binding expert opin~~Determination of an aggregate royalty by a non-binding expert opinion

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 6

6. If the requests for participation include ~~SEP holders representing collectively at least an estimated 20% of all SEPs for the standard, and implementers holding collectively at least 10% relevant market share in the Union or at least 10 SME~~any combination of five SEP holders or implementers, the competence centre shall appoint a panel of three conciliators selected from the roster of conciliators with the appropriate background from the relevant field of technology.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 8 – point b a (new)

(ba) Submit proof and documentation that could aid the panel in establishing an aggregate royalty.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point d

~~(d) as a consequence of a negative result from the essentiality check pursuant to Article 31(5) and Article 33(1).~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2

2. Such a request may be made at any time, except from the selection of the SEP for essentiality check pursuant to Article 29 until the publication of the result of the essentiality check in the register and database pursuant to Article 33(1).

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1

~~1. An evaluator shall conduct essentiality checks.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

(ca) mediate between parties in the technical conciliation procedure;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3

3. The ~~evaluators and~~ conciliators shall have the requisite expertise and experience, be unbiased and independent and adhere to a code of conduct.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4

~~4. The competence centre shall appoint [10] evaluators from the roster of evaluators as peer evaluators for a period of [three] years.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5 – point a

(a) the requirements for ~~evaluators or~~ conciliators, including a Code of Conduct;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5 – point b

(b) the procedures pursuant to Articles 17, 18, ~~31 and 32~~Title V and Title VI.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2

2. The competence centre shall establish a roster of suitable candidates for ~~evaluators o~~technical conciliators and other conciliators. There ~~may~~shall be different rosters of ~~evaluators and~~ conciliators depending on the technical area of their specialisation or expertise and the qualification required for the procedure being conducted under this Regulation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 3

3. Where the competence centre has not yet established roster of candidates evaluators or conciliators at the moment of the first registrations or FRAND determination, the competence centre shall invite ad hoc renowned experts who satisfy the requirements set out in the implementing act referred to in Article 26(5).deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Title V

~~Essentiality checks of standard essential patents~~Technical conciliation procedure

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28

General requirement for essentiality 1. administer a system of essentiality checks, ensuring that they are conducted in an objective and impartial manner and that confidentiality of the information obtained is safeguarded 2. The essentiality check shall be conducted by an evaluator selected pursuant to Article 27. Evaluators shall conduct essentiality checks of registered SEPs for the standard for which they are registered. 3. done on more than one SEP from the respective patent family. 4. or an ongoing essentiality check shall not preclude licensing negotiations or any court or administrative procedure in relation to a registered SEP. 5. result of the essentiality check and the reasons for it in a reasoned opinion, or, in case of peer evaluation, in a final reasoned opinion, which shall not be legally binding. 6. conducted and the reasoned opinion of the evaluator or the final reasoned opinion of the peer evaluator may be used as evidence before stakeholders, patent pools, public authorities, courts or arbitrators.Article 28 deleted checks The competence centre shall Essentiality checks shall not be The lack of an essentiality check The evaluator shall summarise the The result of the essentiality check

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – title

~~General requirement for essentiality checks~~Technical conciliation procedure

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 a (new)

Article 28a 1. The competence centre shall set up and administer a technical conciliation procedure to support the parties in dealing with technical aspects typically covered during SEP licensing. 2. The competence centre shall appoint a technical conciliator from the roster of conciliators to mediate the procedure. 3. The initiation of the technical conciliation procedure shall be mandatory upon the request of an SME that is engaged in SEP licensing, either as a SEP holder or as a SEP implementer. 4. Upon initiation of the technical conciliation procedure, the parties shall execute a mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement, which shall be provided by the competence centre. 5. The parties shall submit their arguments and documents for the technical discussions. In accordance with customary industry practice, the SEP holder shall provide the other party and the technical conciliator a relevant sample of claim charts for the portfolio of SEP patent families for which a license is being offered 6. Where the SEP holder is an SME, the competence centre shall provide assistance for the technical evaluation and exercise of its relevant SEP families. 7. The parties shall be allowed to be assisted by external technical advisors during the procedure. 8. The technical conciliator shall propose and agree with the parties on the schedule, but the technical conciliation procedure shall not exceed a duration of 5 months. 9. The appointed technical conciliator shall mediate between the parties on the technical aspects with the aim to help facilitating the execution of a SEP license. 10. At the end of the technical conciliation procedure, the technical conciliator shall prepare a report establishing the key points of the procedure, the main elements brought by the parties and provide a recommendation. The report shall remain confidential pursuant to the mutual NDA signed by the parties, provided, however, that it may be utilized during the FRAND determination procedure of Title VI or, in the event the parties fail to agree on a SEP license during such determination, in legal proceeding related to the subject matter. 11. The technical conciliation procedure should be available as a separate procedure. However, upon request of one of the parties, the procedure could be combined with the FRAND determination procedure of Title VI. In the event both procedures are combined, the overall timeline for the merged procedure shall not exceed the 9 months duration stipulated in Article 37(1). 12. The technical conciliator procedure should be available for non-SMEs upon mutual agreement where the parties believe the procedure would be helpful to facilitate technical discussions.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29

~~[...]~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30

~~Observations by stakeholders 1. publication of the list of registered SEPs s~~Article 30 delected for sampling, any stakeholder may submit to the competence centre written observations concerning the essentiality of the selected SEPs. 2. paragraph (1) shall be communicated to the SEP holder who may comment on them within the time limit established by the competence centre. 3. provide the observations and the responses by the SEP holder to the evaluator following the expiry of the set time limits.Within 90 days following the The observations referred to in The competence centre shall

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31

Examination of the essentiality of a 1. shall be conducted following procedure that ensures sufficient time, rigorousness and high-quality. 2. The evaluator may invite the SEP holder concerned to file observations, within a period to be fixed by the evaluator. 3. believe that the SEP may not be essential to the standard, the competence centre shall inform the SEP holder of any such reasons and specify a period within which the SEP holder may submit its observations, or submit an amended claim chart. 4. any information provided by the SEP holder. 5. reasoned opinion to the competence centre within 6 months from its appointment. The reasoned opinion shall include the name of the SEP holder and of the evaluator, the SEP subject to the essentiality check, the relevant standard, a summary of the examination procedure, the result of the essentiality check and the reasons on which that result is based. 6. The competence centre shall notify the reasoned opinion to the SEP holder.Article 31 deleted registered SEP The examination of essentiality Where an evaluator has reasons to The evaluator shall duly consider The evaluator shall issue his

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32

~~1. informed the SEP holder pursuant to Article 31(3), the SEP holder may request peer evaluation before the expiry of the period to submit its observations pursuant to Article 31(3). 2. evaluation,~~Article 32 deleted Peer evaluation Where the competence centre shall appoint a peer evaluator. 3. consider all the information submitted by the SEP holder, the reasons of the initial evaluator why the SEP may not be essential to the standard and any amended claim chart or additional observations provided by the SEP holder. 4. confirmed the preliminary conclusions of the evaluator that the evaluated SEP may not be essential to the standard for which it was registered, the peer evaluator shall inform the competence centre and provide the reasons for this opinion. The competence centre shall inform the SEP holder and invite the SEP holder to submit its observations. 5. consider the observations of the SEP holder and issue a final reasoned opinion to the competence centre within 3 months from its appointment. The final reasoned opinion shall include the name of the SEP holder, of the evaluator and of the peer evaluator, the SEP subject to the essentiality check, the relevant standard, a summary of the examination and peer evaluation procedure, the preliminary conclusion of the evaluator, the result of the peer evaluation and the reasons on which that result is based. 6. the final reasoned opinion to the SEP holder. 7. shall serve to improve the essentiality check process and ensure consistency.s If the SEP holder requests a peer The peer evaluator shall duly In case the peer evaluation The peer evaluator shall duly The competence centre shall notify The results of the peer evaluation

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33

Publication of the results of the 1. the result of the essentiality check or of the peer evaluation in the register and the reasoned opinion and final reasoned opinion in the database. The result of the essentiality check under this Regulation shall be valid for all SEPs from the same patent family. 2. publish in the register the percentage of sampled SEPs per SEP holder and per specific registered standard that passed successfully the essentiality test. 3. results contains an error attributable to the competence centre, tArticle 33 deleted essentiality checks The competence centre shall enter The competence centre shall ~~of its own motion or at t~~Whe re~~quest of the SEP holder registrant correct the error and publish the correction.~~ the publication of the

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) for the ~~essentiality check carried out by the evaluator in accordance with Article 31 and by the peer evaluator~~technical conciliation procedure in accordance with Article 328;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0133(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point c

(c) (c) the fees referred to in paragraph (2), point (c) by the SEP holder that requested an essentiality check pursuant to Article 29(5) or peer evaluation pursuant to Article 32(1) and the implementer that requested an essentiality check pursuant to Article 29(6);, shall be divided equally by the parties that participated the procedure. If SMEs are involved, the competence centre shall consider offering the procedure for free or for a reduced fee for such SMEs.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

2023/0129(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – line 2 – column 3

Health Security Committee [Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2371]

2023/11/14
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv a (new)

(iv a) Data and information regarding any direct financial support received for research contributing to the development of the product for which the single SPC is requested.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. The Office shall assess the application on the basis of all the conditions in Article 3(1) 3(2) and 6(2), for all Member States in which the basic patent has unitary effect.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. Where the application for a unitary certificate and the product to which it relates comply with Article 3(1), 3(2) and 6(2) for each of the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, the Office shall issue a reasoned positive examination opinion in respect of the grant of a unitary certificate. The Office shall notify that opinion to the applicant.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3

3. Where the application for a unitary certificate and the product to which it relates does not comply with Article 3(1), 3(2) and 6(2) in respect of one or more of those Member States, the Office shall issue a reasoned negative examination opinion on the grant of a unitary certificate. The Office shall notify that opinion to the applicant.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4

4. The Office shall translate the examination opinion in the official languages of all designated Member States. The Office may use verified machine translation to that effect and publish the examination opinion on the Register as soon as possible after it is issued.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. The Office will issue a decision on examination within 6 months following the publication date of the application for a unified certificate. A request for accelerated processing may be filed at any point subsequent to the publication of the application for a Unified Certificate. Upon receipt of a request for accelerated processing, the Office will issue a decision on the examination within 4 months.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3

3. Third party observations shall be submitted within 3 months after publication of the application in the Register. Third party observations may also be admissible in the course of appeal proceedings.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a

