Activities of Jean-Lin LACAPELLE
Plenary speeches (90)
A social Europe in a Digital world (topical debate)
Use of contact tracing apps in the fight against the coronavirus (debate)
Tackling Covid-19 disinformation and the impact on freedom of expression (debate)
Combatting the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children (debate)
Situation in Iran (debate)
The impact of Covid-19 outbreak on long-term care facilities (debate)
Digital Services Act: Improving the functioning of the Single Market - Digital Services Act: adapting commercial and civil law rules for commercial entities operating online - Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed - Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies - Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence - Intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies (continuation of debate)
Multiannual Financial Framework (including Own Resources), Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism and the Recovery Fund for Europe (debate)
Towards a New Consumer Agenda beyond 2020 (debate)
Situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union – Annual Report for the years 2018-2019 (debate)
Preparation of an EU Strategy on COVID-19 vaccination, including its external dimension (debate)
Strengthening the single market: the future of free movement of services (debate)
Implementation of the Anti-Trafficking Directive (debate)
Establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (debate)
Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health for the period 2021-2027 (‘EU4Health programme’) (debate)
Digital Green Certificate - Union citizens - Digital Green Certificate - third country nationals - The accessibility and affordability of Covid-testing (debate)
Recent deaths in the Mediterranean and search and rescue at sea (debate)
Human rights protection and the EU external migration policy (debate)
Competition policy – annual report 2020 (debate)
Recent cyberattacks on EU institutions and on sensitive national public and private institutions – The EU’s cybersecurity strategy for the Digital Decade (debate)
European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (debate)
Use of technologies for the processing of data for the purpose of combating online child sexual abuse (temporary derogation from Directive 2002/58/EC) (debate)
Artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters (debate)
European solutions to the rise of energy prices for businesses and consumers: the role of energy efficiency and renewable energy and the need to tackle energy poverty (debate)
The rise of right-wing extremism and racism in Europe (in light of recent events in Rome) (debate)
2019 Discharge: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (debate)
Statute and funding of European political parties and foundations (debate)
The EU's role in combating the COVID-19 pandemic: how to vaccinate the world (topical debate)
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 16-17 December 2021 - The EU's response to the global resurgence of Covid-19 and the new emerging Covid variants (debate)
Digital Services Act (continuation of debate)
The deterioration of the situation of refugees as a consequence of the Russian aggression against Ukraine (debate)
The Power of the EU – Joint European Action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy (debate)
Use of the Pegasus Software by EU Member States against individuals including MEPs and the violation of fundamental rights (topical debate)
Threats to stability, security and democracy in Western and Sahelian Africa (debate)
Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law Report (debate)
The Commission's proposal for "Attracting skills and talent to the EU", particularly the Talent Partnerships with North African countries (topical debate)
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 23-24 June 2022, including the meeting with Western Balkan leaders on 23 June - Candidate status of Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Georgia (debate)
2021 Report on Montenegro (debate)
Loss of life, violence and inhumane treatment against people seeking international protection at the Spanish-Moroccan border (debate)
2021 Report on Serbia (debate)
2021 Report on Kosovo (debate)
EU response to the increase in energy prices in Europe (debate)
Situation of fundamental rights in the EU in 2020 and 2021 (debate)
Statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations (debate)
Statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations (debate)
Keep the bills down: social and economic consequences of the war in Ukraine and the introduction of a windfall tax (debate)
Commission Work Programme 2023 (debate)
EU-Western Balkans relations in light of the new enlargement package (debate)
Outcome of the modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty (debate)
A truly interconnected Energy Single Market to keep bills down and companies competitive (topical debate)
A need for a dedicated budget to turn the Child Guarantee into reality - an urgency in times of energy and food crisis (debate)
Tackle the cost of living crisis: increase pay, tax profits, stop speculation (topical debate)
Implementation of the common foreign and security policy - annual report 2022 - Implementation of the common security and defence policy - annual report 2022 (debate)
Terrorist threats posed by far-right extremist networks defying the democratic constitutional order (debate)
EU response to the humanitarian situation following the earthquake in Türkiye and Syria (debate)
EU funding allocated to NGOs incriminated in the recent corruption revelations and the protection of EU financial interests (debate)
Question Time (Commission) - Strengthened EU enlargement policy to the Western Balkans
Order of business
The need for a coherent strategy for EU-China Relations (debate)
2022 Report on Kosovo (debate)
Externalising asylum applications and making funding to third countries conditional on the implementation of return agreements (topical debate)
Geographical Indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products (debate)
2022 Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina (debate)
The need for EU action on search and rescue in the Mediterranean (debate)
European Defence Industry Reinforcement through common Procurement Act (EDIRPA) (debate)
Single market emergency instrument (debate)
Corrupt large-scale sale of Schengen visas (debate)
Situation in Nagorno-Karabakh after Azerbaijan’s attack and the continuing threats against Armenia (debate)
Recent developments in the Serbia-Kosovo dialogue, including the situation in the northern municipalities in Kosovo (debate)
Schengen area: digitalisation of the visa procedure - Schengen area: amending the Visa Sticker Regulation (Joint debate – Schengen area)
Continuing threat to the rule of law, the independence of justice and the non-fulfilment of conditionality for EU funding in Hungary (debate)
Strategic Compass and EU space-based defence capabilities (debate)
30 years of Copenhagen criteria - giving further impetus to EU enlargement policy (debate)
Defence of democracy package (debate)
Planned dissolution of key anti-corruption structures in Slovakia and its implications on the Rule of Law (continuation of debate)
Situation of fundamental rights in the EU in 2022 and 2023 (debate)
Situation in Serbia following elections (debate)
Situation of prisoners in Hungarian jails, including the case of Ilaria Salis (debate)
Conclusions of the European Council meetings, in particular the special European Council meeting of 1 February 2024 (debate)
The fight against hate speech and disinformation: responsibility of social platforms within the Digital Services Act (topical debate)
Closer ties between the EU and Armenia and the need for a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia (debate)
Closer ties between the EU and Armenia and the need for a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia (debate)
Closer ties between the EU and Armenia and the need for a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia (debate)
Closer ties between the EU and Armenia and the need for a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia (debate)
Deepening EU integration in view of future enlargement (debate)
EU/Chile Advanced Framework Agreement - EU/Chile Advanced Framework Agreement (Resolution) - Interim Agreement on Trade between the European Union and the Republic of Chile (joint debate - EU-Chile agreements)
Artificial Intelligence Act (debate)
State of play of the corporate sustainability due diligence directive (debate)
Type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro 7) (debate)
Internal markets for renewable gas, natural gas and hydrogen (recast) - Common rules for the internal markets for renewable gas, natural gas and hydrogen (recast) - Union’s electricity market design: Regulation - Union’s electricity market design: Directive (joint debate – Reform of the energy and electricity markets)
Shadow reports (3)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union Legislative Acts
RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Advanced Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part
REPORT on deepening EU integration in view of future enlargement
Shadow opinions (7)
OPINION on the recommendations on the negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
OPINION on competition policy – annual report 2020
OPINION European Union regulatory fitness and subsidiarity and proportionality -----– report on Better Law Making covering the years 2017, 2018 and 2019
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Regulation on serious cross-border threats to health repealing Decision No 1082/2013/EU
OPINION on the competition policy - annual report 2022
OPINION on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse
Institutional motions (5)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the draft Commission regulation amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards lead in gunshot in or around wetlands
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the accessibility and affordability of COVID testing
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh after Azerbaijan’s attack and the continuing threats against Armenia
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on association agreements for the participation of third countries in Union programmes
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION the recent attacks on Christmas Eve in Plateau State in Nigeria
Oral questions (3)
Right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and redacted contracts with vaccine manufacturers
Commission measures to ease energy poverty and provide relief to consumers
Association agreements for the participation of third countries in Union programmes
Written explanations (311)
Allocation of slots at Community airports: common rules
Ce rapport d’urgence tient compte de la situation des compagnies aériennes face à la limitation des déplacements en situation d’épidémie. En temps normal, les compagnies aériennes, pour conserver le droit de desservir les aéroports, doivent assurer 80 % des horaires de liaison qui leur sont attribués. Or l’épidémie, tarissant les flux de voyageurs, fait que maintenir une telle obligation contraint les compagnies à faire circuler des vols à perte, voire à vide. Le rapport vise à la suspendre tant que l’épidémie durera. J’ai voté pour.
Specific measures to mobilise investments in the health care systems of the Member States and in other sectors of their economies in response to the COVID-19 outbreak (Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative)
Ce rapport d’urgence vise à fournir une assistance financière de 37 milliards aux entreprises et aux travailleurs indépendants, notamment les PME, les éleveurs et les pisciculteurs. Ils bénéficieront d’un soutien à leurs fonds de roulement, en attendant que la reprise de l’activité économique normale, à la fin de l’épidémie, leur permette d’améliorer leur trésorerie. Les États membres pourront en outre mettre en place des programmes d’aide ou de gestion des fonds de manière simplifiée. Certes, les fonds ainsi mobilisés sont très inférieurs aux dépenses consenties par les États, et l’on peut craindre que leur versement réel n’ait lieu qu’après d’interminables et complexes cheminements administratifs. L’Union européenne est ainsi moins capable et moins efficace que les États, mais tout concours est salutaire, et nos élus locaux dans les assemblées gestionnaires des fonds européens s’emploieront à en faciliter l’accès pour nos entrepreneurs et indépendants. J’ai évidemment voté pour.
Financial assistance to Member States and countries negotiating their accession to the Union that are seriously affected by a major public health emergency
Ce rapport d’urgence a pour but d’élargir l’affectation du Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne (FSUE). Ce fonds, établi pour réagir aux conséquences des catastrophes naturelles, ne s’appliquait en effet pas aux catastrophes sanitaires, telles que l’épidémie à coronavirus. Il pourra désormais être mobilisé en cas d’urgences de santé publique majeures. Il souffre cependant du même défaut que les fonds d’urgence débloqués par l’Union européenne en faveur des PME et des indépendants : son volume total est de 500 millions d’euros, et le plafond des aides à chaque État, tous éligibles en situation de pandémie, est de 100 millions d’euros ; les sommes versées à chaque État seront donc individuellement faibles. Elles le seront d’autant plus que le mécanisme bénéficie également aux pays en cours d’adhésion, dans le but de leur faire miroiter, sans contrepartie, les largesses de l’Union européenne. Afin de protéger plus efficacement les peuples européens d’abord, nous avons proposé par amendement de limiter l’emploi du Fonds aux seuls États membres. Reste que le rapport aidera les Européens à faire face à la pandémie. J’ai voté pour.
Regulation amending the Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui modifie les volumes budgétaires de l’exercice financier 2020 finissant. Il autorise, notamment, 3 milliards d’euros d’augmentation en dépenses sur le poste de la sécurité et de la citoyenneté, qui comprend la santé publique. Cette mesure ne coûte rien : il ne s’agit que d’une réorientation budgétaire, et principalement de la Marge globale pour les engagements (MGE), initialement limitée aux interventions pour la jeunesse, l’emploi, la migration et la sécurité. Ce fonds pourra ainsi alimenter une action plus soutenue en matière sanitaire, et, notamment, financer l’achat de fournitures médicales pour nos hôpitaux.
Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for 2020: migration, refugee inflows and security threats; immediate measures in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak; reinforcement of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (C9-0092/2020)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport, qui, comme le rapport n° 2020/2056 (BUD), qui modifie les conditions de mobilisation de l’instrument de flexibilité financière dans les sommes consacrées à la sécurité et à la citoyenneté, dans la continuité du rapport portant budget rectificatif de l’Union. Mais ce rapport-ci vise à employer 423 millions d’euros à des fins très dissemblables : si la lutte contre le coronavirus est citée, il est surtout question de financer l’accueil des migrants qui se bousculent à la frontière grecque, et d’augmenter les moyens de l’illégitime Parquet européen ! Certes, les migrants, comme n’importe qui, doivent être confinés en temps d’épidémie. Cependant, aucune garantie n’est apportée quant au caractère strictement médical de l’utilisation de la somme prévue, ni quant aux décisions qui seront prises à la fin de la situation créée par la crise sanitaire. Je proteste contre ces incertitudes volontaires, mais m’abstiens sur le texte pour ne pas risquer d’entraver des ressources qui seraient utiles pour la santé publique, notamment en Grèce.
Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for 2020: migration, refugee inflows and security threats; immediate measures in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak; reinforcement of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (C9-0096/2020)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui modifie les conditions de mobilisation de l’instrument de flexibilité financière dans les sommes consacrées à la sécurité et à la citoyenneté. Cette modification du texte précisant lesdites conditions intervient dans la continuité du rapport portant budget rectificatif de l’Union, que j’ai également voté. L’instrument de flexibilité apporte ainsi 253 millions d’euros aux 3 milliards alloués sur ce poste budgétaire pour faire face à la crise sanitaire. Il contribuera à acquérir, produire et répartir fournitures médicales, transport des patients et réalisation des soins. Nous soutiendrons toujours la solidarité européenne, lorsque c’est en ce sens qu’elle se fait.
Specific measures to provide exceptional flexibility for the use of the European Structural and Investments Funds in response to the COVID-19 outbreak
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui permet, à titre exceptionnel, de mobiliser les fonds structurels européens en faveur des entreprises et des collectivités, notamment pour assurer leurs fonds de roulement. Ces fonds, dont les montants seront désormais transférables, pourront cofinancer des projets à 100%, et seront soumis à des procédures simplifiées. Au surplus, le rapport rend de la liberté aux États membres dans la gestion des sommes versées. Si cet « exceptionnel » pouvait devenir permanent !
Specific measures to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in the fishery and aquaculture sector
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, comme systématiquement lorsqu’il s’agit de porter assistance à nos citoyens et à nos entreprises dans la crise que nous traversons. Les mesures proposées concernent l’indemnisation des pêcheurs, surtout artisanaux, la plus grande accessibilité aux aides du Fonds européen pour les affaires maritimes et la pêche (FEAMP), et la réinstauration des aides au stockage pour les produits pêchés ne trouvant pas d’acheteurs. Cependant, la crise du secteur européen de la pêche est plus ancienne et plus profonde, et il faut rester convaincu que ces mesures, si souhaitables qu’elles soient dans l’urgence, ne seront ni suffisantes ni durables en l’absence de réflexion nouvelle sur l’organisation de la filière et ses effets économiques, sociaux et environnementaux.
Medical devices (C9-0098/2020)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui reporte d’un an l’entrée en vigueur des dispositions d’un règlement européen créant pour les dispositifs médicaux – mais non pharmaceutiques – des normes et conditions de fabrication, de commercialisation et d’usage plus contraignantes, y compris sur le plan administratif. La crise virale que connaît l’Europe impose en effet de concentrer tout notre potentiel médical sur la destruction de l’épidémie. Quant au fond, le règlement ainsi reporté créait des obligations pesantes, que la production européenne ne pouvait soutenir sans perte d’efficacité : le débat que la Commission veut désormais ouvrir sur le retour d’une souveraineté industrielle et sanitaire doit également, à mon sens, concerner ce règlement et la façon dont il favorise ou entrave la reconstitution des filières médicales nationales.
EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences
J’ai voté contre cette résolution, afin de mieux voter en faveur de la contre-résolution proposée par le Groupe Identité et Démocratie. En effet cette résolution, présentée par les groupes majoritaires au Parlement, propose une lecture politique inacceptable de la lutte contre l’épidémie. Cette lecture est qu’il faut plus d’Europe, toujours, partout. Loin de faire amende honorable et de reconnaître la responsabilité de la politique de l’Union dans le désastre industriel qui frappe nos moyens de production sanitaire et notre résilience économique, la résolution demande que les compétences de l’Union en matière de santé publique soient augmentées, que la liberté de circulation et le libre-échange soient rétablis aussi vite que possible, et quitte la réalité à tel point qu’elle en vient à plaider, oubliant visiblement la gravité du sujet, pour l’accueil des migrants, la censure de la « désinformation russe » et l’élargissement de l’Union.La contre-résolution du Groupe Identité et Démocratie rappelait le rôle central et indispensable de l’État en situation de crise, la nécessité de disposer de chaînes de production autonomes, accessibles et locales, et insistait sur le besoin d’apporter des réponses à échelle humaine aux entreprises et aux citoyens. C’est cette résolution-là qui doit être la nôtre.
EU-Montenegro status agreement on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Montenegro (A9-0018/2020 - Bettina Vollath)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui crée et encadre l’action des garde-frontières et garde-côtes de l’agence Frontex en tant qu’officiers de liaison sur un territoire étranger, en l’espèce le Monténégro. Il ne s’agit pas d’une compétence exorbitante donnée à l’Union européenne: le cadre prévu par le rapport dispose que toute opération doit préalablement être approuvée par les États membres limitrophes, et par le Monténégro lui-même. C’est un exemple d’action européenne locale et encadrée, respectant le principe de subsidiarité, et permettant des actions concrètes pour la défense des frontières. J’approuve de telles actions.
EU-Serbia status agreement on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Serbia (A9-0019/2020 - Bettina Vollath)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport qui, comme son homologue consacré au Monténégro (A9-0018/2020), crée et encadre l’action des garde-frontières et garde-côtes de l’agence Frontex en tant qu’officiers de liaison sur un territoire étranger, en l’espèce la Serbie. Les mêmes conditions y sont présentes: toute opération devra préalablement être approuvée par les États membres limitrophes, et par la Serbie elle-même. On n’ignore pas les sensibilités politiques, économiques, criminelles et religieuses de cette région. Pouvoir agir est bienvenu.
EU-Belarus Agreement on readmission of persons residing without authorisation (A9-0097/2020 - Petar Vitanov)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui, contrairement au précédent (A9-0090/2020), concerne non l’entrée, mais le départ des personnes se trouvant irrégulièrement sur le territoire de la Biélorussie ou des États membres de l’Union. Il postule une obligation de réadmission des personnes présentes en Europe sans titre de séjour valide après avoir franchi la frontière biélorusse, que ces personnes soient biélorusses ou non (comme par exemple des migrants qui y seraient entrés par la frontière russe du pays), et même si, une fois en Europe, elles répudient la nationalité biélorusse. De telles mesures sont excellentes et indispensables. Si nous concluions des accords les contenant avec tous les pays du monde, les difficultés hypocrites alléguées par les pouvoirs publics européens pour n’expulser aucun clandestin seraient vidées de substance. Souhaitons donc que l’exemple en soit donné.
EU-Belarus Agreement on facilitation of issuance of visas (A9-0090/2020 - Ondřej Kovařík)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui facilite et encourage l’obtention réciproque de visas de séjour pour quatre-vingt-dix jours au plus entre les États membres de l’Union européenne et la Biélorussie. L’Europe connaît bien assez les migrations pour que nous ne les favorisions pas davantage, même venant d’un pays aussi isolé que la Biélorussie. D’autre part, cet isolement même, grâce auquel la Biélorussie a échappé aux crises financières, politiques et sanitaires de ces dernières années, serait mis à mal si le pays était entraîné dans nos modèles de développement et d’interdépendance, selon la funeste théorie de l’intégration. L’Europe a pâti de la mobilité à outrance et de la libéralisation des échanges, la crise actuelle le révèle. Il n’est pas souhaitable que la Biélorussie nous imite.
Discharge 2018: European Union Agency for Railways (A9-0061/2020 - Ryszard Czarnecki)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge, car l’Agence européenne pour les chemins de fer (ERA), si elle gère son budget sans éclat, mais sans faute, l’emploie en revanche à une libéralisation du réseau ferroviaire européen calamiteuse à la desserte des territoires français. Ce mandat pernicieux a des conséquences sur sa gestion : tout comme l’Agence européenne (critiquable et critiquée) des produits chimiques, l’ERA percevra désormais des redevances des compagnies qu’elle aura pour charge de certifier. Son champ d’intervention et ses compétences augmentent pour lui permettre, à terme, de devenir le régulateur ferroviaire unique européen. Je n’approuverai pas la décharge d’une agence qui vient supplanter le régulateur français, l’Arafer, dont la disparition en 2019 au profit d’une « Autorité de régulation des transports » très générale n’a rien d’un hasard.
Discharge 2018: European Asylum Support Office (A9-0077/2020 - Ryszard Czarnecki)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge d’une agence dont tant les buts que les méthodes sont critiquables. Les buts: favoriser l’immigration, toujours davantage, minimisant celle qui arrive, cherchant l’harmonisation la plus libérale possible des procédures d’admission à l’asile et répartissant les immigrés entre pays européens, sur le fondement de quoi sont attaqués politiquement, juridiquement et pénalement les États qui cherchent à préserver leur peuple du fléau migratoire. Les méthodes: règlement financier insuffisant, irrégularités dans les procédures de marché, irrégularités dans les paiements, détournements de fonds, abus de ressources humaines; tout cela déjà présent en 2017 et persistant en 2018, malgré un renforcement de l’efficacité de la gouvernance et du contrôle interne. On note que le budget de l’agence a crû de 12,5 %, et que son personnel est en augmentation constante. On se demande bien pour quoi faire, dans la mesure où les immigrés qui, malgré tous les efforts faits pour qu’ils obtiennent l’asile, en sont refoulés, ne sont jamais expulsés ensuite.
Discharge 2018: EU general budget - European Parliament (A9-0021/2020 - Maria Grapini)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge, limitée à la gestion interne du Parlement européen. Sur le plan comptable, elle est bonne. Cependant, sa politique de ressources humaines se traduit par une insuffisance des revenus des fonctionnaires des tranches salariales les plus basses (d’où l’on constate des sous-représentations croissantes des nationalités numériquement les moins importantes parmi les États membres au sein du personnel du Parlement, et d’où aussi, parfois, des problèmes de recrutement), ainsi qu’un mécontentement, un absentéisme et un surmenage qui sont en croissance. On note également une augmentation du budget, persistante, sans nécessité pourtant, des dépenses de communication relevant bien plutôt de la propagande à l’approche des élections de 2019, et une politique immobilière favorisant Bruxelles, comme vraie capitale de l’Union, alors même que le Parlement a son siège à Strasbourg. Le rapport ne craint pas de contester l’existence de ce siège dans l’avenir. Ce n’est pas la première fois: les travaux de sape sont des choses lentes. Je ne puis rien approuver de tout cela.
Discharge 2018: EU general budget - European Ombudsman (A9-0028/2020 - Tomáš Zdechovský)
J’ai voté pour cette décharge, qui porte sur la gestion du Médiateur européen, lequel est un intermédiaire entre les citoyens et les institutions en cas de litige dans leurs rapports. Les dossiers qu’il traite et mène à terme sont en augmentation constante, alors que le délai des enquêtes diminue et que son budget est en baisse légère, en dépit d’une augmentation de personnel, et tout en étant mieux exécuté.Le Médiateur, sans pouvoir prétendre à la parfaite équité de ses décisions, n’a cependant pas hésité à dénoncer d’importants cas de mauvaise administration: ainsi, de la célèbre nomination de Martin Selmayr au Secrétariat général de la Commission, ou encore l’absence de traitement des stagiaires du SEAE.Les institutions européennes ont procédé, sur son instigation, à des réformes bienvenues, comme sur la gestion des groupes d’experts de la Commission. Lorsque l’enquête conclut en défaveur d’une institution, il faut cependant regretter que celle-ci ait moins tendance que les années précédentes à se conformer à cette décision.
Discharge 2018: EU general budget - European Data Protection Supervisor (A9-0029/2020 - Tomáš Zdechovský)
J’ai voté pour cette décharge, celle d’une petite agence aux compétences tout récemment étendues, afin de protéger les données personnelles des Européens et d’étendre cette protection. Le défi est de taille. L’agence, si elle manque des moyens nécessaires à le faire dans le cadre européen (on songe au RGPD), les acquiert vite et les gère plutôt bien, malgré des manquements dans l’exécution des crédits de paiement. Quant aux résultats, l’agence met en œuvre tout ce que ses moyens lui permettent afin tant d’empêcher la captation des données personnelles par les grands acteurs numériques en ligne que d’empêcher l’installation de systèmes de reconnaissance et de contrôles biométriques à grande échelle. Ce n’est pas lui être trop favorable que de lui en donner quittance.
Discharge 2018: EU general budget - Court of Auditors (A9-0031/2020 - Tomáš Zdechovský)
J’ai voté pour cette décharge. Contrairement aux autres, précisément produites par la Cour européenne des comptes elle-même, celle-ci émane d’un cabinet externe. La gestion financière est bonne, la politique de ressources humaines, n’appelle aucune critique, et la production de rapports, en augmentation, est sérieuse, équilibrée et utile. L’on ne peut que lui en donner acte.
Discharge 2018: EU general budget - European External Action Service (A9-0043/2020 - Tomáš Zdechovský)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge, partie pour des raisons de gestion pure, partie en raison des objectifs que cette gestion couvre. En gestion pure, le tableau général est bon, avec une simplification des règles budgétaires, mais des anomalies tant financières (justificatifs manquants, marchés douteux...) qu’administratives (accusations de corruption, irrégularités de politique immobilière) l’entachent fortement. Quant aux actions, ce service diplomatique d’une Union européenne qui n’a pas de compétence diplomatique poursuit deux tendances, l’une d’immixtion dans les compétences des États en matière de stratégie et d’action extérieure, l’autre de soutien à l’éternel « néoconservatisme » orthodoxe, mondialiste, euro-atlantiste, ennemi des nations et des libertés. Il entretient ainsi un réseau concurrent de celui des États, avec lequel il tente à présent de se fusionner, et ne néglige pas de réaliser des campagnes publiques de propagande. Il n’y a dans tout cela rien qui mérite d’être approuvé.
Discharge 2018: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) (A9-0053/2020 - Ryszard Antoni Legutko)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge, par la raison que la gestion de cette agence, dite eu-LISA, n’est pas bonne. Cette agence gère la libre circulation des personnes en Europe, notamment en traçant les personnes sans titres. Son budget augmente spectaculairement (+32%) pour un taux d’exécution d’à peine 75%, qui serait causé par des changements tardifs du cadre juridique nécessaire. Il faut ajouter à cela des retards très importants de la construction des bureaux strasbourgeois de l’agence, qui est d’ailleurs en procès sur ce point, et des problèmes de recrutements, de marchés publics et de gestion informatique. Il est piquant de constater que de telles défaillances de gestion tendent à être systématiques dans les agences en lien avec l’immigration.
Discharge 2018: Euratom Supply Agency (A9-0056/2020 - Ryszard Czarnecki)
J’ai voté pour cette décharge, celle d’une agence issue de la coopération européenne avant l’émergence de l’Union, utile et efficace, bien gérée. Chargée de l’approvisionnement régulier et diversifié du nucléaire dans les États membres qui l’utilisent, elle se consacre également à la sûreté, au démantèlement des anciennes centrales, ainsi qu’à la protection de l’environnement et à la recherche. Elle conduit sa mission sans appeler de reproche, et est un bon exemple de ce que l’Europe peut réussir sans recours aux utopies, à la technocratie et au fédéralisme.
Discharge 2018: eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh European Development Funds (A9-0057/2020 - Michèle Rivasi)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge, qui concernait les Fonds européens de développement (FED), instruments de coopération de l’Union européenne au développement des régions les moins avancées du monde. Ces fonds ne cessent d’augmenter, et ont dépassé en 2018 de 450 millions leurs objectifs de dépense en engagements. En outre, les erreurs d’exécution, dont la plus grande part laisse redouter des fraudes dans l’emploi fait des sommes versées, atteignent 5,2% du budget. À cela s’ajoute la promotion, dans le rapport de décharge, des instruments nouveaux mis en place par la Commission pour contourner la gestion des FED, censée revenir aux États membres, afin de financer plutôt des projets d’ONG aux buts et résultats très contestables, tant sur le plan politique que sur le plan pratique.
Discharge 2018: European Institute for Gender Equality (A9-0058/2020 - Ryszard Czarnecki)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge, car, si la gestion financière de l’Institut européen pour l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes (EIGE) est bonne, sa politique de ressources humaines (statut des travailleurs intérimaires) et de passation des marchés publics (motifs de sélection des soumissionnaires) font l’objet de critiques. Je relève en outre, au risque de paraître narquois, un certain manque de parité au sein de la direction d’une agence européenne chargée d’un tel sujet. Pour ce qui est de l’efficacité, cette agence produit des statistiques et études sur la situation des hommes et des femmes, en Europe et ailleurs, ce qui est d’une utilité contestable quant aux buts et aux méthodes. C’est sur le fondement de cette production que l’Union européenne, se mêlant de ce qui ne la regarde pas, élabore et adopte des réglementations délirantes relevant de l’idéologie la plus pure. Je ne puis accorder mon blanc-seing à un tel fonctionnement.
Discharge 2018: European Chemicals Agency (A9-0063/2020 - Ryszard Antoni Legutko)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge. Le fonctionnement de l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques (AEPC) est en effet anormal : le gros de ses ressources (72% !) provient des redevances que lui versent les entreprises souhaitant enregistrer auprès d’elle une substance chimique. Il en résulte que l’agence est dépendante, pour son fonctionnement, des paiements des entreprises qu’elle est chargée de surveiller. Et même avec cela, ce seraient quelque 27% des entreprises déposantes qui sous-estimeraient leur taille pour acquitter une redevance moindre !Le rapport mentionne, à raison, que cette façon de faire doit finir, que les autorités judiciaires nationales doivent pouvoir s’impliquer dans les contrôles, et que les redevances devraient être perçues par la Commission européenne, au niveau central, laquelle aurait charge de la redistribution budgétaire, afin que les recettes de l’AEPC soient rendues autonomes. Il convient, en effet, d’éviter de nouveaux Panama Papers...
Discharge 2018: European Food Safety Authority (A9-0068/2020 - Ryszard Czarnecki)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport par défiance. Bien plus que sur la gestion financière, sur laquelle il n’y a pas grand-chose à dire, on l’attendait sur l’importante question des conflits d’intérêts entre experts de l’agence et entreprises de l’agroalimentaire. Or, ce problème n’est même pas évoqué. Les importants soupçons provoqués par les rebondissements, entre 2017 et 2018, de la prolongation de l’autorisation de la commercialisation et de l’emploi du glyphosate montraient pourtant que la question méritait au moins d’être traitée en profondeur. La décharge qui n’examine pas ce point saillant ne peut recueillir mon vote.
Discharge 2018: EU general budget – Commission and executive agencies (A9-0069/2020 - Monika Hohlmeier)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge, qui donnait quitus à la Commission et à l’ensemble des agences exécutives de l’Union européenne de l’exécution de leur budget. J’ai voté contre, d’abord parce que les orientations budgétaires prises et suivies servent des programmes et finalités avec lesquels j’ai le plus profond désaccord. Ensuite, parce que le budget européen ne cesse d’augmenter, et avec lui les moyens d’ingérence de l’Union en matière politique, économique et sociale, tant à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur, ce que je ne soutiens pas. Enfin, parce que sur le plan de l’exécution budgétaire, la perception des recettes donne lieu à des irrégularités (fraudes et accaparements) et des insuffisances (pertes sur les recettes prises sur le PNB des États membres en raison de l’évasion fiscale en défaveur de ces derniers) qui causent des manques à gagner contre lesquels la Commission ne lutte pas.
Discharge 2018: EU general budget – Committee of the Regions (A9-0071/2020 - Tomáš Zdechovský)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge, bien que la gestion budgétaire du Comité européen des régions soit bonne. C’est que, d’une part, la gestion de sa gouvernance est contestable : sa présidence fait l’objet d’une entente entre la gauche et la droite, au début de chaque mandat, pour qu’elles dirigent chacune à leur tour sans laisser de voix aux oppositions. C’est surtout, d’autre part, que le Comité européen des régions est un organisme de l’Union européenne cherchant à développer l’autonomie politique des régions au détriment des États, et non pas même comme entités historiques de ces États, mais comme entités politiques de l’Union européenne. Cela s’est particulièrement vu par une campagne organisée autour de l’Europe juste avant les élections. Donner décharge à un tel organisme n’est pas envisageable.
Discharge 2018: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (A9-0072/2020 - Joachim Stanisław Brudziński)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge, parce que je ne veux pas cautionner une imposture. Le budget de cette agence, quoique bien exécuté, n’est pas employé à remplir les missions qu’elle a, et encore moins celles qu’elle devrait avoir. Ces « gardes » des frontières européennes ne veillent nullement à leur conservation, mais au contraire vont chercher en mer ceux qui les franchissent illégalement : aucun immigré ne repart, et d’ailleurs aucune procédure de Frontex n’existe pour ce faire. Pour garantir au mieux ce comportement dévoyé, l’agence augmente ses ressources consacrées au respect des « droits fondamentaux », notion au périmètre élastique justifiant tout et n’importe quoi. Il en résulte que le budget et les effectifs de Frontex ne cessent d’augmenter pour un résultat nul. S’il fallait ajouter à ce tableau, soulignons que le dernier appel d’offres de l’agence pour des drones exclut, par ses critères, les entreprises européennes. C’est bien plus qu’il n’en faut pour lui refuser quittance.
Discharge 2018: European Medicines Agency (A9-0076/2020 - Ryszard Czarnecki)
J’ai voté contre cette décharge, l’Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) partageant la même tare que l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques : la plupart de ses revenus proviennent de redevances versées par les entreprises pharmaceutiques soumettant leurs produits à certification ! Au vu du volume de substances médicales inondant le marché européen, les nombreux scandales de médicaments aux effets secondaires nuisibles voire mortels, et la terrible dépendance aux produits pharmaceutiques qu’on voit grimper, surtout en France, cela représente une préoccupation majeure. Si ce n’était pas assez, l’EMA manque de personnel, et sa transplantation de Londres à Amsterdam en raison du Brexit a engendré de grands retards dans la mise en œuvre de ses nouveaux programmes. Il faut ajouter à cela une dépendance « extrême » (je cite le rapport) de ses projets informatiques à l’expertise externe, faute pour l’agence de disposer des ressources suffisantes. La santé des Européens mérite que tous les moyens possibles soient alloués au contrôle de la sécurité des médicaments, face à l’énorme influence des laboratoires.
Macro-financial assistance to enlargement and neighbourhood partners in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic crisis
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, dont le titre est trompeur. Adopté en urgence pour aider, paraît-il, des partenaires régionaux de l’Union (cela va jusqu’à la Tunisie, la Géorgie ou la Jordanie) à surmonter les conséquences économiques de l’épidémie virale, il constitue en fait un programme de développement dont plusieurs éléments étaient actifs avant son adoption auprès de pays frontaliers, il se déploiera jusqu’en 2021, et fournira un peu plus de 20 milliards d’euros à dix États connaissant des difficultés économiques, qu’elles soient ou non en lien avec la crise épidémique, et sans préjudice de l’arrivée de nouveaux bénéficiaires éligibles. Avec cela, la relance en catimini de l’élargissement de l’Union que le rapport en profite pour suggérer, l’existence d’autres mécanismes d’assistance budgétaire, technique, humanitaire et programmes d’investissements déjà mis en œuvre à l’égard de ces mêmes États, et le manque de ressources créé sur les besoins des pays européens pour faire eux-mêmes face à la crise sont autant de raisons de ne pas voter ce rapport, tout en ne privant pas nos voisins d’assistance.
Temporary measures concerning the operation of air services
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui propose des dérogations ou aménagements aux règles européennes auxquelles les difficultés du secteur aérien en période de pandémie offrent le plus de sensibilité. Ainsi, les États membres pourront maintenir la licence d’exploitation des transporteurs pourtant hors de mesure d’assurer leurs obligations financières (faute d’activité), assouplir les restrictions au droit de trafic, et prolonger ou faciliter les contrats d’assistance en escale (entretien et ravitaillement des appareils pendant le temps des correspondances). Ces dérogations sont temporaires, rendent aux États membres des leviers d’action, et permettent une action efficace et ciblée pour aider le département des transports à faire face à la pénurie. Que les compagnies aériennes se montrent à la hauteur des aides consenties, notamment sur le plan social, et le secteur surmontera la crise.
Amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards the resources for the specific allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative (A9-0111/2020 - Younous Omarjee)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui vise à accroître les moyens de l’Initiative pour l’emploi des jeunes (IEJ), laquelle lutte contre le chômage des moins de 26 ans grâce à des parcours courts de formation, d’apprentissage ou d’alternance. L’IEJ est financée sur une mandature entière (ici 2014-2020) ; or, elle avait épuisé ses fonds en décembre 2019. J’ai donc approuvé le versement de 28 millions pour achever ses activités, avant le vote du nouveau budget 2021-2027. La France est, avec 471 millions d’euros, la première bénéficiaire de l’IEJ, qui a, entre 2014 et 2018, pris en charge 2018 jeunes. Si ce programme seul ne garantira pas l’insertion professionnelle ni ne mettra fin au chômage, c’est un instrument qu’il faut entretenir dans nos moyens de l’aborder.
The rights of persons with intellectual disabilities in the COVID-19 crisis (B9-0204/2020)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, bien qu’il fût imprécis dans ses données et ses solutions, car peu d’éléments existent sur l’effet spécifique de l’épidémie sur les « personnes présentant une déficience intellectuelle » (entre diverses formules plus déshumanisantes que ce qu’elles croient éviter), et les recommandations annoncées n’ajoutent que peu aux stratégies déjà déployées en leur faveur. Je n’en ai pas moins voté le texte avec enthousiasme. Le rapport préconise, en général, l’inclusion de ces personnes, mais aussi l’adaptation de dispositifs spécialisés, tels que du travail à distance, en leur faveur dans le contexte de la crise. Il ouvre également des facilités accrues aux financements, à l’accès aux institutions, aux recours. Je soutiens pleinement ces actions de justice et de solidarité.
Ειδικοί κανόνες για την απόσπαση οδηγών στον τομέα των οδικών μεταφορών και απαιτήσεις επιβολής (A9-0114/2020 - Kateřina Konečná) (A9-0114/2020 - Kateřina Konečná)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui était une proposition de rejet de la position du Conseil européen sur le détachement des conducteurs, dans le cadre du nouveau « paquet mobilité ». On se souvient que, faute d’accord entre les États membres, le secteur des transports était resté exclu de la directive sur les travailleurs détachés, occasionnant de nombreuses distorsions de concurrence économique et sociale dans le domaine routier. Des négociations interinstitutionnelles sont en cours pour résoudre ce problème, dont les documents de travail sont des recommandations susceptibles d’être transformées, si elles sont acceptées, en projets d’actes législatifs. La position rendue par le Conseil propose des améliorations qui, à terme, deviendront des lois : lutte contre la fraude sociale, construction d’un cadre législatif européen. Ces propositions vont dans le bon sens, et ne présument pas du débat qui aura lieu lors de leur transformation en dossier législatif. Aussi ai-je voté contre le texte qui voulait les rejeter, et qui émanait des pays de l’Est, grands bénéficiaires du détachement des travailleurs routiers.
Daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and rest periods and positioning by means of tachographs (A9-0115/2020 - Henna Virkkunen)
J’ai voté contre ce texte, qui était une proposition de rejet de la position du Conseil européen sur les temps de pause et de conduite des conducteurs, dans le cadre du nouveau « paquet mobilité ». La question du régime social des travailleurs détachés ne concerne pas seulement la réglementation au titre de laquelle ils peuvent acquérir et faire valoir des droits financiers, mais aussi la protection du travail, en l’espèce les cadences et le rendement kilométrique imposés par les sociétés de transport établies dans certains États. Ici encore, des négociations interinstitutionnelles sont en cours pour résoudre ce problème, et le Conseil a rendu une recommandation pertinente, que le texte sur lequel j’ai voté, émanant des pays de l’Est, grands bénéficiaires du transport routier, se proposait de rejeter. Je souhaite que le débat politique ait lieu, et que le problème du travail détaché dans les transports européens soit résolu, comme le Rassemblement national le préconise depuis des années.
Adapting to development in the road transport sector (A9-0116/2020 - Ismail Ertug)
J’ai voté contre ce texte, qui rejetait la position du Conseil européen sur les opérations de cabotage routier, dans le cadre du nouveau « paquet mobilité ». Le cabotage est la possibilité pour un véhicule de transport ayant effectué une livraison d’embarquer du fret pour son voyage de retour, s’il n’y avait pas d’échange de marchandises, afin de ne pas circuler à vide. Le but écologique du cabotage a malheureusement été détourné par les transporteurs, qui en ont joué pour concentrer sur eux l’activité de fret, sur laquelle ils étaient plus compétitifs. Les travailleurs en subissent la conséquence, et sont astreints à de fortes cadences pour assurer la prise en charge du marché ainsi accaparé. Cette situation a causé le déclin des transporteurs de l’Ouest, dont la France, et le nivellement vers le bas des conditions de travail des chauffeurs. Des négociations interinstitutionnelles sont en cours pour résoudre ce problème, et le Conseil a rendu une recommandation visant à rectifier les conditions de la concurrence. Or le texte présent, soutenu par les pays de l’Est, grands bénéficiaires du transport routier, se proposait de rejeter ces recommandations. J’ai donc voté contre, afin que le débat politique ait lieu, comme le Rassemblement national y appelle depuis des années.
European citizens’ initiative: temporary measures concerning the time limits for the collection, verification and examination stages in view of the COVID-19 outbreak (C9-0142/2020 - Loránt Vincze)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui allonge le délai de douze mois dont disposent les citoyens pour récolter les signatures en soutien à une pétition dans le cadre de l’Initiative citoyenne européenne (ICE). En effet, le confinement ne permettait pas à celles qui étaient en cours de tenir leurs délais. Entendons-nous bien : l’ICE est une imposture démocratique, car les propositions citoyennes n’ont rien de prescriptif, et que c’est la Commission qui décidera de s’en inspirer ou non pour orienter ses projets de loi. Cependant, tout ce qui tend à donner des moyens de parole aux citoyens est bon à voter, et les pétitions concernées par l’extension portent par exemple sur l’interdiction de la pêche aux ailerons, ou sur la sauvegarde des abeilles, tous sujets qu’on ne peut que soutenir.