~~(a) geographical balance amongst the participating offices;~~deleted

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23

~~[...]~~deleted

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24

~~[...]~~deleted

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 3

3. Notice of appeal shall be filed electronically in writing at the Office within 2 months of the date of notification of the decision. The notice shall be deemed to have been filed only when the fee for appeal has been paid. In case of an appeal, a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within 43 months of the date of notification of the decision. Any written reply to the statement of grounds of appeal shall be submitted no later than 3 months from the statements filing date. The Office shall fix a date for oral proceedings within 3 months following the filing of the reply or within 6 months following the filing of the statement of grounds of appeal, whichever is earlier. The Office will issue a written decision within 3 months from the oral hearing.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 4

4. Members of the Boards of Appeal in matters regarding unitary certificates shall be appointed in accordance with Article 166(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. When appointing members of the Boards of Appeal in matters concerning applications for unitary certificates, due consideration shall be given to their previous experience in matters concerning supplementary protection certificates or patent law.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2

~~2. Oral proceedings before an examination panel, opposition panel or invalidity panel shall not be public.~~deleted

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3

3. Oral proceedings before an examination panel, an opposition panel or the Boards of Appeal, including delivery of the decision and, as the case may be, of a revised opinion, shall be public, unless the examination panel, the opposition panel or the Boards of Appeal decide otherwise in cases where admission of the public to all or a part of the oral proceedings could have serious and unjustified disadvantages, in particular for a party to the proceedings.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2023/0127(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1

By xxxxxx [OP, please insert: five years after the date of application], and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Regulation and present a report on the main findings to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee.

2023/11/13
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) For many years, geographical indication protection has been established at Union level for wines, spirit drinks6 , aromatised wines7 , as defined at Union level, as well as agricultural products and foodstuffs8 , as protected at Union level. It is appropriate to provide Union-wide geographical indication protection in respect of products falling outside the scope of existing regulations, while ensuring convergence, and aiming at encompassing a large variety of craft and industrial products, such as natural stones, jewellery, textiles, lace, cutlery, glass and porcelain. Geographical indications for craft and industrial products will materialise their full potential when considered as a tool for public policy and not solely an intellectual property tool. _________________ 6 Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications for spirit drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 1). 7 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 347 20.12.2013, p. 671). 8 Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1).

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40

(40) The added value of geographical indications is based on consumer trust. Such trust can only be well-founded if the registration of geographical indications is accompanied by effective verification and controls~~, including the producer’s due diligence.~~

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41

(41) In order to guarantee consumers of the specific characteristics of craft and industrial products protected by geographical indications, producers should be subject to a system that verifies compliance with the product specification before the product is put on the market. Member States should be free to establish a third-party verification system operated by the competent authorities, and the product certification bodies, to which those authorities delegate certain official control tasks ~~or a verification system based on a producer’ s self-declaration. The self- declaration should be submitted to the competent authorities assuring conformity with the product specification.~~

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44

(44) Member States should have the possibility to allow producers to fulfil their obligation to perform due diligence by submitting a self-declaration to the competent authorities every three years, demonstrating their continued compliance. Producers should be required to renew their self-declaration immediately where there is an amendment to the product specification or a change affecting the concerned product. The use of self-declaration should not prevent producers from having their conformity fully or partially certified by eligible third parties. A third-party certification should be able to supplement a self-declaration but not replace it.deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45

(45) The self-declaration should provide competent authorities with all necessary information on the product and on its compliance with the product specification. To ensure that the information provided in the self- declaration is comprehensive, a harmonised structure for such declarations should be laid down in Annex. It is important to ensure that the self-declaration is filled in truthfully and accurately. Therefore, the producer should take full responsibility for the information provided in the self- declaration, and should be able to provide the necessary evidence to allow for the verification of that information.deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46

~~(46) Where a self-declaration certification procedure is in place, competent authorities should carry out random controls.~~deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 a (new)

Article 1 a Objectives This Title provides for a unitary and exclusive system of geographical indications, protecting the names of craft and industrial products having characteristics, attributes or reputation linked to their place of production, thereby ensuring the following: (a) producers acting collectively have the necessary powers and responsibilities to manage their geographical indication, including to respond to societal demands for products resulting from sustainable production in its three dimensions of economic, environmental and social value, and to operate in the market; (b) fair competition for producers in the marketing chain; (c) consumers receive reliable information and a guarantee of authenticity of such products and can readily identify them in the marketplace including in electronic commerce; (d) efficient registration of geographical indications taking into account the appropriate protection of intellectual property rights; and (e) effective enforcement and marketing throughout the Union and in electronic commerce ensuring the integrity of the internal market.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Sabrina PIGNEDOLI, Franco ROBERTI, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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

(d) ‘producer group’ means any association, irrespective of its legal form, mainly composed of producers ~~or process~~manufacturers and/or processors and/or any other operators working with the same product;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

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

(e) ‘~~production~~qualifying step’ means any stage of production, processing or preparation~~, up to the point, where the product is in a form to be placed on the internal market~~ that, according to the specification, confers on the product those specific attributes that establish its link with a given quality, feature or characteristic and the geographical origin referred to in Article 5(b);

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

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

(e) ‘production step’ means any stage of production, and/or processing and/or preparation, included in the specifications/description of the product, up to the point, where the product is in a form to be placed on the internal market;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

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

(f) ‘traditional’ and 'tradition', when associated with a product originating in a geographical area, means proven historical usage by producers in a professional community for a period that allows transmission between generations; this period is to beat least 30 years and the said usage may embrace modifications necessitated by changing hygiene and safety practices;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

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

(g) 'producer' means an operator engaged in any production step of a product the name of which is protected as a geographical indication, including processing and/or preparation activities, covered by the product specification;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

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

(j) ‘self-declaration’ means a document in which a producer, or an authorised representative, indicates on his or her sole responsibility that the product is compliant with the corresponding product specification and that all necessary controls and checks for the proper determination of conformity have been carried out in order to demonstrate the lawful use of the geographical indication to the competent authorities of Member States.deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

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

(c) ~~at least one of the~~the main production steps of the product takes place in the defined geographical area.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

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

(ca) all imported products that will be part of the assembly of the final product must offer a guarantee that they have been produced in a sustainable way.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. Applications for the registration of geographical indications ~~shall~~may only be submitted by a producer group of a product (‘applicant producer group’), the name of which is proposed for registration. Regional or local public entities may help in the preparation of the application and in the related procedure.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2

2. An authority designated by a Member State or a local authority may be deemed to be an applicant producer group for the purposes of this Title, if it is not feasible for the producers concerned to form a group by reason of their number, geographical location or organisational characteristics. Where such representation takes place, the application referred to in Article 11(3) shall state these reasons for such representation.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. ABy way of derogation from paragraph 1 (a) a single producer may be ~~deemed to be~~ an applicant producer group for the purposes of this Title, where both of the following conditions are fulfilled:

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. the use of the geographical indication shall be opened to any new producer(s) able to comply with the specifications;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. CIn order for the names of craft and industrial products t~~he names of which ar~~o be registered as a geographical indication ~~shall comply with a~~, the product concerned shall comply with objective and non-discriminatory product specifications, which shall include at least:

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the name to be protected as geographical indication which may be ~~either~~ a geographical name of the place of production of a specific product~~, or~~ as well as a name used in trade or in common language to describe the specific product in the defined geographical area;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

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

(ia) the name and contact details of the competent authority and/or product certification body verifying compliance with the provisions of the product specification;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii

(ii) a description of the product, including, where appropriate, specific rules concerning composition, packaging and labelling,;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iii a (new)

(iiia) main steps of production;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Where the applicant is a SME or a producer group consisting only of SMEs, the single document shall be prepared by the competent authority of the Member State from where the producer group originates, on the basis of the information provided in accordance with Articles 7 and 9. In the case of cross-border applications, the single document may be prepared by any of the competent authorities concerned. Where a Member State decides to use the direct registration procedure referred to in Article 15, the single document shall be prepared by the Office and the deadline for the examination shall be extended to eight months. The competent authority shall send the single document to the applicant for approval.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1

The competent authority shall examine the application and shall check within six months of the submission of the application that the product complies with the requirements for geographical indications referred to in Article 5 and provides the necessary information for registration referred to in Articles 7, 8 and 9. Where the examination period exceeds or is likely to exceed six months, the competent authority shall inform the applicant of the reasons for the delay in writing. The total examination period shall not exceed one year.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 6

6. Where, based on the examination carried out pursuant to paragraph 1, the Office finds that the application is incomplete or incorrect, the Office shall send its observations to the Member State or in case of third country applications, to the relevant producer group or competent authority that has submitted the Union application, from where that application originates and request to complete or to correct the application within 60 days. If the Member State, or in case of third country applications, the relevant producer group or competent authority, does not complete the application within the deadline, the application shall be considered to be withdrawn, or if not corrected, it shall be rejected pursuant to Article 24(2). The Office shall publish rejected application.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – title

21 OUnion opposition ~~and comments~~ procedure

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1

1. Within 3 months from the date of publication of the single document and the reference to the product specification referred to in Article 7 in the Union register of geographical indications for craft and industrial products an opponent may lodge an opposition ~~or notice of comment with the Office~~with the Office (Union opponent). The applicant and the opponent shall be considered a party to the procedure.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 3

3. The Office shall check the admissibility of the opposition. If the Office considers that the opposition is admissible, it shall, within 630 days after the receipt of that opposition, invite the Union opponent and the applicant to engage in consultations for a reasonable period not exceeding 3 months. At any time during that period, the Office may, at the request of either party, extend the time limit for the consultations by a maximum of 3 months. The Office ~~may~~shall offer mediation for the consultations between the applicant and the opponent pursuant to Article 170 of Regulation (EU) 2017(1001).

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 4

4. The applicant and the Union opponent shall provide each other during the consultation with the relevant information to assess whether the application for registration complies with the conditions set out in this Regulation.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 8

8. The authorities and persons that may act as an opponent may lodge a notice of comment with the Office. The competent authority or person that lodged a notice of comment shall not be considered to be a party to the procedure.deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 9

~~9. The Office may share the notice of comment with the applicant and the opponent.~~deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 10

10. In order to facilitate the official submission of comments and to improve management of the opposition procedure, the Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down the necessary rules to provide for the submission of such official comments and specifying the format and online presentation of oppositions and any comments procedure. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 65(2).deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 a (new)

Article 22 a Notice of comment procedure 1. In order to correct inaccuracies in an ongoing registration procedure for a geographical indication, a competent authority of a Member State or of a third country, or a natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and established or resident in a third country or in another Member State may lodge a notice of comment with the Office within three months of the date of publication of the single document and the product specification reference in the Union register. 2. The notice of comment referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be based on the grounds for opposition referred to in Article 22. The competent authority or person that lodges a notice of comment shall not be considered to be a party to the procedure. 3. The Office shall share the notice of comment with the applicant and shall take the notice of comment into consideration when deciding on the application of the registration, unless it is unclear or obviously incorrect. 4. In order to facilitate the management of the notice of comment procedure, the Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down rules on the submission of such notice of comments and specifying their format and online presentation. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 65(2).

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2

2. The Office may decide to extend the transitional period granted under paragraph 1 up to 15 years, or allowing continued use for up to 15 years, provided it is additionally shown that: (a) the name in the designation referred to in paragraph 1 has been in legal use consistently and fairly for at least 25 years before the application for registration of the concerned geographical indication was submitted to the Office; (b) the purpose of using the name in the designation referred to in paragraph (1) has not, at any time, been to profit from the reputation of the name of the product that has been registered as geographical indication; and (c) the consumer has not been or could not have been misled as to the true origin of the product.deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5

5. To overcome temporary difficulties with the long-term objective of ensuring that all producers of a product designated under a geographical indication in the area concerned comply with the related product specification, a Member State may grant a transitional period for compliance, of up to 105 years, with effect from the date on which the application is ~~lodged with~~registered by the Office, provided that the operators concerned have legally marketed the products in question, using the names concerned continuously for at least 5 years preceding the lodging of the application to the authorities of that Member State and have referred to that fact in the national opposition procedure referred to in Article 13.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 7

7. Decisions adopted by the Office shall be published in the Union register of geographical indications for craft and industrial products in all the official languages of the Union. The reference to the name of the product, ~~class of the~~type of product, indications of the country or countries of origin and the reference to the decision published in the Union register of geographical indications for craft and industrial products shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) the ~~class of the~~type of product;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1

1. The Office shall ensure that any person is able to download an official extract from the Union register of geographical indications for craft and industrial products that provides proof of registration of the geographical indication, and the relevant data including the date of application for the registration of the geographical indication or other priority date. The official extract may be used as an authentic certificate in legal proceedings, in a court of law, in a court of arbitration or similar body. Reasons leading to the rejection of an application shall be made accessible as well.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2

2. The applicant producer group or where Article 6(2)or 6(3) applies, the authority designated by a Member State or a local authority or the single producer shall be identified as the holder of the registration ~~in the Union register~~ of geographical indications for craft and industrial products in the Union register and in the official extract referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1

1. A producer group, a single producer or a competent authority having a legitimate interest may apply for the approval of an amendment to the product specification of a registered geographical indication.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2

2. Opposition and cancellation decisions shall be taken by a panel of at least three members. At least one member shall be legally qualified~~. All other decisions of paragraph 1 shall be taken by a single member~~ and have appropriate technical knowledge.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

(c a) the assessment of the link between the product and its geographical origin;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5

5. The Advisory Board shall be composed of at least one representative of each Member State and one representatives of the Commission and their respective alternates. If deemed necessary, recognized expert in the field of geographical indications or of the concerned product, including representatives of regions shall be invited to join the Board on ad hoc basis.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the products or services is indicated or if the protected geographical indication is translated or accompanied by an expression such as ‘style’, ‘type’, ‘method’, ‘as produced in’, ‘imitation’, ‘flavour’, 'fragrance', ‘like’ or similar;

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. The Provisions of paragraph (1) shall also apply where the protected products are parts or components of manufactured products.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 5

5. The producer group, the geographical indication holder or any producer that is entitled to use the protected geographical indication shall be entitled to prevent all third parties from bringing goods, in the course of trade, into the Union without being released for free circulation there, where such goods, including packaging, come from third countries and are contrary to paragraph 1.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1

1. Article 35 is without prejudice to the use of a protected geographical indication ~~by producers in conformity with Article 43 to~~name indicateing that a manufactured product contains or integrates, as a part or component, a product designated by that geographical indication provided that such use is made in accordance with honest commercial practices, is agreed with the geographical indication right holder and does not weaken, dilute, or is not detrimental to, the reputation of the geographical indication.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1

1. A registered geographical indication may be used by any producer, geographical indication holder or operator marketing a product conforming to the corresponding product specification ~~or to a single document or an equivalent to the latter~~.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2

2. In the case of craft and industrial products originating in the Union that are marketed under a geographical indication, the Union symbol referred to in paragraph 1 ~~may~~shall appear on the labelling and advertising material. The name of the geographical indication shall be in the same field of vision as the Union symbol.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 3

3. The abbreviation ‘PGI’ corresponding to the indication ‘protected geographical indication’ ~~may~~shall appear on the labelling of products and advertising material designated by a geographical indication of craft and industrial products.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 6

6. The Union symbol indicating the protected geographical indication and the Union indication ‘protected geographical indication’ and the abbreviation ‘PGI’ as relevant, ~~may~~shall appear on the labelling and advertising material only after the publication of the decision on registration in accordance with Articles 24 and 25.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – title

49 Self-declaration ~~certification~~ procedure

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1

1. Without prejudice to Article 46, Member States may allow a self- declaration for the verification of compliance with the product specification. The producer shall submit such self- declaration to the competent authorities referred to in Article 45(1).deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 2

2. Member States may allow producers to submit a self-declaration once every 3 years to the competent authorities to ensure their continuous conformity with the product specification in the marketplace. Where the product specification is amended or changed in a way that affects the concerned product, the self-declaration shall be renewed immediately.deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 3

~~3. Where self-declarations are used competent authorities shall carry out random controls. In the event of breaches, Member States shall take all necessary measures to remedy the situation.~~deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 4

~~4. The self-declaration shall follow the structure set out in Annex 1 and shall contain all the information and requirements specified in that Annex.~~deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 5

~~5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt~~ delegated ~~acts in accordance with Article 66, amending this Regulation and introducing, where relevant, modifications to the information and requirements specified in Annex 1.~~

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 2

2. The Office shall make public the names and addresses of the competent authorities ~~and~~, product certification bodies referred to in Article 46(4) and natural persons referred to in Article 46(3)and update that information periodically.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – title

Orders to act against illegal online content

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1

1. A producer whose product, following the verification of compliance referred to in Article 46, is found to comply with the product specification of a geographical indication protected under this Regulation or that has, if applicable in the Member State concerned, properly submitted a self-declaration to the competent authority, shall be entitled to an official certificate, or other proof of certification, of eligibility to produce the product designated by the geographical indication concerned in respect of the production steps performed by the said producer.

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0115(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I

~~[...]~~deleted

2022/11/11
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15

(15) To ensure transparency and uniformity across Member States, it is necessary to establish and maintain an electronic Union register of geographical indications, registered as protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications. The register should provide information to consumers and to those involved in trade. The register should be an electronic database stored within an information system, and should be accessible to the public. It should be kept-up-to date and maintained by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39

(39) The procedures for registration, amendment and cancellation of geographical indications, including the scrutiny and the opposition procedure, should be carried out in the most efficient way. This can be achieved by using the assistance for the scrutiny of the applications provided by the E~~uropean Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)~~UIPO. The involvement of the EUIPO should not lead to delays or unnecessary administrative burden. While a partial outsourcing ~~to EUIPO~~ has been considered, the Commission wshould remain responsible for ~~registration,~~the one single document, Union amendment and cancellation, due to a strong relation with the Common Agricultural Policy and to the expertise needed to ensure that specificities of wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products are adequately assessed.

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39 a (new)

(39 a) The role of the EUIPO should be reinforced in order for the registration procedure to be more efficient. Namely, the EUIPO should be tasked with assisting the Commission in scrutinising the single document; informing applicants in the event of delay in the scrutiny process and preparing the observations for the Commission from the applicant if necessary. The EUIPO should be entrusted with the publication of the single document in the Union register, after its verification by the Commission. The EUIPO should support the Commission in the opposition procedure. It should assist the Commission in carrying out the tasks related to amendments to a product specification . Similarly to its role in protecting domain names in trade marks, the EUIPO should establish and manage an alert system that provides information about the availability of a geographical indication as a domain name. The EUIPO should carry out the scrutiny of third-country geographical indications other than geographical indications under the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications proposed for protection pursuant to international negotiations or international agreements and updates to the list of international agreement protecting them.

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission , assisted by the EUIPO, shall scrutinise any application for registration that it receives pursuant to Article 16(1). Such scrutiny shall consist of a check that there are no manifest errors, that the information provided in accordance with Article 15 is complete and that the single document referred to in Article 13 is precise and technical in nature. It shall take into account the outcome of the national procedure carried out by the Member State concerned and the opinion of the Commission. It shall focus in particular on the single document referred to in Article 13.

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. The EUIPO shall perform all the technical scrutiny tasks.

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 10

10. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 84 supplementing this Regulation by detailed procedures and deadlines for the opposition procedure, for the official submission of comments by national authorities and persons with a legitimate interest, which will not trigger the opposition procedure ~~and by rules on entrusting its tasks set out in this Article to EUIPO~~.

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. 10a. The EUIPO shall support the Commission in: (a) providing technical assistance in opposition procedures; (b) receiving the oppositions referred to in paragraph 1; (c) checking the admissibility of the oppositions; (d) inviting the authority or the person that lodged the opposition and the authority or the applicant producer group that lodged the application to engage in appropriate consultations if the opposition is admissible; (e) extending the deadline for the consultation; (f) receiving the notification of the result of consultation and of the opponent’s position at the end of the consultation, or any consequent changes to the application for registration; (g) repeating the scrutiny and in the cases referred to in paragraph 7 (repetition of the scrutiny in the event that, following the end of the consultations, the data published in the single document have been modified, and, where the application for registration has been modified in a substantial manner and meets the conditions for registration, re-publication of the single document); (h) providing an assessment of the Union application for registration.

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

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

1 a. The Union register as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be, kept up-to-date and maintained by the EUIPO for applications for registration, amendment and cancellation of GIs

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5

5. The ~~Commission~~EUIPO shall make public ~~5. and regularly~~and, in the event of changes, update the list of the international agreements referred to in paragraph (3) as well as the list of geographical indications protected under those agreements..