Financial activities of the European Investment Bank - annual report 2019 (A9-0081/2020 - David Cormand)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport. La Banque européenne d’investissement (BEI) est un organisme de financement d’États, d’entreprises et de projets. J’approuvais, dans le rapport, la transparence sur les activités financées, la lutte contre la fraude, le soutien aux PME dans la crise virale par la création du Fonds de garantie paneuropéen. Je désapprouvais en revanche le financement de projets non européens ne présentant aucune des normes sociales ou environnementales de l’Europe, l’appel à prendre davantage de risques pour transformer l’investissement, et les carences dans le suivi. Par ailleurs, je n’oublie pas que cette banque n’est pas une institution autonome : elle est détenue par les États membres, et ses emprunts – donc ses dettes – sont aussi ceux de la France à hauteur de 16%. Enfin, si je soutiens l’objectif écologique affiché par la BEI, la mise en avant du critère écologique comme condition d’accès au financement risque d’exclure de nombreuses entreprises moyennes, notamment industrielles, des prêts de la Banque et des concours extérieurs qu’elle permet. La baisse du bilan carbonique européen doit se faire par l’action sur la production et la consommation, non en laissant périr les entreprises.
Humanitarian situation in Venezuela and migration and refugee crisis (RC-B9-0211/2020, B9-0211/2020, B9-0212/2020, B9-0213/2020, B9-0214/2020, B9-0215/2020)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport. Si j’avais voté contre, j’aurais paru soutenir la politique de Nicolás Maduro, ce qui n’est pas le cas. Mais je ne pouvais en aucune manière voter pour. D’abord, parce que l’Union européenne cherche encore, en le votant, à afficher une compétence diplomatique qu’elle n’a pas. Ensuite, parce que, dans son contenu, cette même Union européenne se met lamentablement à la remorque des États-Unis, dont elle copie les éléments de langage avec inconséquence : expression d’un soutien intégral à Juan Guaido (alors que celui-ci a été boudé par les chefs d’État européens dont il était venu chercher l’approbation), vœux pieux de l’avènement de « la démocratie » toujours abstraite et de ses merveilleuses « valeurs » néoconservatrices (alors que le Vénézuela est sous embargo et que les sanctions européennes y font souffrir la population). Tout cela enrobé dans une sauce écœurante de poncifs politiques adaptables à tout et n’importe quoi, et qui dissimulent les coups bas, la haine et les intérêts. L’Europe ne voit pas plus loin que le bout de son nez. Les revirements d’attitude des États-Unis, qui se lassent après que Nicolás Maduro a résisté aux pressions (y compris militaires) exercées pour le démettre, la mettront un jour dans la confusion.
Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (A9-0124/2020 -José Gusmão)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, énième brouet de limaces néolibérales. Rien ne peut en être sauvé. La forme : éléments de langage creux tirés de manuels de gestion d’entreprise, ne contenant rien de concret. La structure : tout est renvoyé au Semestre européen, qui unifie au niveau européen la politique économique et sociale des États, de façon toujours plus technique, abstraite et éloignée de la réalité des travailleurs. Le fond : introduction partout de l’idéologie néolibérale basée sur la création de la concurrence à tous niveaux (« améliorer le fonctionnement des marchés), notamment entre les chômeurs (« améliorer l’offre d’emplois, les qualifications et les compétences »), et le nivellement des obstacles à la concurrence (« favoriser l’inclusion sociale et promouvoir l’égalité des chances »). Comme le libéralisme économique et le libéralisme politique se correspondent bien ! Sur les éléments concrets (trop concrets, sans doute) que sont l’inflation normative, qui maintient les PME durablement à l’écart des grandes entreprises faute de moyens, ou le matraquage fiscal, aveuglément et uniformément appliqué, rien n’est dit. Ce sont pourtant les masques qu’affecte habituellement le libéralisme économique pour se faire apprécier. Pour ne rien dire de la notion même d’emploi, conçue exclusivement comme une intégration à un ensemble techno-économique, déshumanisant et nuisible.
Mobilisation of the Contingency Margin in 2020: continuation of humanitarian support to refugees in Turkey (A9-0125/2020 - Monika Hohlmeier)
J’ai bien évidemment voté contre ce rapport. La Turquie n’a-t-elle donc pas assez clairement insulté l’Europe ? N’a-t-elle pas explicitement dit qu’elle utilisait ses « réfugiés », auxquels elle ne croit pas elle-même, comme un instrument de pression pour tirer de l’argent de l’Union européenne ? N’a-t-elle pas formidablement montré qu’une fois cet argent perçu, elle laisserait tout de même les immigrants passer en Europe, charge à celle-ci de se débrouiller ? Pour la majorité de ce Parlement, visiblement, ce n’est pas encore suffisant. Mais à chaque élection, notre minorité monte. Vienne l’Europe des nations !
A comprehensive European approach to energy storage (A9-0130/2020 - Claudia Gamon)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport. Égarée dans ses obligations économiques, l’Union européenne ne comprendra jamais ce que c’est que l’écologie. Elle ne cesse de parler de Pacte vert, d’énergie verte, de croissance verte, mais ne les envisage jamais que dans le cadre d’un accroissement de la production et du rendement économique. Ce rapport-ci, par exemple, invite les États membres à explorer pleinement leur potentiel de stockage d’énergie pour aller vers une économie à haute efficacité énergétique basée sur le renouvelable. Or, la volatilité de celui-ci (solaire, éolien – il ne fait pas toujours beau ni un vent fort) ne permettra pas de garantir l’alimentation continue de l’apport en électricité, d’où la nécessité de la mettre en réserve, par des piles ou des batteries. Or le coût de construction des outils de production et d’accumulation de cette énergie – coût économique, coût environnemental, coût social – excédera largement celui du nucléaire. L’option d’accumulation de l’énergie produite par le nucléaire n’est d’ailleurs pas envisagée, alors que cette accumulation serait rapide, puissante, et permettrait de mettre au repos les centrales. Quant à l’idée de soutenir une baisse de la consommation électrique, elle n’a même pas traversée la cervelle des auteurs.
Conclusion of an EU - New Zealand agreement, under negotiation, on the exchange of personal data for fighting serious crime and terrorism (A9-0131/2020 - Annalisa Tardino)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, porté par un député du Groupe Identité et Démocratie, Mme Tardino. Il s’agit de la continuité logique d’un accord préalable de travail conclu en 2019 entre Europol et la police néozélandaise concernant l’échange de données, comme le permet le fonctionnement de cet organe. Offrant toutes les protections de la réglementation européenne sur la protection des données, l’accord confirmatif que le rapport soutient permettra de mieux lutter contre le terrorisme et la criminalité organisée.
A comprehensive Union policy on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing – Commission's Action plan and other recent developments (B9-0207/2020)
Je me suis abstenu sur cette résolution, afin de mieux voter pour la contre-résolution présentée par le Groupe Identité et Démocratie, auquel j’appartiens. Cette contre-résolution reprenait les bons aspects de la résolution initiale (raison pour laquelle nous n’avons pas voté contre celle-ci), sans les carences dont elle était toutefois affectée : extension des compétences du Parquet européen au détriment des juridictions nationales, création d’un cadre juridique européen pour les procédures d’enquête, création d’autorités supranationales de supervision financière. On aurait tort de ne voir là que des objections idéologiques : des cas très concrets, comme l’Affaire Danske Bank, ont vu les autorités européennes empêcher les poursuites diligentées par les États, en l’espèce le Danemark (mais il y en eut d’autres : par exemple l’Allemagne, avec Wirecard) pour sanctionner le blanchiment. La contre-résolution du Groupe Identité et Démocratie conservait les aspects légitimes du texte, mais y intégrait la meilleure prise en compte des organismes non gouvernementaux dans la surveillance des filières de blanchiment, ainsi que la redéfinition des directives applicables à ce sujet. J’ai voté pour cette dernière.
The EU’s public health strategy post-COVID-19 (RC-B9-0216/2020)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. On aurait pu croire que l’Union européenne aurait tiré profit de la crise virale pour mettre en œuvre une stratégie de santé publique dont la priorité soit d’éviter qu’une pandémie puisse nous frapper à nouveau de manière aussi désastreuse. Mais non ! Tout ce qu’elle fait, c’est s’octroyer des compétences. Les erreurs sont relevées, identifiées, mais non pas résolues, et, plutôt que d’agir sur les causes de ce qui a échoué, par exemple en initiant une politique de réindutrialisation sanitaire en Europe, la résolution ne fait qu’accroître les mécanismes de réparation une fois les dommages causés : création d’un Corps médical européen, introduction d'indicateurs contraignants sur la santé dans le Semestre européen, instruments de surveillance sanitaire et d’investissement financier augmentés et ajoutés à ceux qui existent déjà. La résolution ne contient rien pour empêcher le malade de se faire amputer de la jambe, mais elle augmente la dose de cautères à plaquer ensuite sur sa jambe de bois.
Effective measures to “green” Erasmus+, Creative Europe and the European Solidarity Corps (A9-0141/2020 - Laurence Farreng)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, malgré sa très faible pertinence (mieux gérer les moyens de transport qu’utilisent les jeunes et les étudiants en Erasmus ou en volontariat européen !). Il s’agit, fondamentalement, de recenser les déplacements des usagers de ces deux programmes, et d’offrir un remboursement des trajets réalisés de manière écologique. Les quelques points d’appréhension (collecte des données avec indicateurs de performance, incertitudes sur l’incidence budgétaire, nature des déplacements couverts) reçoivent des garanties suffisantes, et nous veillerons à ce que ce système ne se transforme pas en un fichage des jeunes ou en une régulation des transports que le citoyen peut emprunter.
EU-African security cooperation in the Sahel region, West Africa and the Horn of Africa (A9-0129/2020 - Javier Nart)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport, car malgré son objectivité factuelle et sa mise en avant d’une nouvelle vision volontariste de l’Union européenne au Sahel, il néglige la seule solution viable pour sortir de cette crise : faire en sorte que les pays européens soutiennent moralement, militairement et économiquement l’armée française qui défend l’Europe de la création d’un califat à quelques centaines de kilomètres de ses côtes.
Amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (A9-0148/2020 - Nikos Androulakis)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, car j’approuve le Mécanisme de protection civile de l’Union, et parce que ce rapport cherche à en pervertir le fonctionnement. Ce Mécanisme était géré par les États, et servait la solidarité européenne en cas de catastrophe naturelle en dépêchant des fournitures (cela va des avions aux médicaments) aux pompiers, ambulanciers, et autres services d’intervention civile dans les États membres. Et voilà un rapport qui veut leur confisquer cela, placer la gestion du Mécanisme dans les mains de la Commission européenne, et étendre son emploi aux États tiers, à l’heure même où les pays européens, dont les services de santé sont durement sollicités par la pandémie et où les incendies et les inondations se multiplient, en auront de plus en plus besoin pour eux-mêmes. Sans doute l’eurofédéralisme compte-t-il davantage pour les auteurs du rapport que les besoins en urgence des Européens.
Draft Council decision on the system of own resources of the European Union (A9-0146/2020 - José Manuel Fernandes, Valerie Hayer)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Pour sa politique détestable, l’Union européenne réclame l’argent des citoyens. Elle se propose de l’obtenir de différentes façons : par une part d’un nouvel impôt européen consolidé sur les sociétés, par une nouvelle taxe punitive sur les emballages non recyclés par pays, par de nouvelles taxes sur le carbone aux frontières, les services numériques et les transactions financières, par la vente aux enchères de quotas d’émission (c’est-à-dire, cyniquement, de droits à polluer), par l’augmentation de sa part dans les droits de douane au détriment des États, et, enfin, par des emprunts sur les marchés, pourtant en principe interdits, et qu’il reviendra aux peuples de rembourser. Je ne m’oppose pas au principe de certaines de ces sources de revenus – notamment la taxe sur les transactions financières. En revanche, je m’oppose totalement à ce que ce soit l’Union européenne, et non les États membres, qui les perçoive et qui les utilise.
Type approval of motor vehicles (Real Driving Emissions) (A9-0139/2020 - Esther de Lange)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, car il impose aux constructeurs automobiles un changement trop radical qui influerait grandement sur leur compétitivité. L’Union européenne doit être le protecteur des industries européennes et, par extension, de l’emploi des Européens, et non son fossoyeur. En ces temps de crise sanitaire, soutenons nos entreprises au lieu d’imposer une écologie punitive destructrice d’emplois !
Arms export: implementation of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP (A9-0137/2020 - Hannah Neumann)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Plusieurs raisons à cela. D’abord, aucun contrôle de la part de l’Union européenne ne doit exister sur la politique militaire des États membres, régalienne et souveraine par excellence, or le rapport le réclame. Ensuite, parce que la France, que je représente et défends dans l’assemblée européenne, a le plus à perdre de tous les pays européens aux orientations préconisées ici. Je n’en citerai que quelques-unes : soumission des exportations militaires à des règles éthiques contraignantes qui seraient définies par l’Union, convergence et unification des bases industrielles militaires –où la France tient des places de pointe – au niveau européen, création d’un mécanisme européen de contrôle et de surveillance des exportations, avec possibilité d’infliger des sanctions! Sur un tel sujet, pas question d’aliéner les souverainetés nationales.
Determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law
J’ai bien entendu voté contre ce rapport. Une nouvelle réunion plénière du Parlement européen, une nouvelle attaque gratuite contre la Pologne. Le monde peut s’écrouler autour d’eux dans une crise économique et sanitaire, les européistes ne renonceront pas à leur coup de pied de l’âne envers les pays mal-pensants. Quelle mauvaise raison, cette fois ? La réforme du système judiciaire. Peu importe qu’elle soit entièrement légale. Peu importe qu’elle soit un point de programme explicite du PiS, que le peuple polonais a sciemment élu et réélu depuis 2015 par sept scrutins. Peu importe que le système judiciaire modifié soit hérité de l’Union soviétique, ce qui n’inspire pas confiance en matière de démocratie et d’état de droit. Ce qui compte en fait, c’est ce que le rapport demande à intégrer dans les motifs de sanction, mais qui n’en fait pas légalement partie : c’est que la Pologne refuse l’immigration et encourage le traditionalisme dans les mœurs. Alors, le Parlement européen, le gosier débordant de ses « valeurs » rapiécées, brandit la matraque. Mais cette matraque est en mousse : le Parlement n’a aucun pouvoir – le rapport en est réduit à mendier d’être plus « étroitement impliqué » – et la Hongrie empêchera l’unanimité au Conseil contre la Pologne.
Strategic approach to pharmaceuticals in the environment
J’ai voté en faveur de cette résolution. La dispersion dans l’environnement de nombreuses substances chimiques et médicales de l’industrie pharmaceutique – que cette dispersion soit due aux usines ou aux usagers – est un problème sérieux en termes de pollution, mais aussi en termes de biologie. En effet, il est à peu près connu que l’emploi intensif, chez les Occidentaux aujourd’hui, de vaccins, médicaments et antibiotiques a pour effet d’augmenter, par sélection et par accoutumance, la résistance des agents pathogènes, qui mutent et deviennent plus dangereux sans pouvoir être soignés. Mais le même phénomène a lieu lorsque de tels produits se perdent dans la nature : sols, eaux, plantes, animaux, tous les lieux sont alors susceptibles de provoquer des évolutions chez les agents infectieux, qui se répercuteront sur la santé publique. Il est grand temps que l’Union européenne se saisisse de cette question : elle est, pour une fois, l’espace pertinent pour une réflexion et une action d’envergure sur le problème.
Shortage of medicines - how to address an emerging problem
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, car le Rassemblement national et moi-même pointons du doigt les déficiences d’organisation et le manque de coopération entre les États membres durant la crise sanitaire. Ce texte permet de renforcer la souveraineté sanitaire de l’UE en permettant la relocalisation de la production de médicaments d’intérêt thérapeutique en Europe, ce que nous avons toujours prôné.
Implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies: combating negative attitudes towards people with Romani background in Europe
J’ai voté contre cette résolution, dans le cadre d’une procédure spéciale – le vote par division – qui limitait le vote final à une partie du rapport seulement, la pire. Cette partie déroule tous les poncifs du genre: sous prétexte d’intégrer les Roms, elle critique l’organisation traditionnelle de la société européenne, dénonce le «repli sur soi», récrimine contre la police, demande la légalisation de faits illégaux (notamment les campements sauvages) et préconise l’enseignement de la culture rom à l’école. Pas la moindre réflexion de fond sur la compatibilité des cultures en présence n’est amenée, encore moins se demande-t-on s’il existe, de part et d’autre, un désir d’intégration. Non: l’intégration, qui se limite à des mesures d’harmonisation financière et législative (l’UE ne se refait pas), est mise en œuvre à coups de milliards et de campagnes publicitaires.L’autre partie du texte, séparée par division de la première, concernait la reconnaissance de persécutions bien réelles subies par le peuple rom. Celle-là, sans hésitation, je l’ai votée.
Preparation of the Special European Council, focusing on the dangerous escalation and the role of Turkey in the Eastern-Mediterranean
J’ai voté contre cette résolution, afin de mieux voter pour la contre-résolution du Groupe Identité et Démocratie. Alors que Recep Tayyip Erdoğan menace de plus en plus ouvertement l’Europe jusqu’à expédier des navires de guerre dans les eaux chypriotes et à prédire la vengeance aux Grecs et aux Français, cette résolution ne préconise absolument rien contre l’attitude de la Turquie. Elle minimise tous les antagonismes causés par ce pays, persiste à le considérer comme un candidat à l’adhésion auquel les Européens doivent verser de l’or à fonds perdus, et s’en remet à l’OTAN et à l’Allemagne (systématiquement pleutres et opposés aux intérêts de la France) de la médiation internationale à mener. Et lorsqu’enfin elle condamne la Turquie, du bout des lèvres, c’est pour la décrire comme «nationaliste» et ne parler que des droits de l’homme et des migrants! Avec de tels paillassons, Erdoğan a de beaux jours devant lui. Notre contre-résolution réclamait la fermeté et l’action contre un régime reconnu comme hostile. C’est celle-là que j’ai votée.
Situation in Belarus
J‘ai voté contre cette résolution, car je considère que la compétence d’exercer des relations diplomatiques doit rester l’apanage des États et en aucun cas devenir celui de l’Union européenne. De plus, la situation extrêmement tendue en Biélorussie doit être appréhendée avec beaucoup de prudence. S'ingérer dans les affaires de ce pays et reconnaître Sviatlana Tsikhanovskaya comme présidente élue par la seule raison qu'elle était l'opposante ne fera que jeter de l’huile sur le feu de la politique interne biélorusse.
Situation in Russia, the poisoning of Alexei Navalny
J‘ai voté contre cette résolution, car je considère que la compétence d’exercer des relations diplomatiques doit rester l’apanage des États et en aucun cas devenir celui de l’Union européenne. De plus, continuer à vouloir isoler une puissance majeure telle que la Russie de la scène internationale sur des fondements qui ne reposent sur aucune preuve sérieuse me paraît être une attitude extrêmement belliqueuse.
Sustainable rail market in view of COVID-19 outbreak
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, utile quoique cavalièrement introduit en urgence par la Commission. Il vise à introduire davantage de souplesse dans les obligations techniques et financières des opérateurs ferroviaires et des États membres, lorsque les moyens d’y faire face (filières logistiques perturbées, restriction du personnel travaillant, limitation des passagers et des voyages) viennent à manquer. Il prévoit également des compensations en cas de pertes liées à la crise, ce qui est tout à fait bienvenu. Restera à la SNCF à s’en montrer digne de son côté.
Cultural recovery of Europe
J’ai voté pour cette résolution, qui rappelle l’importance du secteur culturel dans nos sociétés européennes, et met en avant les difficultés que rencontrent de nombreux indépendants et PME, difficultés que le coronavirus a considérablement aggravées. Elle insiste sur la valorisation du patrimoine culturel européen, auquel le Groupe Identité et Démocratie est profondément attaché.Bien que je n'approuve pas certains paragraphes, comme celui sur le Pacte Vert, ceux-ci ne suffisent pas à contrebalancer l’ensemble du texte, auquel j'apporte mon suffrage.
The importance of urban and green infrastructure - European Year of Greener Cities 2022 (B9-0243/2020)
Amending Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards the decommitment procedure
J’ai voté contre ce rapport qui permet de donner plus de temps aux États pour gaspiller l’argent des Européens au titre du Fonds « Asile, migration et intégration » (FAMI), véritable outil de la submersion migratoire de l’UE.Cet argent serait bien mieux utilisé pour lutter contre les organisations de passeurs, pour protéger nos frontières, ou tout bonnement expulser les clandestins.
Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion: indirect taxes on 'traditional' rum
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, car il permet à nos départements d’Outre-Mer de bénéficier d’un avantage fiscal très favorable. Le rapport autorise le renouvellement d’exonérations sur les taxes indirectes, comme la TVA, et les droits d’accise sur la vente ou l’utilisation de l’alcool (65 % du rhum fabriqué aux Antilles est vendu en France métropolitaine). D'autre part, ce rapport protège les producteurs de rhum de la concurrence déloyale venant des Caraïbes. J’approuve ce maintien de mesures soutenant nos emplois, et conservant une activité commerciale importante pour nos territoires d’Outre-Mer.
AIEM tax in the Canary Islands
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, de même nature que celui autorisant la France à appliquer, pour certaines taxes indirectes, un taux réduit au rhum « traditionnel » produit en Guadeloupe, en Guyane, en Martinique et à La Réunion. Il s’applique, ici, aux Îles Canaries, territoire ultramarin espagnol, et permet, sur la même base, de donner des avantages fiscaux aux producteurs locaux afin de compenser le manque de compétitivité tenant à l’insularité. L’équité et la solidarité européennes veulent cela.
Draft amending budget No 7/2020: Update of revenue (own resources)
J'ai voté contre ce rapport. Non pas en raison de sa nature : projet de budget rectificatif, il corrige les prévisions de recettes de l'Union européenne pour l'exercice budgétaire courant. En effet, la crise économique provoquée par les diverses mesures de confinement suite à l'épidémie de coronavirus a fortement réduit le PIB et les échanges financiers dans l'Union, or ces indicateurs servent de base à la contribution des États au budget européen. Non, si je vote contre, c'est en raison des compensations budgétaires imposées à chaque État membre à la suite du Conseil européen de juillet 2020. Ce Conseil, le triomphe de Macron, proclamé comme un « accord historique », a vu la France se faire proprement rouler par les « États frugaux », et devoir acquitter un surplus financier énorme (1,3 milliard !), le plus gros de tous les contributeurs, alors que l'Autriche ou le Danemark, sans l'accord desquels le plan de relance ne pouvait être adopté, voient leur contribution réduite au quart de ce qu'elle devrait être. Nous avions dénoncé, alors, cette preuve de la nullité diplomatique (et, malgré cela, de l'inusable arrogance) de Macron. Ce vote en est la concrétisation.
The Establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (A9-0170/2020 - Michal Šimečka)
Une autre réunion plénière du Parlement européen, une autre mesquinerie à l’égard de la Hongrie ou de la Pologne. Ici, les européistes l’avouent ouvertement: ils veulent faire de leurs «valeurs», véritable fardage de maquerelle, un instrument idéologique contraignant, avec droit de punir les États qui renâcleraient devant le mondialisme libéral. La démocratie, le choix des peuples, n’a pas d’importance réelle pour ces gens-là: ce qu’ils appellent démocratie, c’est l’entité politique aplatie devant leurs valeurs et leur bouillie droit-de-l’hommiste, individualiste et broyeuse de toute communauté nationale. Tout cela est d’autant plus ignoble que l’Union européenne n’a pas de compétence pour imposer ses valeurs aux États.Le moyen choisi est l’atteinte au portefeuille. Les États ne respectant pas les critères (vagues et fluctuants à souhait: indépendance des médias et du système judiciaire, état de droit, liberté de la société civile, transparence démocratique...) que fixeront ces messieurs seront sanctionnés financièrement, soit par des amendes, soit par des limitations dans l’octroi des aides européennes. La Hongrie et la Pologne sont bénéficiaires nettes de ces aides. Il est notoire qu’elles quitteront l’Union le jour où elles les perdraient. Si la Commission ose brandir, une fois le Rassemblement national élu, la même menace, elle pourrait encourir la même réaction.
European Climate Law (A9-0162/2020 - Jytte Guteland)
J’ai voté contre ce texte, véritable résurrection de accords de Paris qui va obliger l’Union à respecter des objectifs climatiques démentiels et mettra en danger notre industrie et les millions d’emplois qui en dépendent.De plus, en s’attaquant à l’énergie nucléaire, il remet en question notre souveraineté énergétique.Au Rassemblement national, nous défendons l’écologie, non pas celle qui s’attaque à notre industrie, celle prônée par les ayatollahs de l’écologie punitive : nous défendons une écologie enracinée, localiste, qui protège nos producteurs de la concurrence déloyale internationale et la santé de nos concitoyens.
Equivalence of field inspections carried out on cereal seed-producing crops and equivalence of cereal seed produced in Ukraine (A9-0164/2020 - Veronika Vrecionová)
J’ai bien entendu voté contre ce projet de rapport qui va permettre à l’Ukraine d’exporter ses semences de céréales sur le marché européen. La France, en tant que premier producteur européen de semences céréalières, en pâtira fortement. Nous ne pouvons laisser l’une des dernières filières agricoles excédentaires être déstabilisée par des règles de libre-échange iniques. Il en va de la survie de nos agriculteurs et de notre souveraineté alimentaire.
Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3) and (4)(c): Specifications for titanium dioxide (E 171) (B9-0308/2020)
J’ai voté pour cette résolution, qui permet l’interdiction du dioxyde de titane. Ce produit, probablement cancérigène et génotoxique, qui n’est généralement utilisé qu’à des fins cosmétiques, doit absolument être interdit sur le marché européen. En tant que parlementaires européens, nous avons le devoir de protéger nos populations des effets néfastes de certains produits chimiques.
Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3) and (4)(c) : Maximum levels of acrylamide in certain foodstuffs for infants and young children (B9-0311/2020)
J’ai voté pour cette résolution pour les mêmes raisons que celle permettant l’interdiction du dioxyde de titane. Nous nous devons de protéger la santé des Européens. L’acrylamide est un produit hautement cancérigène qui doit à terme être banni du quotidien des Européens. Définir pour le moment des seuils plus bas, qui ne menaceront pas les nourrissons et les enfants européens est absolument nécessaire. Défendre nos enfants, nos familles et notre santé est l’une des pierres angulaires de la doctrine du Rassemblement national.
The European Forest Strategy - The Way Forward (A9-0154/2020 - Petri Sarvamaa)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui prétend, faussement, que les États membres sont incapables de gérer leurs surfaces forestières. La France démontre très bien que les autorités nationales et les propriétaires privés peuvent coopérer efficacement : la surface boisée aujourd’hui correspond à celle de la fin du Moyen-Âge, et s’accroît de 40 000 hectares par an. Ce rapport n’est qu’une tentative de plus de Bruxelles de se mêler d'un sujet sur lequel elle n'a aucun contrôle.
Decision empowering France to conclude an international agreement concerning the Channel tunnel (C9-0211/2020)
Organic production: date of application and certain other dates (C9-0286/2020)
J’ai voté pour ce règlement modificatif, qui permet de donner un délai supplémentaire aux producteurs pour s’adapter aux nouvelles législations sur la production biologique. Le coronavirus ayant perturbé et retardé certaines échéances et négociations, il est important de donner ce délai. Il en va de la survie de producteurs dans ce marché fragilisé par la crise sanitaire.
The rule of law and fundamental rights in Bulgaria (B9-0309/2020)
J’ai voté contre cette résolution. Il n’est pas concevable de nier le phénomène de corruption qui frappe la Bulgarie. Cependant, je constate que Bruxelles instrumentalise le phénomène à des fins politiciennes. En effet, le véritable objet de cette résolution est de nuire au gouvernent conservateur en place et au Premier ministre Borissov, qui bénéficie d’un soutien populaire important, et de servir les intérêts de la gauche et des libéraux bulgares. En conséquence, je m’oppose à un texte qui s’ingère aujourd’hui dans la politique bulgare comme il le fera demain dans la politique française.
Digital Finance: emerging risks in crypto-assets - regulatory and supervisory challenges in the area of financial services, institutions and markets (A9-0161/2020 - Ondřej Kovařík)
J’ai voté pour ce texte, qui souhaite encadrer la finance numérique et les cryptomonnaies. Le développement de ces dernières en tant que moyen de paiement est une menace pour la souveraineté monétaire des États. L’exemple du développement par Facebook d’une monnaie (Libra) doit nous alerter. Nous ne devons pas laisser à des entreprises privées tels les GAFAM la liberté de supplanter les monnaies nationales.Le Rassemblement national se place du côté de la souveraineté des États et de la protection des épargnants !
Further development of the Capital Markets Union (CMU): improving access to capital market finance, in particular by SMEs, and further enabling retail investor participation (A9-0155/2020 - Isabel Benjumea Benjumea)
Nous avons voté contre ce texte d’influence foncièrement néolibérale, et grandement inspiré par les lobbys financier, car seules les très grosses PME pourront profiter des simplifications apportées. De plus, les banques françaises étant essentiellement tournées vers la relation client, les mesures axées sur le financement de marché avantageront les banques anglosaxonnes au détriment des nôtres.
Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee (B9-0310/2020)
Amending Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 as regards specific measures on L-category end-of-series vehicles in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (A9-0190/2020 - Maria Grapini)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport qui permet aux constructeurs de motocycles de ne pas démanteler leurs réserves de motos non écoulées, n’étant pas à la norme Euro5 du fait de la crise sanitaire. Il était convenable, dans la situation que nous connaissons, de permettre aux commerces durement éprouvés de ne pas connaître de pertes supplémentaires dans les capacités de vente et dans leurs actifs.
Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2020/001 ES/Galicia shipbuilding ancillary sectors (A9-0192/2020 - Valerie Hayer)
Le Fonds européen d’ajustement à la mondialisation vise à apporter une aide aux travailleurs licenciés du fait de la mondialisation sauvage. Le présent rapport vise à mobiliser le FEM à hauteur de 3 424 000 euros pour aider les 960 travailleurs licenciés lors de la fermeture des entreprises Factorias Vulcano et HJ Barrera, en Espagne. Cette demande correspond aux conditions d'octroi du fonds. De plus, il est nécessaire d'aider les travailleurs licenciés espagnols qui, comme en France, subissent de plein fouet la concurrence étrangère déloyale et les affres de la mondialisation sauvage. J’ai donc voté pour ce projet !
Discharge 2018: General budget of the EU - European Economic and Social Committee (A9-0188/2020 - Tomáš Zdechovský)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport. Certes, je donne décharge au Conseil économique et social européen (qui est, par ailleurs, un énième machin totalement inutile) de sa gestion, laquelle s’est effectivement améliorée avec, notamment, la mise en place d’un plafonnement des remboursements de frais. Le problème est ailleurs. L’Office européen de Lutte antifraude, l’OLAF, officine de crapulerie volontiers encline aux machinations politiques (nous en savons quelque chose), a lancé une enquête sur des cas de harcèlement allégué au sein du CESE. Or l’OLAF n’a aucune compétence pour traiter les cas de harcèlement. Le rapport, en donnant sa bénédiction à l’enquête, risque dangereusement de faire de l’OLAF une agence disciplinaire européenne aux pouvoirs exorbitants par rapport à la loi. J’ai dû refuser de voter la décharge.
Digital Services Act: Improving the functioning of the Single Market (A9-0181/2020 - Alex Agius Saliba)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport, parce qu’il comporte du bon comme du mauvais, et parce qu’il s’agit d’une position expectative. Il représente, en effet, la contribution du Parlement aux réflexions entre les trois institutions (Parlement, Conseil, Commission) pour le renouvellement de la législation sur les services numériques. L’ensemble est positif : les principes prévus seront utiles pour s’attaquer aux nouveautés et aux problèmes que soulève le développement du numérique. Au menu : désigner les géants du Web comme « opérateurs systémiques » chargés d’obligations à l’égard des tiers (particuliers, sociétés) dépendants d’eux pour opérer en ligne, renforcer la protection des données, réguler les plateformes de mise en relation, poser des garanties minimales aux conditions d’utilisation (sites, logiciels…), encadrer (enfin !) la modération des contenus…Cependant, d’autres mesures sont soit insuffisantes (l’obligation de vérifier les coordonnées des entités commerciales exerçant en ligne, par exemple, concerne les données d’entreprise et non les personnes, ce qui permet des fraudes), soit indésirables (règlement extrajudiciaire des conflits, engagement contre les « fausses nouvelles » et les « discours de haine » – c’est-à-dire l’opposition politique).Ce rapport n’étant pas définitif, je réserve mon vote et attends les mesures réelles que proposera la Commission.
Digital Services Act: adapting commercial and civil law rules for commercial entities operating online (A9-0177/2020 - Tiemo Wölken)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport qui, dans la continuité de ceux relatifs à l’éthique ou au marché intérieur, tente de mettre en place un cadre pour les nouvelles pratiques technologiques. Ici, il s’agit essentiellement de la modération des contenus, ainsi que des pratiques publicitaires et de l’anonymat du traitement des données par les intermédiaires (par exemple de paiement). La plus grande partie du texte est bonne : la modération, encadrée, pourra désormais et en dernier ressort être portée devant les institutions judiciaires, la prise de décision par des algorithmes devra rester soumise in fine au contrôle humain, et les publicités intrusives devront être réprimées. Il a fallu, car l’Union européenne et sa majorité politique restent ce qu’elles sont, que la lutte contre la « désinformation » et les « discours de haine » (comprenez : tout ce qui ne communie pas religieusement au mondialisme libéral-libertaire). Ce sujet était, cependant, l’objet plus particulier d’un autre rapport (sur les droits fondamentaux dans le numérique – nous avons d’ailleurs voté contre), en sorte que j’ai pu accorder mon suffrage au rapport tout en rejetant fermement cette dernière partie.
Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed (A9-0172/2020 - Kris Peeters)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport extrêmement dangereux pour nos libertés fondamentales. Il comporte quelques points positifs, comme l’interdiction du filtrage automatique des publications, la lutte contre la pédopornographie ou encore la suppression des contenus illégaux, mais il encourage surtout l’UE à réduire la liberté d’expression sur l’Internet, dernier lieux où elle peut encore s’exprimer.
Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies (A9-0186/2020 - Ibán García Del Blanco)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce texte complètement dénaturé par l’ajout successif des positions de chaque groupe. Pose en particulier problème la mise en avant, dans certains articles, de mesures visant à restreindre les « discours de haine » et les « fausses nouvelles » qui sont extrêmement subjectifs et pourraient être utilisés à des fins de limitation de la liberté d’expression, ce qui serait nuisible pour nos démocraties.
Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence (A9-0178/2020 - Axel Voss)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui permet un équilibre entre une protection efficace des victimes potentielles de dommages et la possibilité pour les entreprises de développer de nouvelles technologies d’intelligence artifcielle. Ce nécessaire équilibre est un message fort à destination de l’industrie européenne du numérique.
Intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies (A9-0176/2020 - Stéphane Séjourné)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport qui permet de mettre en place un cadre juridique efficient pour le développement de l’intelligence artificielle. Celui-ci protégera les entreprises faisant preuve d’innovation, ce qui, nécessairement, encouragera nos fleurons très souvent tentés de quitter notre continent à rester dans l’Union. Le développement de l’intelligence artificielle à grande échelle sur notre continent est un enjeu de puissance : protéger les détenteurs de brevets est donc une nécessité civilisationnelle.
Recommendation to the Council and the VPC/HR concerning the Implementation and governance of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) (A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski)
La Coopération structurée permanente (CSP), censée être un cadre de coopération permettant le développement mutuel des capacités de défense, vise en réalité à imposer une vision fédéraliste de la défense. Elle est par essence éloignée nos principes politiques. En outre, cette résolution fait de l’OTAN, organisation périmée désormais plus hostile à nos intérêts qu’autre chose, un bénéficiaire majeur du développement de la CSP. J’ai donc voté contre ce rapport.
Economic policies of the euro area 2020 (A9-0193/2020 - Joachim Schuster)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, pur produit de la majorité européiste de ce Parlement, qui tente de prétexter du coronavirus pour uniformiser à l’échelle de l’Union de nouvelles règles budgétaires et financières qui vont déposséder les États. Il est noté, en effet, que ceux-ci n’avaient pas tous la même marge de manœuvre pour conjurer les conséquences économiques de la crise. Il en est tiré argument, ainsi que de ce que tous les États ont recouru à la clause générale de sauvegarde, pour préconiser que les politiques économiques soient désormais centralisées au niveau européen. Tout est bon à ces gens-là pour arracher leur souveraineté aux peuples !
Employment and social policies of the euro area 2020 (A9-0183/2020 - Klára Dobrev)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, pour mieux voter en faveur de la résolution alternative du Groupe Identité et Démocratie, auquel j’appartiens. C’est un rapport annuel présentant des recommandations sur les politiques liées à l’emploi et aux affaires sociales. Celui de cette année a été rédigé par une socialiste hongroise, et c’est déjà tout dire. Aussi voit-on fleurir les inepties de la gauche : Sécurité sociale européenne, SMIC européen, lutte contre le « racisme structurel » et les « stéréotypes » (ça n’a rien à faire là, mais au point où on en est), fédéralisme à tout crin, critique de la liberté de mouvement des États membres et des différences de politique qui en résultent.La contre-résolution portée par le Groupe Identité et Démocratie conservait les éléments factuels du fond du rapport, en expurgeant les scories idéologiques et réaffirmant la souveraineté des États, ainsi qu’un vrai rapport doit être rédigé.
Deforestation (A9-0179/2020 - Delara Burkhardt)
Chaque année, treize millions d'hectares de forêt sont déboisés dans le monde, dont plus de 96% dans les forêts tropicales. Ce rapport vise à empêcher que les produits importés au sein de l'Union européenne soient responsables, directement ou indirectement, de la déforestation tout en ne remettant jamais en cause l’idéologie libre-échangisme. Ce texte n’est qu’une manière pour l’Union de se donner bonne conscience en créant une étiquette (« free from deforestation »), mais qui ne réglera en rien cette problématique : d’ailleurs, l’Union, pour aller au bout de sa logique, devrait s’interdire toute importation ou exportations d’objets en bois, ce dont elle n’a évidemment aucunement l’intention. C’est pourquoi je me suis abstenu.
Gender Equality in EU’s foreign and security policy (A9-0145/2020 - Ernest Urtasun)
Le rapport explique que la politique étrangère et de défense de l’UE devrait avoir comme alpha et oméga le niveau d’égalité hommes-femmes.L’intention est louable, en principe, mais les relations internationales doivent être l’apanage des États souverains. Leur liberté ne doit pas être entravée. De plus, certains points abordés dans ce rapport sont rédhibitoires, comme fixer des quotas raciaux dans les institutions européennes ou l’intégration de la dimension du genre dans l’ensemble du processus budgétaire, délire qui fait écho aux revendications « écologistes » en France.
Introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union's Stabilisation and Association process (A9-0175/2020 - Emmanuel Maurel)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, caractérisé par son orientation libre-échangiste, ce qui ne lui permet pas de mettre en place des mesures efficientes de contrôle des normes des produits échangés ; de plus, il s’inscrit dans une volonté d’intégration des Balkans dans l’Union européenne jusqu’à une prochaine intégration, ce à quoi nous sommes totalement opposés !
EU/China Agreement: cooperation on and protection of geographical indications (Resolution) (A9-0202/2020 -Iuliu Winkler)
Introduction of capacity limits for Eastern Baltic cod, data collection and control measures in the Baltic Sea and permanent cessation for fleets fishing for Eastern Baltic cod (A9-0093/2020 - Niclas Herbst)
L'écosystème de la mer Baltique est fragile. Nous devons protéger les espèces animales et végétales qui la peuplent. Pour autant, les activités de pêche restent marginales quant au déclin de cet écosystème. L’acidité de cette mer, l’appauvrissement en oxygène et les niveaux de pollution en restent la principale menace. Les mesures de quota seront donc inefficaces. Pour cette raison, j’ai décidé de m’abstenir sur ce texte.
Enhanced cooperation between Public Employment Services (PES) (A9-0128/2020 - Manuel Pizarro)
Bien que nous ne soyons pas opposés à la décision de l’Union de 2014 voulant donner vie au « Réseau » de SPE, sa prolongation jusqu’en 2027 sous cette forme est extrêmement discutable. Une structure permettant d’échanger sur ces questions entre différents États est nécessaire : pour autant, réduire la marge de manœuvre de ceux-ci est à proscrire. Pour cette raison, je me suis abstenu sur ce texte.
General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2021 - all sections (A9-0206/2020 - Pierre Larrouturou, Olivier Chastel)
J'ai voté contre ce budget, qui représentait la position du Parlement européen en la matière. J'ai voté contre car il présentait les habituels travers du Parlement lorsqu'il s'agit de budget : une augmentation des montants (d'une bagatelle de quinze milliards !), un financement axé sur les priorités du Parlement (Pacte vert, croissance écologique, interconnectivité numérique), et des niveaux de dépenses fixés sur certains objectifs thématiques, ici le climat (30%) et la biodiversité (10%).Certes plusieurs de ces objectifs sont séduisants : la protection de l'environnement, l'action pour la jeunesse et la lutte contre le chômage recueillent notre entier soutien. Mais d'autres sont ambigus (la croissance écologique, par exemple, qui n'est que du productivisme peint en vert), sinon carrément nuisibles : accueil des migrants, aide à la Turquie, dépenses administratives, action extérieure. En outre, les fonds requis font l'objet d'un suivi imparfait, que les décharges des exercices précédents attestent et que rien, dans ce budget, ne promet de corriger. Enfin, la hausse de recettes demandée pour alimenter tout cela manquera aux États membres qui, tout les premiers, en ont besoin pour la relance après la crise.
EU/Seychelles Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement and Implementation. Protocol (2020-2026) (resolution) (A9-0184/2020 - Caroline Roose)
L’Union européenne a signé un nouvel accord de partenariat pour la pêche durable (APPD) avec la République des Seychelles, ainsi qu’un protocole de mise en œuvre de cet accord pour une durée de six ans (2020-2026). L’accord définit les règles gouvernant l’accès des navires de pêche de l’Union aux eaux seychelloises. En échange des droits de pêche, l’Union européenne apporte aux Seychelles un soutien financier et technique. En toute hypothèse, cette décision devrait être pleinement soutenue. C’est compter sans la bêtise dure comme le granit de ce Parlement, qui, par la présente résolution, et en faisant de grandes phrases sur le développement durable, prône la réduction du nombre de navires européens autorisés, et saborde l’équilibre de l’accord pour les deux parties. Je me suis donc abstenu.