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 7

7. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 84 supplementing this Regulation by rules on entrusting EUIPO to operate, keep-up-to-date and maintain the Union register of geographical indications.

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 5

5. A ~~stand~~temporardy amendment shall be considered as a ~~tempor~~standaryd amendment when it concerns a temporary change in the product specification resulting from the imposition of obligatory sanitary and phytosanitary measures by the public authorities or a temporary amendment necessary because of a natural disaster, because of a natural or made-man disaster or adverse weather conditions formally recognised by the competent authorities.

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0089(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. The EUIPO shall be responsible for the publication of standard amendments referred to in paragraph 9. The EUIPO shall perform the technical scrutiny of the Union amendments and prepare the observations, which shall be verified and sent to the applicants by the Commission.

2022/11/28
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14

(14) This Directive aims to ensure that companies active in the internal market contribute to sustainable development and the sustainability transition of economies and societies through the identification, priorisation, prevention and mitigation, bringing to an end, remediation and minimisation of potential or actual adverse human rights and environmental impacts connected with companies’ own operations, subsidiaries and value chains.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15

(15) Companies should take appropriate steps to set up and carry out due diligence measures, with respect to their own operations, their subsidiaries, as well as their ~~established direct and indirect~~monitored business relationships throughout their value chains in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. This Directive should not require companies to guarantee, in all circumstances, that adverse impacts will never occur or that they will be stopped. For example with respect to business relationships where the adverse impact results from State intervention, the company might not be in a position to arrive at such results. Therefore, the main obligations in this Directive should be ‘obligations of means’. The company should take the appropriate measures which can reasonably be expected to result in prevention or minimisation of the adverse impact under the circumstances of the specific case. AWhen establishing which business relationship should be monitored, account should be taken of the specificities of the company’s value chain, sector or geographical area in which its value chain partners operate, and the company’s power to influence or effectively control its direct and indirect business relationships, and whether the company could increase its power of influence.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) The value chain should cover activities related to the production and supply of a good or provision of services by a company, including the development of the product or the service and ~~the use and~~ disposal of the product ~~as well as the related activities of established business relationships of the company. It should encompass upstream established direct and indirect~~. It should encompass upstream monitored business relationships that design, extract, manufacture, transport, store and supply raw material, products, parts of products, or provide services to the company that are necessary to carry out the company’s activities, and also downstream relationships, including established direct and indirect business relationships, that use or receive products, parts of products or services from the company up to the end of life of the product, including inter alia the distribution of the product to retailers, the transport and storage of the product, dismantling of the product, its recycling, composting or landfillingconsisting in carrying out operations for the company or on behalf of the company, such as the distribution to wholesalers or consumers, transportation, dismantling recycling of the product or landfilling of waste resulting from the operations of the company.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20

(20) In order to allow companies to properly identify the adverse impacts in their value chain and to make it possible for them to exercise appropriate leverage, the due diligence obligations should be limited in this Directive to ~~establish~~monitored business relationships. ~~For the purpose of this Directive, established business relationships should mean such direct and indirect business relationships which are, or which are expected to be lasting, in view~~Business relationships will be deemed to be monitored by the company itself, based ofn their intensity and duration and which do not represent a negligible or ancillary part of the value chain. The nature of business relationships as “established” should be reassessed periodically, and at least every 12 months. If the direct business relationship of a company is established, then all linked indirect business relationships should also be considered degree of control it has over them. For the purpose of this Directive, monitored business relationships should mean such direct and indirect business relationships. The nature of business relationships as “monitored” should be reas ses~~tablished regarding that company~~sed periodically, and at least every 12 months.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 23

(23) In order to achieve fully the objectives of this Directive addressing human rights and adverse environmental impacts with respect to companies’ operations, subsidiaries and value chains, third-country companies with significant operations in the EU should also be covered. More specifically, the Directive should apply to third-country companies which generated a net turnover of at least EUR 150 million worldwide and at least 40 million in the Union in the financial year preceding the last financial year or a net worldwide turnover of more than EUR 40 million but less than EUR 150 million in the financial year preceding the last financial year provided that at least 50% of its net worldwide turnover was generated in one or more of the high- impact sectors, as of 2 years after the end of the transposition period of this Directive.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 24

(24) For defining the scope of application in relation to non-EU companies the described share of turnover criterion should be chosen as it creates a territorial connection between the third- country companies and the Union territory. Turnover is a proxy for the effects that the activities of those companies could have on the internal market. In accordance with international law, such effects justify the application of Union law to third-country companies. However, the overall worldwide net turnover threshold should be the same as that applied to companies established in the EU in order to create a level playing field between both EU and non-EU companies. To ensure identification of the relevant turnover of companies concerned, the methods for calculating net turnover for non-EU companies as laid down in Directive (EU) 2013/34 as amended by Directive (EU) 2021/2101 should be used. To ensure effective enforcement of this Directive, an employee threshold should, in turn, not be applied to determine which third-country companies fall under this Directive, as the notion of “employees” retained for the purposes of this Directive is based on Union law and could not be easily transposed outside of the Union. In the absence of a clear and consistent methodology, including in accounting frameworks, to determine the employees of third-country companies, such employee threshold would therefore create legal uncertainty and would be difficult to apply for supervisory authorities. The definition of turnover should be based on Directive 2013/34/EU which has already established the methods for calculating net turnover for non-Union companies, as turnover and revenue definitions are similar in international accounting frameworks too. With a view to ensuring that the supervisory authority knows which third country companies generate the required turnover in the Union to fall under the scope of this Directive, this Directive should require that a supervisory authority in the Member State where the third country company’s authorised representative is domiciled or established and, where it is different, a supervisory authority in the Member State in which the company generated most of its net turnover in the Union in the financial year preceding the last financial year are informed that the company is a company falling under the scope of this Directive.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27

(27) In order to conduct appropriate human rights, and environmental due diligence with respect to their operations, their subsidiaries, and their value chains, companies covered by this Directive should integrate due diligence into corporate policies, identify, prioritise, prevent and mitigate as well as bring to an end, remedy and minimise the extent of potential and actual adverse human rights and environmental impacts, establish and maintain a complaints procedure, monitor the effectiveness of the taken measures in accordance with the requirements that are set up in this Directive and communicate publicly on their due diligence. In order to ensure clarity for companies, in particular the steps of preventing and mitigating potential adverse impacts and of bringing to an end, or when this is not possible, minimising actual adverse impacts should be clearly distinguished in this Directive.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28

(28) In order to ensure that due diligence forms part of companies’ corporate policies, and in line with the relevant international framework, companies should integrate due diligence into all their corporate policies and have in place a due diligence policy. The due diligence policy should contain a description of the company’s approach, including in the long term, to due diligence, a code of conduct describing the rules and principles to be followed by the company’s employees and subsidiaries; a description of the processes put in place to implement due diligence, including the measures taken to verify compliance with the code of conduct and to extend its application to ~~establish~~monitored business relationships. The code of conduct should apply in all relevant corporate functions and operations, including procurement and purchasing decisions. Companies should also update their due diligence policy annually.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 a (new)

(28a) Parent companies can design due diligence policies for their subsidiaries. Parent companies can provide resources for their subsidiaries to help implement the due diligence policies decided at their level. In order to hold subsidiaries accountable, the liability created by the article 22 of this directive should remain at entity level the parent company’s due diligence policies remains under the supervision of supervisory authorities.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 30

(30) Under the due diligence obligations set out by this Directive, a company should identify actual or potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts. In order to allow for a comprehensive identification of adverse impacts, such identification should be based on quantitative and qualitative information. For instance, as regards adverse environmental impacts, the company should obtain information about baseline conditions at higher risk sites or facilities in value chains. Identification of adverse impacts should include assessing the human rights, and environmental context in a dynamic way and in regular intervals: prior to a new activity or relationship, prior to major decisions or changes in the operation; in response to or anticipation of changes in the operating environment; and periodically, at least every 12 months, throughout the life of an activity or relationship. Regulated financial undertakings providing loan, credit, or other financial services should identify the adverse impacts only at the inception of the contract. When identifying adverse impacts, companies should also identify and assess the impact of a business relationship’s business model and strategies, including trading, procurement and pricing practices. Where the company cannot prevent, bring to an end or minimize all its adverse impacts at the same time, it should be able to prioritize its action, provided it takes the measures reasonably available to the company, taking into account the specific circumstances.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32

(32) In line with international standards, prevention and mitigation as well as bringing to an end and minimisation of adverse impacts should take into account the interests of those directly and adversely impacted. In order to enable continuous engagement with the value chain business partner instead of termination of business relations (disengagement) and possibly exacerbating adverse impacts, this Directive should ensure that disengagement is a last-resort action, in line with the Union`s policy of zero- tolerance on child labour. Terminating a business relationship in which child labour was found could expose the child to even more severe adverse human rights impacts. This should therefore be taken into account when deciding on the appropriate action to take. In cases where temporarily suspending or terminating a commercial relationship may be an option, companies should ensure that the suspension or termination does not result in a more severe impact on human rights or on the environment than the one that it intends to mitigate.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32 a (new)

(32a) Under the due diligence obligations set out by this Directive, a company should rate the actual and potential adverse impacts according to their severity, urgency and risk. The company should then prioritise the risk and take the appropriate measures to prevent, remedy or bring the adverse impact to an end.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

(34) So as to comply with the prevention and mitigation obligation under this Directive, companies should be required to take the following actions, where relevant. Where necessary due to the complexity of prevention measures, companies should develop and implement a prevention action plan. Companies should seek to obtain contractual assurances from a direct partner with whom they have a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship that it will ensure compliance with the code of conduct or the prevention action plan, including by seeking corresponding contractual assurances from its partners to the extent that their activities are part of the companies’ value chain. The contractual assurances should be accompanied by appropriate measures to verify compliance. To ensure comprehensive prevention of actual and potential adverse impacts, companies should also make investments which aim to prevent adverse impacts, provide targeted and proportionate support for an SME with which they have a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship such as financing, for example, through direct financing, low-interest loans, guarantees of continued sourcing, and assistance in securing financing, to help implement the code of conduct or prevention action plan, or technical guidance such as in the form of training, management systems upgrading, and collaborate with other companies.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37