Programme for the Union's action in the field of health for the period 2021-2027 (“EU4Health Programme”) (A9-0196/2020 - Cristian-Silviu Buşoi)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce texte car, malgré ses quelques points positifs (rappel des prérogatives de chacun des acteurs, formulation de définitions claires, ou encore possibilité pour la France de récupérer des fonds de recherche), c’est un véritable cheval de Troie de la Commission dans la politique sanitaire des États. La santé est une compétence exclusive des États et elle doit le rester.
Sustainable Europe Investment Plan - How to finance the Green Deal (A9-0198/2020 -Siegfried Mureşan, Paul Tang)
The impact of Covid-19 measures on democracy, fundamental rights and rule of law (B9-0343/2020)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui, selon la méthode classique de ce Parlement, a un titre splendide et une substance pourrie. En s’arrêtant au titre, on pourrait croire qu’il s’agit des restrictions apportées, par les états d’urgence et les confinements, à différentes libertés publiques: circulation, expression, manifestation, réunion, justice, suffrage. Il n’en est rien. On n’a droit qu’aux mêmes infâmes poncifs bavés par la majorité politique européenne: association d’acteurs civils et internationaux aux décisions des États, refus des contrôles aux frontières, apologie larmoyante des migrants, des LGBT, des Roms, et ainsi de suite, lutte contre «la haine», contrôle de l’Internet, généralisation de l’avortement, critique des adversaires politiques... En fait de souci de la «protection des droits fondamentaux» à l’occasion de la crise, ce rapport ne fait que demander un surcroît de censure et de répression. Il est vrai que la majorité au Parlement européen est la même que celle qui gouverne dans les États membres qui auraient réellement dû être critiqués: mais ces loups ne se mangent pas entre eux.
Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund: assistance to Croatia and Poland in relation to a natural disaster and advances to Croatia, Germany, Greece,Hungary, Ireland, Portugal and Spain in relation to a public health emergency (A9-0221/2020 - Olivier Chastel)
Le Fonds de solidarité de l’Union européenne vise à soutenir financièrement les États membres touchés par des catastrophes naturelles.Le 24 juin 2020, l'Allemagne, la Croatie, l'Espagne, la Grèce, la Hongrie, l'Irlande et le Portugal ont présenté des demandes d'intervention du Fonds en rapport avec une urgence de santé publique majeure causée par la pandémie de COVID-19. J’ai voté pour, car le Rassemblement National a toujours soutenu la mobilisation du FSUE, qui incarne réellement l’esprit de la solidarité européenne.
Draft amending budget No 9/2020: assistance to Croatia, Poland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal and Spain (A9-0223/2020 - Monika Hohlmeier)
Le projet de budget rectificatif n° 9/2020 accompagne la décision du Parlement européen et du Conseil relative à la mobilisation du Fonds de solidarité de l’Union européenne pour venir en aide à la Croatie et à la Pologne en rapport avec une catastrophe naturelle et pour verser des avances à l’Allemagne, à la Croatie, à l’Espagne, à la Grèce, à la Hongrie, à l’Irlande et au Portugal en rapport avec une urgence de santé publiqueNous avons toujours soutenu la mobilisation du FSUE, qui incarne réellement l’esprit de la solidarité européenne. Nous soutenons en conséquence cette proposition de budget rectificatif n° 9, pour venir en aide aux pays membres touchés par les catastrophes. J’ai donc voté en faveur de ce rapport.
Tackling homelessness rates in the European Union (B9-0363/2020)
Cette résolution vise à enjoindre à la Commission européenne ainsi qu'à l’ensemble des États-membres à lutter contre le vagabondage, désormais appelé « sans-abrisme », dans l’Union européenne. La France compte plus de 300 000 sans-abris, l’Union 4 millions. Il nous faut une prise de conscience nationale et européenne de ce phénomène.J'ai donc voté pour ce texte, qui va dans le bon sens en cette période difficile, malgré quelques angles morts, comme sur l’immigration et le problème réel des sans-papiers sans domicile fixe.
The Schengen system and measures taken during the COVID-19 crisis (B9-0362/2020)
Au début de l’année 2020, de nombreux États membres ont mis en place des restrictions de circulation pour lutter contre la pandémie. Cette pétition émane des représentants des régions frontalières belges, allemandes, néerlandaises et luxembourgeoises, qui regrettent que les fermetures de frontières aient eu une incidence défavorable sur l’activité frontalière.Le texte ne tient même pas compte des possibilités de restrictions temporaires qui sont autorisées par le système Schengen de manière souveraine par les États. Cette proposition de résolution est donc une attaque contre les pays ayant pris les mesures adéquates pour lutter contre la propagation du virus, sans attendre patiemment la réaction de Bruxelles. Il nous faut absolument soutenir ces nations. Pour cette raison, j’ai voté contre.
Markets in financial instruments: amending information requirements, product governance requirements and position limits to help the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic (A9-0208/2020 - Markus Ferber)
La Commission européenne a proposé, le 24 juillet dernier, un ensemble de mesures de simplification concernant le secteur financier, en modifiant les textes sur la titrisation STS, le règlement Prospectus et la directive Mifid II de 2014. Au chapitre des mesures proposées, on retrouve : un recours accru aux communications au format numérique avec les clients, l’introduction d’exemptions sur l’obligation de divulguer l’ensemble des coûts et charges liées aux transactions, la suppression de certains rapports périodiques d’information.Le système financier aura donc obtenu beaucoup pendant cette crise, non seulement des conditions de financements privilégiées et un filet de sécurité quasi illimité par les prêts et rachats massifs de la BCE, mais également par tout un ensemble de mesures d’allègement des contraintes réglementaires et prudentielles. On cherche encore ce qu'il a donné en échange.C’est pourquoi j’ai voté contre ce texte.
Towards a more sustainable single market for business and consumers (A9-0209/2020 - David Cormand)
Ce rapport vise à tracer des lignes directrices à la Commission européenne pour une économie durable dans le cadre de la préparation de la révision de la directive (UE) 2019/771 prévue d’ici 2024 : lutter contre l’obsolescence programmée, développer un écosystème de la réparation et de l’occasion. Nous partageons l’objectif de réduire au maximum la production de déchets et de parvenir à une économie circulaire sans substances toxiques. Nous sommes, de même, en faveur d’un contrôle douanier renforcé, même si la question de l’harmonisation des contrôles est sujette à caution. Le rapport insiste enfin sur le fait que « les mesures réglementaires devraient créer des avantages concurrentiels pour les entreprises européennes ».Pour toutes ces raisons, j’ai voté pour ce texte.
Addressing product safety in the single market (A9-0207/2020 - Marion Walsmann)
La pierre angulaire de la législation européenne en matière de sécurité des produits non harmonisés est la directive relative à la sécurité générale des produits. Des associations européennes de consommateurs ont effectué des épreuves de sécurité sur des biens achetés en ligne. Les deux tiers ne respectaient pas la législation européenne en matière de sécurité. Le rapport souligne qu'un nombre croissant de vendeurs – en particulier de pays tiers – proposent des produits dangereux ou illégaux dans le marché unique. Bien que ce rapport n'aborde pas l'hypermondialisation comme un problème en soi, il souligne néanmoins que la protection des consommateurs doit être renforcée. La surveillance supplémentaire des produits importés contribuera également à lutter contre la concurrence déloyale des entreprises de pays tiers qui sont en concurrence avec les entreprises françaises et européennes. Pour toutes ces raisons, j’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport.
A New Industrial Strategy for Europe (A9-0197/2020 - Carlo Calenda)
Le rapport souligne que l’Union européenne a besoin d’une nouvelle stratégie industrielle conforme à l’objectif de neutralité climatique d’ici 2050 au plus tard, en vue de soutenir la double transition écologique et numérique tout en maintenant et en créant des emplois de qualité. L’UE est confrontée à un double dilemme dans ce dossier : elle revendique l’avant-garde de l’industrie du futur, décarbonée et répondant aux engagements utopistes fixés par les accords de Paris, et, dans le même temps, elle souhaite s’affranchir des graves conséquences qu’a provoquées la mondialisation des échanges, celles qui découlent du mondialisme.De plus, cette stratégie s’appuie globalement sur la dette contractée pour la relance européenne (ce qui justifiera, dans l'avenir, une hausse des ressources propres).Face aux incohérences de ce texte et à la création, à terme, de ressources propres de l’UE, j’ai décidé d’émettre un vote défavorable.
Foreign policy consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak (A9-0204/2020 - Hilde Vautmans)
La pandémie de coronavirus a été un échec de la mondialisation effrénée. Si le monde a évidemment connu des épidémies par le passé, la rapidité de la transmission du virus d’un point à l’autre du globe ; la désunion au sein des institutions internationales, la meilleure gestion du virus en Asie qu’en Europe soulèvent des questions pour un monde occidental imbu de la supériorité de la démocratie libérale. De plus, l’auteur du rapport croit pouvoir dénoncer la main conservatrice de puissances liguées dans un vaste complot pour « détricoter », l’ordre international, en profitant pour discriminer « les minorités marginalisées ».J’ai voté contre ce rapport à la fois atlantiste, fédéraliste, oublieux de tout réalisme en politique étrangère. On reste d’ailleurs interdit devant les velléités de l’UE à développer une diplomatie et la faiblesse technique et intellectuelle des rapports présentés au sein de son Parlement.
Improving development effectiveness and efficiency of aid (A9-0212/2020 - Tomas Tobé)
Ce rapport intervient dans le contexte, d’une part, de la renégociation du NDICI (le nouvel instrument d’aide au développement pour le prochain cadre financier pluriannuel) et, d’autre part, des accords de Cotonou.Le texte pose le constat d’une part de l’augmentation des besoins, notamment du fait de la démographie africaine et de l’absence de débouchés économiques. Or, l’aide au développement manque d’efficacité, du fait de sa fragmentation, et d’un déclin dans l’application des principes d’efficacité de l’aide, selon le rapport. Au-delà du fait que nous sommes opposés à la refonte de l’aide au développement au sein du NDICI, ce texte comporte de nombreux points sujets à caution, notamment l’insistance sur l’égalité de genres qui devrait, selon le texte, faire l’objet de lignes budgétaires spécifiques.Toutefois, on ne peut que soutenir le principe d’une transparence accrue de l’aide, de la publication des données et d’un suivi plus rigoureux des résultats. Comme ce texte comprend autant de points positifs que négatifs, j’ai décidé de m'abstenir.
Stocktaking of European elections (A9-0211/2020 - Pascal Durand)
Ce rapport entend faire un bilan des élections européennes de 2019, qui ont vu notamment le groupe politique Identité et Démocratie devenir la première force d’opposition et le quatrième plus important groupe du Parlement européen.Le rapport se félicite de la hausse de la participation, qui est évidemment, selon lui, un signe d’adhésion au projet européen. Enfin, pour ce qui nous concerne, le rapport concède « le succès des mouvements eurosceptiques, populistes et nationalistes, qui menacent le projet d’intégration européenne », mais s’empresse de préciser que cela « doit être considéré comme un avertissement », nullement comme une aspiration sincère des citoyens.Face à tant de mauvaise foi, j’ai voté contre ce texte, en souhaitant que les prochains scrutins humilient encore davantage les paltoquets qui l'ont rédigé.
Situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union - Annual Report for the years 2018-2019 (A9-0226/2020 - Clare Daly)
Escalating tensions in Varosha following the illegal actions by Turkey and the urgent need for the resumption of talks (B9-0355/2020)
Varosia est un point de conflit politique majeur à Chypre, entre le Gouvernement chypriote et la Turquie. Récemment, les tensions ont grimpé avec la visite du président turc, le 15 novembre, en violation totale de la souveraineté de Chypre, qui est un État membre européen.Cette résolution vise à accentuer la pression de l’UE sur la Turquie. Elle vise d’abord à protéger un pays européen, Chypre, de l’influence néfaste de la Turquie.C’est pourquoi j’ai voté pour.
Elimination of customs duties on certain products (A9-0217/2020 - Bernd Lange)
Ce texte propose simplement l’élimination des droits de douane sur les homards et les langoustes entre l’Union européenne et les États-Unis. Cet accord propose un échange de bons procédés : Washington réduit ses tarifs sur une partie de ses exportations et s’abstient de mettre en place de nouvelles mesures douanières contre l’Europe.Le homard américain ne risque pas de concurrencer le homard français. La demande des quantités pêchées est supérieure à la quantité réelle pêchée en France.C’est pourquoi j’ai voté pour.
Union General Export Authorisation for the export of certain dual-use items from the Union to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C9-0345/2020 - Bernd Lange)
Ce texte propose d’ajouter le Royaume-Uni à la liste d’autorisation générale d’exportation de l’Union n° EU001. Grâce à cette modification, l’État français bénéficiera d’allègements administratifs, et les entreprises françaises ne seront pas soumises aux exigences d’autorisation lorsqu’elles exporteront vers le Royaume-Uni.J’ai donc bien entendu voté pour cette modification de règlement, qui bénéficiera aux entreprises françaises.
Temporary measures in relation to value added tax for COVID-19 vaccines and in vitro diagnostic medical devices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (C9-0352/2020)
Management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention area (A9-0231/2020 - João Ferreira)
J'ai voté pour ce rapport, essentiellement technique, qui vise à actualiser le droit européen pour y intégrer les décisions des comités mondiaux (interaméricain, ici) chargés de superviser des grandes zones de pêche. Les États siègent déjà dans ces comités. Ni le Gouvernement français, ni les pêcheurs français, n'ont eu à s'opposer à cet accord interaméricain ; nous ne nous opposons pas non plus à sa transcription dans le droit européen.
Conclusion of the EU-Japan Civil Aviation Safety Agreement (A9-0239/2020 - Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar)
Compte tenu des circonstances économiques exceptionnelles de cette année 2020, cet accord permet de mieux exporter la fiabilité et la compétitivité des compagnies aériennes européennes, leur permettant ainsi de consolider leur conquête de nouveaux marchés vers l’Asie.La proposition fixe le cadre réglementaire en matière de sécurité aérienne entre l’Union européenne et le Japon, garantissant ainsi une meilleure sécurité des passagers européens.C’est pourquoi j’ai voté pour.
EC/Mauritania Fisheries Partnership Agreement: extension of the Protocol (A9-0244/2020 - Annie Schreijer-Pierik)
L’accord de pêche entre l’UE et la Mauritanie est l’un des plus gros accords de pêche entre un pays tiers et l’Union.Il illustre parfaitement l’échec de la politique des accords de pêche passés avec l’UE et les pays tiers en voie de développement. Ces accords créent ordinairement une concurrence avec la petite pêche locale et déstabilisent les communautés côtières, favorisant ainsi l’immigration des populations pourtant ancrées sur place depuis des siècles.Cet accord démontre l’incohérence de l’UE : d’une part, la viabilité économique est totalement sacrifiée à l’environnementalisme, mais il n’empêchera pas des navires issus d’autres pays, comme la Chine, de piller les ressources : nous payons donc sans réelle contrepartie.C’est pourquoi j’ai voté contre ce texte.
EU/Cook Islands Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement: extension of the implementation Protocol (A9-0243/2020 - François-Xavier Bellamy)
L’accord de pêche entre l’UE et les Îles Cook sous sa forme actuelle a été signé en 2016. Il s’agissait, moyennant 7 millions d’euros sur quatre ans, d’offrir des possibilités de pêche à quatre thoniers espagnols.Il n'existe pas de difficulté sur ce texte, qui concerne assez peu les navires français.C’est pourquoi j’ai voté pour.
Transitional provisions for support from the EAFRD and EAGF in the years 2021 and 2022 (A9-0101/2020 - Elsi Katainen)
La période actuelle de programmation de la Politique agricole commune (PAC) se termine au 31 décembre 2020. Les négociations pour la suivante (2021-2027) ont pris beaucoup de retard du fait à la fois de désaccords profonds au sein et entre les institutions, et de la crise sanitaire qui a considérablement ralenti le processus parlementaire. Entre la fin des négociations interinstitutionnelles et l’adoption par les États de leurs plans stratégiques nationaux, on estime à début 2023 la mise en place réelle de la nouvelle PAC. Dans un tel contexte, une période de transition de deux ans est nécessaire pour garantir la continuité du financement des programmes et notamment du versement des aides directes aux agriculteurs.Ce rapport va dans le bon sens, c’est pourquoi je l'ai voté.
European Year of Rail (2021) (A9-0191/2020 - Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg)
Cette initiative vise à contribuer à la réalisation des objectifs climatiques du Pacte vert en matière de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, et prévoit un certain nombre de dispositions et d’aménagements visant à renforcer la protection des droits des voyageurs ferroviaires et à faciliter l'accessibilité pour les personnes handicapées et les personnes âgées.En France, notamment, de nombreux tronçons ferroviaires transfrontaliers encore non achevés font partie de ces grands projets d’infrastructures, tel le chaînon manquant Perpignan-Montpellier situé sur la liaison ferroviaire Paris-Barcelone-Madrid.C’est pourquoi j’ai voté pour.
Authorising the Commission to vote in favour of the capital increase of the European Investment Fund (A9-0253/2020 - Johan Van Overtveldt)
Draft amending budget No 10/2020: Increase of payment appropriations and other adjustments to expenditure and revenue (A9-0252/2020 - Monika Hohlmeier)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport. J'avais voté sur plusieurs rapports du même genre, qui avaient cherché, en pleine crise virale, à débloquer des fonds supplémentaires pour venir en aide aux États, aux entreprises et aux citoyens. Je ne m'abstiens sur celui que parce qu'il profite de l'atténuation de la crise pour introduire, dans les modifications au budget, des crédits illégitimes en faveur du développement d'États étrangers, notamment la Turquie (100 millions de plus, dont on n'avait sûrement rien d'autre à faire), les Balkans (110 millions), l'Asie centrale (90 millions), la Méditerranée et l'Europe de l'Est (300 millions). Ce sont les Européens qui ont besoin de cet argent. Je me suis donc abstenu, pour ne pas voter contre d'autres dépenses, elles réellement utiles pour nos compatriotes.
Additional resources in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: REACT-EU (A9-0150/2020 - Andrey Novakov, Constanze Krehl)
J'ai voté pour ce rapport, objet d'un compromis entre tous les groupes politiques pour la relance après la pandémie. Il débloque des fonds supplémentaires qui seront investis pour la croissance et l'emploi, ainsi que pour l'écologie. On y regrettera un excès de jargon bien-pensant, mais l'intérêt de nos citoyens et de nos commerces l'emporte de beaucoup dans la pensée de notre mouvement.
A new strategy for European SMEs (A9-0237/2020 - Paolo Borchia)
J'ai voté pour ce rapport. Il n'était que temps de se soucier des PME, qui ont extrêmement souffert des mesures de confinement prises dans le cadre de la gestion de l'épidémie de coronavirus. Le rapport n'est qu'un rapport d'initiative, il ne contient pas de mesures concrètes. Mais il propose à la Commission d'en adopter. Et cela va dans le bon sens : soutien à l'accès des PME aux liquidités pour leur fonctionnement de base, réduction des charges réglementaires et fiscales, importance des modèles traditionnels d'organisation et de financement local, coopératif et protégé contre la prédation financière des grandes multinationales. C'est la bonne voie vers un localisme respectueux de nos besoins et de nos identités.
Implementation of the Dublin III Regulation (A9-0245/2020 - Fabienne Keller)
Ce rapport se concentre sur l’évaluation du règlement Dublin III, qui détermine les pays responsables du traitement du dossier des demandeurs d’asile.Ce rapport voudrait enterrer Dublin III et le remplacer par un nouveau système de répartition obligatoire des migrants tel que proposé pour Dublin IV, ou le pacte de l’UE sur la migration et l’asile. Cette piste ne ferait pourtant qu’encourager toujours plus d’immigration. La seule solution est faite de fermeté, de dissuasion et de protection des frontières extérieures de l’Europe.C’est pourquoi j’ai voté contre.
Implementation of the Return Directive (A9-0238/2020 - Tineke Strik)
L’afflux continu de migrants, qui s’apparente à une véritable submersion avec environ 5 300 000 demandeurs d’asile entre 2013 et 2019, pour la plupart faux réfugiés et vrais migrants économiques, a mis le système d’asile de l’UE à rude épreuve.Ce rapport se concentre sur l’évaluation d’un pan du système d’asile de l’UE, la directive retour. Cette directive, adoptée en 2008, détermine le cadre dans lequel les migrants clandestins et déboutés du droit d’asile peuvent être expulsés, par exemple en précisant les procédures applicables, les méthodes d’identification, les recours possibles ou encore les possibilités de rétention.La directive retour devrait avoir pour objectif de faciliter les expulsions afin d’en maximiser le nombre plutôt que de les restreindre. Mais ce texte prône l’exact inverse. Je n'ai donc pas hésité à voter contre.
Rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (A9-0187/2020 - József Szájer)
J'ai voté pour ce rapport, parfaitement bienvenu. La Commission européenne a ordinairement le pouvoir d'adopter des actes d'exécution (l'équivalent des décrets) aux textes votés par le Parlement et le Conseil. Ces actes sont contrôlés par les États membres par le truchement du Comité permanent des représentants de ceux-ci (COREPER). Les modalités de ce contrôle sont modifiées selon trois axes: le vote des représentants nationaux au COREPER, auparavant secret, sera désormais motivé, les registres de procédure concernant les actes d'exécution feront l'objet d'une meilleure accessibilité, et le Parlement comme le Conseil pourront demander une révision des compétences d'exécution de la Commission pour un texte particulier. Plus de transparence, plus de démocratie, plus de compétences pour les États: nous ne pouvions qu'y souscrire.
European Citizens' Initiative - Minority Safepack (B9-0403/2020, B9-0405/2020)
Cette résolution commune soutenant l’initiative citoyenne européenne (ICE) «Minority SafePack» (l’anglomanie atteint des sommets dans cette institution) fait référence à deux textes (la Convention-cadre pour la protection des minorités nationales du Conseil de l’Europe et la Charte européenne des langues régionales et minoritaires) que la France n’a soit pas signés, soit pas ratifiés. Outre cela, la résolution, sous couvert de la défense légitime des langues et cultures minoritaires historiques des États membres, en profite pour déplorer l’assimilation, promouvoir les minorités en général et le multiculturalisme. Avec mes collègues de la délégation française du groupe Identité et Démocratie, j’ai voté contre ce texte.
A strong social Europe for Just Transitions (A9-0233/2020 - Dennis Radtke, Agnes Jongerius)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. À son seul nom, on pouvait deviner une soupe de communication typique du consensus mou. Nous ne sommes pas déçus: cela part dans tous les sens, et ce qui devait être un choix d’objectifs pour l’institution d’un fonds financier devient une liste de poncifs politiques vagues, irréalistes et jargonnants. Pour le concret, une chose surnage: l’instrument SURE, qui avait financé le chômage partiel lors de l’exceptionnelle crise virale de 2020, serait voué à devenir permanent. Or, cet instrument est financé par de la dette des États membres. Nous nous y opposons, tout comme nous nous opposons à la gouvernance par des formules creuses (souhaiter des «systèmes de protection sociale juste», cela semble très bon, mais ne signifie rien de concret) et aux lubies idéologiques (la parité dans les conseils d’administration, par exemple) qui servent de palliatif à l’inaction qui en résulte effectivement. Nous désirons, certes, une Europe sociale, contre les ravages des délocalisations, de l’exploitation et de la cupidité. Mais ce n’est pas sur l’Union européenne ordolibérale, mondialiste et mercantile, qu’il faut compter pour cela.
Sustainable corporate governance (A9-0240/2020 - Pascal Durand)
Ce rapport vise à élargir le champ d’application de la directive de 2014 sur la publication d’informations non financières, conformément à la demande exprimée par le Parlement européen dans sa résolution du 29 mai 2018 sur la finance durable.Son objectif est de convaincre les grandes entreprises de privilégier leurs intérêts à long terme plutôt que de céder à la tentation de rémunérer grassement leurs actionnaires le plus vite possible. Le texte a le mérite de tenter de moraliser le capitalisme. À la demande de mon collègue Gilles Lebreton, il vise aussi à lutter contre la concurrence déloyale des pays tiers en englobant leurs grandes entreprises qui commercent dans l’UE. Au bout du compte et après discussion avec d’autres groupes, nous pensons que l’objectif de moralisation du capitalisme est bon mais que le texte fait peser trop de contraintes et d’incertitudes sur les entreprises européennes, qui n’ont pas besoin de cela en cette période de crise. C’est pourquoi j’ai voté contre ce texte final.
Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033 (A9-0201/2020 - Željana Zovko)
Chaque État membre peut postuler pour héberger la Capitale européenne de la culture, et accueillir ainsi une manifestation culturelle considérable permettant de faire rayonner la diversité culturelle. Il y avait deux villes détentrices du titre en 2020, et trois villes prévues pour 2021. Le texte rappelle que, à cause des mesures sanitaires, les capitales ont dû annuler une partie de leurs évènements culturels malgré les importants investissements effectués.Le texte précise que ces capitales continuent, aujourd’hui, d’engager des frais et que les investissements sont à la fois humains et financiers. Il propose de permettre aux villes détentrices du titre 2020 de poursuivre la mise en œuvre de leurs programmes culturels jusqu’au 30 avril 2021, et de permettre aux villes détentrices du titre 2021 d’avoir un report de leur titre, en fonction des pays, en 2022 ou 2023. C’est un ajustement de bon sens, conséquence de la crise sanitaire. J’ai donc voté pour ce texte.
Implementation of the EU water legislation (B9-0401/2020)
Cette proposition de résolution va dans le bon sens en raison des nombreuses mesures en faveur de la biodiversité et des écosystèmes aquatiques (marins et d'eau douce). Elle intègre la question des produits chimiques et des polluants qui suscitent de nouvelles préoccupations, les méthodes de notification, et le traitement des eaux usées urbaines.Cependant, un point sensible est à mettre en avant. Il s’agit des infractions susceptibles d’être commises par les États membres par rapport à la directive-cadre sur l’eau. Les dérogations sont manifestement supprimées dans le texte final. Cela pose un problème vis-à-vis de la souveraineté des États. J’ai donc choisi de m’abstenir.
EU Security Union Strategy (B9-0421/2020)
Cette résolution a pour objet d’encenser la « nouvelle stratégie de l’UE sur l’union de la sécurité » et de demander à cette dernière d’aller plus loin. Plusieurs des mesures préconisées sont absolument inacceptables : contrôle renforcé de l’internet ciblant tant le terrorisme que la supposée « désinformation » ou les « discours de haine », lutte institutionnalisée contre le racisme avec formation des forces de l’ordre sur ces sujets (pour repérer et agir contre les statuts Facebook critiques de l’immigration ?), victimisation des migrants, mention du bout des lèvres du terrorisme djihadiste à côté du « terrorisme de droite » et absence de sujets tels que les agressions de la Turquie, le financement étranger de l’islamisme ou l’immigration de masse et ses conséquences. À l’évidence, la sécurité des Européens ne sera pas assurée. Si quelques propositions sont de bon sens, trop de lignes rouges sont franchies. J’ai donc voté contre cette résolution.
Amendments to the Rules of Procedure in order to ensure the functioning of Parliament in extraordinary circumstances (A9-0194/2020 - Gabriele Bischoff)
J'ai voté pour ce rapport. Les citoyens ne le savent pas, mais la gestion par le Parlement européen, en tant qu'administration, de la crise épidémique, a été aussi délirante que celle des autorités nationales. Le Secrétaire général, un fonctionnaire, a eu la main haute sur le fonctionnement de l'institution. L'organisation à Strasbourg des séances plénières, impliquant le déplacement de milliers de personnes, était annulée la veille pour le lendemain. Le Président du Parlement s'est un jour présenté en séance pour annoncer que ladite séance n'aurait pas lieu, et que, d'ailleurs, « cas contact », il allait se confiner de ce pas... juste après avoir exposé tout son auditoire à la maladie. À l'heure présente, seul un unique assistant à la fois peut entrer dans les
EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change (B9-0422/2020)
Cette résolution fait suite à une question orale relative à la stratégie sur l’adaptation au changement climatique. Il faut saluer la pertinence de certains points: sensibilisation aux questions environnementales, préservation de la biodiversité, conservation/restauration des écosystèmes terrestres et marins, gestion de l’eau face aux épisodes de sécheresse. Néanmoins, les écueils sont nombreux: le libre-échangisme anti-environnemental n’est pas critiqué, le recours au nucléaire comme énergie décarbonée et pilotable n’est pas mentionné, le potentiel de la taxe carbone aux frontières n’est absolument pas traité. Cette démarche d’«acclimatation» des politiques de l’Union par une planification verte n’est pas réaliste et encore moins opportune vu l’état actuel des économies européennes.
Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions 2019 (A9-0230/2020 - Kosma Złotowski)
Depuis l’entrée en vigueur du traité de Maastricht, tout citoyen de l’Union européenne a le droit d’adresser, sous la forme d’une plainte ou d’une requête, une pétition au Parlement européen sur une question relevant d’un domaine de compétence de l’Union. Le texte considère que la commission des pétitions est la seule commission à communiquer directement avec les citoyens, et qu’elle joue donc un rôle stratégique dans le processus démocratique européen. Il déplore que les pétitionnaires ne soient toujours pas suffisamment bien informés des raisons pour lesquelles une pétition est jugée irrecevable. Il s’agit d’un texte consensuel, qui se rapproche davantage d’un rapport d’activité que d’un texte politique. Par conséquent j’ai voté pour.
Agreement for co-operation in dealing with pollution of the North Sea by oil and other harmful substances (Bonn Agreement): extension of its material and geographical scope of application (A9-0268/2020 - Pascal Canfin)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui ne pose aucun problème. Uniquement technique, il sert à entériner l’adhésion de l’Espagne à l’Accord de Bonn de 1969 (accord de lutte contre les pollutions maritimes). Il faut regretter que la Commission soit partie à cet accord au nom de l’Union, mais enfin les États demeurent maîtres de leurs zones géographiques respectives, et les naufrages pétroliers récurrents nous rappellent la nécessité de protéger le milieu marin et les zones côtières.
Exemption of certain third country spot foreign exchange benchmarks and the designation of replacements for certain benchmarks in cessation (A9-0227/2020 - Caroline Nagtegaal)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, très technique. Le Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate) est un taux de référence des prêts interbancaires permettant d’en fixer la valeur et le cours prévisibles. Cet instrument financier britannique, créé en 1969, qui est le plus utilisé du monde, a fait l’objet en 2012 d’un scandale lié à des manipulations par les banques, qui en ont truqué le calcul pour gagner de l’argent sur les variations engendrées. La Grande-Bretagne va donc, en 2021, retirer cet indice du marché, ce qui laissera 350 trilliards d’actifs adossés à un taux de référence qui n’existera plus. Ce texte vise donc à le remplacer, et à régler les problèmes juridiques susceptibles d’affecter cette transition. La solution choisie est décentralisée, et il reviendra aux acteurs – banques, marchés – utilisant cet indice de s’accorder sur sa substitution. En cas de désaccord ou de risque de perturbation grave de l’économie par changement de l’indice, un indice de référence sera imposé par la Commission européenne. L’on regrettera que trop de marge soit encore laissée aux banques qui ont, par cupidité, créé ce problème, mais l’urgence justifie un vote favorable.
Technical Support Instrument (A9-0173/2020 - Alexandra Geese, Othmar Karas, Dragoș Pîslaru)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui se proposait de créer une nouvelle administration européenne appelée «instrument d’appui technique», dont le but serait de relever des informations, fournir des expertises et formuler des propositions aux États afin qu’ils mettent en œuvre les «réformes structurelles» et le droit européen. Or je ne vois que trop le but final d’un tel outil. Ce sera un instrument politique, et non technique. Il va servir à relayer auprès des États membres la politique néfaste de la Commission, et à mettre un pied dans les administrations nationales au prétexte de les seconder. Son prédécesseur, le PARS, nous en avait déjà montré l’exemple, en obtenant de contrôler – et d’en faire rapport à l’Union européenne! – les dépenses faites par les États membres des aides européennes pendant la crise. Tout cela pour un budget trois fois et demie plus important. La France s’en passera volontiers.
European Arrest Warrant and surrender procedures between Member States (A9-0248/2020 - Javier Zarzalejos)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce texte, relatif à la mise en œuvre du mandat d’arrêt européen, en vigueur depuis 2014. Sur le fond, c’est un bon outil, utile à la coopération entre les polices et à la remise, sous solides conditions, à un État membre d’un criminel recherché issu d’un autre État membre. Mais je vois aussi le contexte de cet outil, et les orientations du rapport. Il s’agit de faire progresser l’intégration judiciaire européenne, foncièrement illégitime, la Justice étant un attribut régalien. Je relève notamment dans ce sens le souhait de limiter le droit qu’ont les États de refuser une extradition, la tentative d’allonger la liste des faits donnant lieu à remise (dont la fraude fiscale et les « crimes de haine »), et surtout l’appel à lier le mandat d’arrêt européen à l’infâme mécanisme européen pour l’état de droit. J’eusse volontiers voté contre ; je me suis abstenu par considération pour le travail des policiers et des juges, que le mandat d’arrêt européen facilite effectivement.
Strengthening the single market: the future of free movement of services (A9-0250/2020 - Morten Løkkegaard)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, comique de naïveté. Il y a encore, croyez-le ou non, des libéraux purs et durs dans l’Union qui tentent de vendre leur soupe. Ici, il s’agit des services. Le credo libéral est très simple : il faut tout ouvrir, tout permettre, et le dieu Marché jouera son rôle. Aucun obstacle, même involontaire, ne doit subsister à la circulation des services. Toutes les sauvegardes existantes, même quand leur but explicite est de préserver des « motifs impérieux d’intérêt public », sont regardées sans la moindre nuance comme illégitimes, injustifiées et invoquées à tort. Ce n’est pas tout. Le rapport ose proposer la création d’un tableau d’affichage, c’est-à-dire de performance, du marché intérieur, nanti d’« indicateurs de restrictivité » à réduire annuellement de manière contraignante. Les États deviennent des petits employés qui passent un entretien d’évaluation avec des objectifs du mois, sans aucun ancrage dans la réalité et avec pour seule finalité le « toujours plus ». Des structures dirigeantes et des sanctions sont bien entendu au programme. Enfin, nos bons maîtres nous prient de nous mettre tous à l’anglais pour faciliter l’établissement mondial des entreprises. Mais vous verrez que la majorité aura voté tout ça !
Achieving an effective policy legacy for the European Year of Cultural Heritage (A9-0210/2020 - Dace Melbārde)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, émanant du groupe conservateur du Parlement européen. Il y avait pourtant beaucoup à craindre: un «héritage politique utile», cela paraissait être une sélection idéologiquement orientée de certaines idées politiques et philosophiques. Mais ce n’est pas le cas: l’héritage, défini comme «trésor hérité du passé» qui doit être «préservé afin d’être transmis aux générations futures» dans le but de renforcer leur «identité et la cohésion sociale», est décrit comme composé de strates locales, régionales et nationales, sous plusieurs formes, matérielles et immatérielles. Je regrette que la valorisation de ce patrimoine soit confiée à l’Union européenne, à qui je ne fais pas confiance, et m’inquiète beaucoup de la mention du «patrimoine culturel des minorités», qui ne sont pas définies (s’agira-t-il des immigrés, ou des communautés locales?), mais je n’en vote pas moins ce rapport, ainsi que la résolution alternative du groupe Identité et Démocratie, dont les orientations sont similaires, sans en présenter les inconvénients.
Artificial intelligence: questions of interpretation and application of international law (A9-0001/2021 - Gilles Lebreton)
J’ai voté avec enthousiasme pour ce rapport, le premier issu de nos rangs à avoir passé l’épreuve du vote majoritaire du Parlement européen, en commission puis en plénière. Porté par mon collègue RN Gilles Lebreton, il démontre le sérieux et la légitimité de notre parti à contribuer au travail législatif, et à y apporter ses idées et sa compétence. Le rapport a trait à l’usage de l’intelligence artificielle dans trois domaines cruciaux : l’armée, la santé et la justice. Le principe dominant est que, dans tous les cas, des humains doivent avoir le contrôle de la machine, et pouvoir en confirmer, en annuler ou en inverser les décisions. Ce sont ces humains qui seront responsables juridiquement de l’action de la machine. De plus, les usagers des services de santé et de justice devraient être systématiquement informés de l’intervention d’un système d’IA dans leur traitement, leurs données protégées, et un droit de recours ouvert. Enfin, le rapport préconise l’interdiction des outils de surveillance de masse par IA, y compris les applications de notation sociale. Tout cela est excellent, et je souhaite que ce rapport du groupe Identité et Démocratie soit le premier d’une longue série.
Revision of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) guidelines (A9-0251/2020 - Jens Gieseke)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui concerne la question des infrastructures de transport dans l’Union européenne. Il est proposé d’y intégrer des équipements (relais batterie, stations-service...) pour les carburants de substitution, de réviser les normes prudentielles sur les cours d’eau pour prendre en compte des crues ou des assèchements, et de favoriser la mobilité militaire, à la fois physique et juridique, en créant des infrastructures à double usage capables de soutenir des chars ou d’embarquer rapidement des troupes, dans le cadre d’exercices militaires ou de ventes de matériel. Je suis personnellement plus sceptique à l’égard du projet de connexion numérique entre les différentes structures transfrontalières, mais c’est négligeable relativement au reste du rapport, dont la France bénéficiera largement.
Monitoring the application of EU law 2017, 2018 and 2019 (A9-0270/2020 -Sabrina Pignedoli)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui joue le rôle de chien de garde des États membres, contrôlant leur docilité à l’égard du droit européen. S’il eût été objectif, nous aurions encore pu le voter, mais il a fallu que les rédacteurs insistent sur l’État de droit, les migrants, les médias, la citoyenneté européenne, et la lutte contre l’ennemi politique de droite, tout cela étant marqué à l’extrême(-gauche). Je n’admets pas ces manières, jugement politique à charge contre lequel on ne se défend pas. Voter contre est bien le moins que je puisse faire.
Implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy - annual report 2020 (A9-0266/2020 -David McAllister)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. D’abord, parce que l’Union européenne n’est pas un État et n’a foncièrement pas le droit d’entretenir une diplomatie et une politique étrangère. Ensuite, parce que cette politique étrangère consiste uniquement en un atlantisme béat, libéral et «néoconservateur». Surtout, parce que le rapport souhaite à toute force changer la règle de l’unanimité au Conseil sur les questions de politique extérieure, au profit d’une simple majorité, dans le but d’évincer la souveraineté des États membres récalcitrants. Enfin, à cause de la soupe ordinaire des textes de ce genre: critique de la Russie, du populisme, de la désinformation (il faut le voir pour le croire, de la part de ce Parlement), et appel à condamner par tous les moyens, même légaux, les formes politiques qui déplaisent à la démocratie libérale et atlantiste; ainsi du Venezuela ou de la Biélorussie.
Implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy - annual report 2020 (A9-0265/2020 - Sven Mikser)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Il n’y a pas et ne doit surtout pas y avoir de politique européenne de la défense, domaine essentiel de la souveraineté des États. Or c’est ce que le rapport demande. Il est non seulement question d’«autonomie stratégique européenne» en la matière, mais aussi de créer mille et une agences et procédures visant à court-circuiter l’unanimité requise au Conseil sur ces sujets, ainsi que de lier cette prétendue «autonomie» à l’OTAN. Riche idée que celle d’une «autonomie» qui ne se fait qu’au détriment des États membres, et à l’avantage du mondialisme atlantiste. L’on pourrait arguer que la construction européenne n’a jamais suivi d’autres principes. Nous nous soucions peu d’entrer dans les guerres et les combinaisons opaques des États-Unis. Comme de juste, le rapport estime que notre ennemi principal est la Russie, et achève en beauté en demandant la dénucléarisation du monde, ce qui est tout à fait contraire à la doctrine française de dissuasion et de non-emploi.
Human Rights and Democracy in the World and the EU policy on the matter - annual report 2019 (A9-0259/2020 - Isabel Santos)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Chaque année, le Parlement européen fabrique et vote un rapport sur l’évolution des droits de l’homme dans le monde entier. Elle croit qu’il est de sa mission de les propager de par le monde, par un impérialisme culturel d’un genre nouveau. Les ONG, agents de cette propagation, ont donc le beau rôle, leur parole politiquement orientée étant reprise sans la moindre nuance. Il faut cependant remarquer deux autres axes majeurs du rapport : le premier est la « militarisation » du droit international, de plus en plus lourd, conditionné et contraignant, comme une camisole de force juridique, et le second est la « militarisation » de même de l’État de droit, où « droit » est compris comme synonyme parfait de « valeurs libérales-libertaires », que le droit n’est censé que traduire. Tout cela est bien entendu inacceptable et je le rejette au complet.
Measures to promote the recovery of fish stock above MSY (A9-0264/2020 - Caroline Roose)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport. Il constitue, certes, une avancée à l’égard de la surexploitation maritime et de la dégradation des écosystèmes océaniques, et il valide notre approche de sélectivité des zones par rapport à une limitation uniforme des droits de pêche. Mais il est déplorable dans ses propositions de mise en œuvre. En particulier, la recommandation de conclure un nouveau traité international des zones marines internationales fait peser sur les pêcheurs et sur l’avenir d’un droit qui fonctionne les plus grandes incertitudes.
Decent and affordable housing for all (A9-0247/2020 - Kim Van Sparrentak)
J’ai voté contre ce texte, afin de mieux voter pour la résolution alternative présentée par le Groupe Identité et Démocratie. Le texte de la majorité cherchait, sous le louable prétexte de remédier à la condition des sans-abri, à faire entrer ce sujet dans le champ des compétences de l’Union européenne, dont il ne relève pourtant pas. De plus, les mesures préconisées supposaient la prise en compte des diverses initiatives nouvelles de l’Union (Pacte vert, plan de relance), sans oublier le nécessaire couplet sur les minorités de toutes sortes.La résolution alternative du Groupe Identité et Démocratie conservait l’objectif de lutter contre la précarité du logement, mais en maintenant cet objectif dans le giron national et en ajoutant des recommandations quant au logement indigne, singulièrement dans le cas des « marchands de sommeil ».
The right to disconnect (A9-0246/2020 - Alex Agius Saliba)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport. Deux raisons à cela. Je soutiens pleinement l’intention qu’il exprimait de donner aux travailleurs un droit à la déconnexion, c’est-à-dire de ne pas être sollicités en dehors de leurs heures de travail, ce qui est particulièrement pertinent à l’heure du télétravail et de l’érosion de la frontière entre vie personnelle et vie professionnelle. Mais il y avait deux écueils: le premier est qu’il s’agit d’une question sur laquelle l’Union européenne est incompétente et n’a pas à se prononcer. Le second est qu’il manquait d’autres aspects majeurs de la déconnexion, en particulier la situation des personnes non insérées dans les réseaux informatiques, qui sont privées de plus en plus souvent d’accès aux administrations publiques et aux services privés d’intérêt public comme l’eau, l’électricité ou le train, ceux-ci n’étant plus accessibles autrement qu’en ligne.
The gender perspective in the COVID-19 crisis and post-crisis period (A9-0229/2020 - Frances Fitzgerald)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport. Je n’ai pas voté pour, car il est chargé de toutes les élucubrations complotistes qui forment désormais la matrice idéologique des démocraties libérales : oppression, intersectionnalité, partiarcat, quotas sexuels dans les entreprises, et j’en passe. Mais je n’ai pas non plus voté contre, car l’épidémie a révélé des incidences très réelles sur les hommes et les femmes en fonction de leur sexe : ainsi, si les hommes ont un taux de mortalité supérieur, les femmes, elles, ont plus de risques de contracter le virus de par les professions où elles sont majoritaires, comme la santé ou l’éducation, et par les soins maternels qu’elles apportent à leurs proches dans la sphère privée. Elles travaillent aussi plus fréquemment dans des emplois précaires, que les confinements ont balayés en tout premier. Ces problèmes appellent des réponses politiques qui tiennent compte de la perspective de sexe (et non de genre, qui fait croire que ce serait un fait social). Hélas, pour toute réponse, le rapport ne sait proposer que plus d’Europe, avec un rôle accru de la Commission.
The EU Strategy for Gender Equality (A9-0234/2020 - Maria Noichl)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, idéologique et délirant; et j’ai voté pour la résolution alternative présentée par le Groupe Identité et Démocratie. Ce rapport, catalogue des aspirations européennes en matière d’égalité hommes-femmes, donnait le champ libre aux thèses complotistes et propagandistes les plus folles: société patriarcale diffusant des stéréotypes genrés, oppression domestique sur les tâches ménagères, éducation émancipée des enfants, luttes intersectionnelles, critique inlassable de l’adversaire politique de droite, qui est forcément un ignoble machiste, et dénonciation de tous les rôles traditionnels, lutte contre «les normes destructrices de la masculinité» (je ne plaisante pas), quotas sexuels partout, soutien aux ONG homosexuelles et féministes, et, enfin, car ce programme libertaire garde son versant libéral, intégration des femmes au monde du travail. Les quelques considérations légitimes (violences sexuelles, précarité des mères célibataires, traite des êtres humains) qui surnagent dans ce marasme ne suffisent pas à l’assainir.Ce sont ces considérations qu’a reprises et enrichies la résolution alternative du Groupe Identité et Démocratie, qui rappelait notre attachement à l’égalité hommes-femmes, et soulignait les différences et la complémentarité des deux sexes, à respecter et à intégrer dans une organisation politique qui soit à leur service, ainsi que nous le voulons.
Closing the digital gender gap: women’s participation in the digital economy (A9-0232/2020 - Maria da Graça Carvalho)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport, qui n’est pas sérieux. Pour l’Union européenne, la parité partout, ici dans le numérique, est une exigence. Passons sur l’évidente contradiction qu’il y a à affirmer que le sexe d’une personne compte dans le monde professionnel, et à prétendre en même temps qu’une représentation inégale prive forcément ce monde de talents individuels, lesquels ne sont pourtant pas fonction du sexe. Le rapport est déjà parti beaucoup plus loin que cela. Pour lui, toute différence de représentation sexuée où que ce soit est l’indice d’un complot patriarcal «véhiculant des stéréotypes sexistes», et dont le fameux (et faux) «écart salarial» serait la conséquence en fait.Je ne me soucie pas de ces balivernes. Je veux que les femmes puissent étudier et exercer où elles veulent, comme leurs goûts les y inclinent, et pourvu qu’elles y soient correctement formées. Pour cette raison, je n’ai pas voté contre le rapport, qui vise tout de même cet objectif.
Control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (codification) (A9-0010/2021 - Magdalena Adamowicz)
J’ai bien entendu voté contre ce rapport ignoble, qui codifie officiellement de multiples normes contre lesquelles le Rassemblement national avait, en leur temps, déjà voté, et dont le but global est d’empêcher les citoyens de posséder des armes. Ce mouvement liberticide est bien entendu justifié par la lutte contre le terrorisme, mais il se trouve que celui-ci recourt surtout aux filières illégales, alors que le texte ne s’applique qu’à la détention légale.On en comprend facilement les raisons. Des citoyens armés sont des citoyens autonomes. Sans aller jusqu’à se concevoir comme des unités indépendantes devant se méfier de l’État, comme c’est le cas dans les pays anglo-saxons, ils ne sont du moins pas dépendants de la force publique pour leur sécurité. Or, en un temps de défaillance généralisée du devoir par les États de protéger leurs citoyens, défaillance dans laquelle le pouvoir trouve son compte grâce à la peur, les citoyens armés représentent un risque d’émancipation de l’impuissance organisée, et de renversement de ceux qui y prospèrent. Le terrorisme, qui agresse les citoyens, n’est alors même plus pour ceux-là le principal danger. Voilà pourquoi ces lois scélérates viseront finalement toujours les honnêtes gens.
Establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (A9-0214/2020 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureşan, Dragoș Pîslaru)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce très important rapport. La cause en est simple: je n’ai pas voté contre parce que j’approuve la nécessité de relancer l’économie; et je n’ai pas voté pour parce que le mécanisme choisi est mauvais. Voyez plutôt:— une clé de répartition financière indigeste et injuste, par laquelle la France versera 65 milliards pour n’en récupérer que 40,— un financement sur fonds propres par un emprunt inédit qui donne à l’Union européenne des compétences fiscales et ne prévoit pas de remboursement,— un mécanisme scélérat de conditionnalité des fonds au respect de l’état de droit et des valeurs de l’Union, véritable chantage idéologique et financier,— une obligation pour les États de préparer des plans nationaux pour la reprise et la résilience, sur quatre ans, qui appliquent les ordres du Semestre européen, véritable super-étatisme européen,— une obligation folle de consacrer, pour chaque projet, au moins 60 % des montants au climat, et au numérique,— un droit pour l’OLAF et le Parquet européen de contrôler directement les finances des États membres.Mais rien sur les relocalisations, la souveraineté et l’autonomie!Voilà pourquoi je me suis abstenu. Pour aider nos économies, ce plan ne servira à rien.
New Circular Economy Action Plan: see Minutes (A9-0008/2021 - Jan Huitema)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui présente les grands axes de l’action souhaitée de l’Union européenne en matière de lutte contre le productivisme. Il poursuit des objectifs de durabilité (lutte contre l’obsolescence programmée et la camelote produite industriellement), de renforcement de l’information du consommateur (origine, composants, réparabilité), et de valorisation du recyclage. Il entend insister particulièrement sur les secteurs les plus lourds en ressources à la production, tels que l’électronique, les batteries, les emballages ou les véhicules, ainsi que sur les secteurs les plus aisément susceptibles d’avoir une grande incidence sur une économie circulaire concrète (alimentation, textiles). Il vaut ici de rappeler que la moitié des émissions totales de gaz à effet de serre et plus de 90 % de la perte de biodiversité et du stress hydrique résultent de l'extraction et de la transformation des ressources.Certes, le caractère contraignant de ces objectifs, qui s’inscriront dans le pacte vert de la Commission, nous déplaît, mais les États membres conserveront une marge de manœuvre très appréciable. Ce texte, le premier d’une longue série, sera positif pour nos économies, car il contribuera à briser l’hégémonie industrielle chinoise, et à soutenir la création, localement, en Europe, des solutions et filières du retraitement.
Implementation of the Anti-Trafficking Directive (A9-0011/2021 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar, María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport qui, fidèle aux habitudes de ce Parlement, prenait prétexte de l’évaluation de la directive 2011/36/UE relative à la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains pour formuler des préconisations politiques ignobles. Si j’approuve, évidemment, la lutte contre l’exploitation sexuelle et une meilleure coordination européenne en matière pénale et financière, je m’oppose résolument à l’apologie de l’immigration sans frein à laquelle le rapport se livre. Il considère en effet que lutter contre l’immigration clandestine pénalise les immigrés en les plaçant davantage sous la dépendance des trafiquants. La solution, selon lui, est donc d’ouvrir toujours plus de voies légales à l’immigration : plus personne, en effet, n’est obligé de frauder si le tapis rouge est déroulé à tous. Pendant qu’il y est, le rapport demande aussi une présomption de minorité pour les jeunes migrants (qui sont en fait déjà quasiment tous majeurs et se jouent de notre système), une interdiction de poursuivre les violations de la loi par les personnes ayant fait l’objet du trafic, et une prise en charge des « victimes potentielles », concept nouveau et extrêmement fumeux dont il faut se défier. Bref, il ne s’agit encore que de diffuser des mots d’ordre idéologiques.
Implementation of Article 43 of the Asylum Procedures Directive (A9-0005/2021 - Erik Marquardt)
J’ai voté contre ce texte, qui revenait sur la mise en œuvre d’une disposition du droit européen permettant à un État membre de traiter une demande d’asile sans accorder l’entrée au demandeur sur le territoire. La Grèce, la Hongrie et la Bulgarie y ont par exemple recouru afin d’éviter l’invasion. Alors, pourquoi voter contre ? Parce que le rapport a été truffé des habituelles éructations immigrationnistes de la gauche : limitation des durées de rétention, protection des « mineurs isolés » (très souvent majeurs, la fraude en la matière est notoire), demande d’accorder davantage de demandes d’asile, insistance sur la protection juridique à offrir aux migrants, accès des infâmes ONG aux procédures... En votant contre, je ne condamne pas le mécanisme juridique étudié, je combats ces folies idéologiques.
Public access to documents for the years 2016-2018 (A9-0004/2021 - Ioan-Rareş Bogdan)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport visant à accroître la transparence des institutions européennes en ce qui concerne l’accès aux documents, notamment ceux de négociation des accords internationaux, ainsi que spécifiquement ceux des contrats de commande des vaccins, que la Commission se refuse à divulguer autrement que biffés au marqueur noir. Sur certains points, bien sûr, le rapport péchait: il se mêlait de donner un avis non demandé sur le remplacement d’un commissaire européen, demandait au Conseil de fournir des documents préparatoires, donc de travail interne, que le Parlement lui-même ne fournit pas et qui, relevant de l’activité politique de fond des élus, n’a pas vocation à être un travail fini. Pour autant, j’ai voté le rapport, d’autant plus volontiers que la Commission m’a personnellement refusé, plusieurs fois, l’accès aux informations sur ses contrats vaccinaux.
Reducing inequalities with a special focus on in-work poverty (A9-0006/2021 - Özlem Demirel)
J’ai voté contre ce texte. Il pose en effet d’énormes problèmes, tant de fond que de forme.Sur le fond, le principe d’aider les travailleurs fait l’unanimité. Mais il faut le faire sérieusement. C’est là que pèche le rapport. Il n’énumère les problèmes que superficiellement, et se garde bien d’explorer les causes de l’appauvrissement constaté chez les travailleurs européens – où l’Union européenne, avec son historique de rigueur budgétaire obligatoire, ne serait pas à son avantage. Il est également muet sur les questions d’immigration, sur les délocalisations et sur les traités de libre-échange, qui sont aussi la conséquence de l’action de l’Union.Sur la forme, le rapport prétend anticiper sur de très nombreux sujets qui seront étudiés pendant cette législature européenne, afin de mettre les institutions devant le fait accompli avec des positions déjà tranchées; et non des moindres : pouvoirs de la Haute autorité européenne du travail et de la Commission européenne, numéro de sécurité sociale européen, salaire minimum européen, travailleurs de plateformes.Afin cependant de marquer mon soutien à la cause des travailleurs, j’ai voté pour la contre-résolution du groupe Identité et Démocratie, visant à reconnecter ces effets et ces causes, comme le rapport aurait dû le faire.
Programme for the Union's action in the field of health for the period 2021-2027 (“EU4Health Programme”) (A9-0196/2020 - Cristian-Silviu Buşoi)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport: l’Union européenne, rappelons-le sans cesse, n’a pas de compétence dans le domaine de la santé! Si programme il doit y avoir, il doit émaner de la concertation des États membres, mais non revenir à l’Union elle-même. C’est la quatrième fois depuis 1993 que la Commission tente de nous faire le coup, en revoyant chaque fois sa copie pour accroître son ingérence d’une version à l’autre de son texte.La version dont il s’agit ici est, à vrai dire, meilleure que la précédente, car elle abandonne des lourdeurs administratives considérables et allège grandement le budget prévu. Elle demeure cependant une atteinte insupportable à la subsidiarité des États en matière de santé, qu’il s’agisse des programmes de prévention, de la distribution de soins, de l’évaluation des techniques ou des systèmes de protection sociale. Tout cela, pour une valeur ajoutée nulle par rapport à ce que font les États: le désastre de la gestion unique des vaccins par la Commission l’a montré. Je n’ai fait que m’abstenir en raison des circonstances épidémiques, mais c’est bien une opposition de fond qui motive mon vote.
A WTO-compatible EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (A9-0019/2021 - Yannick Jadot)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui marque une révolution dans la politique de l’Union européenne. En effet, s’asseyant sur quarante ans de dérégulation et de libre-échange, elle admet désormais le protectionnisme ! Comment, en effet, nommer autrement un mécanisme de compensation des coûts de production et d’acheminement de produits étrangers, qui en rééquilibrera le prix et la compétitivité par rapport aux produits européens ? L’Europe a beau proclamer qu’il s’agit uniquement d’une mesure écologique, le protectionnisme et le localisme sont des doctrines qui dépassent le simple champ de l’économie et touchent aussi aux questions d’écologie, d’emploi et de santé.Certes, ce texte n’est qu’une résolution préparatoire, et les recettes envisagées seraient affectées au profit exclusif de l’Union européenne. L’avancée n’en est pas moins notable : nous avions, sur ce sujet, raison depuis quarante ans.
Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (A9-0015/2021 - Sven Giegold)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport modifiant le cadre européen en matière de coopération fiscale. Je soutiens le principe de cette coopération : il importe de détecter les revenus provenant de plateformes numériques et de combattre la fraude et l’évasion. Mon abstention tient à trois problèmes créés par le rapport : le premier est une atteinte à la confidentialité des données et de la vie privée des citoyens (bien qu’une sécurité soit prévue dans le texte), le deuxième est le caractère automatique des accès, sur demande de tout État ouvrant une enquête, aux fonctionnaires et documents d’un autre État, et le troisième est l’absence de prévision claire quant aux sommes légitimes que ce mécanisme devrait permettre de redresser.
Implementation of the Construction Products Regulation (A9-0012/2021 - Christian Doleschal)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui revenait sur la mise en œuvre d’un règlement européen harmonisant la commercialisation des produits de construction. Ce rapport est en effet critique du règlement européen, et respectueux des prérogatives des États. La réglementation des normes et travaux de construction appartient aux États membres ; l’Union ne réglemente que les produits intermédiaires. Comme le pointaient les professionnels du secteur, le marquage CE, gage de conformité minimale et non de qualité comparative sur le marché intérieur, fait de plus en plus l’objet de contournements et de contrefaçon, notamment chez les produits importés. La question du retraitement des déchets de la construction est également abordée. L’on comprend, à la lecture du rapport, qu’il anticipe une révision du règlement évalué : nous soutenons donc et le rapport, et la révision à venir.
Equal treatment in employment and occupation in light of the UNCRPD (A9-0014/2021 - Katrin Langensiepen)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, mensonger quant à son titre. Il ne vise pas l’inclusion des handicapés dans le monde du travail ; je l’aurais voté si c’eût été le cas. Non, c’est un énième délire d’une écologiste allemande, qui prétexte de l’inclusion des handicapés pour nous parler de quotas raciaux, de statistiques ethniques, d’intersectionnalité, et de prise en compte des identités marginales et transversales dans toutes les politiques de l’Union.Tout cela est bon pour la corbeille. J’ai voté pour la résolution alternative du Groupe Identité et Démocratie, qui, seule, se rapportait à l’objet des handicapés, pour soutenir leur inclusion professionnelle : leur situation mérite d’être traitée plus sérieusement que comme Cheval de Troie de la folie diversitaire.
Fisheries control (A9-0016/2021 - Clara Aguilera)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport traçant les nouvelles orientations européennes de la politique de la pêche. Ces orientations sont ignobles. Caméras embarquées obligatoires sur les navires de pêche pour fliquer les pêcheurs. Contrôles souverains par des inspecteurs européens rendant compte directement à la Commission européenne et opérant sans notification ni autorisation des États. Favorisation de la concentration de la filière autour des grands groupes dotés de grands navires, qui pourront seuls ou mieux appliquer les normes uniformisantes de la Commission. Les pêcheurs artisanaux sont sacrifiés, comme l’ont été les PME par rapport à la grande distribution. J’en ai constaté les ravages et y suis évidemment opposé.
Activities of the European Ombudsman - annual report 2019 (A9-0013/2021 - Sylvie Guillaume)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport, dont je regrette les inutiles débordements, car le fond était bon. Le fond : dans un contexte de (légitime) défiance à l’égard de l’Union européenne, il convient que les institutions adoptent un fonctionnement plus clair, à la fois en termes de transparence et en matière de cohérence, revenant notamment sur l’occupation de Chypre par la Turquie ou l’utilisation du siège strasbourgeois du Parlement. Les errements idéologiques : les recommandations du Médiateur, pourtant seulement compétent à l’égard des institutions européennes, sont aussi adressées aux États membres, et se doublent d’une ribambelle de considérations oiseuses sur les migrants, les Roms ou la GPA. Toutes choses qui n’avaient rien à voir avec le Médiateur : ce sont les députés de la majorité politique de ce Parlement qui les ont ajoutées. Je m’abstiens donc pour ne pas seconder leur incontinence idéologique : les européistes corrompent tout ce qui entre à leur contact.
European Semester: Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy 2021 (A9-0036/2021 - Markus Ferber)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Le Semestre européen, que peu de nos concitoyens connaissent, est une ignominie consistant à définir au niveau européen et à faire approuver en amont par la Commission les budgets nationaux annuels des États membres ainsi que leurs orientations. C’est dans le cadre de ce dispositif qu’avaient été adoptées les mesures de rigueur (limitation du déficit budgétaire, Mécanisme européen de stabilité) dont la crise virale a forcé la levée.Ce texte présente la stratégie de croissance de l’Union européenne pour 2021. Comme toujours, dans son montant, elle est surévaluée. Quant à sa méthode, elle mêle une augmentation des investissements, une réduction de la dette, et une austérité budgétaire, sans préciser ce qui financera quoi et sans recul sur les échecs de cette politique à juguler les déficits et résorber l’endettement. Tout cela se faisant sur un plan de relance injuste pour la France dans la répartition des sommes au vu des apports initiaux, et dans un cadre de confiscation démocratique, je ne pouvais que voter contre.
European Semester: employment and social aspects in the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy 2021 (A9-0026/2021 - Lina Gálvez Muñoz)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Le semestre européen, que peu de nos concitoyens connaissent, est une ignominie consistant à définir au niveau européen et à faire approuver en amont par la Commission les budgets nationaux annuels des États membres ainsi que leurs orientations. C’est dans le cadre de ce dispositif qu’avaient été adoptées les mesures de rigueur (limitation du déficit budgétaire, Mécanisme européen de stabilité) dont la crise virale a forcé la levée.Pour redorer son blason, la Commission européenne tente aujourd’hui d’assortir sa gouvernance économique d’un volet social. Nous n’y croyons pas. C’est la même Commission qui, lors des semestres européens précédents, demandait sans cesse à libéraliser les contrats de travail et à baisser les dépenses de Sécurité sociale et de santé des États membres ! Cette poudre aux yeux vise à pérenniser le braquage démocratique de l’Union européenne en lui donnant un vernis acceptable.Afin que ma position n’ait aucune ambiguïté, j’ai voté en faveur d’une résolution alternative présentée par le Groupe Identité et Démocratie, rappelant notre soutien aux mesures sociales, mais prises et exercées à l’échelon national.
Children's Rights (B9-0164/2021)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport. On connaît mon attachement au service de la cause de la protection des mineurs. L’on trouvait dans ce texte des évidences à défendre: travail forcé ou volontaire, mutilations génitales, mariages forcés, abus sexuel, le harcèlement en ligne, accès à des plateformes nuisibles. Mais le rapport a, comme le fait toujours l’Union, débordé son objet pour réclamer diverses ignominies, telles qu’une inclusion de la «perspective de genre» dans l’enseignement scolaire, un soutien à l’immigration des «mineurs» (qui ne le sont pratiquement jamais), une stratégie pour les LGBT et les Roms, l’éducation sexuelle (un comble, quand on prétend vouloir préserver les enfants de l’exposition au sexe!), sans parler d’inlassables tentatives d’accroître l’emprise de l’Union européenne sur les sujets (notamment l’éducation) où elle n’a pas de compétence.
Shaping digital education policy (A9-0042/2021 - Victor Negrescu)
Alors que 42 % des Européens ne disposent pas des compétences numériques de base, il est devenu urgemment nécessaire de donner forme à une nouvelle approche de la politique d’éducation numérique. Ce texte propose de renforcer les connaissances des professeurs et des élèves sur ce sujet. Malgré une utilisation régulière du concept d’inclusivité sans qu’il soit défini une seule fois, j’ai décidé de voter pour ce texte qui donne des pistes visant à améliorer l’éducation numérique des Européens.
Impact on fisheries of marine litter (A9-0030/2021 - Catherine Chabaud)
J’ai voté pour ce texte qui, malgré une approche très eurocentrée, propose une solution pour protéger nos mers des déchets sans adopter une approche punitive envers les pêcheurs.Ce texte propose en effet d’associer les pêcheurs à cette lutte, et de les mener à des comportements vertueux par l’incitation plutôt que par la répression. Le but est de les inciter à apporter les déchets aux installations de recyclage par des mesures financières, de les indemniser pour la collecte d’engins de pêche perdus ou encore de leur permettre d’avoir accès à l’élimination gratuite des déchets dans les installations portuaires.
European strategy for data (A9-0027/2021 - Miapetra Kumpula-Natri)
Ce rapport a le mérite de pointer du doigt les manquements de l’Europe et son retard technologique sur la Chine et les États-Unis en termes de stratégie industrielle numérique. Une stratégie commune européenne doit être adoptée; pour autant, ce rapport passe largement à côté du sujet en oubliant une nécessaire souveraineté européenne des données au profit d’un esprit d’ouverture uniquement mené par cette idéologie mortifère de la concurrence libre et non faussée.À ce titre, j’ai décidé de m’abstenir sur ce texte.
General framework for securitisation and specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation to help the recovery from the COVID-19 crisis (A9-0215/2020 - Paul Tang)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, fruit de l’éternel et puissant lobbysme du secteur bancaire, et dont le propos est de faciliter la titrisation sur les dettes. Une dette, en effet, est un titre de créance, qui peut devenir un actif financier, qui se vend et s’achète sur un marché, faisant changer le bénéficiaire de la créance – mais aussi le risque d’impayé que comporte toute dette. Or, le rapport cherche précisément à ouvrir la titrisation des dettes «non performantes», c’est-à-dire dont la créance n’a pas été honorée depuis 90 jours, et qui comporte donc un fort risque d’impayé. C’est ce qu’on nomme une créance toxique et rien de plus: c’est le marché des dettes qui, ayant titrisé des créances mises en groupe, mais de performance inégale, avait été à l’origine de la crise financière de 2008 lorsque les tranches les plus basses avaient fait défaut, corrompant la valeur de l’ensemble des titres. L’Union européenne (et les banques !) paraissent mourir d’envie de nous rejouer ce numéro, et de plonger des millions d’Européens dans la ruine. Le motif allégué est qu’il faut bien générer de l’activité financière, pour faire repartir la croissance. Le capitalisme hideux ne renonce jamais.
Amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards adjustments to the securitisation framework to support the economic recovery in response to the COVID-19 crisis (A9-0213/2020 - Othmar Karas)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, fruit de l’éternel et puissant lobbyisme du secteur bancaire, et dont le propos est de faciliter la titrisation sur les dettes. Une dette, en effet, est un titre de créance, qui peut devenir un actif financier, qui se vend et s’achète sur un marché, faisant changer le bénéficiaire de la créance – mais aussi le risque d’impayé que comporte toute dette. Or, le rapport cherche précisément à ouvrir la titrisation des dettes « non performantes », c’est-à-dire dont la créance n’a pas été honorée depuis quatre-vingt-dix jours, et qui contient donc un fort risque d’impayé. C’est ce qu’on nomme une créance toxique et rien de plus : c’est le marché des dettes qui, ayant titrisé des créances mises en groupe, mais de performance inégale, avait été à l’origine de la crise financière de 2008 lorsque les tranches les plus basses avaient fait défaut, corrompant la valeur de l’ensemble des titres. L’Union européenne (et les banques !) paraît mourir d’envie de nous rejouer ce numéro, et de plonger des millions d’Européens dans la ruine. Le motif allégué est qu’il faut bien générer de l’activité financière, pour faire repartir la croissance. Le capitalisme hideux ne renonce jamais.
Procurement in the fields of defence and security and transfer of defence-related products: implementation of relevant Directives (A9-0025/2021 - Andreas Schwab)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport qui réclame un marché européen des équipements de défense ouvert. Or, le marché européen des équipements de défense doit être accessible en priorité aux matériels européens ou produits localement. De plus, ce rapport préconise une position commune de l’Union sur les exportations d’armes. La politique d’exportation relève de la seule compétence des États membres, toute entorse à ce principe doit être combattue.
Application of Regulation (EC) 2020/2092, the Rule of Law conditionality mechanism (B9-0206/2021, B9-0207/2021, B9-0208/2021)
J’ai bien entendu voté contre ce rapport immonde, qui réclame l’application illégale et immédiate, à l’encontre de la Pologne et de la Hongrie, de l’infâme «mécanisme de conditionnalité liée à l’état de droit», c’est-à-dire un chantage financier pour les forcer à accepter les répugnantes «valeurs» de l’Union européenne pour le choix des peuples. L’application de ce mécanisme – ignoble en soi – avait pourtant été suspendue par le Conseil dans l’attente de la décision de la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne sur sa légalité. Les chefs d’États élus, réunis au Conseil, en avaient ainsi décidé, et même la Commission respectait cette décision. La majorité au Parlement européen arrive là-dessus comme un éléphant dans un magasin de porcelaine. Que ces idéologues restent à leur place.
Own resource based on non-recycled plastic packaging waste and certain aspects of the GNI-based own resource (A9-0048/2021 - José Manuel Fernandes, Valérie Hayer)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. Je n’aime pas l’idée que l’Union européenne prélève une taxe directe pour alimenter son budget, mais je sais faire la part des choses quand le but d’une telle taxe est, par ailleurs, de limiter la pollution plastique et de borner la production mondiale de masse qui utilise les plastiques. Les rapporteurs, au nom du Parlement, ont souhaité éliminer une clause de révision qui permettait aux États membres de contester facilement le mécanisme de calcul de la taxe, mais je sais que le Conseil la rétablira, et l’important est que le texte passe.
Collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (A9-0049/2021 - José Manuel Fernandes, Valérie Hayer)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport de simplification du calcul et du mode de perception de la part de la TVA collectée dans les États membres que ces derniers reversent à l’Union européenne pour alimenter son budget. Comme s’agissant de la taxe sur les plastiques, les rapporteurs, au nom du Parlement, ont souhaité éliminer une clause de révision qui permettait aux États membres de contester facilement le mécanisme de calcul de la taxe, mais je sais que le Conseil la rétablira, et l’important est que le texte passe.
Guidelines for the 2022 Budget - Section III (A9-0046/2021 - Karlo Ressler)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui définit les orientations que l’Union européenne souhaite donner à son prochain budget de 2022. Un budget, c’est le moyen de sa puissance. Or, nous désapprouvons ces orientations et cette puissance. Nous soutenons bien sûr les buts de relance, de soutien aux jeunes, d’aide au tourisme, d’assistance aux PME, mais nous n’acceptons pas que l’Union européenne exprime une ligne politique que son budget vient servir, et qui se traduit par des mesures inacceptables : davantage de financement pour les migrations et l'asile, pour le (scandaleux) Parquet européen, pour la (détestable) presse, pour la défense européenne mutualisée, pour l’élargissement de l’Union dans les Balkans, pour le développement d’une compétence européenne en matière de santé, qui serait volée aux États membres pour un résultat désastreux comme ce fut le cas des vaccins.
Implementation of the Ambient Air Quality Directives (A9-0037/2021 - Javi López)
En novembre 2019, la Commission a publié son contrôle d'adéquation des directives sur la qualité de l'air ambiant. Les résultats de ce contrôle ont montré que les directives ont été partiellement efficaces. Ce texte comporte quelques points positifs. La lutte contre la pollution sur le continent européen nécessitant une coordination entre les États membres, il appelle à faciliter le partage des données sur l’air. Il souligne également la nécessité pour l'Union européenne d'adopter des mesures appropriées et efficaces pour réglementer le transport maritime. Ce point va dans le sens de ce que nous dénonçons depuis des années, à savoir que les traités de libre-échange nuisent à l'environnement. Évidemment, le texte ne recommande pas la fin de ce système économique.Cependant, ce texte comporte aussi de nombreux points négatifs, tel son aspect contraignant, qui prône une écologie punitive en imposant des amendes aux États membres. Le rapport ne répond pas aux enjeux post-COVID. Il tente d’émettre une vision à l’horizon 2050, faisant de l’Union une zone sans pollution. Cette perspective nous apparaît utopique, car la pollution anthropique sera toujours plus ou moins présente sur notre continent. Enfin, ce rapport attaque frontalement les entreprises, l’automobile et le milieu agricole.J’ai donc choisi l'abstention.
New EU-Africa Strategy (A9-0017/2021 - Chrysoula Zacharopoulou)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport qui appelle à un partenariat Union européenne-Afrique qui viserait notamment à un «renforcement substantiel» des voies de migration légales, notamment via le programme Erasmus+ en ce qui concerne les séjours d’étude. Nous ne pouvons tolérer la facilitation des voies de migration, qu’elles soient légales ou illégales.
EU Strategy for Sustainable Tourism (A9-0033/2021 - Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar)
Strengthening the international role of the euro (A9-0043/2021 - Danuta Maria Hübner)
J’ai bien évidemment voté contre ce rapport, idéologique au possible. Sa logique économique est farfelue : il paraît croire que c’est la valeur de la monnaie qui crée la puissance économique, ce qui n’a aucun sens, car c’est au contraire la vigueur de l’économie d’un pays qui rend solide sa monnaie. Sa logique politique est détestable : fédéralisation financière et économique accrue, renforcement du rôle international de l’Union européenne, budget commun de la zone euro, siège pour la zone euro dans les institutions internationales ! Le seul énoncé de ces orientations justifie un vote contre pour quiconque a du sens.
Commission evaluation report on the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation two years after its application (B9-0211/2021)
J’ai voté pour cette proposition de résolution soulignant les aspects positifs de l’application du RGPD et demandant, entre autres, que les PME, les jeunes entreprises, organisations et milieux associatifs soient soutenus lors de son application. Cette réglementation va en effet dans le sens d'une protection améliorée des données personnelles et donc de la vie privée des citoyens en France et en Europe.Seul point négatif, cette proposition de résolution ne souligne pas le rôle nécessaire que doivent jouer la France et les autres États membres en matière de protection des données personnelles.
2019-2020 Reports on Albania (A9-0041/2021 - Isabel Santos)
Le but de ce rapport est avant tout l’élargissement de l’Union européenne par l’adhésion de l’Albanie, malgré l’opposition de nombreux peuples européens et la fin de non-recevoir de la France. Il ignore par ailleurs beaucoup de dangers liés à l’évolution de l’Albanie, notamment la forte présence de mafias dans le pays et ses liens plus que troubles avec la Turquie de Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. À ce titre, j’ai naturellement voté contre ce rapport.
2019-2020 Reports on Kosovo (A9-0031/2021 - Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel)
Le but de ce rapport est avant tout de préparer les esprits à une potentielle adhésion du Kosovo à l’Union par une promotion indécente des vertus de ce pays. Ce rapport n’aborde pas des questions essentielles, comme la non-reconnaissance du Kosovo par cinq États membres de l’Union, la question des enclaves serbes, le rôle majeur en termes d’influence que remplit désormais la Turquie au Kosovo, ou encore la question de l’islamisme radical. Face à la promotion de cet État mafieux qu’est le Kosovo et à l’absence de réflexion sur les points susmentionnés, j’ai décidé de voter contre ce rapport.
2019-2020 Reports on North Macedonia (A9-0040/2021 - Ilhan Kyuchyuk)
Le but de ce rapport est avant tout l’élargissement de l’UE via l’adhésion de la Macédoine du Nord et conteste à chaque pays membre le droit d’avoir son propre point de vue sur les adhésions des pays des Balkans occidentaux. De plus, il souligne un lien obligatoire entre l’adhésion à l’OTAN et à l’Union européenne. Cet accent est révélateur d’une posture visant à faire de l’Union européenne un sous-ensemble du système stratégique euroatlantique, placé sous la domination et les intérêts des États-Unis. À ce titre, j’ai naturellement voté contre ce rapport.
2019-2020 Reports on Serbia (A9-0032/2021 - Vladimír Bilčík)
Ce rapport est favorable à l’élargissement de l’Union européenne, à laquelle nous sommes totalement opposés. Par ailleurs, il est particulièrement critique d’une Serbie qui cherche simplement à maintenir son autonomie stratégique et économique. C’est d’ailleurs une tendance qui devrait inquiéter Belgrade dans sa volonté d’adhésion à l’Union : des mœurs à la politique étrangère, c’est bien l’intégralité de l’agenda mondialiste que Bruxelles veut imposer au pays.Nous regrettons de ne pas pouvoir analyser ce dossier de manière isolée, en prenant en compte la longue amitié franco-serbe. Pour que cela soit possible, il faudrait isoler le dossier serbe du reste des Balkans occidentaux, ce qui n’est pas la stratégie de l’UE. À ce titre, j’ai été dans l’obligation de voter contre ce rapport.
Establishing Horizon Europe – laying down its rules for participation and dissemination (A9-0122/2021 - Dan Nica)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport visant à établir le cadre du prochain programme européen 2021-2027 pour la recherche et l’innovation. La réponse lamentable de l’Europe à l’épidémie a montré quel retard nous avions pris en la matière, enchaînés par les réglementations absurdes de l’Union européenne et par la petitesse de vision des dirigeants français. Évidemment, ce rapport, émanant de l’Union européenne, présente toutes les petites tares qu’on peut en attendre: il intègre les objectifs (non contraignants, mais qui, à force, le deviennent) de l’accord de Paris, il impose des objectifs de parité sexuelle, il associe les pays non membres de l’Union en vue d’agrandir celle-ci (alors que le Brexit a montré qu’elle n’était pas viable). De plus, les deux tiers du budget du programme iront soit dans des programmes environnementaux, soit dans des programmes sociétaux dont on peut attendre le pire. Mais il vise l’objectif de 3 % d’investissement, public et privé, du PIB de l’Union pour la recherche, et un tiers de son budget ira dans les sciences et la recherche fondamentale. Cela, nous en avons un besoin capital; aussi le soutenons-nous, même si c’est insuffisant.
European Institute of Innovation and Technology (A9-0120/2020 - Marisa Matias)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. L’Institut européen d’innovation et de technologie (IET) est un organisme indépendant de l’Union européenne dont la mission est d’aider les entreprises et les établissements d'enseignement et de recherche à travailler ensemble pour favoriser l’innovation. Le présent rapport aligne l’IET sur le programme européen pour la recherche et l’innovation et le dote de 3 milliards d’euros de budget. À l’intérêt stratégique de disposer d’outils secondant la recherche européenne s’ajoute un intérêt direct pour les territoires, dont l’IET guide les projets et où lui-même ouvre des pôles: en France, ce sont l’IET Santé à Paris et l’IET Énergie à Grenoble. Pour parfaire le tableau, plusieurs des propositions de notre groupe européen pour améliorer cet instrument ont été acceptées en commission, ce qui souligne notre capacité à forger des politiques efficaces et à dialoguer fructueusement avec nos adversaires politiques, gage d’un avenir politique fort et crédible.
Interinstitutional agreement on mandatory transparency register (A9-0123/2021 - Maria Hübner)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, fruit d’un accord entre les trois institutions de l’Union européenne que sont le Conseil, la Commission et le Parlement. Son but est de renforcer la transparence (c’est-à-dire le contrôle) des contacts entre les membres de ces institutions et les représentants d’intérêts – clairement dit, les lobbyistes. Nous nous félicitons, dans le principe, d’un accroissement de la probité imposée aux gouvernants – même si nous préférerions qu’elle émanât d’eux-mêmes. Ne nous dissimulons pas toutefois les carences de ce texte : il remet le soin de la régulation aux institutions elles-mêmes au lieu de leur imposer des obligations directes, et peut facilement être trop restrictif en limitant les contacts des élus avec les simples citoyens dans le cadre politique.
Digital Green Certificate - Union citizens (C9-0104/2021 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar)
J’ai voté contre ces propositions – plus précisément, je me suis abstenu sur la seconde. Le «Certificat vert numérique» (appellation de pure langue de bois qui n’avait aucun sens) a suscité, à juste titre, des émois chez nos compatriotes, qui redoutaient qu’il devienne, en fait, un passeport servant à contrôler les allées et venues du public. C’est pour cette raison que j’ai voté contre, mais aussi pour d’autres: son utilité douteuse, car ni la vaccination, ni le dépistage négatif, ni une guérison passée de la maladie ne signifient une immunité du porteur au moment du déplacement, son insistance sur l’ouverture des frontières qui doit absolument être recherchée par les Européens en dépit des risques d’infection, sa faible valeur ajoutée, car les déplacements sont déjà possibles sur présentation d’un dépistage ou d’une preuve de vaccination. Quant à l’application de ce même certificat aux ressortissants d’États tiers, elle ne vise en fait que ceux déjà installés en Europe, et pas du tout ceux qui y arriveraient de l’extérieur: elle n’instaure donc pas le moindre contrôle aux frontières.
Digital taxation: OECD negotiations, tax residency of digital companies and a possible European Digital Tax (A9-0103/2021 - Andreas Schwab, Martin Hlaváček)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui n’est, en vérité, pas dû à l’Union européenne, mais à l’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE), au sein de laquelle l’Union européenne tente illégitimement de se faire une place. L’OCDE, depuis des années, étudiait une possibilité de taxation mondiale unifiée des multinationales et particulièrement de celles du numérique. Ces dernières étant presque toutes américaines, le Gouvernement américain s’opposait à une telle mesure ; mais le cabinet de Joe Biden s’y dit désormais favorable, les États-Unis ayant besoin de ressources pour financer leur plan de relance.Le rapport privilégie une taxe internationale, mais encourage l’Union européenne à présenter un plan de taxation européenne qui pourrait lui être substituée. L’Union voudrait, bien sûr, affecter directement le produit de cette taxe à son propre fonctionnement, ce que nous refusons totalement. Cependant, sur le principe de la taxation du numérique, et sur les progrès enregistrés en faveur d’une régulation de la jungle des multinationales de ce secteur, je me prononce favorablement.
Rail passengers' rights and obligations (A9-0045/2021 - Bogusław Liberadzki)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui renforce le cadre (souvent assez lâche) de gestion des retards et perturbations par les compagnies ferroviaires. Jusqu’ici, en cas d’annulation, de retard ou de problèmes (arrêt sur les voies, par exemple), les compagnies ferroviaires pratiquaient une politique commerciale de remboursement dont elles seules décidaient et qui ne favorisait guère le client, parfois laissé sans aucune indemnisation ni aucun droit (c’était notamment le cas en France). Désormais, les compagnies auront une obligation d'information des voyageurs en temps réel en cas de retard, ainsi qu’une obligation de réacheminement des voyageurs si ce retard est supérieur à 100 minutes, quelle qu’en soit la raison. Si la compagnie ne propose pas ou ne peut proposer de réacheminement, le voyageur peut prendre lui-même un autre moyen de transport (compagnie concurrente, bus) et en être remboursé par la compagnie initiale, sous réserve de conditions raisonnables. Une exemption existera en cas de catastrophe naturelle. Enfin, des obligations relatives à l’embarquement plus facile des handicapés et au transport de bicyclettes dans des wagons spécialisés sont ajoutées.
European Defence Fund (A9-0120/2021 - Zdzisław Krasnodębski)
J’ai voté contre ce texte. Horreur! La recherche en matière de défense soumise à un examen éthique par la Commission européenne, grâce à des «experts» et universitaires choisis par elle-même! Une «européanisation» des équipements militaires, qui, au «mieux», empêchera un État de prendre un avantage technique sur les autres, et, au pire, créera un fédéralisme militaire! Une ouverture aux États non membres de l’Union!La défense est un domaine souverain entre tous. Il est hors de question d’en céder la moindre parcelle à l’Union européenne, surtout si c’est pour qu’elle en use ainsi.