(37) As regards direct and indirect business relationships, industry cooperation, industry schemes and multi- stakeholder initiatives can help create additional leverage to identify, mitigate, and prevent adverse impacts. Therefore it should be possible for companies to rely on such initiatives to support the implementation of their due diligence obligations laid down in this Directive to the extent that such schemes and initiatives are appropriate to support the fulfilment of those obligations. Companies could assess, at their own initiative, the alignment of these schemes and initiatives with the obligations under this Directive. In order to ensure full information on such initiatives, the Directive should also refer to the possibility for the Commission and the Member States to facilitate the dissemination of information on such schemes or initiatives and their outcomes. The Commission, in collaboration with Member States, ~~may~~shall issue guidance for assessing the fitness of industry schemes and multi-stakeholder initiatives.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38

(38) Under the due diligence obligations set out by this Directive, if a company identifies actual human rights or environmental adverse impacts, it should take appropriate measures to bring those to an end. It can be expected that a company is able to bring to an end actual adverse impacts in their own operations and in subsidiaries. However, it should be clarified that, as regards ~~establish~~monitored business relationships, where adverse impacts cannot be brought to an end, companies should minimise the extent of such impacts. Minimisation of the extent of adverse impacts should require an outcome that is the closest possible to bringing the adverse impact to an end. To provide companies with legal clarity and certainty, this Directive should define which actions companies should be required to take for bringing actual human rights and environmental adverse impacts to an end and minimisation of their extent, where relevant depending on the circumstances.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39

(39) So as to comply with the obligation of bringing to an end and minimising the extent of actual adverse impacts under this Directive, companies should be required to take the following actions, where relevant. They should neutralise the adverse impact or minimise its extent, with an action proportionate to the significance and scale of the adverse impact and to the contribution of the company’s conduct to the adverse impact. Where necessary due to the fact that the adverse impact cannot be immediately brought to an end, companies should develop and implement a corrective action plan with reasonable and clearly defined timelines for action and qualitative and quantitative indicators for measuring improvement. Companies should also seek to obtain contractual assurances from a direct business partner with whom they have a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship that they will ensure compliance with the company’s code of conduct and, as necessary, a prevention action plan, including by seeking corresponding contractual assurances from its partners, to the extent that their activities are part of the company’s value chain. The contractual assurances should be accompanied by the appropriate measures to verify compliance. Finally, companies should also make investments aiming at ceasing or minimising the extent of adverse impact, provide targeted and proportionate support for an SMEs with which they have an ~~establish~~monitored business relationship and collaborate with other entities, including, where relevant, to increase the company’s ability to bring the adverse impact to an end.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39

(39) So as to comply with the obligation of bringing to an end and minimising the extent of actual adverse impacts under this Directive, companies should be required to take the following actions, where relevant. They should neutralise the adverse impact or minimise its extent, with an action proportionate to the significance and scale of the adverse impact and to the contribution of the company’s conduct to the adverse impact. Where necessary due to the fact that the adverse impact cannot be immediately brought to an end, companies should develop and implement a corrective action plan with reasonable and clearly defined timelines for action and qualitative and quantitative indicators for measuring improvement. Companies should also seek to obtain contractual assurances from a direct business partner with whom they have a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship that they will ensure compliance with the company’s code of conduct and, as necessary, a prevention action plan, including by seeking corresponding contractual assurances from its partners, to the extent that their activities are part of the company’s value chain. The contractual assurances should be accompanied by the appropriate measures to verify compliance. Finally, companies should also make investments aiming at ceasing or minimising the extent of adverse impact, provide targeted and proportionate support for an SMEs with which they have a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship and collaborate with other entities, including, where relevant, to increase the company’s ability to bring the adverse impact to an end.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 42

(42) Companies should provide the possibility for persons and organisations to submit complaints directly to them in case of legitimate concerns regarding actual or potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts. Organisations who could submit such complaints should include trade unions and other workers’ representatives representing individuals working in the value chain concerned and civil society organisations active in the areas related to the value chain concerned where they have knowledge about a potential or actual adverse impact. Companies should establish a procedure for dealing with those complaints and inform workers, trade unions and other workers’ representatives, where relevant, about such processes. Recourse to the complaints and remediation mechanism should not prevent the complainant from having recourse to judicial remedies. In accordance with international standards, well-founded complaints should be entitled to request from the company appropriate follow-up on the complaint and to meet with the company’s representatives at an appropriate level to discuss potential or actual severe adverse impacts that are the subject matter of the complaint. This access should not lead to unreasonable solicitations of companies.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 42 a (new)

(42a) In order to bring to settle disputes between victims and companies swiftly, extra-judicial remedies should be setup. The remedy should be determined in consultation with the affected stakeholders and may consist of financial or non-financial compensation, reinstatement, public apologies, restitution, rehabilitation or a contribution to an investigation. To ensure that remedies are satisfactory to both parties, and that the weaker party is not forced into settlement by the stronger party, impartial third parties should mediate in order to assist companies and stakeholders in finding extra-judicial remedies, as is today the case under the OECD national contact points system. A settlement fairly mediated, the outcome of which is accepted by both parties should prevent civil proceeding and the filing of claims before a court.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 43

(43) Companies should monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their due diligence measures. They should carry out periodic assessments of their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to the value chains of the company, those of their ~~establish~~monitored business relationships, to monitor the effectiveness of the identification, prevention, minimisation, bringing to an end and mitigation of human rights and environmental adverse impacts. Such assessments should verify that adverse impacts are properly identified, due diligence measures are implemented and adverse impacts have actually been prevented or brought to an end. In order to ensure that such assessments are up-to- date, they should be carried out at least every 12 months and be revised in-between if there are reasonable grounds to believe that significant new risks of adverse impact could have arisen.

2022/12/06
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 45

(45) In order to facilitate companies’ compliance with their due diligence requirements through their value chain and limiting shifting compliance burden on SME business partners, the Commission should provide, within the twelve months following the entry into force of the Directive, guidance on model contractual clauses.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 46

(46) In order to provide support and practical tools to companies or to Member State authorities on how companies should fulfil their due diligence obligations, the Commission, using relevant international guidelines and standards as a reference, and in consultation with Member States and stakeholders, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the European Environment Agency, and where appropriate with international bodies having expertise in due diligence, sh~~ould have the possibility to~~all issue guidelines, including for specific sectors or specific adverse impacts.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 47

(47) Although SMEs are not included in the scope of this Directive, they could be impacted by its provisions as contractors or subcontractors to the companies which are in the scope. The aim is nevertheless to mitigate financial or administrative burden on SMEs, many of which are already struggling in the context of the global economic and sanitary crisis. In order to support SMEs, Member States should set up and operate, either individually or jointly, dedicated websites, portals or platforms, and Member States could also financially support SMEs and help them build capacity. Such support should also be made accessible, and where necessary adapted and extended to upstream economic operators in third countries. Companies whose business partner is an SME, are also encouraged to support them to comply with due diligence measures, in case such requirements would jeopardize the viability of the SME and use fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and proportionate requirements vis-a-vis the SMEs. Some SMEs might want to voluntarily apply the due diligence framework. They should be incentivized to do so and rewarded for doing so. Member states should, for instance, adapt their rating systems for public procurements so that candidates and tenderers who are not in the scope of the directive, notably SMEs, but do comply with due diligence obligation schemes are rated more positively than other tenderers who do not. Member states, professional and sectoral organisations are encouraged to set up labelling systems to identify which companies falling out of the scope of this Directive apply certified due diligence schemes equivalent to the obligations laid out in this Directive.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 50

(50) In order to ensure that this Directive effectively contributes to combating climate change, companies should adopt a plan to ensure that the business model and strategy of the company are compatible with the transition to a sustainable economy and with the limiting of global warming to 1.5 °C in line with the Paris Agreement and the objective of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 as established in the EU Climate Law as well as, where relevant, its exposure to coal-, oil- and gas-related activities. In case climate is or should have been identified as a principal risk for or a principal impact of the company’s operations, the company should include emissions reduction objectives in its plan.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 52

(52) In order to allow for the effective oversight of and, where necessary, enforcement of this Directive in relation to those companies that are not governed by the law of a Member State, those companies should designate a sufficiently mandated authorised representative in the Union and provide information relating to their authorised representatives. Failing to do so should lead to Member states excluding those companies from public procurements. It should be possible for the authorised representative to also function as point of contact, provided the relevant requirements of this Directive are complied with.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 56

(56) In order to ensure effective compensation of victims of adverse impacts, Member States should be required to lay down rules governing the civil liability of companies for damages arising due to its failure to comply with the due diligence process. The company should be liable for damages if they failed to comply with the obligations to prevent, prioritise and mitigate potential adverse impacts or to bring actual impacts to an end and minimise their extent, and as a result of this failure an adverse impact that should have been identified, prioritised, prevented, mitigated, brought to an end or its extent minimised through the appropriate measures occurred and led to damage. Nonetheless, in cases where, as a consequence of the duty of prioritisation, the severe adverse impact arises from a lower prioritised adverse impact that was not yet addressed, the company should not be held liable, always provided that the prioritisation was adequate according to the severity, urgency and the likelihood of the adverse impacts.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 57

(57) As regards damages occurring at the level of ~~establish~~monitored indirect business relationships, the liability of the company should be subject to specific conditions. The company should not be liable if it carried out specific due diligence measures. However, it should not be exonerated from liability through implementing such measures in case it was unreasonable to expect that the action actually taken, including as regards verifying compliance, would be adequate to prevent, mitigate, bring to an end or minimise the adverse impact. In addition, in the assessment of the existence and extent of liability, due account is to be taken of the company’s efforts, insofar as they relate directly to the damage in question, to comply with any remedial action required of them by a supervisory authority, any investments made and any targeted support provided as well as any collaboration with other entities to address adverse impacts in its value chains.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 58

~~(58) The liability regime does not regulate who should prove that the company’s action was reasonably adequate under the circumstances of the case, therefore this question is left to national law.~~deleted

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a

(a) on obligations for companies regarding actual and potential human rights adverse impacts and environmental adverse impacts, with respect to their own operations, the operations of their subsidiaries, and the value chain operations carried out by entities with whom the company has a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship and

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

The nature of business relationships as ~~‘establish~~‘monitored’ shall be reassessed periodically, and at least every 12 months.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2

2. ~~This Directive shall not constitute grounds for reducing the level of protection of human rights or of protection of the environment or the protection of the climate provided for by~~Unless provided in this Directive, Member States shall not lay down, in their national law, provisions diverging from those la~~w of Member States at the time of the adoption of~~id down in this Directive.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 3

3. This Directive shall be without prejudice to obligations in the areas of human rights, protection of the environment and climate change under other Union legislative acts. If the provisions of this Directive conflict with a provision of another Union legislative act pursuing the same objectives and providing for more ~~extensive or more~~ specific obligations, the provisions of the other Union legislative act shall prevail to the extent of the conflict and shall apply to those specific obligations.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) generated a net worldwide turnover of more than EUR 150 million, provided that at least EUR 40 million was generated in the Union in the financial year preceding the last financial year;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) generated a net worldwide turnover of more than EUR 40 million but not more than EUR 150 million in the ~~Union in the~~ financial year preceding the last financial year, provided that at least 50% of its net worldwide turnover was generated in the Union and that at least 50% of its net worldwide turnover was generated in one or more of the sectors listed in paragraph 1, point (b).

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) ‘subsidiary’ means a legal person as defined in Article 2, point (10), of Directive 2013/34/EU and a legal person through which the activity of a ‘controlled undertaking’ as defined in Article 2(1), point (f), of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council128 is exercised; _________________ 128 Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (OJ L 390, 31.12.2004, p. 38).

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) ‘~~establish~~monitored business relationship’ means a business relationship, whether direct or indirect, ~~which is, or which is expected to be lasting, in view of its intensity or duration and which does not represent a negligible or merely ancillary part of the value chain~~over which the company has effective control;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)

(fa) ‘effective control’ means the possibility for an undertaking to exercise decisive influence on another undertaking, in particular by ownership or the right to use all or part of the assets of the latter, or by rights or contracts or any other means, having regard to all factual considerations, which confer decisive influence on the composition, voting or decisions of the decision making bodies of an undertaking.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point g

(g) ‘value chain’ means activities of the business partners of a company related to the production and supply of goods or the provision of services ~~by a~~, including: (i) upstream direct and indirect business partners that design, extract, manufacture, transport, store and supply raw material, products, parts of products, or provide services to the company, including the development of the product or the service, and ~~the use and disposal of the product as well as the related activities of upstream and downstream established business relationships of the company~~(ii) downstream direct and indirect business partners that distribute the product to wholesalers, retailers or consumers, transport and store the product, dismantle or recycle the product, including compost or landfill waste resulting from the operations of the company. The use of the product shall not be considered as part of the value chain for the purposes of this Directive. As regards companies within the meaning of point (a)(iv), ‘value chain’ with respect to the provision of these specific services shall only include the activities of the clients receiving such loan, credit, and other financial services and of other companies belonging to the same group whose activities are linked to the contract in question. The value chain of such regulated financial undertakings does not cover SMEs receiving loan, credit, financing, insurance or reinsurance of such entities;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new)

(ja) ‘group of companies’ means (i) a parent company and all its subsidiary undertakings as defined by Article 2 of the Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EE or (ii) companies under unified control, also in absence of a common parent company or (iii) companies belonging to an economic entity and having a joint market presence with this entity;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point n

(n) ‘stakeholders’ means the company’s employees, the employees of its subsidiaries, and other individuals, groups, communities or entities whose rights or interests are ~~or could be~~directly affected by the products, services and operations of that company, its subsidiaries and its business relationships, as well as their expressly designated representatives or advisers;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

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

(ba) prioritising actual or potential adverse impacts in accordance with Article 6a;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that~~, for the purposes of due diligence, companies are entitled to share resources and information within their respective~~ parent companies are entitled to design and implement due diligence policies for the subsidiaries of their group of companies falling under the scope of this Directive. The fact that groups of companies can~~d with o~~ assume due diligence obligation should be without prejudice of ther l~~egal entities in compliance with applicable competition law~~iability regime of their subsidiaries under article 22 if they do not follow or fail to implement the policies designed by the group.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

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

(b) a code of conduct describing rules ~~and~~, principles and measures to be followed ~~by the company’s employees and subsidiaries~~and implemented by the company;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

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

(c) a description of the processes put in place to implement due diligence, including the measures taken to verify compliance with the code of conduct and to extend its application to ~~establish~~monitored business relationships;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that companies take appropriate measures to ~~identify~~prioritise actual and potential adverse human rights impacts and adverse environmental impacts ~~arising from their own operations or those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their value chains, from their established business relationships, in accordance with paragraph 2, 3 and 4~~identified in article 6.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4

4. Member States shall ensure that, for the purposes of identifying the adverse impacts referred to in paragraph 1 based on, where appropriate, quantitative and qualitative information, companies are entitled to make use of appropriate resources, including independent reports and information gathered through the complaints procedure provided for in Article 9. Companies shall, where relevant, also carry out consultations with potentially affected groups including workers and other relevant stakeholders to gather information on actual or potential adverse impacts. As regards companies within the meaning of point (a)(iv), non- public information shall not be used for the purposes of this article in cases where it may result in an infringement of the Regulation(EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 a (new)

Article 6a Prioritising actual and potential adverse impacts 1. Member States shall ensure that companies take appropriate measures to prioritise actual and potential adverse human rights impacts and adverse environmental impacts identified in article 5. 2. Companies shall be required to take appropriate measures to rank the actual and potential adverse impacts identified as per paragraph 1 according to their severity, urgency and likelihood. Severity shall be assessed based on the scale and scope of the adverse impact, such as the number of persons or the extent of the environment affected by it. Likelihood shall be assessed based on the possibility of occurrence of the adverse impact in a given timeframe and a given geographical area. Urgency shall be assessed based on the degree of materialisation and irremediability of the impact. 3. Once the most severe and likely adverse impacts are addressed in accordance with Articles 7 or 8 in a reasonable time, the company shall address less severe and less likely adverse impacts.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) where necessary due to the nature or complexity of the measures required for prevention, develop and implement a prevention action plan, with reasonable and clearly defined timelines for action and qualitative and quantitative indicators for measuring improvement. The elaboration of the prevention action plan shall be ~~developed in~~preceded by a process of public consultation ~~with~~open to affected stakeholders and their advisers, who shall have a reasonable period of time for sending their suggestions, concerns and contributions;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point d

(d) provide targeted and proportionate support for an SME with which the company has a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship, where compliance with the code of conduct or the prevention action plan would jeopardise the viability of the SME;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point a

(a) neutralise the adverse impact or minimise its extent, including by the payment of damages to the affected persons ~~and of financial compensation to the affected communities~~. The action shall be proportionate to the significance and scale of the adverse impact and to the contribution of the company’s conduct to the adverse impact;

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c

(c) seek contractual assurances from a direct partner with whom it has a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship that it will ensure compliance with the code of conduct and, as necessary, a corrective action plan, including by seeking corresponding contractual assurances from its partners, to the extent that they are part of the value chain (contractual cascading). When such contractual assurances are obtained, paragraph 5 shall apply.

2022/12/07
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point e

(e) provide targeted and proportionate support for an SME with which the company has a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship, where compliance with the code of conduct or the corrective action plan would jeopardise the viability of the SME;

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that companies provide the possibility for persons and organisations listed in paragraph 2 to submit complaints to them where they have legitimate concerns regarding actual or potential adverse human rights impacts and adverse environmental impacts with respect to their own operations, the operations of their subsidiaries and their value chains. The complaint procedure shall provide for the possibility to raise complaints anonymously and confidentially, according to the Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. Member States shall ensure that, when the complaint has solid factual grounds to be deemed admissible, complainants are entitled

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recourse to such procedures shall not preclude the complainant from pursuing legal action under the liability regime established in article 22.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 a (new)

Article 9a Extra-judicial remedies and mediation process 1. Member States shall ensure that when an undertaking establishes that it has caused or contributed to an adverse impact, it provides for or cooperates with the remediation process. 2. The remedy may be proposed as a result of a complaint procedure as laid down in Article 9. 3. The remedy shall be determined in consultation with the affected stakeholders and may consist of financial or non-financial compensation, reinstatement, public apologies, restitution, rehabilitation or contribution to an investigation. 4. Member states shall establish contact points for due diligence mediation in order to assist undertakings and stakeholders in finding extra-judicial remedies. Those contact points should be impartial, predictable and equitable. 5. Undertakings shall prevent additional harm being caused by providing guarantees that the harm in question will not be repeated. 6. Member States shall ensure that the remediation process, if deemed satisfactory by both parties, prevents civil proceedings in accordance with national law. However, victims shall not be required to seek extra-judicial remedies before filing a claim before a court.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1

Member States shall ensure that companies carry out periodic assessments of their own operations and measures, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to the value chains of the company, those of their ~~establish~~monitored business relationships, to monitor the effectiveness of the identification, prevention, mitigation, bringing to an end and minimisation of the extent of human rights and environmental adverse impacts. Such assessments shall be based, where appropriate, on qualitative and quantitative indicators and be carried out at least every 12 months and whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that significant new risks of the occurrence of those adverse impacts may arise. The due diligence policy shall be updated in accordance with the outcome of those assessments.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1

In order to provide support to companies to facilitate their compliance with Article 7(2), point (b), and Article 8(3), point (c), the Commission shall adopt, within the twelve months prior to the application date of this Directive, guidance about voluntary model contract clauses.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

In order to provide support to companies or to Member State authorities on how companies should fulfil their due diligence obligations, the Commission, in consultation with Member States and stakeholders, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the European Environment Agency, and where appropriate with international bodies having expertise in due diligence, ~~may~~shall, within the twelve months following the entry into force of this Directive, issue guidelines, including for specific sectors or specific adverse impacts.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