Just Transition Fund (A9-0135/2020 - Manolis Kefalogiannis)
Le Fonds pour une transition juste (FTJ) est une proposition modifiée pour un des piliers du mécanisme pour une transition énergétique qui cherche à atteindre la neutralité climatique en 2050.Les contraintes imposées aussi bien aux États membres qu’aux entreprises qui pourraient en bénéficier sont importantes. Néanmoins, la France étant largement une économie décarbonée, l’objectif de neutralité climatique dans les États membres pourrait avoir des retombées positives pour l’économie française. Pour ces raisons, je me suis abstenu.
Review of the European Union Solidarity Fund (A9-0052/2021 - Younous Omarjee)
Le principe de solidarité entre États membres de l’Union européenne lors de catastrophes naturelles majeures, que ce soit au niveau national ou régional, est un principe noble qu’il convient de soutenir. Nonobstant la réticence que peut susciter la fusion du FSUE et de la RAU dans le cadre de la nouvelle RSAU qui est susceptible de remettre en cause le principe de solidarité entre États membres de l’UE, que seul garantissait le FSUE, dans la mesure où cette RSAU concerne également des pays tiers, j’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport.
Exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (Pericles IV programme): extension to the non-participating Member States (A9-0165/2021 - Clare Daly)
Le programme Pericles IV finance des échanges de personnel, des séminaires, des formations et des études pour les autorités répressives et judiciaires, les banques et autres acteurs impliqués dans la lutte contre la contrefaçon de l'euro. La lutte contre la contrefaçon, qui impacte directement les citoyens, est indispensable. Le programme Pericles IV favorise la coopération entre les États, qu’ils soient de la zone euro ou en dehors, y compris des pays tiers. Il adopte une approche positive en désignant les autorités nationales comme acteurs principaux.J’ai donc voté en faveur de ce programme d’action.
Agreement EU/USA/Iceland/Norway: Time Limitations on Arrangements for the Provision of Aircraft with Crew (A9-0125/2021 - Maria Grapini)
Cet accord concerne les limites de durée applicables aux accords de fourniture d’avion de ligne avec équipage avec les États-Unis, la Norvège et l’Islande.La location d'appareils avec équipage constitue un certain débouché économique pour les compagnies aériennes françaises et européennes. Cependant, ce type de contrat de location comporte des risques d'abus, voire de violation des droits des travailleurs au sein des équipages fournis avec les avions loués ; cela du fait que l'accord prévoit qu’« aucune partie ne peut imposer de limite de durée à un accord de location avec équipage » (extrait du texte de l'accord), ce qui pourrait à terme entraîner des pratiques de dumping social. Pour cette raison, j’ai voté contre ce texte.
Securing the objectives of the landing obligation under Article 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy (A9-0147/2021 - Søren Gade)
L’obligation de débarquement mise en place de façon graduelle à partir de 2015 est un moyen supplémentaire pour la Commission européenne de faire disparaître peu à peu la pêche artisanale. En ce temps de Brexit et de coronavirus, où la profession traverse une crise particulièrement grave, il est important de soutenir les pêcheurs dans leur combat contre l’obligation de débarquement. J’ai voté contre ce rapport.
Common system of value added tax: exemptions on importations and on certain supplies, in respect of Union measures in the public interest (A9-0155/2021 - Irene Tinagli)
Cette initiative a pour but d’exonérer temporairement ou de réduire la TVA et les droits de douane sur les achats dans le cadre de la pandémie de coronavirus. Dans le contexte actuel, nous ne pouvons pas accepter que les États membres continuent à payer de la TVA lorsque ces achats sont faits par le biais de la Commission alors qu’ils peuvent s’en exonérer lorsqu’ils sont faits pour leur propre compte.J’ai donc voté pour ce projet de résolution.
Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2020/002 EE/Tourism - Estonia (A9-0158/2021 - José Manuel Fernandes)
Le 12 novembre 2020, l’Estonie a présenté une demande de contribution financière du Fond européen d’ajustement à la mondialisation (FEM), à la suite de licenciements survenus dans le secteur du tourisme. Les licenciements collectifs dans le secteur du tourisme estonien devraient affecter la croissance économique et la compétitivité du pays.Les conditions étant remplies, un vote favorable se justifie pleinement afin de permettre à ces travailleurs licenciés de se reconvertir ou de créer leur propre entreprise.J’ai donc voté pour ce texte.
Draft amending budget No 2/2021: financing the COVID-19 response and including refinements and updates related to the final adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework (A9-0160/2021 - Pierre Larrouturou)
The impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations in developing countries (A9-0115/2021 - Mónica Silvana González)
Le rapport souligne à juste titre les conséquences du changement climatique sur les pays en développement, en particulier les pays les moins avancés du fait de la perte d’activité liée, notamment, au pastoralisme, et insiste sur les conséquences dramatiques de la déforestation mondiale. Par ailleurs, le rapport souligne la situation des déplacés internes, particulièrement dramatique sur le continent africain, notamment en Éthiopie.Au-delà de certains constats justes, le rapport constitue en partie un plaidoyer pour la reconnaissance du statut de réfugié climatique. Le rapport fait également explicitement référence au Pacte mondial sur les migrations et à celui sur les réfugiés, qui posent les fondements d’une reconnaissance de la qualité de réfugié climatique.Ce rapport contient deux autres points contestables : d’une part, il fait référence au Pacte vert et appelle à un financement spécifique pour l’action climatique dans le monde, alors même que les objectifs en matière d’aide publique au développement ne sont pas atteints (objectif de 0,7 % du revenu national brut). D’autre part, le texte plaide pour « l’allègement ou l’effacement ciblé de la dette » de certains pays les moins avancés.Pour toutes ces raisons, j’ai voté contre ce rapport.
Artificial intelligence in education, culture and the audiovisual sector (A9-0127/2021 - Sabine Verheyen)
Ce texte explique le rôle de l’intelligence artificielle (IA) dans chaque grand chapitre de la commission CULT: éducation, patrimoine culturel, création, secteur audiovisuel ou encore désinformation… puis la nécessité du caractère éthique de l’intelligence artificielle: elle doit être légale, transparente, responsable, etc.L’IA fait partie de notre futur et l’UE ne peut pas se permettre de prendre du retard. Malgré les quelques aspects négatifs, aspects qui ne sont pas propres à ce texte sur l’IA, il est tout à fait logique de se prononcer en faveur.J’ai donc voté pour.
A European Strategy for Energy System Integration (A9-0062/2021 - Christophe Grudler)
Le 8 juillet 2020, la Commission européenne a présenté sa stratégie sur l’intégration du système énergétique. La Commission définit une vision sur la manière d'accélérer la transition vers un système énergétique plus intégré, à l’appui de l'énergie propre et d’une économie neutre pour le climat tout en défendant une approche harmonisée et fédéraliste à l’intégration des systèmes énergétiques nationaux. En outre, le rapporteur «macronien» a refusé toute modification visant à inclure l’énergie nucléaire dans le texte. J’ai donc voté contre.
A European Strategy for Hydrogen (A9-0116/2021 - Jens Geier)
Le 8 juillet 2020, la Commission européenne a présenté, dans le cadre de son plan de relance, une stratégie pour l’hydrogène dont l’objectif est, d’une part, de «décarboner» la production d’hydrogène et, d’autre part, d’étendre son utilisation dans les secteurs où il peut remplacer les combustibles fossiles. Marine Le Pen propose l’hydrogène comme solution de décarbonation énergétique depuis de nombreuses années, et le RN croit en ses potentialités. Cependant, l’hydrogène vert profite aux pays du nord de l’Europe au détriment des pays du sud et de l’est, prêts à produire de l’hydrogène à faible émission de carbone à partir du gaz et de l’électricité nucléaire.Pour ces raisons, j’ai choisi de m’abstenir sur ce texte.
2019-2020 Reports on Turkey (A9-0153/2021 - Nacho Sánchez Amor)
Ce rapport est un aveu de faiblesse de plus de l’Union européenne face à la Turquie. S’il ne peut masquer un certain nombre de turpitudes du régime autocratique d’Erdogan, il omet certains aspects essentiels: la question de l’islamisme n’est même pas évoquée, l’emprise d’Erdogan sur certains pays européens est à peine survolée. Bien que ma proposition d’ajouter les Loups gris à la liste des organisations terroristes ait été reprise dans ce texte, cela ne suffit pas à le rendre acceptable. J’ai voté contre ce rapport.
Reversing demographic trends in EU regions using cohesion policy instruments (A9-0061/2021 - Daniel Buda)
Le rapport présente les tendances démographiques dans les régions de l’Union et notamment les flux de population européenne des zones rurales vers les zones urbaines, des régions nationales moins développées vers les plus développées, de l’est vers l’ouest et du sud vers le nord. Le rapport insiste sur les conséquences négatives de ces mouvements de population pour les zones de départ (abandon des zones rurales, fragilisation de la cohésion sociale, économique et territoriale) et les zones de destination (surconcentration de population, hausse des coûts du logement, pollution, détérioration de la qualité de vie…). Ce texte recommande la mise en œuvre d’une politique qui permettrait de lutter contre la désertification de certaines zones et la surmétropolisation d’autres, exprimant ainsi une approche localiste de la problématique démographique.J’ai voté en faveur de ce texte qui valide nos thèses sur cette thématique.
Impacts of EU rules on the free movements of workers and services: intra-EU labour mobility as a tool to match labour market needs and skills (A9-0066/2021 - Radan Kanev)
Ce rapport d’initiative propose de simplifier le parcours administratif et les obstacles juridiques pour encourager les entreprises européennes à avoir davantage recours aux travailleurs «mobiles» (frontaliers, détachés, migrants). Bien que le rapport reconnaisse l’existence de certaines dérives liées à l’emploi des travailleurs étrangers, il ne remet à aucun moment en cause le principe même du travail mobile. En opposition à cette vision mondialiste du travail, le groupe ID a déposé une proposition de résolution alternative qui n’entend pas prohiber le travail mobile, mais qui souhaite en faire une exception possible en cas de déficit de main-d’œuvre dans certains secteurs, et non la norme.J’ai voté contre la résolution commune et pour la résolution du groupe ID.
Accelerating progress and tackling inequalities towards ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 (B9-0263/2021)
La résolution reconnaît que la focalisation sur la pandémie de coronavirus a eu des conséquences néfastes sur la prise en charge du sida, ainsi que sur les soins de santé dans les pays en développement, d’une manière générale. Elle aborde également la question de la propriété industrielle et des brevets, et donc de la production de médicaments génériques, contre le VIH.Il est notoire que la situation dramatique de l’Afrique subsaharienne face à ce virus a des conséquences directes sur la France, puisqu’un tiers des découvertes de séropositivité en France concernent des personnes nées en Afrique subsaharienne, même si une bonne part de ces contaminations a lieu sur notre sol.J’ai voté en faveur de cette résolution qui va dans le bon sens.
Environment: The Aarhus Regulation (A9-0152/2021 - Christian Doleschal)
La convention d’Aarhus, signée le 25 juin 1998 par trente-neuf États, est un accord international en faveur de la « démocratie environnementale ». Ses trois principaux objectifs visent à améliorer l’information fournie par les autorités publiques sur les thématiques écologiques, à favoriser la participation du public à la prise des décisions ayant des incidences environnementales et à étendre les conditions d’accès à la justice en lien avec cette problématique. Partant d’un bon sentiment, le texte à voter ne fait que mettre en conformité le droit de l'UE, en élargissant le type d'actes concernés. Le projet de rapport a été amendé par les Verts et la Gauche pour être taillé sur mesure pour les ONG. Il donne finalement plus d’espace et de pouvoir aux institutions européennes aux dépends des États membres, notamment à la Cour de Justice Européenne. Étant un outil intéressant à la base mais avec des points trop sensibles comme les ONG, j’ai choisi de m’abstenir sur ce texte.
Chinese countersanctions on EU entities and MEPs and MPs (RC-B9-0269/2021, B9-0269/2021, B9-0270/2021, B9-0271/2021, B9-0273/2021, B9-0274/2021, B9-0275/2021)
Le 22 mars 2021, l’UE a placé sous sanctions plusieurs personnalités jugées impliquées dans les mauvais traitements qui seraient infligés aux Ouïghours. Principalement symboliques, ces sanctions sont concomitantes à celles posées par la Grande-Bretagne et les États-Unis, certainement par souci d’indépendance, et visent quatre personnalités soumises à un gel d’avoirs (qu’elles n’ont pas) et à une interdiction de visas. En retour, la Chine a sanctionné une dizaine de personnalités européennes le même jour. L’erreur chinoise aura été de cibler des responsables politiques, dont le patriotisme est certes souvent douteux, mais qui n’en demeurent pas moins des élus du peuple. Considérant les méandres de cette affaire, j’ai préféré m’abstenir sur cette proposition de résolution.
Liability of companies for environmental damage (A9-0112/2021 - Antonius Manders)
En 2004, la directive sur la responsabilité environnementale (ELD) a été introduite pour aider à prévenir et à réparer les dommages environnementaux importants dans l'UE, tels que les dommages causés aux espèces et habitats protégés, aux eaux de surface et souterraines et aux sols. Elle a établi un régime de responsabilité à l'échelle de l'UE, fondé sur le principe du pollueur-payeur.Le rapport de Mme Wolters, néerlandaise S&D, que nous avions rejeté parce que générateur de trop de contraintes nouvelles pour les entreprises et notamment pour les PME, paraîtrait presque minimaliste à côté des demandes de celui de M. Manders, néerlandais PPE, d'autant plus qu’il est favorable à une législation sous la forme modifiée d'un règlement contraignant en lieu et place de la directive existante plus souple. J’ai donc voté contre ce rapport.
New Avenues for Legal Labour Migration (A9-0143/2021 - Sylvie Guillaume)
Dans son discours sur l’état de l’Union de 2020, Ursula von der Leyen a déclaré que la création de voies d’entrée légale faisait partie des actions visant à lutter contre la migration irrégulière. Cette proposition de résolution visant à développer de nouvelles voies pour la migration de main-d’œuvre légale dans l’UE – sous prétexte d’attirer les talents et de lutter contre le vieillissement de la population, l’exploitation des travailleurs étrangers en Europe et l’immigration illégale – est un appel à la submersion migratoire au moment où l'Union est confrontée à une crise économique, identitaire, sociale, sécuritaire, sanitaire et culturelle majeure. En ne respectant pas les dispositions des traités, elle porte également atteinte à la souveraineté des États membres en demandant l’établissement d’un Code européen de l’immigration définissant des règles générales d’entrée et de séjour pour tous les ressortissants de pays tiers à la recherche d’un emploi dans l’Union et harmonisant les droits dont jouissent ces ressortissants de pays tiers et leurs familles.Une résolution alternative, déposée au nom du groupe ID, souligne au contraire l’idéologie de l’UE et propose une approche juridiquement fondée et politiquement réaliste. J’ai voté contre le projet de résolution commune et pour la résolution du groupe ID.
EU Digital COVID Certificate - Union citizens (C9-0104/2021 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Les certificats harmonisés de vaccination sont utiles dans leur principe, mais, d’une part, je redoute leur transformation en « passeports sanitaires » (qu’Emmanuel Macron a déjà mis en place pour certains événements), et, d’autre part, les critères retenus ici sont mauvais. Trois informations pourront figurer sur ces certificats: la vaccination, la guérison passée du virus, et le résultat négatif de dépistages. Mais ces informations, en fait, ne garantiront rien: c’est aux États qu’il reviendra, individuellement, de décider quels vaccins ils acceptent (ceux validés par l’EMA le seront d’office), quelle durée de validité ils reconnaissent à la vaccination ou à une guérison, et si les détenteurs des certificats ne doivent pas, malgré tout, se soumettre à une quarantaine ou à un dépistage. Par ailleurs, le prix des dépistages demeurera variable (de la gratuité à près de 300 €), les institutions n’ayant pas réussi à s’accorder sur ce sujet. Dans ce contexte, les certificats européens ne sont pas plus utiles que les certificats nationaux déjà existants.
EU Digital COVID Certificate - third-country nationals (C9-0100/2021 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Les certificats harmonisés de vaccination sont utiles dans leur principe, mais, d’une part, je redoute leur transformation en «passeports sanitaires» (qu’Emmanuel Macron a déjà mis en place pour certains événements), et, d’autre part, les critères retenus ici sont mauvais. Trois informations pourront figurer sur ces certificats: la vaccination, la guérison passée du virus, et le résultat négatif de dépistages. Mais ces informations, en fait, ne garantiront rien: c’est aux États qu’il reviendra, individuellement, de décider quels vaccins ils acceptent (ceux validés par l’EMA le seront d’office), quelle durée de validité ils reconnaissent à la vaccination ou à une guérison, et si les détenteurs des certificats ne doivent pas, malgré tout, se soumettre à une quarantaine ou à un dépistage. Par ailleurs, le prix des dépistages demeurera variable (de la gratuité à près de 300 €), les institutions n’ayant pas réussi à s’accorder sur ce sujet. Dans ce contexte, les certificats européens ne sont pas plus utiles que les certificats nationaux déjà existants.
Competition policy – annual report 2020 (A9-0168/2021 - Johan Van Overtveldt)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport. La politique de concurrence conduite par l’Union européenne voit la compétition comme une fin en soi, à maintenir active en permanence pour créer les frictions qui génèrent l’innovation technique ou commerciale. Je rejette le texte en tant qu’il continue à diviniser cette idéologie catastrophique qui nous a fait tant de mal.Cependant, le rapport contient également des paragraphes très positifs, soit dans leurs constatations (domination funeste des GAFAM dans le numérique, accords de libre-échange terribles pour l’agriculture, secteur où la production est trop concentrée), soit dans leurs propositions (problème des acquisitions prédatrices des grandes entreprises à l’encontre des petites pour les éliminer, fin de la primauté du prix comme critère d’efficacité). Après trente ans de mutisme, l’Union européenne reconnaît enfin que nous avions raison d’alerter sur tous ces sujets.Ces éléments viennent toutefois en parfaite contradiction avec les prérequis idéologiques que le rapport réaffirme par ailleurs. Cet «en même temps» européen ne permet ni de voter pour, ni de voter contre: par l’abstention, je marque à la fois mon opposition à ce que le rapport a de mauvais sans lui enlever ce qu’il a de bon, et mon refus de ce double discours fumeux.
75th and the 76th sessions of the United Nations General Assembly (A9-0173/2021 - María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport dément, qui, cherchant à faire de l’Union européenne un acteur diplomatique sur la scène internationale (alors qu’elle n’a aucune compétence pour cela), va de l’acquiescement servile au prêchi-prêcha mondialiste («valeurs» démocratiques, en fait libérales) à une remise en question de la composition et des prérogatives du Conseil de sécurité, où siège la France! Emmanuel Macron, il est vrai, avait eu la folie de lancer lui-même cette idée.Le rapport entasse en outre toutes les caricatures du genre: condamnation du «repli national» des États à l’occasion de la pandémie, renforcement des traités internationaux contraignants, abolition mondiale de la peine de mort (rien que ça), condamnation de Trump, de la Hongrie et de la Pologne, droits des minorités sexuelles, protection et accueil des immigrés et réfugiés...Les États seuls sont souverains, dans l’Union comme à l’ONU!
Regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (A9-0174/2021 - Paulo Rangel)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. Le Médiateur européen fait bien son travail, même s’il faut regretter parfois sa timidité juridique : du moins ne craint-il pas d’enquêter sur les cas de mauvaise administration dans toutes les institutions de l’Union européenne, et d’en dénoncer certains abus criants, au scandale des eurobéats. Il est donc juste et opportun de renforcer ses moyens d’enquête, ses accès aux institutions par la transparence de celles-ci, et ses facultés de suivi après des enquêtes antérieures. Il pourra aussi, ce qui est plus contestable, mais non foncièrement dérangeant puisque cela ne vise que les institutions, porter des éléments venus à sa connaissance devant l’illégitime Parquet européen.
The EU's Cybersecurity Strategy for the Digital Decade (B9-0305/2021)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, d’autant plus volontiers que, fait (de moins en moins!) rare, nous propositions ont été étudiées et intégrées dans la résolution commune lors de nos discussions avec les autres groupes, démontrant notre capacité au dialogue et la qualité de nos contributions. Le retard qu’accuse l’Union européenne en matière de sécurité numérique doit être comblé: les États européens sont très hétérogènes dans leurs capacités informatiques, et celles-ci sont mal réparties par secteurs (tout le monde sait qu’en France, par exemple, les hôpitaux sont extrêmement vulnérables). La stratégie européenne consistera à renforcer et à harmoniser ces moyens, à accroître le soutien aux acteurs, publics et privés (TPE/PME), pour les sensibiliser à la protection informatique, et à augmenter la recherche et l’innovation en la matière. Nos remarques sur les PME, la souveraineté numérique nationale et européenne, et les risques liés à l’application extraterritoriale des lois étrangères en matière de données ayant été prises en compte, j’accorde mon vote à ce texte.
Rule of Law situation in the European Union and the application of the conditionality regulation 2020/2092 (B9-0317/2021, B9-0319/2021, B9-0320/2021)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport ignoble, qui ne tente rien de moins que de balayer la décision souveraine des États membres réunis au Conseil. Ceux-ci avaient décidé d’adopter le mécanisme (également ignoble à notre avis) qui conditionnerait l’octroi des fonds européens aux États membres au respect par ceux-ci de l’«état de droit», concept très suspect selon lequel les principes démocratiques (c’est-à-dire, en fait, les principes libéraux) sont supérieurs aux lois nationales et au choix politique des peuples et des États. En échange de l’adoption de ce mécanisme, le Conseil avait cependant décidé d’en suspendre l’application jusqu’à ce que la Cour de justice de l’Union se soit prononcée sur des recours, introduits par la Hongrie et la Pologne (contre qui ledit mécanisme était spécifiquement conçu) contre ses conditions d’application. Et voilà que la majorité politique de ce Parlement arrive et prétend que la décision de vingt-sept États ne vaut rien, et qu’il faut appliquer le mécanisme tout de suite. Non, Messieurs. Heureusement que les résolutions du Parlement n’ont aucune valeur contraignante!
Conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) (Isabel Carvalhais - A9-0220/2020)
L’Union européenne est partie contractante depuis 1979 de l’Organisation des pêches de l’Atlantique du Nord-Ouest (OPANO).Le rapport de la Commission dont il est ici question est une proposition de modification d’un règlement européen (UE 2019/833) pour actualiser dans le droit européen les mesures adoptées par l’OPANO en 2019.Il s’agit aussi d’inclure dans cette division, pour le reste de l’année, des mesures techniques et de contrôle spécifiques pour les captures de cabillaud.En 2020, l’Union comptait seulement 47 navires autorisés dans cette zone pour 51 076 tonnes de captures totales. Le Portugal et l’Espagne comptent ensemble pour 80 % du total pêché par les navires de l’Union. Ces restrictions concernent des zones de grande pêche industrielle, ce qui n’est pas un modèle que nous défendons.J’ai donc voté en faveur de ce rapport.
Cross-border payments in the Union (codification) (A9-0202/2021 - Karen Melchior)
L’objet de la présente proposition est de procéder à la codification du règlement (CE) n° 924/2009 de 2009 concernant les paiements transfrontaliers. Le nouveau règlement se substituera aux divers actes qui y sont incorporés; il en préserve totalement la substance et se borne donc à les regrouper en y apportant les seules modifications formelles requises par l’opération même de codification.La proposition en question se limitant réellement à une codification pure et simple des textes existants, sans modification de leur substance, et sur des textes que nous avions par ailleurs soutenus lors de leur adoption, j’ai voté pour ce texte.
Regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (A9-0174/2021 - Paulo Rangel)
Ce rapport concerne un projet de règlement pour mettre à jour le statut et les conditions générales d’exercice des fonctions du Médiateur. Le but de ce projet de règlement est de permettre au Médiateur d’effectuer plus efficacement et en toute transparence son travail. Ledit Médiateur n’hésitant pas, dans le cadre de sa charge, à pointer les cas de mauvaise administration, d’où qu’ils viennent, j’estime légitime d’accroître son efficacité: pour ces raisons, j’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport.
EU/Indonesia Agreement: modification of concessions on all the tariff-rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union (A9-0182/2021 - Heidi Hautala)
Les négociations avec l’Indonésie ont abouti à un accord qui a été paraphé le 28 janvier 2021 à Genève. En conséquence, la Commission européenne propose au Conseil d'autoriser la conclusion de l'accord.Lors des modifications des contingentements tarifaires, le nombre de produits rend généralement le sujet plus que complexe. Mais, dans le cas qui nous occupe, il s’agit d’une augmentation pour le manioc seulement, ce qui ne semble pas présenter un problème particulier pour les DOM-TOM.J’ai donc voté en faveur de ce texte.
Challenges and opportunities for the fishing sector in the Black Sea (A9-0170/2021 - Ivo Hristov)
Ce rapport d’initiative provenant d’un député socialiste bulgare affiche l’objectif « d’améliorer l’équilibre entre, d’une part, la protection de l’environnement et de la biodiversité et, d’autre part, le maintien et/ou la création de moyens de subsistance économiques ». Le texte propose beaucoup de vœux pieux et vagues, conscient que des mesures contraignantes adoptées seulement par la Roumanie et la Bulgarie n’auraient aucun effet sur l’amélioration de l’écosystème de la Mer Noire si elles n’étaient pas également suivies par les autres pays riverains, non membres, eux, de l’Union européenne.C’est aux pays riverains de la Mer Noire qu’il revient de s’associer et de se concerter sur la meilleure façon de préserver la ressource et d’assurer l’avenir de leurs pêcheurs. En tant que Français, nous ne sommes pas concernés par ce sujet.Après l’analyse du rapport, j’ai préféré m’abstenir.
The role of the EU's development cooperation and humanitarian assistance in addressing the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic (A9-0151/2021 - Hildegard Bentele, Norbert Neuser)
Ce rapport souligne les défis auxquels fait face l’aide humanitaire européenne, d’une part face à la pandémie de coronavirus, et, d’autre part, dans un contexte général d’augmentation des besoins mondiaux. Le texte reprend aussi des thèmes généraux relatifs au développement mondial, en particulier la nécessité de mettre l’accent sur l’agriculture familiale en petites structures.Tout d’abord, l’Union européenne étant première donatrice mondiale d’aide au développement et humanitaire, il est difficile d’accepter la revendication tenant à une augmentation de l’aide humanitaire européenne, a fortiori sans garantie de son efficacité.Enfin, le texte exprime certaines revendications sans rapport direct avec cette pandémie, de l’allègement de la dette aux conditions de vie et droits des migrants et réfugiés ou encore aux droits sexuels et génésiques.Je me suis donc abstenu sur ce texte.
European Climate Law (Jytte Guteland - A9-0162/2020)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. La neutralité climatique est un objectif désirable, mais il n’est pas abordé de façon réaliste. On trouve dans ce texte une planification totale, par l’Union européenne, de tous les secteurs économiques et de toutes les politiques nationales associées pendant trente ans, la création d’un motif de plainte pour « inaction climatique », et un rythme de baisse de la production carbone – c’est-à-dire industrielle – trois fois plus rapide qu’aujourd’hui. C’est tout simplement du suicide industriel, en pleine sortie de catastrophe économique due au virus. En outre, cette législation serait contraire aux traités et destructrice d’emplois que rien ne vient compenser.Notre programme est clair : il faut relocaliser nos entreprises et avoir une vraie politique industrielle, produire localement, retrouver nos souverainetés, mettre fin aux traités de libre-échange, défendre des mesures protectionnistes comme une taxe carbone aux frontières de l’Union et poser aussi la question du coût environnemental. Il faut promouvoir les solutions locales et nationales, et rejeter les vains raouts internationaux.
European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (A9-0177/2021 - Maria da Graça Carvalho)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. L’entreprise commune européenne pour le calcul à haute performance (Euro HPC JU), quoique ayant attendu huit ans avant de prendre son envol (ce que c’est que la bureaucratie européenne), est finalement établie. Elle permettra à l’Europe de développer des supercalculateurs à échelle exaflopique, c’est-à-dire capables de traiter un milliard de milliards d’opérations à la seconde.Nous avions accusé en la matière un terrible retard ; il est bon de le combler. J’espère que cette initiative portera ses fruits !
Official controls on animals and products of animal origin in order to ensure compliance with the prohibition of certain uses of antimicrobials (A9-0195/2021 - Pascal Canfin)
Il s’agit d’une révision du règlement fixant des règles spécifiques d’hygiènes applicables aux denrées alimentaires d’origine animale. Elle concerne, plus spécifiquement, les exigences en matière de contrôles officiels effectués sur les animaux et les produits d’origine animale (notamment en provenance des États tiers) afin de garantir le respect de l’interdiction de certaines utilisations d’antimicrobiens.Cette mise à jour des exigences de l’Union européenne est indispensable, puisqu’elle concerne les contrôles officiels effectués sur les animaux et les produits d’origine animale exportés au départ de pays tiers vers l’Union afin de garantir le respect de ces interdictions. La législation sur l’utilisation des antimicrobiens pour l’agriculture au sein de l’Union européenne est draconienne puisqu’il s’agit de lutter contre les phénomènes « d’antibio-résistance », mais cette législation doit être respectée aussi par les pays tiers lorsqu’ils exportent au sein de l’Union européenne. Cette révision permet de remédier aux lacunes des contrôles actuels.J’ai donc voté en faveur de ce texte.
Commission’s 2020 Rule of law report (A9-0199/2021 - Domènec Ruiz Devesa)
J’ai bien entendu voté contre ce rapport. L’«État de droit», pour l’Union européenne, cela consiste à décréter que les principes politiques libéraux ont force de loi morale s’imposant au droit juridique, qui lui-même s’impose aux États, et qu’en conséquence il est interdit d’avoir des lois illibérales, même votées de manière parfaitement démocratique et approuvées par la population.Ce hold-up politique poursuivait des buts évidents, mais la Commission, dans son premier compte-rendu de la question, n’osait pas trop s’avancer. Le présent rapport du Parlement, qui donne son avis sur celui de la Commission, a moins de pudeur. Il souhaite passer les États au crible du racisme, de l’islamophobie et de l’homophobie, et en faire une base de déclenchement de la procédure de suspension d’un État dans l’Union. On voit quelle folle militarisation idéologique est à l’œuvre. Disons et redisons que les principes libéraux, faux et déments, ne sont pas et ne doivent pas être une boussole imposée à notre vieille et grande civilisation!
Sexual and reproductive health and rights in the EU, in the frame of women’s health (A9-0169/2021 - Predrag Fred Matić)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui, très loin de parler effectivement de la santé des femmes (car je vote pour tous les articles pour lesquels c’est le cas: mariages forcés, exposition médicale, grossesse, victimation), est en fait un programme progressiste visant à l’éducation sexuelle, la PMA, la GPA, la prise en charge des hormones et opérations chirurgicales des transsexuels, l’ouverture aux hommes des soins de naissance (je croyais qu’on parlait de la santé des femmes), et, bien sûr, l’universalisation de l’avortement, considéré, excusez du peu, comme un «droit de l’homme».Je vote contre cela avec d’autant plus de sérénité que l’Union européenne n’a aucune compétence en la matière et, ici comme ailleurs, s’immisce en fraude dans un domaine qui n’est pas le sien. Des résolutions alternatives, pour lesquelles j’ai voté, rappellent ce simple fait et appellent les États membres à soutenir la santé des femmes.
Use of technologies for the processing of data for the purpose of combating online child sexual abuse (temporary derogation from Directive 2002/58/EC) (A9-0258/2020 - Birgit Sippel)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport d’harmonisation technique entre deux directives qui changent, pour maintenir une exception dans la législation sur la protection des données personnelles lorsqu’il est question de détection des contenus pédopornographiques. Il est inquiétant que cette exception, bien que rétroactive, ne soit votée que maintenant, alors que celle qui existait sous l’empire de la directive précédente avait expiré il y a six mois. Les crimes des prédateurs ne doivent jamais être protégés.
Draft amending budget No 3/2021: surplus of the financial year 2020 (A9-0218/2021 - Pierre Larrouturou)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui n’a aucun sens. L’Union européenne, en 2020, a dégagé un excédent budgétaire d’1,8 milliard d’euros. C’est très bien. Mais le rapport veut inscrire cet excédent au budget de l’Union pour 2021. Or, cet argent provient des taxes nationales imposées aux citoyens par les États membres, dont une part est reversée à l’Union. S’il n’est pas utilisé, cet argent doit leur être rendu: en temps de pandémie, les citoyens en ont un besoin urgent. L’Union européenne n’a aucun motif pour le garder pour elle, d’autant qu’elle reçoit, l’année suivante, à nouveau de quoi remplir ses caisses. Cet argent est celui des Européens, il doit leur revenir.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (A9-0227/2021 - Lukas Mandl)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. « Union européenne » et « droits fondamentaux » dans la même phrase ? C’est la certitude d’une nouvelle avalanche d’idéologie libérale imposée par la contrainte. Le texte final, issu d’un accord entre les trois institutions européennes, a beau enterrer les revendications les plus démentielles du Parlement, il demeure un instrument de guerre politique employé contre les États membres pour favoriser toujours plus d’immigration, toujours plus de progressisme, toujours plus de droits-créances. Nous ne pouvons l’accepter.
Internal Security Fund (A9-0221/2021 - Monika Hohlmeier)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. Le Fonds pour la sécurité intérieure existait déjà. Auparavant divisé entre la sécurité intérieure proprement dite et la surveillance aux frontières, il se concentrera désormais sur son premier volet. Son objet au niveau européen a trait à la coopération policière et judiciaire, l’interopérabilité des systèmes informatiques, la formation des agents chargés de la coopération, et l’équipement des installations de transit ou des forces nationales. Il faut cependant critiquer, dans ce Fonds, l’inclusion de l’éternellement illégitime Parquet européen, et le financement d’inutiles, idéologiques et nuisibles « formations antiracistes », qui sont autant de séances d’endoctrinement.
Railway safety and signalling: Assessing the state of play of the ERTMS deployment (A9-0181/2021 - Izaskun Bilbao Barandica)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. Le système européen de gestion du trafic ferroviaire (ERTMS) a, en général, le grand tort de préparer l’ouverture à la concurrence des réseaux ferroviaires, dans la droite ligne de l’idéologie libérale de la Commission. Cependant, le présent rapport s’intéresse surtout aux modalités techniques de circulation des trains sur les rails de différents pays pour le transport des marchandises, afin d’obtenir un fret marchand décarboné. Les infrastructures ferroviaires en sont rendues plus sûres, et plus efficaces sur les principaux axes européens: nous approuvons cela.
Amendments to Parliament's Rules of Procedure (A9-0214/2021 - Gabriele Bischoff)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Il est utile que les citoyens sachent comment fonctionnent les institutions. Le règlement intérieur du Parlement européen organise le fonctionnement de cette assemblée parlementaire : c’est en fonction de lui que les députés disposent, pour agir, de libertés plus ou moins grandes.Eh bien ! les groupes majoritaires s’entendent pour truquer le jeu. Voici quelles modifications sont ici principalement proposées :— fin du renouvellement, à mi-mandat, des délégations pour les relations avec les pays tiers ; c’est-à-dire garantie pour leurs directions actuelles de rester cinq ans en poste – à six mois de leur renouvellement prévu ;— suppression de la motion d’irrecevabilité, qui permettait de demander le rejet de textes sur lesquels l’Union européenne n’a pas légalement la compétence d’agir ; son dernier usage a été activé contre une résolution qui voulait faire de l’avortement un droit fondamental mondial : on voit pourquoi ces messieurs veulent supprimer cet outil gênant ;— obligation, dans les bureaux des commissions, d’une stricte diversité... sexuelle, car, pour la diversité politique, ces messieurs font bande à part.La discrimination des patriotes, dans l’Union européenne, se fait des citoyens aux députés !
Protection of the EU’s financial interests - combatting fraud - annual report 2019 (A9-0209/2021 - Caterina Chinnici)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Ce n’est pas, contrairement à ce qu’on peut croire, de fraude qu’il s’agit, mais des prérogatives que s’arroge l’Union européenne. Elle possède une agence, appelée l’OLAF (Office de lutte antifraude), chargée à l’origine de surveiller la gestion des finances des institutions européennes – noble objectif, que nous soutenons. Mais cette agence, au fil des textes, et à chaque fois sous le prétexte de « lutter contre la fraude », étend son champ d’action dans des domaines où elle n’est pas légitime. Elle peut désormais accéder aux comptes bancaires des particuliers ! Elle demande des plans d’action contraignants pour les États membres ! De quel droit ? C’est une véritable police financière européenne, supranationale, qui se met en place, sans que les traités européens l’aient jamais prévue. Police, à tel point qu’il existe – peu le savent – une Cour des comptes européenne, chargée elle aussi de vérifier l’aspect comptable de la gestion des institutions, mais, comme cette Cour s’en tient à son travail et n’est pas politisée, elle est escamotée au profit de l’OLAF. Refusons ce fédéralisme !
Visa Information System (VIS): visa processing (A9-0207/2021 - Paulo Rangel)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. Le système d’information sur les visas permet aux États de connaître les détenteurs et les récipiendaires de visas délivrés par d’autres États membres, afin, en quelque sorte, de tracer les fuites qui passent par les trous de la passoire Schengen. Ce texte renforce l’efficacité du système et le raccorde informatiquement aux autres systèmes connexes de l’Union. Je ne peux donc que le soutenir.
Visa Information System (VIS): conditions for accessing other EU information systems for VIS (A9-0208/2021 - Paulo Rangel)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. Le système d’information sur les visas permet aux États de connaître les détenteurs et les récipiendaires de visas délivrés par d’autres États membres, afin, en quelque sorte, de tracer les fuites qui passent par les trous de la passoire Schengen. Ce texte renforce l’efficacité du système et le raccorde informatiquement aux autres systèmes connexes de l’Union. Je ne peux donc que le soutenir.
EU-NATO cooperation in the context of transatlantic relations (A9-0192/2021 - Antonio López-Istúriz White)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, européiste et atlantiste comme on l’imagine. Les rédacteurs sont tout heureux d’être les laquais des Américains, ayant le sentiment de concourir à quelque chose comme un ordre mondial libéral et démocratique qui serait la fin de l’Histoire. Le texte est bien sûr absurdement hostile envers la Russie, ainsi que (plus légitimement) envers la Chine, et n’hésite pas à comparer les politiques souveraines de ces États au terrorisme international, tout cela méritant, selon lui, d’être combattu. Pendant qu’il y est, il réclame l’extension de l’Union européenne dans les Balkans. Le délire est au comble, ma fermeté dans le refus aussi.
The creation of guidelines for the application of the general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (A9-0226/2021 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Petri Sarvamaa)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui est une énième tentative de renverser la décision des États souverains réunis au Conseil de surseoir à l’application du (scandaleux) mécanisme conditionnant la perception des fonds européens à une mise au pas idéologique des nations européennes. La Commission devait, pour ménager la Hongrie et la Pologne, qui auraient sans cela fait capoter tout le mécanisme, publier des « lignes directrices », dont ces deux États espèrent qu’elles leur épargneront de subir l’effet politique attendu dudit mécanisme. Le Parlement, fidèle à lui-même, écume de rage et exige l’application totale de cet effet sans attendre. Heureusement, son texte n’est pas contraignant.
Annual Report on the functioning of the Schengen area (A9-0183/2021 - Tanja Fajon)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Si nous ne sommes pas hostiles à la libre circulation en Europe – entre Européens, nous sommes hostiles à l’espace Schengen, qui, en l’état, la garantit à tous et fait de nos frontières des passoires. Et puis, ce rapport n’équivaut pas à une simple approbation de Schengen. Il fait des recommandations. Et ces recommandations, les voici : rejet des contrôles, quels qu’ils soient, limitations des droits des États en la matière, et augmentation de ceux qu’a l’Union européenne de les en punir, élargissement de l’espace Schengen, facilitation de la délivrance de visas... En bref, c’est un appel à la submersion migratoire : je le rejette donc catégoriquement.
A new ERA for Research and Innovation (B9-0370/2021)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. L’Espace européen de la recherche (EER), système de programmes de recherche scientifique, permet d’exercer en commun notre génie créatif et nos compétences. Délaissé depuis sa création en 2000, il est réactivé à l’occasion de la pandémie, qui a souligné nos carences profondes dans ce domaine. Nous ne pouvons que soutenir un programme européen véritable, qui profitera à tous et développera nos talents et nos capacités. Voilà ce que l’Europe devrait toujours être.
Review of the macroeconomic legislative framework (A9-0212/2021 - Margarida Marques)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, opposé que je suis à la totalité du cadre législatif macroéconomique européen – c’est-à-dire au dirigisme économique supranational total et à l’austérité. Le rapport est fédéraliste et, s’il se prépare à une révision des éléments de définition de ce cadre (sur lesquels nous prendrons position lorsqu’ils nous seront présentés), il poursuit dans une veine d’uniformisation des politiques économiques, décidées au niveau européen.
Establishment of Antarctic Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and the conservation of Southern Ocean biodiversity (B9-0369/2021)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui demande la création d’une immense zone marine protégée (ZMP) dans l’Antarctique oriental, qui joue un rôle clé dans la circulation océanique mondiale et abrite de très nombreux écosystèmes menacés. L’océan Austral et l’Antarctique sont des territoires encore bien préservés, il faut qu’ils le demeurent.
Breaches of EU law and of the rights of LGBTIQ citizens in Hungary as a result of the adopted legal changes in the Hungarian Parliament (B9-0412/2021, B9-0413/2021)
J’ai bien évidemment voté contre ce texte, non sans quelque lassitude. Le Parlement européen se proclame le champion de l’état de droit, mais, le droit, il s’en fiche. Par exemple, les traités européens disposent que les questions d’éducation relèvent de la politique des États membres, mais le Parlement, ivre de rage, exige que la Hongrie retire la loi qui défend l’exposition des mineurs à la propagande sexuelle. En fait, et on le comprend, par « état de droit », il ne faut pas comprendre que c’est la loi qui dirige l’action de l’État, mais que ce sont les « valeurs » progressistes qui dirigent la loi. Or ces valeurs sont fausses, perverses, trompeuses, ignobles. La Hongrie les rejette et elle a bien raison. Et nos « libéraux » européens, qui ne tolèrent pas que les autres ne pensent pas comme eux, sont au bord de l’apoplexie. Complotistes, ils voient dans la loi hongroise la preuve d’un programme politique visant – rien que ça – au démantèlement de la démocratie (il faut dire qu’ils donnent à ce terme la même signification qu’à « état de droit », car ils se contrefichent des choix des peuples). Au passage, ils s’en prennent – au point où on en est – à la Pologne, et même à la Russie. Une camomille, Messieurs ?
LGBTIQ rights in the EU (B9-0431/2021)
J’ai bien entendu voté contre ce rapport, idéologique à l’écœurement, et qui est une tentative de passage en force européen contre les lois des États membres. Il s’agit particulièrement d’obliger les États à reconnaître et accepter les « mariages » homosexuels célébrés dans des États pratiquant cette sorte d’union, ainsi que les droits familiaux résultant du statut marital, selon le principe de validité des actes juridiques. C’est sans ambages que le rapport avoue son but : « le droit de l’Union a primauté sur tout droit national, y compris sur les dispositions constitutionnelles ». Eh bien non !
Towards a stronger partnership with the EU outermost regions (A9-0241/2021 - Stéphane Bijoux)
Je me suis abstenu sur ce rapport passablement inutile, car n’abordant pas des problèmes prégnants de nos Outre-mer: l’accès à l’eau, la pollution par les sargasses, et les retombées du chlordécone. Il ne s’agit partout que d’administration – simplifier l’accès aux fonds européens, mieux les orienter – dans le but d’évincer l’action de l’État au profit de l’Union européenne. Comme ces fonds, malgré tout, soutiennent l’économie, l’emploi et le développement dans nos Outre-mer, je ne me prononce pas contre. Mais j’estime qu’en ne tenant pas compte des réalités de ces territoires, on se condamne à l’incurie.Je précise que le rapporteur du texte, Stéphane Bijoux (LREM), a refusé par idéologie d’examiner nos propositions pour remédier à ces problèmes concrets. Les Ultramarins apprécieront.
Draft amending budget No 1/2021: Brexit Adjustment Reserve (A9-0263/2021 - Pierre Larrouturou)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport relatif au budget dit de «réserve d’ajustement du Brexit», c’est-à-dire d’atténuation des effets négatifs du départ britannique sur certains secteurs économiques et sociaux européens. Par exemple, le commerce, désormais gêné par les droits de douane anglais, ou la pêche, désormais limitée dans les eaux britanniques, verra les acteurs souffrant d’une baisse d’activité ou de revenus bénéficier de dédommagements, dont le total, à répartir entre États membres, est de 5 milliards d’euros sur cinq ans. Les domaines financiers et bancaires sont exclus du soutien. Soutenons nos travailleurs!
Official controls on animals and products of animal origin in order to ensure compliance with the prohibition of certain uses of antimicrobials (A9-0195/2021 - Pascal Canfin)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. Bien sûr que nous devons contrôler le respect par les viandes que nous importons de notre législation en matière sanitaire ! Il s’agit en l’espèce de l’interdiction de certaines utilisations d’antimicrobiens, susceptibles d’avoir un effet à terme sur la santé humaine. C’est bien le moins. Ici comme ailleurs, le contrôle des frontières est une chance et une solution !
Brexit Adjustment Reserve (A9-0178/2021 - Pascal Arimont)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport établissant une «réserve d’ajustement du Brexit», c’est-à-dire un fonds d’atténuation des effets négatifs du départ britannique sur certains secteurs économiques et sociaux européens. Par exemple, le commerce, désormais gêné par les droits de douane anglais, ou la pêche, désormais limitée dans les eaux britanniques, verra les acteurs souffrant d’une baisse d’activité ou de revenus bénéficier de dédommagements, dont le total, à répartir entre États membres, est de 5 milliards d’euros sur cinq ans. Les domaines financiers et bancaires sont exclus du soutien. Soutenons nos travailleurs !
EU Blue Card Directive (A8-0240/2017 - Javier Moreno Sánchez)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Il s’agit là, sous prétexte d’accueillir des travailleurs immigrés qualifiés, d’élargir le volume des bénéficiaires d’un titre de séjour professionnel européen, et de leur simplifier l’obtention de ce titre. Ainsi, le critère de possession d’un diplôme est élargi à la possibilité d’une équivalence professionnelle ; les seuils salariaux sont abaissés ; le conjoint du titulaire pourra également postuler sur le marché du travail européen. Le but assumé est de « normaliser la politique d’immigration ».En votant contre ce texte, je n’empêche pas l’arrivée des travailleurs qualifiés : nous les accueillons déjà en vertu d’une directive de 2009. C’est véritablement contre un abus immigrationniste de la Commission, un de plus, que je me prononce.
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (A9-0253/2021 - Joanna Kopcińska)
L’Union européenne, toujours à la remorque des États-Unis, veut son Centre of Disease Control fédéral. Elle étend donc les pouvoirs de l’organisme de surveillance et de conseil qui existait, afin, par exemple, d’y intégrer le suivi de la santé mentale, ou d’envoyer des missions d’inspection des capacités sanitaires des États. Rappelons, une énième fois, que la santé n’est pas une compétence européenne.
Serious cross-border threats to health (A9-0247/2021 - Véronique Trillet-Lenoir)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, stupéfiant d’arrogance de la part de l’Union européenne. Après le fiasco de la commande conjointe et exclusive des vaccins par l’Union, voici un texte qui propose, en cas de danger sanitaire futur (en ce compris les attaques biologiques ou les « menaces d’origine inconnue » !), de donner tous les pouvoirs à l’UE : celui de décider s’il y crise ou pas, celui de décider des mesures à prendre, celui de passer des commandes conjointes pour absolument tout, celui de décider des « voies » par lesquelles faire circuler les produits commandés, celui de restreindre les déplacements, celui d’autoriser tel ou tel élément médical (substance ou équipement), le tout hors du contrôle des États membres, mais avec des sanctions pour eux s’ils agissaient de manière autonome !Nous avons affaire à des fous. L’Europe de la santé n’existe pas et, à l’occasion du coronavirus, a prouvé qu’il était meilleur qu’elle continuât à ne pas exister. La dernière chose à faire est de la faire exister partout.
Fishers for the future (A9-0230/2021 - Manuel Pizarro)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, important alors que la moyenne d’âge des pêcheurs frise les quarante ans et que le manque de travail dans le domaine de la pêche met en péril toute une économie (un travailleur maritime en moins supprime l’activité de cinq travailleurs à terre). La baisse de la consommation du poisson et le déclin de la pêche traditionnelle condamnent le secteur à la disparition, et seules resteront les énormes compagnies hollandaises qui pratiquent la pêche industrielle, car leur budget leur permettra de conserver des effectifs.Les ayatollahs de l’écologie, qui font passer les pêcheurs traditionnels pour des bioterroristes, seront sûrement ravis de ce résultat. Dans ce domaine comme dans d’autres, c’est bien du côté de la tradition que les remèdes écologiques se trouvent.
Plans and actions to accelerate a transition to innovation without the use of animals in research, regulatory testing and education (RC-B9-0425/2021, B9-0425/2021, B9-0426/2021, B9-0427/2021, B9-0428/2021, B9-0429/2021, B9-0432/2021)
Implementation of EU requirements for exchange of tax information (A9-0193/2021 - Sven Giegold)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui évalue la mise en œuvre des obligations d’échange de renseignements en matière fiscale afin de lutter contre la fraude. Ses conclusions sont que l’exclusion de certains types de revenus et d’actifs permettent encore des échappatoires, et qu’ainsi il convient de les inclure dans la législation applicable. Il faut également noter de nouvelles propositions de la Commission pour intégrer à ladite législation les revenus du numérique et les cryptoactifs. Parce qu’il faut combattre la fraude, j’ai voté pour ce rapport, mais je m’inquiète de cette immixtion de l’État dans toute la vie des personnes.
Situation in Afghanistan (RC-B9-0455/2021, B9-0433/2021, B9-0453/2021, B9-0455/2021, B9-0458/2021, B9-0459/2021, B9-0460/2021, B9-0462/2021)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. L’Union européenne, comme d’habitude quand elle se casse le nez, réagit en persistant dans la culbute. Ici, par exemple, l’échec des « valeurs » occidentales (qui l’eût cru ?) dans un pays musulman très rigoriste pousse l’UE, championne de ces « valeurs » grotesques, à demander à ce qu’on redouble d’aveuglement, à ce qu’on persiste, au moyen de la diplomatie (l’UE n’a pas de compétence en cette matière, elle en profite pour se l’arroger) et dans le cadre de l’OTAN (qui vient d’être vaincu). Enfin, il y a – immanquablement – un appel à l’élargissement des voies migratoires pour les Afghans contre lequel je ne peux que m’élever.
Media freedom and further deterioration of the Rule of law in Poland (B9-0461/2021, B9-0463/2021)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport scandaleux. L’« État de droit », pour l’Union européenne, c’est important de le comprendre, n’est pas le simple respect par un État, dans son fonctionnement, des normes juridiques qu’il s’est choisies. C’est la prétention incroyable que ces normes elles-mêmes doivent être soumises à des principes déclarés indiscutables, qui sont ceux de la démocratie libérale.Évidemment, la Pologne, qui pratique le traditionalisme réactionnaire, est hérétique pour l’Union. Elle est incapable, comme souvent les progressistes, de comprendre qu’on n’admette pas ses dogmes fondamentaux. Elle ne comprend pas : ces dogmes étant – forcément – vrais et le reste n’existant pas, pourquoi la Pologne fait-elle ce qu’elle fait ? Elle essaie donc d’obliger la Pologne – et la Hongrie – à rentrer dans le rang. Et comme la presse, la honte du monde moderne, est un puissant vecteur de propagande progressiste, c’est elle qui fait l’objet de la présente sanction, au motif que la Pologne empêche des étrangers de détenir plus de 50 % du capital d’un média polonais dans le but de limiter l’ingérence étrangère. En France, c’est 20 %, mais la France est en adoration devant la démocratie libérale. Le reste (LGBT, avortement, éducation sexuelle des enfants, immigration) vient après dans le rapport, fixant clairement la direction.Heureusement, la Pologne a demandé à sa Cour constitutionnelle de juger de la primauté du droit polonais par rapport au droit européen. Bruxelles est très inquiète, et insulte copieusement ladite Cour constitutionnelle (au mépris total du droit, mais, encore une fois, ce mot désigne pour l’UE une certaine idéologie).Votant contre ce rapport, je vote en faveur de la contre-résolution du Groupe ECR, auquel appartient le Gouvernement polonais. Vive l’Europe des Nations !
Artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters (A9-0232/2021 - Petar Vitanov)
J’ai voté contre ce texte – et m’en suis expliqué en plénière. L’IA, domaine de potentialités fantastiques pour l’Europe, n’est ici traité que comme un instrument de lutte idéologique, qui, je cite pêle-mêle, « rédui[t] les chances des personnes de couleur et d’autres minorités », « perpétue et amplifie les discriminations », « porte [...] préjudice aux personnes racialisées, aux personnes appartenant à certaines communautés ethniques, aux personnes LGBTI ». Il est question de la mort de George Floyd (quel rapport avec l’IA ?) et du racisme dans la police (pendant qu’on y est), et même de mettre en place des « études critiques de la race » (celles-là même dont la gauche, quand on l’évoque, nie l’existence en vous traitant de conspirationnistes). C’est un détournement total du texte de son objet. Je m’y oppose.
Rebuilding fish stocks in the Mediterranean (A9-0225/2021 - Raffaele Stancanelli)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. La Méditerranée est une des mers les plus exploitées du monde. Il ne s’agit pas que de la pêche intensive (déjà très problématique), mais aussi de la pollution, de l’exploitation pétrolière, du dragage et de la navigation. Et, par miracle, le texte a trouvé une solution intelligente ! Au lieu de sabrer dans les flottes maritimes des États européens, il recommande d’appliquer des limitations d’accès et d’activité aux flottes étrangères, et de corriger par l’importation la baisse des prélèvements halieutiques. C’est tout le contraire des habitudes de la Commission en matière écologique, qui consistent ordinairement à étouffer l’Europe sous les normes tout en encourageant le développement gigantesque du productivisme international. Certains remugles de ces habitudes persistent bien dans le rapport, mais sa tournure est très nettement positive.
Objection pursuant to Rule 111(3): Technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether that economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives (B9-0476/2021, B9-0477/2021)
J’ai voté en faveur de cette objection. Elle est dirigée contre un acte délégué de la Commission européenne, c’est-à-dire contre une décision que celle-ci peut prendre seule en application d’un texte européen qui l’y habilite. En l’espèce, ce texte est le règlement (UE) 2020/852 du 18 juin 2020, relatif aux engagements du pacte vert et aux critères de détermination des activités économiques durables. Or, la Commission ne plaçait pas le nucléaire dans la liste des activités répondant à ces critères : sur ce sujet politiquement sensible, elle remet toujours sa décision à demain. Or, cette procrastination fait que le nucléaire est absent de la liste : mais il faut y être pour bénéficier des financements publics nationaux et européens ! L’enjeu est donc énorme, et l’objection vise à contraindre la Commission à valider le nucléaire, énergie, je le rappelle, totalement décarbonée.J’ai soutenu cette objection. Nos adversaires de gauche ne l’ont pas fait, préférant déposer la leur en parallèle. Leur sectarisme prévaut sur la défense dans l’unité des intérêts de la France. Les citoyens apprécieront.
The future of EU-US relations (A9-0250/2021 - Tonino Picula)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Au lendemain du coup de poignard dans le dos que nous ont gracieusement donné les États-Unis dans la vente de sous-marins français à l’Australie (après celle de la vente des Rafale à la Suisse), l’Union européenne – évidemment suivie en adoration par les partis français du Système – n’a rien de mieux à faire que de déclarer que les États-Unis, redevenus « progressistes », sont nos alliés et nos partenaires dans l’édification radieuse du mondialisme morale. Les réfractaires sont, sans surprise, disqualifiés comme « d’extrême-droite ». La suite est une cohue de déclarations idéologiques péremptoires : intégration économique, ONU, Accords de Paris, OTAN (avec demande d’un « OTAN des droits de l’homme »), LGBT, peine de mort, soumission de tous les sujets internationaux à l’axe atlantique, extension du partenariat UE-États-Unis aux Balkans... Bref, c’est une inféodation totale aux intérêts américains, à tel point que le rapport ne craint pas, rompant avec toute neutralité politique, de se féliciter de l’élection de Joe Biden. Les eurodéputés du PS, de LR et de LREM ont voté pour tout cela. Mais, en France, ils feront semblant d’affirmer l’indépendance de la France et de s’indigner de l’attitude américaine. Tartuffes !
Implementation report on the EU Trust Funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (A9-0255/2021 - Öilan Zver, György Hölvényi, Janusz Lewandowski)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Depuis 2014, pour tenter – du moins en façade – de régler les problèmes migratoires en Afrique, trois fonds fiduciaires ont dépensé pas moins de 8,2 milliards d’euros (910 millions en Centrafrique, 2,2 milliards en Syrie, 5 milliards en Afrique en général), sans compter 128 millions en Colombie, où l’Union européenne n’a pourtant que faire (mais elle aime jouer à la diplomatie mondiale). Quant à la Turquie, afin de gérer l’afflux d’immigrés invoqué par Angela Merkel, elle a bénéficié de 6 milliards d’euros dans le cadre d’une «facilité» en faveur des réfugiés.Ce rapport fait le point sur tout cet argent. Au plan financier, il conclut à des dépenses redondantes, à un manque de transparence sur leur emploi et à une efficacité perfectible. Au plan institutionnel, il souligne que ces fonds fiduciaires ne sont qu’un moyen de contourner les règles budgétaires de l’Union. J’ajoute, moi, sur le plan politique, qu’ils financent des activités de propagande de l’Union européenne, qu’ils ne prévoient rien pour sanctionner la Turquie qui pourtant démontre qu’elle ne se soucie nullement du salut des immigrés, mais qu’elle les considère – non sans raison! – comme un moyen offensif de nuire à l’Europe et de la faire chanter.
State of EU cyber defence capabilities (A9-0234/2021 - Urmas Paet)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Il constate que l’Union européenne est complètement démunie dans le domaine de la cyberdéfense : soit. Mais qu’en conclut-il ? Que la construction de nos capacités en la matière doit être confiée à la Commission européenne et à l’OTAN. Il en résulte que le rapport nous met encore une fois servilement à la remorque des Américains, nos adversaires désignés étant les Chinois, les Russes et les Nord-Coréens. Le peu de bonnes propositions, à vrai dire de bon sens (augmenter les moyens matériels, financiers et humains, mettre à contribution l’innovation civile) qui flottent çà et là ne rend pas ce brouet atlantiste plus digeste.
The Arctic: opportunities, concerns and security challenges (A9-0239/2021 - Anna Fotyga)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Comme son nom l’indique, il ne parle pas des questions d’environnement, qui auraient rencontré mon adhésion. Mais il s’agit de «sécurité régionale», autrement dit de géostratégie, et donc une nouvelle fois d’atlantisme servile. Le lecteur n’est pas déçu. Intention de faire de l’Union européenne (qui n’est toujours pas un État, il n’est jamais inutile de le rappeler) un membre à part entière du Conseil de l’Arctique, attribution à la Commission européenne d’une compétence pour imposer le respect des conventions internationales dans l’Arctique (mais de quoi se mêle-t-elle?), critique de la Russie et de ses manœuvres militaires dans sa zone maritime de souveraineté, promotion d’une action commune avec la Russie, mais maintien des sanctions contre ce pays, critique de la coopération russo-chinoise dans l’établissement d’une route de la soie arctique, déploiement d’une flotte de brise-glace européens pour surveiller la région en réaction à cette coopération... Bref, un rôle de gendarme du monde, évidemment dans le cadre de l’OTAN et sous la houlette des États-Unis. Non, merci.
The protection of persons with disabilities through petitions: lessons learnt (A9-0261/2021 - Alex Agius Saliba)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. Par principe, nous soutenons tout ce qui est de nature à faciliter l’existence de nos compatriotes, ici des handicapés, et n’avons aucune raison de nous y opposer. De plus, en l’espèce, le texte se place, non pas dans le cadre contraignant des institutions européennes, mais dans celui, plus libre et relevant de l’adhésion volontaire, d’une convention internationale (la CDPH).
Draft amending budget 4/2021: Update of revenue, revised forecast of own resources and other revenue (A9-0268/2021 - Pierre Larrouturou)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport, qui fait partie de l’ensemble de textes modifiant le système de financement de l’Union européenne en franchissant un pas de géant vers le fédéralisme, puisque l’Union s’autorise désormais à prélever directement des impôts. Je refuse le fédéralisme à petits pas, et ce rapport, même simple ajustement technique, en est un.
The effectiveness of Member States' use of EU Solidarity Fund money in cases of natural disasters (A9-0273/2021 - Corina Crețu)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, tout comme j’avais voté, en leur temps, pour les propositions d’activation du Fonds dont il s’agit. Ce Fonds de solidarité de l’Union européenne vise à soutenir les États membres touchés par des catastrophes naturelles. C’est une manifestation authentique et concrète, bien que trop rare, de l’esprit de solidarité qui anime les partisans de l’Europe des nations. Le présent rapport fait le point sur la mobilisation du Fonds, pour conclure qu’il a correctement fonctionné, et qu’il doit être renforcé dans le cas des «régions ultrapériphériques» – les Outre-Mer. Vive cette Europe-là!
The situation of artists and the cultural recovery in the EU (A9-0283/2021 - Monica Semedo)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, surtout essentiel alors que le monde de la culture a extraordinairement souffert de la gestion du coronavirus. Ses propositions, même dans un autre contexte, eussent d’ailleurs mérité l’adhésion, avec, notamment, l’adoption d’une définition commune du statut d’artiste, et la création de conditions minimales d’exercice de ce statut (ne remettant pas en cause celui, plus développé, qui existe en France).
General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2022 - all sections (A9-0281/2021 - Karlo Ressler, Damian Boeselager)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. Le budget, c’est ce par quoi un organisme se donne les moyens de ses ambitions. Je m’oppose aux ambitions mondialistes, antidémocratiques, antinationales, progressistes et libérales de l’Union européenne. Je m’oppose donc au budget qui les concrétise. Si besoin était, les éléments matériels de ce budget – migration, défense, préadhésion de la Turquie, aide extérieure – me détermineraient à la même position.
Insurance of motor vehicles (A9-0035/2019 - Dita Charanzová)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, utile aux automobilistes. Il prévoit particulièrement que le bonus d’un assuré dans son pays reste le même lorsqu’il se rend dans un autre pays européen, que le mode de calcul des bonus soit transparent, que les assureurs soient davantage contrôlés, et qu’un organisme national puisse indemniser les victimes lorsqu’un assureur est en faillite. L’assuré est gagnant : en ces temps de persécution des automobilistes, ce rapport est le bienvenu.
Joint Undertakings under Horizon Europe (A9-0246/2021 - Maria da Graça Carvalho)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, qui établit des entreprises communes européennes pour diriger de grands projets de recherche et d’investissement. Il s’agit en l’espèce de neuf partenariats géants entre entreprises, organismes de recherches et PME, organisés notamment dans les domaines de la santé, du transport propre et du numérique.Bien sûr, il y a dans le texte quelques contraintes qui ne nous plaisent pas. Mais il est tellement remarquable de voir l’Europe, enfin, déroger à ses dogmes démentiels de libre-concurrence dans le but de s’affirmer dans certains domaines, que nous passons outre. Au surplus, les États membres conserveront le contrôle sur les sommes qu’ils auront versées à des telles entreprises.
EU transparency in the development, purchase and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines (B9-0519/2021, B9-0520/2021)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. La gestion du coronavirus par l’Union européenne a été inqualifiable. La Commission s’est arrogé d’autorité la négociation des vaccins, l’a conduite dans l’ombre, avec une équipe dont nous ne connaissons toujours pas les noms, sans aucune garantie démocratique ni juridique, à des prix délirants, et en empilant les oublis, les erreurs et les retards. J’ai également voté en faveur d’une résolution additionnelle rédigée par mon groupe, le Groupe Identité et Démocratie, qui insistait sur certains des points que je viens de citer.
An EU strategy to reduce methane emissions (A9-0277/2021 - Maria Spyraki)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport, dans la mesure où, non contraignant, il ne fait que former un souhait général de mesures permettant de faire baisser les émissions de méthane, souhait que nous partageons. Le rapport précise même que les mesures en question ne devraient pas favoriser les importations, ce qui est viser juste : c’est le mondialisme qui pollue, et c’est par la production propre, locale, et en circuit court que nous amènerons les producteurs, dont les usines sont situées hors de l’Union européenne, à véritablement réduire de façon significative les émissions polluantes en fabriquant moins.
UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, the UK (COP26) (B9-0521/2021)
J’ai voté contre ce rapport. La COP26 ne sert à rien, pas plus que la COP21 en son temps, sur laquelle le Parlement européen ne cesse pourtant de s’extasier. À force d’habitude, les européistes croient que communiquer et gouverner sont la même chose. Par la présente résolution, ils établissent des objectifs de réduction des émissions de carbone bien intentionnés, mais totalement irréalistes dans le calendrier prescrit, d’autant qu’aucune remise en cause du modèle de croissance productiviste n’est prévue et que rien n’oblige les États tiers à coopérer (rappelons que l’Union européenne cause moins de 10 % des émissions mondiales de carbone). S’ajoutent à cela les habituelles coquecigrues idéologiques de ce Parlement, comme le transatlantisme fanatique, la mention des questions de genre (au point où on en est) et un changement d’échelle vers le mondialisme pour régler la crise climatique, alors que c’est ce même mondialisme qui l’a causée.
Pandora Papers: implications on the efforts to combat money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance (B9-0527/2021, RC B9-0530/2021, B9-0530/2021, B9-0531/202)
J’ai voté pour ce rapport. La fraude est un délit inexcusable, et l’évasion fiscale, qui n’est qu’une fraude légale, doit être combattue par des réglementations qui l’empêchent, car elle permet à des personnes dépourvues de patriotisme d’utiliser le monde comme un champ de concurrence pour appauvrir leur propre pays.Je vote pour, mais je n’oublie pas que l’Union européenne a précisément sorti de sa liste noire trois des paradis fiscaux les plus cités dans les «Pandora Papers» le jour même où ceux-ci étaient publiés, et que ces révélations, qui se multiplient depuis 2015, ne paraissent avoir pu entraîner aucune réaction sérieuse de nature à les limiter.
The Rule of law crisis in Poland and the primacy of EU law (B9-0532/2021, B9-0533/2021, B9-0539/2021)
J’ai voté contre ce texte. L’Union européenne a perdu la raison. Parachevant son ambition fédéraliste, elle ne craint plus d’affirmer que le droit européen est supérieur au droit constitutionnel national d’un État membre. Cette affirmation fait suite à une extension régulière, par la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, de compétences de l’Union que les traités ne lui avaient jamais données, et à une interprétation progressivement contraignante d’articles purement déclaratoires – ceux sur les «valeurs européennes», par exemple. La Pologne a porté un coup d’arrêt à cet empoisonnement juridique, en déclarant qu’une interprétation (par l’Union) des traités qui irait au-delà de ce que ces traités contiennent réellement serait invalide en Pologne. Mais l’Union européenne, qui déteste la Pologne, agit envers elle avec une telle mauvaise foi, une telle haine idéologique, qu’elle dénonce sur-le-champ de prétendues atteintes à l’«état de droit», alors même que d’autres pays, dont la France, ont fait la même chose que la Pologne. Seulement voilà: la France est idéologiquement alignée avec les européistes, et la Pologne non. Il en résulte que c’est l’Union européenne seule, en modifiant petit à petit par interprétation le contenu des traités, et en piétinant les constitutions nationales démocratiques, qui viole l’état de droit. C’est répugnant.J’ai voté en faveur des deux contre-résolutions des groupes ID et ECR, qui rappelaient ces vérités évidentes, mais que la propagande permanente de Bruxelles tend trop souvent à obscurcir dans l’esprit de nos concitoyens.
2019 Discharge: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (A9-0270/2021 - Ryszard Czarnecki)
J’ai voté en faveur de la décharge donnée à Frontex de sa gestion financière, mais contre l’ignoble résolution idéologique qui l’accompagnait. Frontex est, depuis l’an dernier, attaquée par la gauche car elle fait son travail de détection et de remise aux autorités nationales des clandestins – c’est bien la seule action positive de l’Union en la matière ! Or la gauche, sans frontiériste, considère que venir s’essuyer les pieds sur l’Europe est un droit universel, et que tout ce qui contrarie ce droit est une « violation des droits fondamentaux » ; c’est d’ailleurs ce qu’elle a allégué pour refuser la dernière décharge, au prétexte, même pas de faits concrets, mais d’« inquiétudes », d’« enquêtes » (pourtant abandonnées faute de matière) et autres formules vagues. La résolution demande donc de recruter des commissaires politiques – pardon, des « agents des droits fondamentaux » – et même de conditionner le prochain budget de Frontex au plein déploiement de ces commissaires politiques. Sans même savoir quel sera leur contenu, elle va jusqu’à déclarer qu’elle refuser de voter les prochaines décharges ! Assez de cette insupportable dictature politique !
Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund – application EGF/2021/006 ES/Cataluña Automotive – Spain (A9-0038/2022 - Monika Vana)
L’Espagne a présenté le 23 septembre 2021 une demande en vue d’obtenir une contribution financière du Fonds européen d’ajustement à la mondialisation (FEM) à la suite de 705 licenciements dans l’automobile. En conséquence, une contribution financière d’un montant de 2 795 156 EUR est demandée, ce qui représente 85 % du coût total de 3 288 419 EUR.L’utilisation du Fonds européen d’ajustement à la mondialisation (FEM) est actionnée à la suite d’une crise sanitaire majeure dont les répercussions affectent le secteur automobile, en faisant porter l'accent non plus sur les causes d’une restructuration mais sur les répercussions d’une crise sanitaire.Les conditions de son utilisation remplies, j’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport afin de permettre à ces travailleurs licenciés de se reconvertir ou de créer leur propre entreprise.
Shrinking space for civil society in Europe (A9-0032/2022 - Anna Júlia Donáth)
Le présent rapport d'initiative demande une stratégie de l'UE pour la société civile, « d’élargir l'accès flexible au financement de l'Union » et souhaite renforcer l’importance des « défenseurs des droits de l’homme » et autres agents d’influences que nous n’avons pas à soutenir. Sous les habituels prétextes des bons sentiments, de la liberté, de la démocratie et des minorités, il se lamente comme d’habitude sur les association d’aide aux migrants.Au prétexte de défendre les organisations de la société civile soi-disant en danger dans l’UE, ce texte attaque des gouvernements conservateurs et promeut les associations progressistes : « anti-racistes », LGBTIQ, pro-migrants ; c’est pourquoi j’ai voté contre ce texte.
Role of culture, education, media and sport in the fight against racism (A9-0027/2022 - Salima Yenbou)
La commission CULT considère que les conséquences négatives de la pandémie de COVID-19 ont touché de manière disproportionnée les personnes issues de minorités raciales.Le but de ce rapport est de mettre en œuvre une culture plus inclusive, et plus représentative de toutes les minorités ethniques. Pour atteindre ce but, elle n’hésite pas à attaquer nos cultures, considérées comme racistes et opprimantes.
Cohesion policy: reducing healthcare disparities and enhancing cross-border health cooperation (A9-0026/202 - Tomislav Sokol)
Ce rapport préconise la mise en place d’une infrastructure globale de santé pour rendre la santé plus accessible; il recommande l’amélioration et le renforcement de la formation des soignants; il cherche à assurer un accès équitable aux soins pour tous les Européens. Par ailleurs, des contrats de santé transfrontières, reposant sur le principe «le plus facile, le plus proche, le meilleur et le plus rapide» seront créés.Mais malheureusement, ce texte souhaite également un renforcement de la présence de l’UE dans le domaine de la santé alors que ce n’est pas une compétence européenne. Nous refusons l’élargissement des compétences de l’UE. À ce titre, je me suis abstenu.
Cohesion policy: promoting innovative and smart transformation and regional ICT connectivity (A9-0010/2022 - Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro)
Dans le cadre du renforcement de la cohésion économique, sociale et territoriale de l’Union, de la transition numérique et environnementale et suite à la crise du COVID-19, qui a souligné l’importance de favoriser les technologies innovantes, ce rapport met l’accent, via l’utilisation accrue des Fonds FEDER, FC et FSE+, sur la stratégie à adopter en termes de développement d’infrastructures haut-débit afin de réduire la fracture numérique entre zones urbaines et zones rurales, entre générations et entre États membres, ainsi que sur les actions à mener afin d’améliorer les compétences numériques toutes générations et tous territoires confondus.Ce rapport appelle à réduire les inégalités d’accès et d’utilisation des nouvelles technologies afin de contribuer à la montée en puissance de l’économie européenne d’une part et d’accompagner les objectifs environnementaux d’autre part.J’ai donc voté en faveur de ce rapport.
Gender mainstreaming in the European Parliament – annual report 2020 (A9-0021/2022 - Irène Tolleret, Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield)
Ce texte souhaite prendre en compte l’égalité des genres dans les domaines internes au fonctionnement du Parlement européen et de faire des recommandations en ce sens.Le texte reflète l’obsession pour le genre des institutions européennes. Il exige sa prise en compte dans chaque budget et chaque politique. Il prône la formation obligatoire de tous contre le harcèlement, le déblocage de la directive horizontale contre la discrimination et de la directive sur les femmes dans les conseils d’administration, points auxquels nos députés se sont déjà opposés par leurs votes en plénière.Il demande un comptage sexué systématique en vue d’une parité hommes-femmes des élus, mais aussi du personnel recruté, et des députés siégeant dans chaque commission.Le texte se scandalise que la Commission européenne ne prenne en compte la perspective de genre que dans les domaines où elle le juge pertinent et non pour chaque programme.Il est ainsi demandé « qu’une analyse de la distribution et de la conception des toilettes du Parlement soit effectuée afin d’évaluer la nécessité de les adapter aux exigences de tous les genres », ou de comptabiliser le temps de paroles des députés selon leur sexe. Ainsi, le texte demande que « l’équilibre entre les hommes et les femmes soit garanti à tous les niveaux des travaux ainsi que pour la répartition du temps de parole ».Le texte a une vision d’opposition frontale entre hommes et femmes et non de complémentarité, il prône partout des quotas paritaires. Certains passages sont lunaires.J’ai bien évidemment voté contre ce texte.
Rule of law and the consequences of the ECJ ruling (B9-0134/2022, B9-0135/2022, B9-0136/2022)
Par cet arrêt politique, la CJUE valide l’instrumentalisation par la Commission européenne de la notion floue d’«état de droit» pour contourner la procédure de l’article 7 TUE et exercer un chantage financier envers les gouvernements souverains de Pologne et de Hongrie en raison de leur opposition aux politiques migratoire et sociétale de l’UE. Ces mêmes pays qui font face, en première ligne, aux conséquences humanitaires de la crise russo-ukrainienne. Pendant ce temps-là, l’Union européenne finance sans problème des associations islamistes ou des campagnes de promotion de vêtements islamistes.J’ai donc voté contre ce rapport.
European Semester for economic policy coordination: annual sustainable growth survey 2022 (A9-0034/2022 - Irene Tinagli)
L’objectif de ce volet relatif à l’emploi et aux politiques sociales dans l’Union européenne est en réalité d’encadrer les politiques qui relèvent du domaine des États en favorisant une véritable gouvernance européenne. L’idée étant de pousser les politiques nationales à s’adapter au cadre européen, dont le Pacte vert qui fait partie des exemples cités dans le présent rapport, ainsi que les nouveautés sociales décidées au niveau européen: les droits donnés aux travailleurs détachés (portabilité des droits sociaux), le SMIC européen.J’ai donc voté contre ce rapport.
Batteries and waste batteries (A9-0031/2022 - Simona Bonafè)
Le règlement vise à protéger l'environnement et la santé humaine en prévenant ou en réduisant la production de déchets de piles/batteries, les incidences négatives de la production et de la gestion des déchets de piles/batteries et en réduisant les incidences globales de l'utilisation des ressources et en améliorant l'efficacité de cette utilisationLe texte va dans le bon sens. En augmentant les exigences, notamment envers les batteries de véhicules électriques, on évite en partie une publicité mensongère qui dirait que ces véhicules sont vertueux s’ils ne le sont pas. L’information du consommateur est nettement améliorée.Le fond du règlement est à soutenir, malgré le bémol du manque de prise en compte du travail des enfants dans les pays d’extraction. Bien qu’il soit lié au pacte vert pour l’Europe et à une volonté parfois peu réaliste d’électrification massive, notamment des véhicules, j’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport.
The situation in the Strait of Taiwan (RC-B9-0389/2022, B9-0389/2022, B9-0392/2022, B9-0394/2022, B9-0396/2022, B9-0398/2022, B9-0400/2022)
Comme à l’accoutumée, le Parlement cherche à doter l’Union européenne de compétences qu’elle n’a pas. Cependant, la résolution admet qu’elle reconnaît le principe politique d’«une seule Chine», selon lequel le monde ne compte qu’une seule Chine, à l’exclusion des prétentions de Taïwan. C’est également la position traditionnelle de la France et le fondement politique de ses relations avec la Chine depuis 1964, et le Rassemblement national y adhère.Néanmoins, nous ne pouvons pas soutenir cette résolution, car elle omet sciemment le rôle d’instigateur et de provocateur joué par les États-Unis à l’occasion de la visite de Nancy Pelosi. Pire, elle prend le parti atlantiste en condamnant la décision de la R.P.C. de suspendre divers dialogues politiques entres les deux pays dans les domaines de la sécurité et de l’environnement.Je me suis donc abstenu, en raison des considérations qui précèdent et parce que malgré la reconnaissance affirmée du principe de la «Chine unique», les attributs étatiques déguisés octroyés à Taïwan dans le texte (bureaux de liaisons commerciaux et diplomatiques européens, notamment) vont à l’encontre de ce principe: le Parlement reprend d’une main ce qu’il donne de l’autre.
Situation in Nicaragua (RC-B9-0272/2023, B9-0272/2023, B9-0273/2023, B9-0279/2023, B9-0280/2023, B9-0283/2023)
J'ai voté pour cette résolution. Certes, nous considérons que l’Union européenne n’a pas vocation à s’immiscer dans les affaires de pays tiers, et encore moins d’y appliquer des sanctions, toutes prérogatives réservées aux États. De plus, la résolution persiste dans sa volonté européenne de créer une juridiction à compétence universelle pour les États, en l’espèce la C.I.J. (alors même que le Nicaragua n’en a pas ratifié le statut). Néanmoins, la répression brutale à l’encontre de l’opposition, les atteintes à la condition humaine et la croisade anticléricale de ce régime d’extrême gauche nous engagent à soutenir cette résolution.
Situation in Serbia following elections (RC-B9-0106/2024, B9-0106/2024, B9-0108/2024, B9-0131/2024, B9-0132/2024, B9-0133/2024, B9-0134/2024)
Ce texte, par mécontentement de l’issue du scrutin de décembre 2023 en Serbie, critique excessivement la démocratie dans le pays alors même que le rapport préliminaire de l’OSCE révèle qu’il n’y a pas eu de trucage des résultats finaux. Ces allégations, motivées par la haine des eurocrates de Bruxelles pour la politique extérieure d’Aleksandar Vučić, servent en réalité de prétexte au Parlement européen pour accroître la pression à l'égard de la Serbie, en menaçant de suspendre la perspective européenne de ce pays et de lui geler les fonds de préadhésion si des réformes ne sont pas appliquées. En opposition à cette ingérence partiale et à géométrie variable du Parlement européen, qui tonne contre les Serbes, mais fait les yeux doux aux Turcs (qui, eux, occupent militairement Chypre, menacent la France et la Grèce, et utilisent les migrants et leur diaspora comme moyen de pression sur l’Europe, et n’ont pourtant jamais été menacés de perdre leurs subsides), j’ai voté contre ce texte.
Further repression against the democratic forces in Venezuela: attacks on presidential candidate Maria Corina Machado (RC-B9-0097/2024)
Nous souhaitons tous un déroulement juste et sans heurts des élections présidentielles au Vénézuela. Néanmoins, cette résolution pratique une ingérence peu mesurée à l’égard de ce pays et va à l’encontre de la position de la France, qui mène avec lui depuis 2022 une politique de rapprochement. Cette résolution s’aligne en réalité sur la position des États-Unis, qui ont menacé de réactiver l’embargo sur le pétrole vénézuélien si la candidature de la principale opposante politique à Nicolás Maduro, Maria Corina Machado, n’était pas rétablie.Je me suis donc abstenu en raison de ces considérations, et car, en outre, nous ne souhaitons pas accompagner des ingérences qui risquent de déstabiliser le marché pétrolier mondial.
Implementation of the common security and defence policy – annual report 2023 (A9-0403/2023 - Sven Mikser)
Ce rapport ajoute une nouvelle pierre à la construction d’une « Europe de la défense ». Il révèle l’orientation hostile et belliciste des européistes. Il exige une mobilisation économique et militaire poussée de l’Europe et davantage d’engagement financier, voire militaire envers l’Ukraine, favorisant une dangereuse spirale. Enfin, il utilise le conflit en Ukraine pour appeler à abolir la prise de décision à l’unanimité pour les décisions de défense au Conseil, et arroger à l’Union européenne de nouvelles compétences jusque-là réservées aux États dans le domaine de la défense. J’ai voté contre ce rapport.
Human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter – annual report 2023 (A9-0424/2023 - Nacho Sánchez Amor)
Ce rapport souhaite placer la vision droit-de-l’hommiste de Bruxelles au centre de la diplomatie étrangère de l’Union européenne et celle de ses États membres. En réalité, ce texte a une double intention politique : celle de promouvoir son idéologie cosmopolite dans le monde et celle d'attribuer de nouvelles compétences à l'Union européenne en matière de politique étrangère. En effet, l'idée impudente du rapport d'attribuer un siège distinct à l'Union européenne dans toutes les instances internationales, y compris le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies, où siègent les États membres, va à l'encontre des intérêts français. Nous rejetons fermement cette tentative du Parlement européen de déposséder les États membres en élevant l'Union européenne au-dessus des nations et de lui reconnaître le statut d’un État à part entière. J'ai donc voté contre ce texte.
Deepening EU integration in view of future enlargement (A9-0015/2024 - Petras Auštrevičius, Pedro Silva Pereira)
Une dernière fois avant les élections, ce rapport ancre la position du Parlement européen concernant l’élargissement des frontières de l’Union européenne. Nous nous sommes systématiquement opposés depuis le début de la législature aux objectifs fixés dans ce rapport. Nous considérons que l'Union européenne, dans sa course folle à l’élargissement, sacrifie la santé économique et sociale des pays déjà membres au service de ses ambitions géopolitiques. Nous rejetons l’idée de faire entrer des pays instables dans une Europe déjà en pleine crise économique et géopolitique. Le rapport profite également du contexte géopolitique pour saper ouvertement la souveraineté des États en s’attaquant au principe du vote à l’unanimité au Conseil. Nous rejetons fermement ces demandes incroyables qui vont à l'encontre des intérêts de la France, j’ai donc voté contre ce rapport.
Critical situation in Cuba (RC-B9-0144/2024, B9-0144/2024, B9-0145/2024, B9-0148/2024, B9-0151/2024)
Cette résolution, signée par la droite atlantiste, appelle à une application toujours plus large du régime européen mondial de sanctions de l’Union européenne à l’encontre des dignitaires cubains. Certes, nous condamnons à l'évidence les exactions réelles et brutales perpétrées par le régime communiste cubain contre sa population. Néanmoins, nous sommes opposés à l’utilisation du régime de sanctions, disposition réservée aux États, qui ne font qu’aggraver la logique de blocs et de tensions dans le monde, je me suis donc abstenu.