1. Member States shall, in order to provide information and support to companies and the partners with whom they have ~~establish~~monitored business relationships in their value chains in their efforts to fulfil the obligations resulting from this Directive, set up and operate individually or jointly dedicated websites, platforms or portals. Specific consideration shall be given, in that respect, to the SMEs that are present in the value chains of companies.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Without prejudice to Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement and Directive 2014/25/EU on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, Member States shall adapt their public procurements laws as to rate more positively candidate and tenderer companies who are not in the scope of this directive but voluntarily apply due diligence obligations stemming for it.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that companies referred to in Article 2(1), point (a), and Article 2(2), point (a), shall adopt a plan, including implementing actions and related financial and investments plans, to ensure that the business model and strategy of the company are compatible with the transition to a sustainable economy and with the limiting of global warming to 1.5 °C in line with the Paris Agreement and the objective of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 as established in Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 and where relevant, the exposure of the group to coal-, oil- and gas-related activities. This plan shall, in particular, identify, on the basis of information reasonably available to the company, the extent to which climate change is a risk for, or an impact of, the company’s operations.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Member States shall lay down the rules so that companies which are formed in accordance with the legislation of a third country under article 2.2 shall be excluded from public procurement processes if they fail to appoint an authorised representative under article 16.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. The European Network of Supervisory Authorities shall publish a register of non-compliant companies for sustainability due diligence purposes. The competent supervisory authority shall list in this register companies that do not comply with the sanctions imposed on them in accordance with Article 20, as well as relevant information to allow for their effective identification by stakeholders and other companies for the purposes of identifying actual and potential adverse impacts.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) as a result of this failure an adverse impact that should have been identified, prevented, mitigated, brought to an end or its extent minimised through the appropriate measures laid down in Articles 7 and 8 occurred and led to damage. caused by the activity of the company or by the activity of a direct or indirect partner with which the company has a monitored business relationship.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) as a result of this failure an adverse impact that should have been identified, prioritised, prevented, mitigated, brought to an end or its extent minimised through the appropriate measures laid down in Articles 7 and 8 occurred and led to damage.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that where a company has taken the actions referred to in Article 7(2), point (b) and Article 7(4), or Article 8(3), point (c), and Article 8(5), it shall not be liable for damages caused by an adverse impact arising as a result of the activities of an indirect partner with whom it has a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship, unless it was unreasonable, in the circumstances of the case, to expect that the action actually taken, including as regards verifying compliance, would be adequate to prevent, prioritise, mitigate, bring to an end or minimise the extent of the adverse impact.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that where a company has taken the actions referred to in Article 7(2), point (b) and Article 7(4), or Article 8(3), point (c), and Article 8(5), it shall not be liable for damages caused by an adverse impact arising as a result of the activities of an indirect partner with whom it has a~~n establish~~ monitored business relationship, unless it was unreasonable, in the circumstances of the case, to expect that the action actually taken, including as regards verifying compliance, would be adequate to prevent, mitigate, bring to an end or minimise the extent of the adverse impact.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that where, as a consequence of the duty of prioritisation set by Article 6a, the adverse impact arises from a lower prioritised adverse impact that was not yet addressed, the company cannot be held liable, always provided that the prioritisation was adequate according to the severity, urgency and the likelihood of the adverse impacts.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Member States shall ensure that only those individuals or entities directly and materially affected by an adverse impact are qualified to file an action for civil liability and seek damages under the rules and obligations set out by this Directive.

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2022/0051(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ilana CICUREL, Karen MELCHIOR

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

(da) whether existing Union legislation is consistent with this Directive

2022/12/08
Committee: JURI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas it is essential to ensure that consumers and food services are in a position to make informed choices when purchasing food;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas organic farming has a potential to contribute to environmental protection and biodiversity and at the same time revitalise rural areas, creating employment, supporting the sustainability of small farms, bringing consumers and producers closer, enhancing the connections with the local economy and stimulating positive economic multipliers;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that the development and growth of the organic sector must be ~~accompanied by~~ market-driven and accompanied by holistic supply chain developments as well as measures to stimulate further the demand for organic food and ensure consumer trust, in order to safeguard the future profitability of the organic market and organic farming in the EU;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Highlights that stimulating agricultural sustainability and resilience of the EU foodsystem should be a priority; underlines that co-existence of different farming systems is important as diversity is key to food system security and resilience and benefits sustainable development; points out that there is no single farming model that fits all countries and regions and stresses that the benefits of the different sustainable farming models should be recognised;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that for an EU action plan to succeed, it must stimulate and mobilise the Member States; expresses the view, therefore, that Member States should be encouraged to develop their own national OAPs with concrete~~, time-bound action~~ objectives, incentives, actions, time-frames and budgets;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Irène TOLLERET, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Regrets that the new regulation on organic farming risks creating some major hurdles to its implementation by EU producers, especially small farmers, and at the same time lowers existing standards, particularly as regards plant protection products, which could lead to consumer distrust; therefore calls on the European Commission to carry out an impact assessment of the new regulation three years after its implementation, with a view to make the necessary adjustments;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Irène TOLLERET, Hilde VAUTMANS, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Asger CHRISTENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Welcomes the extension of the scope of the organic farming regulation to certain products closely linked to agriculture which are not listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, such as salt; however, expresses its concern about the report on organic salt published on 6 August 2021 by EGTOP, as it is in favour of extending the EU organic label to production methods that not comply with the principles of the EU regulation 2018/848; therefore calls on the European Commission not to follow the advice of EGTOP;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses that Member States should engage all stakeholders, especially organic farmers and associations, local and regional authorities, consumer and private sector representatives ~~and~~, the hospitality and food industryies, in a consultative process when adopting their national OAPs to achieve the best possible synergies;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Recognises the importance of speeding up the development of organic aquaculture and wild organic picking areas in the EU;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Is of the opinion that legislation and OAPs must provide sufficient room for flexibility for Member States' different organic practices and prerequisites, such as climate zones and length of growing seasons;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Stresses the need for modern and innovative methods when developing new organic seeds and agriculture practices, maintaining high level of protection of human health and the environment;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6a. Expresses its concern about misleading labels, packaging and advertising that makes it difficult for consumers to distinguish conventional products from organic products; emphasizes that the terms 'locally produced' or 'regionally produced' should only be used if the main ingredients of the food product concerned are actually from that region, and that the terms 'authentic' or 'natural' should never be allowed for industrially processed foods;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Considers, however, that increased support for the promotion of organic products should not be at the expense of other sustainable products, such as geographical indications, which strongly contribute to the economic growth in many rural areas and are the flagship of European agriculture;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6d. Welcomes the launch of an annual EU organic day; believes that it represents an opportunity to improve the visibility and the recognition for organic farming and raise awareness of the benefits of organic production;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Emma WIESNER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Supports the Commission in further promoting the EU organic logo among consumers, including th~~rough organic school schemes~~e promotion of local and organic logos that exists in several Member States and are used together with the EU organic logo; emphasises that it is of paramount importance that consumer surveys on organics are followed by actions to further raise awareness of organic ~~farming~~production;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Supports promoting the consumption of organic food in European schools as it can be an important driver for the development of the organic sector;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Reminds that demands from professional kitchens differ from those of the households; stresses the importance to create added value for the supply chain and increase the processing level of organic products to respond for the needs of professional kitchens;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Points out that local and regional authorities play an important role in supporting the structuring of the organic sector in terms of production, logistics and trade, facilitating the ~~creation of organised~~ cooperation between producers, food services and consumers, as well as raising public awareness a~~t local level~~bout the differences between various sustainable farming methods and developing educational programmes for preschools and schools;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Considers that concrete action to promote exports of EU organic products is needed; acknowledge, in this regard, the potential of the existing EU promotion policy for organic production; underlines that any promotion policy should recognise the wide range of sustainable production methods, practises and products in the EU; requests that the Commission report regularly on forthcoming negotiations with the EU’s trading partners to inform Parliament about the potential for expansion of the organic market;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Considers that an adequate common agricultural policy (CAP) budget should be provided to create incentives for farmers to ~~convert to and maintain~~further develop organic farming practices at national level, through rural development measures or newly introduced eco-schemes, or a combination of the two; calls on the Member States to support generational renewal in organic farming;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Recognise the potential of a common European agriculture data space to increase the consumer knowledge and trust as well as to make the organic supply chain traceable;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the need for research and innovation to overcome restrictions in organic agriculture, such as the availability of organic protein feed, vitamins, plant protection products, fertilisers and genetic resources and to encourage meeting societal expectations on animal welfare and efficient resource use; reminds the importance of livestock manure as an organic fertilizer and encourages its sustainable use in the cultivation cycle; welcomes the Commission’s intention to earmark Horizon Europe funding in this respect; calls on the Commission to stimulate and foster cooperation between research communities working on organic and conventional food and farming;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Underlines that bio-fertilizers and bio-based soil improvers are important components of organic farming practices; stresses therefore the need to incentivise innovation with regard to the production of bio-fertilizers and bio-based soil improvers from various types of biomass waste such as animal manure and food waste;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Jan HUITEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18b. Stresses the need to support the development of safe, effective and affordable alternative to plant protection products as an important element of the development of organic production;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2239(INI)

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Ulrike MÜLLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN, Jérémy DECERLE, Irène TOLLERET, Emma WIESNER, Asger CHRISTENSEN, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Martin HLAVÁČEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Highlights the importance of sufficiently available, high-quality organic seeds, heterogeneous material and high- yielding plant varieties, also varieties that are locally adopted; points out their potential in strengthening resilience against plant diseases and the impact of climate change; encourages the Commission and the Member States to step up efforts to improve the functioning of the organic seed market and believes that transitional periods would be helpful in achieving this;

2022/01/26
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas agriculture on islands is hampered by their remote location, small holdings, limited diversity in production, dependence on local markets, strong competition from third countries, the climate crisis, environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and a lack of energy, fresh water and digital infrastructure;

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. Whereas islands, especially outermost regions, are very vulnerable to economic crises and, following the Covid- 19 epidemic, they have suffered more severe supply difficulties than mainland areas.

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

B b. whereas these regions are at a strong disadvantage due to competition from third countries, which do not respect the same environmental and food safety production standards, and have much lower labour costs, making it very difficult to afford new investments intended to improve their competitiveness and to adapt to new EU legal requirements.

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI

Draft opinion
Recital B c (new)

B c. Whereas the impact of the Farm- to-Fork strategy on EU agricultural production may have severe consequences in these regions due to their weak competitiveness vis-à-vis imports from third countries and the challenges they face in the diversification of their productions.

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B d (new)

B d. Whereas services of general interest are not fully developed in all islands, mainly due to insufficient investments in basic infrastructures, such as roads, water supply or waste management facilities, which further hinders the development of viable agricultural production.

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to ~~maintain~~promote appropriate funding, including through the programmes for the outermost regions and smaller Aegean islands, to enhance agricultural competitiveness, ensure sustainable management of natural resources and support balanced territorial development on EU islands;

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Welcomes the maintenance of the POSEI funds in the current EU financial framework, and stresses the role played by this program in supporting agricultural production and supply in outermost regions through specific tools; nevertheless, asks the Commission to make an in-depth evaluation of the financial needs of those regions to help them achieve the ecological transition and to improve their economic resilience.

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls on the Member States to strengthen support from cohesion funds for the improvement of basic infrastructure on islands, in order to reduce the exodus to other regions and to ensure better conditions for the development of the agricultural activity.