Closer ties between the EU and Armenia and the need for a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia (RC-B9-0163/2024)
J’ai voté pour cette résolution. Notre position de longue date à l’égard de l’Arménie est une posture de soutien. Certes, nous rejetons fermement tout nouvel élargissement de l’Union européenne, en l’espèce vers l’Arménie qui, malgré toute notre proximité historique et culturelle, n’est pas européen par sa géographie, et serait un premier jalon vers un élargissement de l’Union européenne à des pays éloignés comme dans le Caucase. Néanmoins, au vu des derniers événements – affrontements mortel aux frontières, possible retrait arménien de l’O.T.S.C. et demande de rappel des troupes de maintien de la paix russes – il est possible que les hostilités reprennent si une solution durable n’est pas conclue rapidement sur la base d’une reconnaissance territoriale mutuelle. Nous souhaitons une conclusion rapide d’un accord de paix durable entre toutes les parties.
Return of Romanian national treasure illegally appropriated by Russia (RC-B9-0169/2024, B9-0169/2024, B9-0170/2024, B9-0171/2024, B9-0176/2024, B9-0178/2024, B9-0180/2024)
Je me suis abstenu sur cette résolution. Certes, nous sommes favorables à la restitution sans délai de l’or et du patrimoine national roumain. Néanmoins, il s'agit d'un contentieux historique complexe entre la Roumanie et un pays non-membre de l’Union européenne, en l'espèce la Russie, qui dure depuis des années. De plus, l’ingérence de l'Union européenne dans les procédures de négociation risque de compromettre la résolution de ce litige. Enfin, nous nous opposons à l’implication de la Commission sur ce dossier qu'elle utiliserait pour élargir son domaine de compétences à la question des trésors nationaux.
Written questions (72)
Legal basis for geo-tracking and the sharing of personal data during the coronavirus outbreak
Further enlarging the Schengen Area
The expression ‘European sovereignty’
Abuses in collection of users’ personal data for coronavirus tracing in France
European Banking Authority Guidelines on Loan Origination and Monitoring
Issuing of virginity certificates, a practice still authorised in the European Union
Failings of CETA and presence of hormone-treated meat on the European market
Navalny case: additional sanctions against Russia
Devastating effects of free trade agreements between the EU and partner states
Commission’s position on the restructuring of EDF
Encouraging the development of energy recovery centres
Developing lithium recycling in Europe
Defending Europe's strategic hydrogen-production sector
US presidential election
The European Union must combat hate speech by trading partners
Principle of data being hosted in the European Union abandoned
Reducing micro-pollutants discharged into our watercourses
The Commission's order for Remdesivir
Stamping out new or resurgent paedophile content
Réunion’s new coast road
Transparency and management of the EU vaccination campaign
GAFAM, pluralism and freedom of expression
Preventing WhatsApp from once more abusing its users' personal data
GAFAMs and protecting freedom of expression: the Polish option
Huge influx of Tunisian migrants arriving on the Italian coast
The future EU animal welfare label must cover farming, transport and slaughter
Combating international trafficking in wild meat
Bride market in Bulgaria
Efficacy and procurement of Sputnik V vaccine
TikTok’s impact on children’s innocence
NGOs accused of colluding with human traffickers in the Mediterranean
Difference in treatment between liberal NGOs related to Open Society and conservative NGOs
Grants awarded to advocacy groups
Fraudulent declarations in construction of hypermarkets
Commission funding for Islamist association
Accusations of corruption concerning Ms Kyriakides
The Danish asylum law as EU best practice
Fight against the proliferation of illegal ritual slaughter
Breach of personal and medical data from COVID-19 tests
Council of Europe and COVID-19 vaccine
Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating the European Parliament
Irregularities in the Pfizer clinical trials
End of European operations in and commitments to Mali
Valneva vaccine
‘Uber Files’ investigation
Commission position on the migration crisis in Ceuta and Melilla
Reopening of coal-fired power stations in Germany
The Commission should class ‘Antifa’ groups as terrorist organisations
Protests in Pakistan
Ban on the sale of combustion engine vehicles by 2035
Publication of texts exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla
EU grants to organisations promoting Islamist propaganda and its dissemination via EU information channels
EU sanctions against Azerbaijan following its aggression against Armenia
General Elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ability of TikTok staff in China to access EU citizens’ data
Impact of the proposal for a recast of the Energy Taxation Directive on the French fisheries sector
Representation of Qatar in Brussels in view of the corruption scandal in which the country is embroiled
Funding of human rights NGOs
Aid for earthquake victims in Syria
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s attendance of a closed-door German Government meeting on combustion-engine vehicles
Use of Arabic in Commission communications
Funding of an Islamist association under the Erasmus+ programme
The European institution’s support of Islamist associations in connection with the Muslim Brotherhood
Policies to support families
The South African energy crisis
EU Code of Practice on Disinformation
The Commission’s fiscal recommendations in the context of the European Semester
Appointment of Ms Morton as Chief Economist of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition
Catastrophic situation in Mayotte with regard to waste water and drinking water
Problems linked to sargassum seaweed and its processing in the outermost regions
Targeted advertising by the Commission
Conditions for and consequences of Ukraine’s accession to the European Union
Individual motions (14)
Motion for a resolution on budgetary measures to be implemented to cushion the economic impact of the spread of COVID-19 on the public finances of the Member States
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on placing the Antifa movement on the EU terrorist list
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the classification of the Grey Wolves as a group involved in terrorist acts and subject to restrictive measures
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on better identifying and cracking down on child pornography
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the confirmed murder of Khaled al-Asaad, an archaeologist at the site of Palmyra in Syria
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the creation of a centralised system, for use by the Member States, containing the identity and biometric data of irregular unaccompanied minors, collected upon their arrival in the European Union
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on protecting democracy against censorship
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the violation of rights in Italy
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on defending freedom of information and the case of Julian Assange
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on security threats in the Democratic Republic of Congo
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the Twitter files and the threat to our democracy from big tech oligarchs
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Member States planning to outsource asylum centres outside the EU
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the 100 million victims of communism
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on abolishing the European Green Deal
Amendments (2217)
Amendment 1 #
2023/2134(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the key role of the EEAS and especially of its Delegations in the context of the geopolitical impact of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and the resulting need to support partner countries around the world and strengthen global alliances; highlights the importance of continued strong political engagement and leverage at bilateral level, as well as in public and cultural diplomacy to promote the Union's values, principles and interests, and in strategic communications to combat disinformation; calls for more efficient use of available resources to beDeplores the fact that the EEAS contravenes the sovereignty of the Member States, which must be free to conduct their own diplomacy; recalls that the European Union should not instroduced to avoid putting the Union’s effectiveness at risk on the international scene; sees the need for EU delegations to continue their coordinated efforts to increase the visibility of EU-funded projects in order for resources to be used to the fullest extent possibleumentalise the current geopolitical context to assume new powers;
Amendment 9 #
2023/2134(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. NotBelieves that in 2022 40% of the appointed Heads of Delegations were women; calls on the EEAS to lead by example, as set out in the Gender Action Plan III, and to continue to improve the representation of women and marginalised groups across all levels with the goal to establish gender parity in all leadership and management positions, gender-responsive leadership and gender- sensitive recruitment processes as soon asdeological considerations have no place in the staff recruitment and management policy of the EEAS; considers it inappropriate to take the gender dimension into account in recruitment to leadership and management positions, given the sensitive nature of these possible; regrets the slow pace at which the EEAS staff is moving towards balance as regards diversity, gender and geography imbalances and notes that all cations, for which competence and integories of staff should be included and calls on all Member States to nominate more women and candidates from marginalised groups to seconded positions in the EEASty must be the primary considerations;
Amendment 20 #
2023/2134(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the strengthening of the EU delegations’ engagement in our neighbourhood and in the Western Balkan countries in order to support a more active and effective communication policy on the European perspective and to be prepared to provide the best possible assistance to the countries engaged in pro-democratic and pro-European reformPoints out that the EU delegations replicate and tend to replace Member States’ diplomacy and are therefore detrimental to the sovereignty of the Member States;
Amendment 5 #
2023/2129(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that EU aid to third countries under the NDICI should be conditional on those third countries controlling their migration flows and on readmission agreements;
Amendment 28 #
2023/2129(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that further enlargement of the European Union would entail enormous costs for the Union, the Member States and taxpayers in the event of the accession of some or all of the countries currently engaged in the accession process; stresses that such an enlargement would run counter to the interests of European citizens;
Amendment 30 #
2023/2129(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Recalls that accession countries benefit from very significant financial investments from the EU; calls for a definitive end to all pre-accession funding for Türkiye;
Amendment 45 #
2023/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
(c) ensure that any deepening of the partnership is based on the values of freedom, democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, equality, respect for human rights and a commitment to promoting an inclusive rules-based global orderinterests of the Member States; stresses that the EU has no legitimacy to interfere in India’s internal affairs and that, by doing so, it jeopardises the credibility of the Member States in their relations with New Delhi;
Amendment 83 #
2023/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g
Paragraph 1 – point g
(g) expand EU-India cooperation on maritime security as an area of considerable potentialwhile ensuring that it does not contribute to a rise in tensions in the Indo-Pacific;
Amendment 94 #
2023/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
Amendment 64 #
2023/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 116 #
2023/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
(e) reinforce the accountability and resilience of our democratic systems in the run-up to the elections next year on both sides, as well as enhance transatlantic dialogue and cooperation on policies supporting democracy, human rights and the rule of law and combating disinformation and foreign interference from authoritarian regimes; questions, nevertheless, why the US is being labelled as ‘like-minded’, especially in the field of human rights, given the US Government’s practices of arbitrarily detaining without trial, torturing and mistreating people, especially in Guantánamo Bay’s sadly famous prison;
Amendment 171 #
2023/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point j
Paragraph 1 – point j
(j) assess the importance of the strong convergence of transatlantic positions towards China, building more and more on the ‘de-risking’ strategy while looking for ways to cooperate with China on some global challengesnot systematically align itself to the US’s positions on China; stresses that the EU Member States should have an independent policy from Washington on China and should not stoke rivalries or play a role in increasing tensions in the Indo-Pacific region;
Amendment 234 #
2023/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point q
Paragraph 1 – point q
(q) foster closer partnership with the US and other like-minded partnernot take part in power struggles in the Indo-Pacific region;
Amendment 238 #
2023/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point r
Paragraph 1 – point r
Amendment 263 #
2023/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point t
Paragraph 1 – point t
(t) strengthen transatlantic cooperation on situational awareness, diplomatic responses, capacity-building and on enhancing cyber resilience through the EU- US Cyber Dialogue; recalls, however, that following 9/11, the US conducted wholesale espionnage and wiretapping in Europe, targeting in particular Heads of State;
Amendment 10 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Insists that NGOs cannot fulfil the role of a democratically-elected government and should therefore not unilaterally undertake government functions such as search and rescue operations as this effectively amounts to human smuggling;
Amendment 29 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Calls for the scope of the anti- money laundering directive to be broadened to also apply to NGOs;
Amendment 30 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that human rights NGOs receiving EU funding give visibility to the EU’s support in different ways, and sometimes incompletely, through various communication channels, including official websites; calls for the establishment of harmonised approaches to make EU funding for human rights and democracy support more transparent and visible to the public; calls for ensuring that the EU does not fund NGOs that facilitate illegal migration by sea or by land;
Amendment 41 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Calls for a review of the current rules for NGOs, in particular those related to governance, budget, anti money-laundering, foreign influence and persons of significant control, with the aim of increasing their transparency and accountability; calls on the Commission to study if broadening the scope of anti- money laundering rules, particularly by including NGOs, would have prevented these events from taking place;
Amendment 42 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Recalls that the NGO "Fight Impunity" was a central player in the recent Qatargate scandal in the European Parliament;
Amendment 43 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Expresses concern about the lobbying practices of certain NGOs in the European Parliament; notes that certain political groups use the texts provided by NGOs without any changes and table them in the form of motions for resolution in the Parliament, specifically when it comes to Rule 144 motions;
Amendment 44 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Strongly affirms that under no circumstances, NGOs or any other stakeholder shall substitute Members of the European Parliament in making political decisions;
Amendment 78 #
2023/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas international events such as the war in Ukraine should not be used as a pretext for expanding the competences and capacities of the European Union beyond the mechanisms laid down by the Treaties and without first implementing the usual democratic consultation process;
Amendment 203 #
2023/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the outcome ofat the Vilnius Summit that clearly confirms Ukraine’s future is in the alliance; welcomes the Summit’s support package for Ukraine and the establishment of the NATO-Ukraine Council that will prepare Ukraine for NATO membershiprevealed American and European reservations about Ukraine's accession to NATO; considers that Ukraine's accession to NATO would permanently cement tensions between the West and Russia and contribute to the outbreak of another Cold War;
Amendment 260 #
2023/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Underlines that the EU Rapid Reaction Force is another step towards the federalisation of the European Union, including the defence sector;
Amendment 278 #
2023/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Underlines that unanimity in the Council must be maintained for all decisions relating to foreign, security and defence policy issues;
Amendment 317 #
2023/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Considers that the European Defence Fund, regrettably still underfinanced, shows the added-value of EU-level action in is contributing to the merging of the European defence aind recommeustries ands the extension of Commission proposals in all defence-related fields of EU policy in coordination with Member States and the VP/HRrefore to the loss of sovereignty and industrial know-how for certain Member States, particularly France;
Amendment 327 #
2023/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that EDIRPA can only be a first step towards improving the European technological and industrial base’s capacities to supply Member States with the products and quantities needed and should be complemented with further initiatives, including the envisaged long- term European Defence Investment Program (EDIP) for which adequate funding needs to be ensured; consequently considers that EDIRPA will have served as a Trojan horse for the Commission to appropriate defence competences for the long term;
Amendment 333 #
2023/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on Member States to increasePoints out that the Member States have complete freedom as regards their levels of defence spending to adjust to the current geopolitical situation,their military spending; believes that inciting and address the significant threats towards the Union’s security; calls on the EU NATO Member States to increase their military budgets to at least 2 % of GDP considering the impact of historic under-investment and spiralling inflation on defence budgetsrms race in the EU is not the solution to bring lasting peace and prosperity to the European continent;
Amendment 486 #
2023/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Underlines the importance of developing security and defence dialogues with partners around the world, in particular in the Western Balkans and Eastern Partnership but also with key partners in strategic maritime areas such as those stretching from the Red Sea and Horn of Africa to the Indo-PacificOpposes the European Union's desire to forge new partnerships and alliances with so-called 'like-minded countries'; is concerned that this attitude will contribute to the emergence of new blocs and heighten global tensions;
Amendment 513 #
2023/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Notes that the increase in spending on defence policies and programmes at an EU level and among the Member States requires full parliamentary scrutiny and accountability; underlines the existing calls forHolds that the establishment of a fully- fledged European Parliament Committee on Security and Defence, in recognition of the emerging defence acquis in the framework of the EU with scrutiny, legislation and budgetary responsibiliti would be in line with the European Union's drift towards assuming ever more competences, including in the defence sector, at the expense of the Member States;
Amendment 32 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8
Citation 8
Amendment 62 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas eight out of the ten countries currently aspiring to join the EU have candidate status, some of them since many years ago due to the fact that they are still a long way from the common values of the Member States and the Copenhagen criteria; whereas those candidate countries find themselves at various stages of the accession process and negotiations; whereas the countries of the Western Balkans have for decades stated their determination to join the EU; whereas candidate status has also recently been granted to Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova despite the fact that they are, respectively, war-torn and secession- ridden and thus pose a serious threat to the stability of the EU;
Amendment 88 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine hasshould not be used as a pretext to given new geostrategic meaning to the enlargement of the European Union; whereas enlargement is a strategic geopolitical investment in the future, which can be mutually beneficial for both existing and future Member States if the proper conditions are metdesperate headlong rush which aims to overcome political and economic divisions in Europe;
Amendment 98 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas accession to the EU must always be a merit-based procedure whereby each applicant is assessed on their own merit in fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria, in particular those of ensuring full respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law; whereas positive outcomes should be sought as quickly as possible, while avoiding fast-tracking, which the EU has systematically introduced, notably in the case of Ukraine and Moldova, or counterproductive fixed deadlines;
Amendment 122 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the parallel processes of widening and deepenenlargement process must not be instrumentalised to underminge the Union must go hand in handsovereignty of the Member States;
Amendment 125 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas candidate countries must also demonstrate their adherence to the fundamental values of the EU by aligning with the common foreign and security policycommon values of the Member States, but whereas this process must not in any way involve their submission to the strategic policy which is currently defined by the European Union and is, moreover, likely to vary in the future, with all of these countries retaining control of their political orientations, within or outside the EU; whereas the EU no longer takes into account the criteria of economic rigour and internal political stability, but uses enlargement as a geopolitical tool to cement the membership of certain countries in the Euro-Atlantic camp, thereby exacerbating the bloc mentality and aggravating global tensions, while putting at risk the economic, political and social stability of existing Member States;
Amendment 149 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the role of the European Parliament should be strengthen throughout the entire enlargement proceshas no decision-making competence or any legitimacy in the area of foreign affairs, a competence reserved for the Council and the Member States;
Amendment 159 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas under the current institutional framework, the EU already faces considerable challenges in crisis management and strategic decision- making; whereas it is clear that the EU institutions and decision-making mechanisms were not designed for a Union that could be composed of up to 37 Member States; whereas before the next enlargement takes place, significant pre- enlargement reforms are needed to guarantee that the EU is able to absorb new members and to promote their successful integration; whereas this implies significant it is clear, therefore, that such anges in the EU’s institutional framework, including to decision-making procedures, and the possible introduction of differentiated integration solutions; whereas in order to achieve this, the EU should take full advantage of the flexibility afforded by the Treaty of Lisbon and consider the possibility of treaty change, including via adaptations introduced by the accession treaties enlargement cannot and should not take place;
Amendment 176 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 209 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas enlargement is also a major challenge for EU’s financial sustainability, in particular regarding cohesion and agriculture policies; whereas the current and the next multiannual financial frameworks should be strengthened considerably to enable EU enlargement; whereas this financial groundwork must be in place before enlargement takes placequestions the advisability of the EU continuing to finance the candidate countries, in particular those whose procedure has been suspended without any prospect of being restarted;
Amendment 239 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls on the Council to strongly condemn Türkiye’s hostile geopolitical behaviour in the eastern Mediterranean and to terminate Türkiye’s EU accession negotiations, as well as all EU funding and programmes relating to Türkiye’s EU accession;
Amendment 251 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that enlargement is of the utmost strategic importance for the EU, and all the more so in the face of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; stresses that an enhanced enlargement policy has become the strongest geopolitical tool at the EU’s disposal; points out that enlargement is a strategic investment in peace, security and prosperity, as well as a driver for democracy and European values on the continentnot necessary for a European Union already subject to significant political, economic and democratic tensions, in particular as a result of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; stresses that an enhanced enlargement policy would only weaken the EU by adding to its instability and increasing the demographic and economic volumes affected by internal European difficulties; stresses that, in this regard, enlargement amounts to a headlong rush akin to a Ponzi scheme in which the inflow of new entrants is intended to offset the scheme’s inherent imbalances;
Amendment 276 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Acknowledges the historic challenge facing the EU of meeting its commitments to the countries in the Western Balkans and to Ukraine and the Republic of MoldovaRecognises that incorporating the countries of the Western Balkans would jeopardise the economic, social and migration situations in the Member States; stresses that Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova are, respectively, war-torn and secession-ridden and would therefore pose a serious threat to the stability of the EU if they were to join;
Amendment 281 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Maintains its view that the integration of the Western Balkans is contrary to the interests of the Member States and the European nations; recalls, in this regard, the study carried out in 2019 by the European Council on Foreign Relations, which confirmed that the majority of the Member States’ citizens do not support expanding the EU to include the countries of the Western Balkans1 a; _________________ 1 a https://eupinions.eu/de/blog/eu- citizens-remain-against-further- enlargement
Amendment 285 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that accession to the EU must always be a merit-based procedure and that each applicant must be assessed on their own merit in fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria and in ensuring full respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law; stresses that while positive outcomes should be sought as quickly as possible, there should be no fast-track or fixed deadlines for membership; underscores that there can be no short-cuts on fundamental values; points out that alignment with the common foreign and security policy is also a way of showing full adherence to the EU’s fundamental principles and an important indicator for sustainable future membershipStresses that fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria must take precedence over geostrategic alignment with the EU;
Amendment 314 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for a robust monitoring mechanism for the reforms and progress made by the candidate countries; urges, in particular, the setting up of a specific and effective monitoring mechanism for protecting fundamental values and the financial interests of the UnionMember States in the context of accession procedures; reiterates in this regard its calls to include candidate countries in the EU rule of law mechanism and its annual reporting exercise, automatically activating pre- accession cooperation and verification mechanisms;
Amendment 327 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 354 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 370 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points out that European institutional reforms must include simplified decision-making procedures, moving away from unanimity and replacing it with qualified majority voting provisions in areas such as the protection of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, sanctions and relevant foreign policy decisionunanimity in the Council must be maintained for all decisions relating to foreign, security and defence policy issues as well as in all other areas where it exists;
Amendment 396 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that creating differentiated integration is part of the solution for an efficient and deepened enlarged EU; underlines, however, that respect for the Union’s values as set out in Article 2 TEU should not be subject to any derogations or opt-outs; considers also that a broad area of European common ground must always be ensured, covering areas such as the Customs Union, the single market and its four freedoms, the core social acquis, and agricultural, competition and trade policies; notes that beyond this common ground, Member States willing to move European integration forward should be allowed to do so; underlines that under such a system of differentiated integration, while all Member States would take part in decisions about issues in the area of common ground, only Member Statestatuses between EU Member States, a proposal which would be contrary both to the letter of the Treaties and to the very spirit of the Union, is out of the question; considers that it would be unacceptable and hypocritical for certain countries to be subject to identical requirements whilling to participate in areas of deepened integration would take part in the decisions concerned; notes that differentiated integration also implies differentiated financial arrangementse being granted lower levels of integration;
Amendment 404 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 415 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 427 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 444 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that enlargement is a major financial challenge for the EU, in particular regarding cohesion and agriculture policies; point out that this challenge cannot be met without a larger EU budget and sufficient own resources; notes that this adds to growing demands on EU funding in the fields of financial stability, health, energy, decarbonisation, digital, research and defence and security; underlines that such financial reforms must be discussed in parallel with the ongoing accession negotiations and adopted before enlargement takes place; defends its position that the current and future multiannual financial frameworks should be strengthened considerably to enable EU enlargement, and that this financial groundwork must be in place before enlargement takes placequestions the desirability of integrating poor corruption-prone countries into a Union in the midst of an economic, political and social crisis;
Amendment 21 #
2023/2108(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas several EU Member States have recently adopted mandatory due diligence legislation, while a number of other Member States are considering following suit; whereas Member States are free to lay down their legislation regarding their firms;
Amendment 27 #
2023/2108(INI)
1. Stresses that the overall level of enjoyment of human rights worldwide is inevitably contingent on the behaviour of corporations, given the current scale of globalisation and the internationalisation of business activities and value chains; points out that European firms are among the most regulated and most taxed in the world; is concerned that suddenly imposing an additional and binding human rights framework on them would put them at a significant disadvantage vis- à-vis their international competitors, which would make Europeans poorer;
Amendment 48 #
2023/2108(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that the EU has a Treaty- based commitment to promote human rights worldwide and UN multilateral solutions to common problems, which has yet to be reflected in its participation in the OEIGWG; points out, however, that in practice the EU uses human rights as a foreign policy tool to serve its perceived interests; takes the view that the double standards employed by the EU on human rights undermines its image and that of the Member States in the eyes of the world;
Amendment 49 #
2023/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 80 #
2023/2106(INI)
7. Highlights the EU’s role as an important donor of aid to the region; underlines the importance of taking a unitedn approach as Team Europe, as this makes it possible to create synergies and maximise the impact of the action taken and showcases the benefits of multilateral cooperation; stresses the need to ensure the visibility of EU assistance and investmentthat takes account of the interests and strategies of the Member States;
Amendment 84 #
2023/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Urges the Central Asian states to adhere to their democracy and human rights obligations, noting that this is also in line with the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements and the Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus; underlines the importance of maintaining regular human rights dialogues with the Central Asian states, as these dialogues are an instrument to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and a forum to raise iEmphasises that the European Union should not be meddling in the internal affairs of Central Asian countries, which are free to organise their societies as they wish, in accordance with their traditions and history; is concerned that the interference of the EU and the EEAS in human rights matters, which are a Trojan horse for any number of ideological excessues of concern; calls on the EU delegations and the Member States’ representations in Central Asia to continue playing an active role in monitoring the situation on the ground, working with human rights defenders and reacting to human rights violations and politically-motivated persecution, including by attending , is undermining the EU’s credibility and preventing the Member States from establishing sound, lasting relationships with the countries of Centrials and visiting political prisoners Asia;
Amendment 93 #
2023/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines the fundamental democratic shortcomings in Central Asia, which still persist, and highlights the important role that civil society can play in supporting reforms and good governance in the region; regrets the restrictive approach taken in legislative initiatives on non-governmental organisations and the media, which reduce the space for civil society activities; nNotes that the Central Asian states have young and dynamic populations that should be given opportunities to getare meaningfully involved in shaping their countries’ future; welcomes the activities of the EU-Central Asia Civil Society Forum and calls on the EU to enhance its support to civil societ based on values and standards of their choosing, in line with their culture and their history;
Amendment 100 #
2023/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes the need to boost Central Asia’s resilience against disinformation by promoting independent media and content in local languages, increasing media literacy and organising targeted courses for local journalists; is concerned about the increasing number of arrests of journalists and bloggers and about threats to close independent media outlets; insists that respect for the rights of journalists, independent bloggers and human rights defenders must be ensured, that they must be guaranteed protection against harassment, pressure and threats and that any attacks against them must be investigatedEmphasises that the European Union should not allow itself to be manipulated by certain NGOs or local activists, who often have their own political agenda or pursue that of their donors;
Amendment 48 #
2023/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomeRegrets Parliament’s growing role in the EU’s external action, gradually evolving from a somewhat marginal to a substantial one, combining its legislative, budgetary and scrutiny powers with multiple forms of engagement with countries and societies from outside the EU; notes that the European Union, and the European Parliament in particular, cannot replace the foreign policy and external action of Member States;
Amendment 53 #
2023/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights the distinct role and value of parliamentary diplomacy in complementing and reinforcing the visibility and impact of EU foreign and security policyfact that actions by the European Parliament, alongside the European External Action Service (EEAS), and the Commission andduplicates the work done by the diplomatic services of the Member States and therefore amounts to wasteful expenditure;
Amendment 59 #
2023/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 69 #
2023/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Insists that the Council should maintain unanimity voting for all decisions relating to foreign and defence policy; stresses that any move towards qualified majority voting would further erode the sovereignty of the Member States and could have the potential of undermining legitimate national and geostrategic interests;
Amendment 4 #
2023/2087(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Supports the ongoing negotiations between the EU and Mauritania on the establishment of a status agreement that provides for Frontex deployment in Mauritania; notes, however, that a status agreement can only be established under the condition that it enshrines and adheres to strict fundamental human rights guarantees;
Amendment 15 #
2023/2087(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 23 #
2023/2087(INI)
3. Maintains that the launch of Frontex operational activities under a status agreement should promote fundamental human rights and EU valuesaim to ensure Europe's security against mass immigration, criminality, trafficking and terrorism;
Amendment 49 #
2023/2087(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 57 #
2023/2087(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that the EU and Frontex should suspend their activities on migration and asylum carried out in cooperation with the Mauritanian authorities in the event of persicooperation between the EU and Mauritania is of key importance to secure the Union's borders and should be strent human rights violationsgthened;
Amendment 67 #
2023/2087(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Is highly concerned aboutWelcomes Mauritania’'s human rights track record, most notably its violations committed between 2020 and 2023initiative to cooperate with Frontex in order to secure Europe against mass immigration, trafficking, criminality and terrorism;
Amendment 6 #
2023/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Supports the ongoing negotiations between the EU and Senegal on the establishment of a status agreement that provides for Frontex deployment in Senegal; notes however that a status agreement can only be established under the condition that it enshrines and adheres to strict fundamental human rights guarantees;
Amendment 12 #
2023/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 25 #
2023/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Maintains that the launch of Frontex operational activities under a status agreement should promote fundamental human rights and EU valuesaim to ensure Europe’s security against mass immigration, criminality, trafficking and terrorism;
Amendment 59 #
2023/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the EU and Frontex should suspend their activities on migration and asylum carried out in cooperation with Senegalese authorities in the event of persistent human rights violationscooperation between the EU and Senegal is of key importance to secure the Union’s borders and should be strengthened;
Amendment 43 #
2023/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas Lebanon has taken in one and a half million Syrian refugees to date, which is destabilising its demography and exacerbating the country’s economic collapse; whereas the current crisis in Lebanon has been exacerbated significantly by the conflict in Syria and its fallout;
Amendment 97 #
2023/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas Denmark has determined that Damascus and its surrounding areas are now safe to inhabit, and is requiring Syrian refugees to return to their country of origin;
Amendment 147 #
2023/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point k
Paragraph 1 – point k
Amendment 23 #
2023/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the multilateral, rules- base order, based on the rules put in place after the Second Worderld War, is being reshaped and some former alliances are beginning to re- emerge, with the emergence of new economic and political centres;
Amendment 42 #
2023/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the EU still does not have the necessary confidencelegitimacy to initiate mediation in areas of strategic importance;
Amendment 45 #
2023/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 56 #
2023/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine is a wake-up call for the EU, as it presents an immediate threat to the European and global security order and to the security of the EU and its Member States; whereas Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has galvanised the momentum towards achieving a geopolitical redefinition of the EU’s foreign policy, including a rethe European security order must be rebuilt, with the involvement of all strategic actors, in particular through new arms agreements aimed at reducing tensions and restoring consfideration of its preventive diplomacy toolboxnce on the European continent;
Amendment 62 #
2023/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 85 #
2023/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
(a) acknowledge the strong link between EU internal and external security and reflect this when approaching conflict prevention, including within the EU; acknowledge that mass immigration is responsible for an upsurge in violence wherever it takes place;
Amendment 221 #
2023/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point ad
Paragraph 1 – point ad
(ad) strengthen the EU’s ability to speak with one voice and to act as a truly global player in response to crises, while retaining unanimity for decisions on foreign and defence matters;
Amendment 227 #
2023/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point ae
Paragraph 1 – point ae
(ae) work towards ensuring that the EU, solely at the request of all Member States, takes up a prominent leadership position in peacemaking and mediation around the world;
Amendment 44 #
2023/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the Swiss Confederation is a democratic, sovereign and independent state, and the EU has no competence or standing to dictate its conduct, criticise it for its policy stance or require it to adopt any position or action;
Amendment 60 #
2023/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Switzerland decided to terminate the negotiations on the EU-Swiss institutional framework; whereas a solution for a future EU-Switzerland relationship is neethat should be acknowledged and relations between the EU and Switzerland should be pursued with regard for the wishes of both sideds;
Amendment 93 #
2023/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights the EU’s strong interest in cooperating with Switzerland on international peace, security and defence matters, in particular in response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; welcomes Switzerland’s alignment with EU sanctions adopted in this context, diverging from its traditionally neutral stancetakes the view that abandonment by Switzerland of its traditionally neutral stance is detrimental to a peaceful end to the conflict;
Amendment 119 #
2023/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that Switzerland’s alignment with EU sanctions against Russia is on a case-by-case basis; encourages Switzerland to closely and consistently apply restrictive measures and to prevent their circumvention; encourages Switzerland to step up the seizure and confiscation of Russian asserespects the autonomy of Switzerland in this area, account being taken of its interests;
Amendment 161 #
2023/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Is concerned about Switzerland’s inconsistent implementation of certain agreements and its subsequent adoption of legislative measures and practices that are incompatible with those agreements, in particular with the Agreement on the free movement of persons;
Amendment 210 #
2023/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes with concern that Switzerland did not support the EU’s push to remove fossil fuel protections from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT); acknowledges, however, that it was under no obligation at all to do so;
Amendment 250 #
2023/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. RegretNotes the Swiss Federal Council’s decision to terminate the negotiations on the EU-Swiss Institutional Framework in May 2021; regrets any narratives that the EU works against Swiss interests; stresses that a second failure in negotiatingacknowledges that the interests of the EU and of Switzerland may diverge; regrets any narratives that the EU works against Swiss interests and maintains that they can be refuted only if both sides' positions and interests are fully respected; is therefore of the opinion that the fresh negotiations under way on an agreement on EU-Swiss relations wshould be damaging for both the EU and Switzerland and risks weakening theirnot be the subject of political rhetoric seeking to play on fears and threaten Switzerland with a diminished political rolstature;
Amendment 72 #
2023/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 126 #
2023/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 131 #
2023/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 163 #
2023/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 190 #
2023/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Call for the EU and its Member States to broaden and strengthen the scope of sanctions (‘restrictive measures’) against individuals and legal entities responsible for or complicit in grave human rights violapoints out that, over the period 2018-2020, the EU imported 27% of its potash from Belarus and sanctions ion Belarus under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Mechanisms (EU Magnitsky Act), including judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, prison and penal colony officials, and agents of the infamous KGB and GUBOPiK; insists that Belarusian potash, which is the main source of the regime’s income, should remain on the list of sanctions; urges the EU and itsian potash have played a large part in the unprecedented food inflation affecting EU countries, which, according to Eurostat, rose to 18% over a year and up to 50% in some Member States to inc; streasses their capacity to assess the real effect of sanctions in order to ensure their full implementation and to thwart any circumvention schemesat, according to Eurostat, the cost of fertiliser in the EU increased by 90% in 2022;
Amendment 127 #
2023/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Insists that all funding to third countries should be made conditional upon the effective implementation of return and readmission agreements;
Amendment 22 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 25 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Recent events have highlighted the important contribution of Union delegations, in close cooperation with Member States, to the implementation of the right to consular protection. This has been the case in particular in third countries where few Member States are represented, in crisis situations, and as regards the exchange of information. Against this background, it is appropriate to clarify the supporting role of Union delegations in the implementation of the right to consular protection. For reasons of consistency and business continuity, Union delegations should normally chair local consular cooperation meetings and leadIt should be pointed out, however, that Union delegations in third countries cannot under any circumstances replace Member States’ consular and diplomatic services, as those setting up and agreement of joint consular contingency plans. In order to ensure coordination and effective protection of unrepresented citizens, Union delegations should also take part in the coordination of crisis response in close cooperation with thervices remain the exclusive prerogative of Member States.
Amendment 27 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Unrepresented citizens can be effectively reached even if Member States act independently of each other. Any action taken at Union level should under no circumstances lead to the establishment of a supranational crisis management instrument. Consequently, any amendment to the current Directive that seeks to grant Union delegations new powers to provide direct consular protection for unrepresented citizens in uncovered third countries must be rejected.
Amendment 28 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Consular crisis preparedness is an essential requirement to ensure effective consular crisis response. Member States, supported by the European External Action Service (EEAS), should therefore ensure that adequate consular preparedness measures for the protection of unrepresented citizens are discussed and implemented in all third countries.
Amendment 33 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The estimated number and location of Union citizens present in a third country is crucial information for the preparation of a joint consular contingency plan, notably where an evacuation or repatriation becomes necessary. In addition, Union citizens should be able to receive relevant information from their Member State of nationality in case of a crisis. It is therefore important that Member States provide their citizens withHowever, the fact of giving citizens of Member States the possibility to register with or inform competent national authorities, by appropriate means and tools, of their travels to or residence in third countries. For that purpose, Member States should, in accordance with Union and national law regarding personal data protection, lay down the categories of personal data required and the retention periods of such data would simply represent a fresh bureaucratic constraint.
Amendment 36 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Travel advice, that is, information issued by Member States about the relative safety of travelling to specific third countries, enables travellers to make an informed decision about a particular travel destination, including third countries where their Member State of nationality is not represented. While the issuance of travel advice is the responsibility of Member States, it is appropriate that they coordinate on that topic, notably in the context of crisis situations, with a view to ensuring, to the extent possible, consistency in the level of advice given. This could include agreeing on a common structure of the levels of risk indicated in travel advice, making use of the secure platform of the EEAS. Where possible, such coordination should take place at an early stage when Member States are planning to change the level of their travel advice.
Amendment 41 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Efficient coordination is vital to ensure effective crisis response. To ensure such coordination, Member States should be supported by the Crisis Response Centre of the EEAS and the Emergency Response Coordination Centre of the Commission. Coordinated Union crisis response is particularly important in cases requiring evacuations to ensure that available support is provided efficiently, and that best use is made of available evacuation capacities. For that reason, information on available evacuation capacity should be shared in a timely manner, including in case of rescue andMember States already ensure such coordination through diplomatic networks responsible for protection of their nationals abroad in the event of a crisis. Consequently, proposing a new legal basis for the possible deployment of joint consular teams would be tantamount to repudiating evacuation operations using military assetsh Member State’s own crisis management capacity.
Amendment 45 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26 a (new)
Recital 26 a (new)
(26a) The EEAS must not take over Member State competences with regard to consular protection and/or assistance or coordination on the ground. Consequently, any increase in the budget and human resources for the EEAS would be inappropriate.
Amendment 50 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) To support Union citizens in need, it is important to provide them with reliable information on how to avail themselves of consular assistance in third countries. The Commission services and the EEASMember States should contribute to that objective by disseminating relevant information, including information to be provided by Member States on their consular networks and third countries where they have concluded practical arrangements on sharing responsibilities for providing consular protection to unrepresented citizen on their consular networks. To facilitate the processing of such information, it should be provided in machine-readable format.
Amendment 55 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The financial provisions of Directive (EU) 2015/637 should be adapted to simplify reimbursements and continue ensuring financial burden- sharing. In particular, it should be possible for unrepresented citizens to directly reimburse costs, under the same conditions as nationals of the assisting Member State, for the service provided by that Member State to avoid the administrative burden resulting from seeking reimbursements from the citizen’s Member State of nationality. In addition, Member States should also be allowed to waive the charging of such costs. As, in certain situations, unrepresented citizens may not be able to pay when making the request for assistance, notably when their cash and means to access funds have been stolen, it is necessary to provide that they may be required by the consular authorities of the assisting Member State to sign an undertaking to repay. On the basis of such an undertaking, the authorities of the assisting Member State may ask for the reimbursement of the costs once four weeks have passed since the assistance was proConsular protection is a public service activity which must remain free of charge. Consequently, the provisions on the financial reimbursement of costs resulting from providing consular protection are inappropriate. The EEAS and the Commission must ensure that the distinction between consular protection and crisis management is properly taken into account when this Directive is revidsed.
Amendment 58 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 61 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) Given that consular tasks can vary significantly, covering sensitive situations such as arrest, incarceration, injury or being a victim of a crime, it is necessary to ensure that competent authorities of the Member States and relevant Union institutions and bodies have access to and can exchange all the necessary information, including personal data, that is required to provide consular protection to Union citizens. In that context, the competent authorities of the Member States and, where they provide support, Union institutions and bodies should be entitled to process special categories of personal data, where doing so is strictly necessary to provide consular protection to the person concerned. This should cover health data, which may need to be processed in order to provide consular protection to an unrepresented citizen who has been seriously injured or has fallen seriously ill. Persons’ facial images need to be processed notably in cases where an EU Emergency Travel Document is to be issued. Providing assistance to an unrepresented citizen, including in the defence of legal claims, may also exceptionally require the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, or data concerning sexual orientation. In certain cases, providing consular assistance may also require the processing of genetic data, such as when providing assistance in the context of serious accidents requiring the unique identification of an incapacitated person or in the context of establishing paternity. Finally, consular cases linked to arrest or detention may likely require the competent authorities to process personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences.
Amendment 62 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) WThen processing of such special categories of personal data, the competent authorities of the Member States and Union institutions and bodies should ensure suitable and specific measures to safeguard data subjects’ interests. This should include, where possible, encrypting such personal data and specific attribution of access rights for personnel who have access to the specified types of special categories of personal data must take place in the context of international judicial cooperation under an international letter rogatory.
Amendment 65 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
Amendment 70 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of this Directive, a Member State is not represented in a third country if it has no embassy or consulate established there on a permanent basis, or if it has no embassy or consulate there which is effectively in a position to provide consular protection in a given case.
Amendment 71 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. To determine whether a Member State has no embassy or consulate which is effectively in a position to provide consular protection in a given case, the embassy or consulate from which the unrepresented citizen seeks consular protection shall take into account the following criteria, in light of local circumstances:
Amendment 72 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 73 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) possible closures of the embassy or consulate of his or her Member State of nationality, including when it cannot be confirmed, within a reasonable period of time, awhen it cannot be confirmed that the embassy or consulate is operational and accessible;
Amendment 74 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) whether, by redirecting the citizen to the embassy or consulate of his or her Member State of nationality, consular protection would likely be compromised, in particular ifre the urgency of the matter requires immediate action by the requested embassy or consulate.
Amendment 76 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Without prejudice to Article 2, a Member State may represent another Member State on a permanent basis and Member States’ embassies or consulates may, wherever deemed necessary, conclude practical arrangements on sharing responsibilities for providing consular protection to unrepresented citizen, in all countries, systematically apportion nationals of the 27 Member States among a number of posts on the spot, with regular updates to take account of developments.
Amendment 77 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Union delegations shall closely cooperate and coordinate with Member States’ embassies and consulates to contribute to local consular cooperation,may contribute to crisis preparedness and crisis response, in particular by:
Amendment 78 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 79 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point f
Amendment 80 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. Union delegations shall support Member States in the provision of consular protection to unrepresented citizens in accordance with Article 5(10) of Decision 2010/427/EU. Such support may include carrying out, upon request by and on behalf of Member States, specific consular assistance tasks. The assisting Member State and the Member State of nationality shall provide the Union delegation with all the relevant information in the case concerned to the extent possible.