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls on the European Commission to analyse the situation faced by the islands, especially the outermost regions, in the event of food supply difficulties such as those that occurred following the outbreak of the Covid-19 epidemic, and to propose appropriate measures adapted to the remoteness of these regions in the new food security and food safety contingency plan that it intends to present as part of the Farm-to- Fork strategy.

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Calls on the European Commission to establish a separate chapter dedicated to the outermost regions in its impact assessments of the Farm-to- Fork and Biodiversity strategies, and to take into account the outcome of these assessments in order to adapt, if necessary, the legislative actions to the natural and economic difficulties of these regions and to the strong competition from third countries.

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2079(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5 c. Considers it necessary to strengthen EU support to the modernisation of the agricultural activity in the islands, including through the promotion of precision farming, to help those regions meet the Green Deal objectives.

2021/11/10
Committee: AGRI

2021/2060(INI)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Recital N

N. whereas in many cases family mediation has proven to be quicker, cheaper and more child-friendly t~~han court proceeding~~o resolve the dispute than court proceedings and it may help to prevent the future parental child abductions;

2021/11/15
Committee: JURI

2021/2060(INI)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)

Pa. Whereas in most Member States there is no legal aid available for mediation for parents with limited financial means who would be at the same time eligible for receiving legal aid for legal proceedings;

2021/11/15
Committee: JURI

2021/2060(INI)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Member States to enable access to high-quality legal representation for children involved in civil, administrative and family disputes, ~~especially~~in cases when parents do not exercise full parental responsibility or when there is a suspicion that their interests may conflict with the best interests of the child;

2021/11/15
Committee: JURI

2021/2060(INI)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Member States to make sufficient resources available to ensure that family law proceedings involving children are handled with the utmost compliance with the standards of child-friendly justice and without undue delay;

2021/11/15
Committee: JURI

2021/2060(INI)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to encourage existing networks and platforms of legal professionals to exchange good practices on the hearing of the child, the child right to information and the right to privacy across the EU; encourages European Judicial Training Network to provide for such a forum for judges involved in cross-border family disputes;

2021/11/15
Committee: JURI

2021/2060(INI)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to continue to support existing networks of mediators in cross- border family disputes;

2021/11/15
Committee: JURI

2021/2060(INI)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR, Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Calls on the Member States to facilitate access to legal aid for mediation for cases of cross-border family disputes for parents with limited financial means;

2021/11/15
Committee: JURI

2021/2025(INI)

Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses, in line with the Report, that effective justice systems which are independent and efficient are essential for upholding the rule of law; highlights, in particular, the need for the judiciary to be able to exercise its functions with full autonomy, without intervention from any other institution or body, in accordance with the principle of separation of powers; furthermore stresses that the independence and the impartiality of judges require unequivocal rules to be laid down on the composition of judicial bodies, the appointment procedure, length of service and grounds for rejection and dismissal prior to any decisions thereon;

2021/04/20
Committee: JURI

2021/2025(INI)

Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Urges the Commission to continue reviewing whether the COVID-19 related emergency measures are subject to judicial oversight to ensure that they are justified, necessary and proportionate, and that access to judicial redress is not disproportionally affected by the closure of courts;

2021/04/20
Committee: JURI

2021/2025(INI)

Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the Report rightfully addresses the necessary digitalisation of justice proceedings and training for judges~~, including on the rule of law and~~; regrets that the Report is silent on training for advocates; reminds that the Charter of Ffundamental Rrights (the Charter)~~; regrets that the Report is silent on training for advocate~~ is applied by judicial authorities only when implementing European law, however, that for fostering a common rule of law culture, it is important that the rights as enshrined in the Charter are always taken into account in civil and administrative proceedings; calls therefore on the Commission to also consider Charter- focused training modules for judges and legal practitioners; regrets that the Report does not cover the rights laid down in Article 47 of the Charter, such as the right to be defended and represented and the right to legal aid; calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to those areas.

2021/04/20
Committee: JURI

2021/2013(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Believes that the European Union's strategic autonomy has to be a key objective when addressing shortages of medicines, which has been a serious concern for many years currently amplified by the current COVID-19 pandemic;

2021/06/03
Committee: JURI

2021/2013(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Is of the opinion that the diversification of production and supply chains as well as tactical stockpiling of essential medicines will help to achieve strategic autonomy; believes that the dependence of the EU on certain raw materials from third countries and the lack of such production technologies within the EU need to be addressed with priority within a new multi-year pharmaceutical strategy;

2021/06/03
Committee: JURI

2021/2013(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to introduce tax and financial incentives, to authorise State aid and to supervise public funding as incentives for manufacturers to relocate to Europe the manufacture of the active ingredients and medicinal products of strategic importance for health care, in order to create a more crisis-resilient system;

2021/06/03
Committee: JURI

2021/2013(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Underlines the important role played by public investments in R&D, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish full transparency on the results of publicly financed R&D so that patenting and licensing conditions guarantee a public health return on public investments;

2021/06/03
Committee: JURI

2021/2013(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that the TRIPS Agreement lays down the rules applicable to compulsory licences, in particular the grounds on which they are granted, the requirements for limited scope and duration and for the payment of adequate remuneration to the rightholder; notes that the legislation of most Member States provides for compulsory licences, but not under the same conditions; notes, however, that compulsory licences for patents are not frequently used; notes that some Member States have already made use of compulsory licensing, in order to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic; calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to make use of compulsory license schemes to this effect;

2021/06/03
Committee: JURI

2021/2013(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Stresses that compulsory licensing schemes need to be part of wider EU action to address the issue of access to medicines; calls on the Commission to examine the legal and economic implications of voluntary and compulsory licences and their potential to address the shortage of medicines in the EU;

2021/06/03
Committee: JURI

2021/2013(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)

2f. Believes that secure and open access to interoperable health data must be increased while fully respecting EU data protection rules; further suggests establishing open platforms, creating synergies between databases on different types of health data and to extend the collaboration between private and public actors in this sector; encourages the development of platforms, which monitor and provide information on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines after the authorisation procedure;

2021/06/03
Committee: JURI

2021/2013(INI)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Laurence FARRENG, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Nicola DANTI, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)

2g. Stresses the need for increased access to data for high performance computing, artificial intelligence and robotics, new technologies, which can help accelerate the identification of potential active substances, render animal testing obsolete and support the development of new medicines or therapies; stresses, however, the need for high ethical standards at EU level, notably in view of gender or other bias;

2021/06/03
Committee: JURI

2021/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 6 October 2015 with recommendations to the Commission on the possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products,1a _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0331.

2021/06/24
Committee: JURI

2021/2007(INI)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Alin MITUȚA

3 a. Believes that GIs should be better protected against all practices of commercial parasitism in Union law, including when used as ingredients or in services. It is important to ensure that the reputation of the GI in question is not diluted nor weakened by a third party.

2021/06/25
Committee: AGRI

2021/2007(INI)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the great potential of the online market for GIs and TSGs, but stresses that it can only be achieved if intellectual rights are better protected; ~~calls on the Commission~~this requires that the protection of GIs applies to goods that are sold through means of electronic commerce and that procedures are made available to GIs to prevent the registrations in bad faith of domain names that undermine GI protection ; calls on the Commission to table proposals to enhance GIs in order to be at the forefront of online protection ~~by including it~~and to negotiate such a protection in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements;

2021/06/25
Committee: AGRI

2021/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to continue supporting the ability of European companies to innovate on the basis of a comprehensive intellectual property regime, in order to maintain effective protection for their R&D investments, to secure fair returns through licensing and, at the same time, to continue developing open technology standards that support competition and choice as well as the participation of EU industry in the development of key technologies at global level;

2021/06/24
Committee: JURI

2021/2007(INI)

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Is convinced that support for SMEs, including financial and non-financial measures, is the right way to provide them with better access to IPRs and that the Union’s financial instruments are of the utmost importance in this context; calls on the Commission and the EUIPO, therefore, to continue implementing IP management support measures for SMEs in the context of the economic recovery, including the provision of one-stop shop access to information and related services and advice about IP; stresses that this support will help to leverage and promote all national and regional initiatives of members of the European Union Intellectual Property Network (EUIPN);

2021/06/24
Committee: JURI

2021/2007(INI)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Alin MITUȚA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists, however, that intellectual property rights should not lead to a reduction in the diversity of species and varieties and a loss of independence for farmers; also insists that farmers must remain the owners of their seeds and breeding material and must be able to select and adapt them to local conditions and needs.

2021/06/25
Committee: AGRI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) Considering the growing relevance of sustainability-related risks and taking into account that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) listed on regulated markets comprise a significant proportion of all listed undertakings in the Union, in order to ensure investor protection it is appropriate to require that also those SMEs disclose information on sustainability matters. The introduction of this requirement will help to ensure that financial market participants can include smaller listed undertakings in investment portfolios on the basis that they report the sustainability information that financial market participants need. It will therefore help to protect and enhance the access of smaller listed undertakings to financial capital, and avoid discrimination against such undertakings on the part of financial market participants. The introduction of this requirement is also necessary to ensure that financial market participants have the information they need from investee undertakings to be able to comply with their own sustainability disclosure requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2019/2088. SMEs listed on regulated markets should, however, be provided with sufficient time to prepare for the application of the requirement to report sustainability information, due to their smaller size and more limited resources, and taking account of the difficult economic circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be given the possibility to report according to standards that are proportionate to the capacities and resources of SMEs. Non- listed SMEs can also choose to use these proportionate standards on a voluntary basis. The SME standards will set a reference for undertakings that are within the scope of the Directive regarding the level of sustainability information that they could reasonably request from SME suppliers and clients in their value chains.deleted

2021/12/15
Committee: JURI

2021/0104(COD)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN

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

Regulation (EC) No 138/2004
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. The first transmission of data for the regional economic accounts for agriculture ~~shall take place by 30 June 2022 at the latest~~at NUTS 2 level within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 shall take place within 21 months of the end of the first reference year. The first reference year shall be the year during which this Regulation enters into force.’

2021/08/19
Committee: AGRI

2021/0031(COD)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN

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

Regulation (EC) No 138/2004
Article 4a – paragraph 3

3. The Commission (Eurostat) shall assess the quality of the data transmitted. For that purpose, Member States shall transmit a quality report to the Commission (Eurostat), for the first time by 31 December of the year [insert the year starting 1 January following 24 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], and every five years thereafter, for the data sets transmitted during the period concerned.

2021/08/19
Committee: AGRI

2021/0031(COD)

Irène TOLLERET, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Alin MITUȚA, Elsi KATAINEN