Amendment 82 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Amendment 84 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In the context of local consular cooperation referred to in Article 12, Member States and the EEAS shall set up and agree a joint consular contingency plan for each third country. The contingency plan must remain confidential and national, as threats may change over time depending on nationalities and the national policies followed. It may be the subject of exchanges of information and analysis but may not be fixed in a single consolidated document. It is necessary to monitor the situation and adapt to developments, and be able to contact people quickly. The joint consular contingency plan shall be updated annually and contain:
Amendment 88 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) an analysis of the consular situation in the country, including an overview of Member State embassies or consulates, an estimate of the number and location of Union citizens, and a risk assessment of the most plausible scenarios affecting Union citizens;
Amendment 91 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) joint consular crisis preparedness arrangements, including communication channels and contacts within local consular cooperation and with local authorities and relevant third countries;
Amendment 92 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) joint consular crisis response arrangements, including information- sharing and communication processes within local consular cooperation and with Union citizens, crisis meetings, cooperation with local authorities and relevant third countries and crisis and post- crisis actions;
Amendment 93 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 96 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 13 – paragraph 4
Article 13 – paragraph 4
Amendment 99 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 13 – paragraph 5
Article 13 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall exchange information on changes to their travel advice to citizens at an early stage, in particular in theTravel advice to citizens, while it may be similar, must remain countext of crisis situations, and shall seek to ensure consistency in the level of travel advice given.’ry- specific and shall not be equivalent.;
Amendment 102 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 13 a – paragraph 1
Article 13 a – paragraph 1
1. In the event of a crisis, the Union and Member States shall closely cooperate to ensure efficient assistance for unrepresented citizens. They shall, where possible, inform each other of available evacuation capacities in a timely manner, including in case of operations using military assets.
Amendment 104 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 13 a – paragraph 2
Article 13 a – paragraph 2
2. Where necessary, Member States may be supported by joint consular teams composed of experts from Member States, in particular from Member States not represented in the third country affected by the crisis, the EEAS and the Commission services. Joint consular teams shall be available for rapid deployment to third countries affected by a consular crisis. Participation in joint consular teams shall be voluntary.
Amendment 108 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 13 a – paragraph 4
Article 13 a – paragraph 4
4. When providing assistance, Member States may seek, if appropriate, support from Union instruments such as the crisis management structures of the EEAS and its Crisis Response Centre and, via the Emergency Response Coordination Centre established by Article 7 of Decision No 1313/2013/EU, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism.;
Amendment 115 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Chapter 2 a – Article 13 b – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Chapter 2 a – Article 13 b – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 117 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Chapter 2 a – Article 13 b – paragraph 1 – point a
Chapter 2 a – Article 13 b – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 118 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Chapter 2 a – Article 13 b – paragraph 1 – point d
Chapter 2 a – Article 13 b – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 119 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Chapter 2 a – Article 13 b – paragraph 1 – point e
Chapter 2 a – Article 13 b – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 127 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Amendment 128 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 16 a – paragraph 5
Article 16 a – paragraph 5
Amendment 130 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) 2015/637
Article 16 a – paragraph 6
Article 16 a – paragraph 6
6. When processing the personal data referred to in paragraph 5, the competent authorities of the Member States and Union institutions and bodies shall ensure suitable and specific measures to safeguard data subjects’ interests. They shall also introduce internal policies and undertake necessary technical and organisational measures to prevent unauthorised access and transmission of such personal data.
Amendment 135 #
2023/0441(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Directive (EU) 2019/997
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 43 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Late payment constitutes a breach of contract which is financially attractive to debtors, due to low or no interest rates charged on late payment, or slow procedures for redress. A decisive shift to a culture of prompt payment, including one in which the exclusion of the right to charge interest for late payment is null and void, is necessary to reverse this trend and to discourage late payment. Consequently, contractual payment periods should be limited to 30 calendar days both in B2B transactions where the debtor is a large undertaking in the meaning of Article 3(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/34 and G2B transactions, where the public authority is the debtor, whether in the context of public procurement or otherwise.
Amendment 48 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) However, there may be circumstances in which undertakings require longer payment periods, for example when undertakings wish to grant trade credit to their customers. It should therefore remain possible for the parties to expressly agree on longer payment periods, provided, however, that such an extension is not grossly unfair to the creditor.
Amendment 51 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 b (new)
Recital 11 b (new)
(11b) Sector-specific derogation rules have been shown to be effective for certain highly seasonal sectors (toys outside the Christmas period, ski equipment in summer, etc.) or for products that are inherently slow to sell (jewellery, machinery, expensive electronics, etc.). Member States and sectors may therefore choose to keep or establish sector-specific derogation rules for payment periods.
Amendment 58 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) This Regulation should be without prejudice to shorter or longer periods which may be provided for in national law, and which are more favourable to the creditor.
Amendment 90 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Certain provisions in this Regulation are linked to the provisions in Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council51 and the provisions in Regulation (EU) 1308/2013. The relationship between Directives 2011/7/EU and (EU) 2019/633 is explained in recitals (17) and (18) and Article 3(1) of Directive (EU) 2019/633. As this Regulation replaces Directive 2011/7/EU, it should not affect the rules laid down in Directive (EU) 2019/633, including the provisions that are applicable to payments made in the context of the school scheme52, value-sharing agreements53 and certain payments for the sale of grapes, must and wine in bulk in the wine sector54 , except for the deadlines applicable to the maximum payment periods concerning the supply of non- perishable agricultural and food products. However, this Regulation does not prevent the Member States from introducing or maintaining national provisions applicable in the agricultural and food sector which provide for stricter payment terms, or different calculation of payment periods, dies a quo and verification and acceptance procedures for suppliers of agricultural and food products that are more favourable to the creditor. This Regulation should similarly not affect the rules established in Article 147a of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013, which allows for provisions applicable to sales of wine in bulk. __________________ 51 Directive (EU) No 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain (OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, p. 59). 52 Article 23 of 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 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671). 53 Article 172a of 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 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671). 54 Article 147a of 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 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671).
Amendment 100 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 3 – point a a (new)
Article premier – paragraph 3 – point a a (new)
(aa) payments made for goods and services benefiting from Article 164 of Directive 2006/112/EC and exported to third countries;
Amendment 108 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 4
Article premier – paragraph 4
4. With the exception of Article 3(1), this Regulation shall not affect the provisions laid down in Directive (EU) 2019/633 or the provisions laid down in Regulation (EU) 1308/2013.
Amendment 136 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new)
(9b) ‘means of payment’ means the instrument used to settle the invoice, which will not entail a cost to the creditor as set out in Article 3(2).
Amendment 140 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. In commercial transactions, the payment period shall not exceed 360 calendar days, from the date of the receipt of the invoice or an equivalent request for payment by the debtor, provided that the debtor has received the goods or services. This period shall apply both to the transactions between undertakings and between public authorities and undertakings. The same payment periodmicro, small and medium-sized undertakings, in the meaning of Article 3(1), (2) and (3) of Directive (EU) 2013/34, and between public authorities and undertakings. If the debtor is a large undertaking in the meaning of Article 3(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/34, a public authority or public legal entity and the creditor a micro, small or medium-sized undertaking, the payment period shall not exceed 30 calendar days. The payment period of 60 days shall also apply to the supply of non- perishable agricultural and food products on a regular and non-regular basis as referred to in Articles 3(1)(a), point (i), second indent and 3(1)(a), point (ii), second indent of Directive (EU) 2019/633, unless Member States provide for a shorter payment period for such products.
Amendment 185 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, longer payment periods may be agreed between the parties, provided that such extension is not grossly unfair to the creditor or provided that the period is objectively justified by the specific nature of the economic activity.
Amendment 198 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. No means of payment for goods or services shall be used to unduly change the payment period.
Amendment 211 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. For public works contracts falling within the scope of Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU, 2014/25/EU, and 2009/81/EC56 of the European Parliament and of the Council, contractors shall provide evidence to contracting authorities or contracting entities within the meaning of those Directives that, where applicable, they have paid their direct subcontractors involved in the execution of the contract within the deadlines and under the conditions set out in this Regulation. The evidence may take the form of a written declaration by the contractor and shall be provided by the contractor to the contracting authority or contracting entity prior to, or at the latest together with, any request for payment. Member States may provide for public authorities making direct payments to direct subcontractors in public procurement processes. __________________ 56 Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC.
Amendment 216 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States may make it possible for an undertaking that is a creditor in the meaning of Article 2(9) of this Regulation to be able to request that a contracting authority that has not paid the amount owed within the period established in Article 3 of this Regulation offset the amount owed to the undertaking by reducing what the undertaking owes the public authorities for other reasons by an equivalent amount.
Amendment 224 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. In case of late payment, the debtor shall be liable to pay interest for late payment, except where the debtor is not responsible for the payment delay for reasons of force majeure.
Amendment 235 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Interest for late payment shall be automatically due by the debtor to the creditor, without the creditor needing to send a reminder, where the following conditions are satisfied:
Amendment 239 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Amendment 250 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 7
Article 5 – paragraph 7
7. The interest for late payment shall accrue until payment of the amount due. The interest for late payment shall accrue in the event of late payment in business- to-business transactions and in transactions between businesses and public authorities or legal entities governed by public law.
Amendment 310 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Every Member State shall ensure that each designated national authority has the appropriate human, financial and material resources to effectively perform its duties.
Amendment 402 #
2023/0323(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. It shall apply from ... [OP: Please insert the date = 1236 months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation].
Amendment 1 #
2023/0264(BUD)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 11 #
2023/0264(BUD)
Points out that the EU has given Lebanon more than EUR 2.7 billion in aid since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, including EUR 860 million in humanitarian aid for the Lebanese population and Syrian refugees; believes that the EU’s refusal to follow Lebanese Government proposals for Syrian refugees to gradually return to their country unnecessarily uses European taxpayers’ money and contributes to further destabilisation in Libya.
Amendment 19 #
2023/0264(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Continues to see the Western Balkans integration as a geopolitical priority; welcomes furthermore the accession perspective for Ukraine and Moldova, insists however that additional funding is needed to support both countries on their path to accessionbelieve that enlargement is a headlong rush by the EU, which no longer takes into account the criteria of economic rigour but uses enlargement as a geopolitical tool to cement the membership of certain countries in the Euro-Atlantic camp, thereby exacerbating the bloc mentality and aggravating global tensions, while putting at risk the economic, political and social stability of existing Member States;
Amendment 133 #
2023/0156(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 a (new)
having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2009 on origin marking,
Amendment 352 #
Amendment 353 #
2023/0156(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 147 – paragraph 1
Article 147 – paragraph 1
Amendment 354 #
2023/0156(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 147 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 147 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Manufacturers and importers shall ensure that products imported into or marketed in the Union bear an indication of the country of origin of the product or, where the size or nature of the product does not allow it, that indication is to be provided on the packaging or in a document accompanying the product.
Amendment 355 #
2023/0156(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 147 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 147 – paragraph 1 b (new)
For the purpose of determination of the country of origin within the meaning of paragraph 1 of this Article, non- preferential origin rules set out in Articles 147a to 149 of this Regulation, including delegated acts to be adopted pursuant to Article 148 of this Regulation, shall apply.
Amendment 356 #
2023/0156(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 147 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Article 147 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Where the country of origin determined is a Member State of the Union, manufacturers and importers shall make reference to the Member State.
Amendment 357 #
2023/0156(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 147 – paragraph 1 d (new)
Article 147 – paragraph 1 d (new)
Country of origin indications may, at the choice of the manufacturer, be mentioned only in English using the formula ‘Made in [country]’.
Amendment 358 #
2023/0156(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 147 a (new)
Article 147 a (new)
Article 147a Non-preferential origin The rules for the determination of the non-preferential origin of goods in Articles 148 and 149 shall be used for applying the following: (a)the Common Customs Tariff with the exception of the measures referred to in Article 145(2)(d) and (e); (b)measures, other than tariff measures, established by Union provisions governing specific fields relating to trade in goods; and (c)other Union measures relating to the origin of goods.
Amendment 359 #
2023/0156(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 149 – paragraph 1
Article 149 – paragraph 1
1. WThere the importer has indicated anorigin of the goods pursuant to the customs legislation, the customs authorities may require a proofof origin of the goods customs authorities may require a proof oforigin of the goods and may, in cases of reasonable doubt, require any additional evidence necessary to ensure that the indicationof origin complies with the rules laid down by the applicable Union legislation.
Amendment 360 #
2023/0156(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 149 – paragraph 2
Article 149 – paragraph 2
Amendment 361 #
2023/0156(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 149 – paragraph 3
Article 149 – paragraph 3
Amendment 412 #
2023/0156(COD)
Article 252 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) affixing of an indication of origin where such indication does not comply with the rules for determining non- preferential origin;
Amendment 80 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The assessment made to substantiate explicit environmental claims needs to consider the life-cycle of the product or of the overall activities of the trader and should not omit any relevant environmental aspects or environmental impacts, such as the environmental impact of a product imported from a third country. The benefits claimed should not result in an unjustified transfer of negative impacts to other stages of the life cycle of a product or trader, or to the creation or increase of other negative environmental impacts.
Amendment 113 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) While unfair commercial practices, including misleading environmental claims, are prohibited for all traders pursuant to Directive 2005/29/EC84, an administrative burden linked to substantiation and verification of environmental claims on the smallest companies could be disproportionate and should be avoided. To this end, microenterprises should be exempted from the requirements on substantiation of Article 3 and 4 unless these enterprises wish to obtain a certificatean alternative to third-party certification should be provided for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises on the basis of a declaration of conformity of explicit environmental claims that will be recognised by the competent authorities across the Union. _________________ 84 Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to- consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22) as amended.
Amendment 138 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) In order to avoid potential disproportionate impacts on the micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, the smallest companies should be exempted from the requirements of Article 5 linked to information on the substantiation of explicit environmental claims unless these enterprises wish to obtain a certificate of conformity of explicit environmental claim that will be recognised by the competent authorities across the Union.
Amendment 166 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) should be ablegiven sufficient support to benefit from the opportunities provided by the market for more sustainable products but, as they couldgenerally face proportionately higher costs and difficulties with some of the requirements on substantiation and verification of explicit environmental claims. The Member States should provide adequate information by means of easily accessible information portals or similar means and raise awareness of the ways to comply with the requirements of this Directive, ensure targeted and specialised training free of charge, and provide specific and sufficient assistance and support, including financial, so thato SMEs wishing to make explicit environmental claims on their products or as regards their activities are able to do so. Member States actions should be taken in respect of applicable State aid rules.
Amendment 332 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) identify whether improving environmental impacts, environmental aspects or environmental performance subject to the claim leads to significant harm in relation to environmental impacts on climate change, resource consumption and circularity, sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, pollution, biodiversity, public well-being and health, animal welfare and ecosystems;
Amendment 370 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new)
(ja) provide relevant information on the environmental impact of the transport of products, in particular in the context of imports.
Amendment 381 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. The requirements set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to traders that are micro, small or medium- sized enterprises within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC110 unless they request the verification with the aim of receiving the certificate of conformity in accordance with Article 10. _________________ 110 Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium- sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).
Amendment 431 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The requirements laid down in this Article shall not apply to traders that are micro, small or medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC111 unless they request the verification with the aim of receiving the certificate of conformity in accordance with Article 10. _________________ 111 Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium- sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).
Amendment 503 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 7
Article 5 – paragraph 7
7. The requirements set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 shall not apply to traders that are micro, small or medium- sized enterprises within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC unless they request the verification with the aim of receiving the certificate of conformity in accordance with Article 10.
Amendment 550 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 555 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 621 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. The verification and certification requirements shall apply to traders that are micro, small or medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC only if they so request.
Amendment 624 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. When they set up the procedures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States shall encourage verifiers to take into account the complexity of the substantiation of the claim and the size and turnover of traders requesting verification and certification when calculating their pricing for the cost of verification and certification, paying particular attention to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.
Amendment 700 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall take appropriate measures to help micro, small and medium sized enterprises apply the requirements set out in this Directive. Those measures shall at least include guidelinaccessible guidelines containing clear examples or similar mechanisms to raise awareness of ways to comply with the requirements on explicit environmental claims. In addition, wWithout prejudice to applicable state aid rules, such measures may include one or more of the following elements:
Amendment 706 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) access to specialised information portals.
Amendment 732 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16
Article 16
Amendment 760 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
(ga) the size of the company;
Amendment 761 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Amendment 812 #
2023/0085(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
They shall apply those measures from [OP please insert the date = 2436 months after the date of entry into force of this Directive].
Amendment 72 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
Amendment 76 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) In order to encourage consumers to buy products that are easier to repair, Member States should be encouraged to introduce a reparability score covering a wide range of products. This reparability score should be established according to several criteria, namely the availability and sale price of spare parts in relation to the price of new equipment, including the ordering procedure, information about the disassembly of and access to parts, the length of availability on the market of spare parts and delivery times, and the availability of a user and repair manual. The score should be affixed directly to the product or its packaging. In shops it should be displayed on or in the immediate vicinity of the product, and on websites in the presentation of the equipment and close to the price.
Amendment 84 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The consumer’s free choice to decide by whom to have its goods repaired should be facilitated by requesting the European Repair Information Form not only from the producer, but also from the seller of the goods concerned or from independent repairers, where applicable. Repairers should provide the European Repair Information FormAlthough consumers must be informed that a European Repair Information Form exists, repairers should provide it only where the consumer requests that form and the repairer intends to provide the repair service or it is obliged to repair. A consumer may also choose not to request the European Repair Information Form and to conclude a contract for the provision of repair services with a repairer pursuant to pre-contractual information provided by other means in accordance with Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and the Council.15 __________________ 15 Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64–88).
Amendment 88 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) TIn order to encourage consumers to consider repairing the product concerned, the pre-repair assessment should be free of charge. However, there are situations in which a repairer incurs costs necessary for providing the information on repair and price included in the European Repair Information Form. For instance, the repairer may need to inspect the goods to be able to determine the defect or type of repair that is necessary, including the need for spare parts, and to estimate the repair price. In these cases, a repairer may only request a consumer to pay the costs that are necessary for providing the information included in the European Repair Information Form. In line with the pre- contractual information and other requirements set out in Directive 2011/83/EU, the repairer should inform the consumer about such costs before the consumer requests the provision of the European Repair Information Form. Consumers may refrain from requesting the European Repair Information Form where they consider that the costs for obtaining that form are too high.
Amendment 96 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Since the obligation to repair imposed on producers under this Directive covers defects that are not due to the non- conformity of the goods with a sales contract, producers may provide repair against a price paid by the consumer, against another kind of consideration, or for free. THowever, to enable the consumer to decide whether or not to have the goods repaired, the pre-repair assessment should be carried out free of charge. Where it involves a cost, this should be added to the final payment. Furthermore, if the product cannot be repaired, the repairer may offer the consumer credit equivalent to the repair cost. In general, the charging of a price should encourage producers to develop sustainable business models, including the provision of repair services so that they can offer these services to consumers. Such a price may take into account, for instance, labour costs, costs for spare parts, costs for operating the repair facility and a customary margin. The price for and the conditions of repair should be agreed in a contract between the consumer and the producer and the consumer should remain free to decide whether that price and those conditions are acceptable. The need for such a contract and the competitive pressure from other repairers should encourage producers who are obliged to repair to keep the price acceptable for the consumer. The repair obligation may also be performed for free, especially the pre-repair assessment, when the defect is covered by a commercial guarantee, for instance, in relation to guaranteed durability of goods.
Amendment 102 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Producers may fulfil their obligation to repair by sub-contracting repair, for instance, if the producer does not have the repair infrastructure or if repair can be carried out by a repairer located closer to the consumer, among othersparticularly where the producer is established outside the Union. To this end, they should provide the consumer with a list of verified repairers.
Amendment 109 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The requirements laid down in delegated acts adopted pursuant to Regulation [on the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products] or implementing measures adopted pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council16, according to which producers should provide access, at a reasonable cost and in a non- discriminatory manner for a period equivalent to at least the expected lifespan of the product, to spare parts, repair and maintenance information or any repair related software tools, firmware or similar auxiliary means, apply. Those requirements ensure the technical feasibility of repair, not only by the producer, but also by other repairers. As a consequence, the consumer can select a repairer of its choice. __________________ 16 Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10–35).
Amendment 116 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 121 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) To ensure legal certainty, this Directive lists in Annex II relevant product groups covered by such reparability requirements under Union legal acts. In order to ensure coherence with future reparability requirements under Union legal acfor the repair obligation under this Directive. In order to be able to adapt Annex II to market developments, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of in particular adding new product groups to Annex II when new reparability requirements are adopted. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making18. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council should receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically should have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. __________________ 18 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making (OJ L 213,12.5.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 129 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) In order to increase the consumer awareness on the availability of repair and thus its likelihood, producers or sellers should inform consumers of the existence of that obligation. They should also provide information on the availability and sale price of spare parts in relation to the price of new equipment, including the ordering procedure, information about the disassembly of and access to parts, the length of availability on the market of spare parts and delivery times, and the availability of a user and repair manual. The information should mention the relevant goods covered by that obligation, together with an explanation that and to what extent repair is provided for those goods, for instance through sub- contractors. That information should be easily accessible to the consumer and provided in a clear and comprehensible manner, without the need for the consumer to request it, and in line with the accessibility requirements of Directive 2019/882. The producer is free to determine the means through which it informs the consumer.
Amendment 136 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Member States should ensure that all economic operators that may provide repair services in the Union have easy access to the online platform. Member States should be free to decide which repairers can register on the online platform as long as access to that platform is reasonable and non-discriminatory for all repairers in accordance with Union law. Enabling repairers from one Member State to register on the online platform in another Member State in order to provide repair services in areas that the consumer searched for should support the cross- border provision of repair services. It should be left to Member States’ discretion how to populate the online platform, for instance by self-registration or extraction from existing databases with the consent of the repairers, or if registrants should pay a registration fee covering the costs for operating the platform. To guarantee a wide choice of repair services on the online platform, Member States should ensure that access to the online platform is not limited to a specific category of repairers. While national requirements, for instance, on the necessary professional qualifications, continue to apply, Member States should ensure that the online platform is open to all repairers that fulfil those requirements. Member States should also be free to decide whether and to what extentconsider including community-led repair initiatives, such as repair cafés, may register on the online platform, taking account of safety considerations where relevant. Registration on the online platform should always be possible upon repairers’ request, provided they fulfil the applicable requirements to access the online platform.
Amendment 140 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Member States should ensure that consumers have easy access to the online platform allowing them to find suitable repair services for their defective goods. The online platform should also be accessible to vulnerable consumers, including persons with disabilities, in accordance with applicable Union law relating to accessibility. To this end, Member States should take steps to inform consumers of the existence of the online platform, for example through communication campaigns. The economic operators concerned should also take measures to inform consumers of the existence of the online platform, for example by displaying a link to the platform on their websites or in shops in general and when purchasing in particular.
Amendment 142 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The search function based on products may refer to the product type or brand. Since repairers cannot know the specific defect before a request to repair has been made, it is sufficient that they provide on the online platform generic information on key elements of repair services to enable consumers to decide whether to repair the good in question, in particular the average time to complete repair, the availability of temporary replacement goods, the place where the consumer hands over the goods for repair, the possibility of replacing the product under repair during the repair period and the availability of ancillary services. Repairers should be encouraged to regularly update their information on the online platform. In order to build consumer confidence in the repair services available on the online platform, repairers should be able to demonstrate their adherence to certain repair standards.
Amendment 164 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 a (new)
Recital 28 a (new)
(28a) In order to promote repair in the context of the liability of the seller as established by Directive (EU) 2019/771, given that many defects occur after the minimum period of 2 years, this legal guarantee period should be extended for categories of products that are expected to have a longer lifespan. In order to meet consumers’ legitimate expectations, a guarantee period of 5 or 10 years should be established for certain categories of products.
Amendment 167 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 b (new)
Recital 28 b (new)
(28b) In order to encourage repair and compensate for the absence of the product during the repair period, the economic operator performing, or delegating, a repair service, should offer the consumer a new or refurbished replacement free of charge, where possible.
Amendment 185 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10
Amendment 191 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Member States shall not maintain or introduce in their national law provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive. They remain free to maintain or introduce more ambitious provisions aimed at ensuring enhanced reparability of goods.
Amendment 222 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point i a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point i a (new)
(ia) the travel and repair assessment costs for at-home repairs, where applicable;
Amendment 237 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that upon the consumer’s request, the producer shall repair, for free or against a price or another kind of consideration, goods for which and to the extent that reparability requirements are provided for by Union legal acts as listed in Annex II. The producer shall not be obliged to repair such goods where repair is objectively impossible. The producer may sub-contract repair in order to fulfil its obligation to repair.
Amendment 242 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
If the product under repair cannot be repaired, the repairer may offer the consumer credit equivalent to the repair cost.
Amendment 259 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. Producers shall ensure that independent repairers have access to spare parts and repair-related information and tools in accordance with the Union legal acts listed in Annex II, at a reasonable cost and in a non- discriminatory manner for a period equivalent to at least the expected lifespan of the product, to spare parts, repair-related information and tools.
Amendment 267 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Where possible, the operator carrying out the repair shall offer the consumer a replacement product free of charge for the duration of the repair.
Amendment 276 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 15 to amend Annex II by updating the lisght of Union legal acts laying down reparability requirements in the light of legislative or market developments.
Amendment 354 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2019/771 the following sentence is amended as follows: ‘The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time when the goods were delivered and which becomes apparent within 2 to 10 years of that time. Without prejudice to Article 7(3), this paragraph shall also apply to goods with digital elements.’
Amendment 379 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – subheading 1
Annex II – subheading 1
LIST OF UNION LEGAL ACTREPARABLE GOODS
Amendment 381 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – subheading 2
Annex II – subheading 2
Amendment 382 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 1
Annex II – point 1
1. Household washing machines and household washer-dryers according to Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/202321 __________________ 21 Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2023 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for household washing machines and household washer-dryers pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and repealing Commission Regulation (EU) No 1015/2010 (OJ 315, 5.12.2019, p. 285).
Amendment 384 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 2
Annex II – point 2
2. Household dishwashers according to Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/202222 __________________ 22 Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2022 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for household dishwashers pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and repealing Commission Regulation (EU) No 1016/2010 (OJ 315, 5.12.2019, p. 267).
Amendment 387 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 3
Annex II – point 3
3. Refrigerating appliances with a direct sales function according to Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/202423 __________________ 23 Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2024 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for refrigerating appliances with a direct sales function pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 315, 5.12.2019, p. 313).
Amendment 389 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 4
Annex II – point 4
4. Refrigerating appliances according to Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/201924 __________________ 24 Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2019 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for refrigerating appliances pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 643/2009 (OJ 315, 5.12.2019, p. 187).
Amendment 391 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 5
Annex II – point 5
5. Electronic displays according to Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/202125 __________________ 25 Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2021 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for electronic displays pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 (OJ 315, 5.12.2019, p.241).
Amendment 393 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 6
Annex II – point 6
6. Welding equipment according to Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/178426 __________________ 26 Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1784 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for welding equipment pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 272, 25.10.2019, p. 121).
Amendment 395 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 7
Annex II – point 7
7. Vacuum cleaners according to Commission Regulation (EU) 666/201327 __________________ 27 Commission Regulation (EU) 666/2013 of 8 July 2013 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for vacuum cleaners (OJ 192, 13.07.2013, p. 24).
Amendment 396 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 7 a (new)
Annex II – point 7 a (new)
7a. Household appliances and kitchen appliances
Amendment 398 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 8
Annex II – point 8
8. Servers and data storage products according to Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/42428 __________________ 28 Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/424 of 15 March 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for servers and data storage products pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 617/2013 (OJ 74, 18.03.2019, p. 46).
Amendment 400 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 9
Annex II – point 9
9. [Mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets according to Commission Regulation (EU) .../…29 ] __________________ 29 …, computers, monitors, printers and scanners, game consoles
Amendment 401 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 9 a (new)
Annex II – point 9 a (new)
9a. Televisions, video projectors, television receivers and peripherals, hi-fi equipment, home cinemas
Amendment 402 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 9 c (new)
Annex II – point 9 c (new)
9c. Audio headphones, portable speakers, radios, digital music players
Amendment 403 #
2023/0083(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 9 e (new)
Annex II – point 9 e (new)
9e. Cameras, camcorders, camera equipment
Amendment 1 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
having regard to Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, and in particular Article 85 thereof,
Amendment 6 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU already allow contracting authorities and entities awarding contracts through public procurement procedures to rely, in addition to price or cost, on additional criteria for identifying the most economically advantageous tender. Such criteria concern for instance the quality of the tender including social, environmental and innovative characteristics. When awarding contracts for net-zero technology through public procurement, contracting authorities and contracting entities should duly assess the tenders’ contribution to sustainability andor resilience in relation to a series of criteria relating to the tender’s environmental sustainability, the extent to which the economic and social externalities of a tender are into account, innovation, system integration and to resilience.
Amendment 42 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘net-zero technologies’ means renewable energy technologies66; electricity and heat storage technologies; heat pumps; grid technologies; renewable fuels of non-biological origin technologies; sustainable alternative fuels technologies67; electrolysers and fuel cells; advanced technologies to produce energy from nuclear processes with minimal waste from the fuel cycle, small modular reactors, and related best-in- class fuels; carbon capture, utilisenergy system technologies which ensure low, zero or negative greenhouse gas emissions when operationg, and storage technologies; and energy- system related energy efficiency technologies. They refer to the fins well as final technological products, specific components and specific machinery primarily used for the production of those products. They shall have reached a technology readiness level of at least 8. __________________ 66 ‘renewable energy' means ‘renewable energy’ as defined in Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources ‘sustainable alternative fuels’ means fuels covered by the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport, COM/2021/561 final and by the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and Council on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport COM/2021/562 final, machinery or assemblies installed in the Union which are available on the market and which contribute to the implementation or production of technologies enabling the overall target referred to in Article 1(1) to be achieved.
Amendment 69 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. Contracting authorities or contracting entities shall base the award of contracts for net-zero technology listed in the Annex, as defined in Article 3(1)(a) of this Regulation, and more generally all energy system technologies which ensure low, zero or negative greenhouse gas emissions when operating, in a public procurement procedure on the most economically advantageous tender, which shall include the best price-quality ratio, comprising at least the sustainability and, resilience and security of supply contribution of the tender, in compliance with Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU, or 2014/25/EU and applicable sectoral legislation, as well as with the Union’s international commitments, including the GPA and other international agreements by which the Union is bound.
Amendment 72 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The tender’s sustainability andor resilience and security of supply contribution shall be based on at least one of the following cumulative criteria, which shall be objective, transparent and non- discriminatory:
Amendment 87 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) the tender’s contribution to resilience and security of supply, taking into account the proportion of the products originating from a single source of supply, as determined in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council72, from which more than 65% of the supply for that specific net-zero technology within the Union originates in the last year for which data is available for when the tender takes place. __________________ 72 Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 89 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) the extent to which the economic and social externalities of a tender, such as job creation or retention, tax revenue and impact on social expenditure, are taken into account.
Amendment 95 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
Article 19 – paragraph 3
3. Contracting authorities and contracting entities shall give the tender’s sustainability andor resilience contribution a weight between 1520% and 350% of the award criteria, without prejudice of the application of Article 41 (3) of Directive 2014/23/EU, Article 67 (5) of Directive 2014/24/EU or Article 82 (5) of Directive 2014/25/EU for giving a higher weighting to the criteria referred to in paragraph 2, points (a) and (b).
Amendment 99 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4
Article 19 – paragraph 4
4. The contracting authority or the contracting entity shall not be obliged to apply the considerations relating to the sustainability and resilience contribution of net-zero technologies where their application would oblige that authority or entity to acquire equipment having disproportionate costs, or technical characteristics different from those of existing equipment, resulting in incompatibility, technical difficulties in operation and maintenance. Cost differences above 130% may be presumed by contracting authorities and contracting entities to be disproportionate. This provision shall be without prejudice of the possibility to exclude abnormally low tenders under Article 69 of Directive 2014/24/EU and Article 84 of Directive 2014/25/EU, and without prejudice to other contract award criteria according to the EU legislation, including social aspects according to Articles 30 (3) and 36 (1), second intent of Directive 2014/23/EU, Articles 18 (2) and 67 (2) of Directive 2014/24/EU and Articles 36 (2) and 82 (2) of Directive 2014/24/EU.
Amendment 103 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Any tender submitted for the award of a ‘net zero technologies’ contract should be rejected where the proportion of the products originating in third countries, as determined in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, exceeds 50% of the total value of the products constituting the tender.
Amendment 106 #
2023/0081(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 b (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Where the cost differential between two or more tenders is less than 15%, or where two or more tenders are equivalent in terms of the contract award criteria, the contracting authority or the contracting entity should give preference to a tender containing no more than 50% of products originating in a third country.
Amendment 1 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2
Citation 2
– having regard to the statement of the members of the European Council of 25 March 2021 on Tüurkiyey,
Amendment 19 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
– having regard to the Commission communication of 12 October 2022 on EU Enlargement Policy (COM(2022)0528) and to the accompanying Tüurkiyey 2022 Report (SWD(2022)0333),
Amendment 21 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the results of the presidential and parliamentary elections held in Tüurkiyey on 14 May 2023 and the second round of the presidential elections of 28 May 2023,
Amendment 22 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8
Citation 8
– having regard to the statements of preliminary findings and conclusions of 14 May 2023 and 28 May 2023 of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) international election observation mission to the Republic of Tüurkiyey,
Amendment 25 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9
Citation 9
– having regard to Resolution 2459 (2022) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 12 October 2022 entitled ‘The honouring of obligations and commitments by Tüurkiyey’ and to the related report by its Monitoring Committee of 14 September 2022,
Amendment 29 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11
Citation 11
– having regard to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s economic survey of Tüurkiyey of 27 February 2023,
Amendment 33 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12
Citation 12
– having regard to the 2023 World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, which ranks TürkiyeTurkey 165th out of 180 countries,
Amendment 39 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
Citation 13
– having regard to its previous resolutions on Tüurkiyey, in particular those of 7 June 2022 on the 2021 Commission Report on Turkey1 and of 19 May 2021 on the 2019-2020 Commission Reports on Turkey2 , _________________ 1 OJ C 493, 27.12.2022, p. 2. 2 OJ C 15, 12.1.2022, p. 81.
Amendment 48 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Tüurkiyey held presidential and parliamentary elections in May 2023 which resulted in the re-election of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan thus proving the Turkish people’s support of the political orientation of the President and his inconsideration for EU standards;
Amendment 53 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas devastating earthquakes struck south-eastern Tüurkiyey on 6 February 2023, causing numerous fatalities and extensive infrastructure damage;
Amendment 54 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the Turkish NGO, the Turkish Red Croissant, illegally sold more than two thousand tents to survivors of the devastating earthquake on February 2023;
Amendment 55 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the EU handed 956,7 million euros in humanitarian to Turkey between 2020 and 2022;
Amendment 56 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas the EU heavily supported Turkey with more than 6.5 billion euro in EU funds in order to assist refugees present in the country;
Amendment 58 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Tüurkiyey remains a candidate for EU accession, a NATO ally and a keynd received 18 billion euros in pre-accession funds; whereas Turkey is an unreliable NATO partner and a trade and economic partner, as well as a keyn unreliable partner on migration, having threatened countless times to open the doors of Europe to migrants as leverage to receive further EU funds;
Amendment 65 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas Turkey opened and continued acts of aggression in the Eastern Mediterranean against Greece, a Member state, and continues to illegally occupy 38% of the Republic of Cyprus, also a Member State, since 1974, which should justify the immediate termination of its EU accession effort;
Amendment 69 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas Tüurkiyey has been gradually moving further away from the EU’s values and normative framework, as exemplified by a number of measures curtailing fundamental freedoms and human rights, in clear disdain of the Copenhagen criteria; whereas May 2023’s election results show that the Turkish people support this policy;
Amendment 83 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the Russian war of aggression continues to cause unprecedented geopolitical shifts in Europe; whereas Tüurkiyey’s key location allows it to play an instrumental, strategic role in the events;
Amendment 87 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas Turkey, who occupies illegally Cyprus through a puppet regime, has made repeated threats and intimidating military manoeuvres against Greece and its partners in the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean, has caused indisputably more direct damage to Member states of the EU than Russia has over the last years, but has not suffered any sanctions from the EU although the situation would have justified that;
Amendment 100 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas, after the efforts in previous years to depict in detail the developments regarding many aspects of Tüurkiyey’s EU accession process and EU- Tüurkiyey relations, this resolution intends to offer a more concise political assessment of the way forward;
Amendment 103 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas the Turkish paramilitary terrorist organisation known as the « Grey Wolves » continues to operate in Europe as proven during the presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey and despite its dissolution in certain European countries such as France and Germany;
Amendment 105 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Recital G b (new)
Gb. whereas Turkey still does not recognize the Christian Genocide (Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians) which resulted in more than 2 million deaths;
Amendment 111 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the results of the recent presidential and parliamentary elections in Tüurkiyey and considers them a sign foreboding political continuity in the country; acknowledges the peaceful manner in which the Turkish people conducted this process and applauds the high turnout; regrets, however, that, as reflected by the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission, the elections did not take place on a level playing field and were impacted, among other things, by essential freedoms being heavily hindered by the current legal framework and practice, and by the unjustified advantage enjoyed by the ruling parties;
Amendment 120 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates its profound sadness about the deadly, devastating earthquakes that shook south-eastern Tüurkiyey and Syria on 6 February 2023 and its heartfelt condolences to the victims’ families; welcomes the international relief and recovery effort, including by the EU and its Member States;
Amendment 133 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is of the opinion that the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine continues to impact EU-Tüurkiyey relations in ways that are yet to unfold; reiterates its appreciation for Tüurkiyey’s role as an early mediator between Ukraine and Russia and the key part played by Tüurkiyey in brokering and keeping alive the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which has been crucial in helping to counter a severe global hunger crisis;
Amendment 148 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges the partial measures taken in recent months by the Turkish authorities to prevent the re-exportation to Russia of goods covered by EU sanctions, but urges them to go further in order to ensure that Tüurkiyey stops being a hub for entities and individuals that wish to circumvent such sanctions;
Amendment 162 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. DeplorNotes, against the backdrop of the war, the delaying of the ratification of Sweden’s NATO accession, which only plays into Russia’s hands; invites the Turkish authorities to deliver on their promise of a more constructive partnership in NATO and to ratify Sweden’s NATO membership in the Grand National Assembly as early as possible;
Amendment 176 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that, in terms of human rights and the rule of law, the desolate picture painted in its resolution of 7 June 2022 on the 2021 Commission Report on Turkey remains valid, and reiterates the content of that resolution; fully endorses the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 12 October 2022, and the related report by its Monitoring Committee, on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Tüurkiyey;
Amendment 196 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is dismayed by the fact that, far from the negative trend stopping or being reversed, the democratic backsliding in Tüurkiyey has continued in the last year, with new legal reforms and a relentless crackdown on any critical voice, particularly ahead of and during the recent elections; affirms with regret that Tüurkiyey has now become a global showcase for all kinds of authoritarian practices;
Amendment 209 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Remains deeply concerned about the lack of independence of the judiciary, the continued breach of the obligation to abide by the landmark rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, the serious restrictions on fundamental freedoms – particularly freedom of expression and of association – and the constant attacks on the fundamental rights of members of the opposition, lawyers, journalists, academics and civil society activists in Tüurkiyey; is particularly worried by the continued crackdown on Kurdish politicians, journalists, lawyers and artists; expresses concern about the deterioration of the rights of women and the constant targeting and harassment of LGBTI+ people, both of whom could see their rights further curtailed by the possible amendments to Tüurkiyey’s constitution;
Amendment 230 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Concludes that the Turkish Government has no interest in closing the persistent and growing gap between Tüurkiyey and the EU on values and standards, as it has shown, for the past few years, a clear lack of political will to carry out the necessary reforms to address, in particular, the serious concerns about the rule of law and fundamental rights that continue to negatively affect the country’s EU accession process;
Amendment 234 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Expresses concerns about the continued proper functioning of Tüurkiyey’s market economy, particularly with regard to the conduct of monetary and fiscal policies, and the institutional and regulatory environment;
Amendment 251 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Welcomes, after a confrontational period, Tüurkiyey’s recent steps towards normalising relations with several countries, such as Armenia, Egypt, Israel and the Gulf states, but remains concerned by the fact that Tüurkiyey’s foreign policy still clashes in many aspects with EU interests and, far from growing closer to the EU, it has further diverged in the last year, reaching a record low of alignment with just 7 % of common foreign and security policy decisions;
Amendment 273 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the overall de-escalation of tensions observed in the eastern Mediterranean in recent times, particularly in the wake of the February earthquakes, and expresses its hope that a possible new era in Tüurkiyey’s foreign policy might yield positive results in the bilateral relations between Tüurkiyey and all EU Member States; reiterates its long-standing support for a solution to the Cyprus problem on the basis of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation and reaffirms its positions on the matter expressed in its resolution of 7 June 2022;
Amendment 345 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Reiterates its firm conviction that Tüurkiyey is a country of strategic relevance in political, economic and foreign policy terms, a key partner for the stability of the wider region and a vital ally, including within NATO, and reaffirms that the EU is committed to pursuing the best possible relations with Tüurkiyey based on dialogue, respect and mutual trust;
Amendment 350 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on the Council to add the Turkish terrorist organisation “The Grey Wolves” responsible for committing countless acts of violence in Europe, including murders or attempted murders, as a terrorist organisation as defined in the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and to the list of terrorist organisations in the European Union ;
Amendment 357 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers, in view of ;Demands to formally the above, that in the absence of a drastic change of course by the Turkish Government, Türkiye’s EU accessionerminate accession negotiations with Turkey, in accordance with the realistic framework, since the country failed to demonstrate clear and significant procgress has lost its purpose and will not endure much lin EU- related reforms, in particular, the serious congcer in the current circumstances; recommends, in that case, starting a reflectionns about the rule of law and fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of religion; recalls the migratory process to find an alternative ure inflicted by the Erdogand realistic framework for EU-Türkiye relations in substitution for the accession process; callgime toward the EU and the continued acts of military aggression towards Member states oin the Commission, therefore, to explore possible formats for a mutually appealing framework through a comprehensive and inclusive processMediterranean; while potentially continuing partnership in essential areas of joint interest; requests in this regard to terminate all financial assistance under IPA to Türkiye;
Amendment 384 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Acknowledges and commends the democratic and pro-European aspirations of the majoritya part of Turkish society (particularly among Turkish youth), whom the EU will not forsake; expresses its utmost commitment to sustaining and increasing the support for Tüurkiyey’s independent civil society in whatever circumstances and under whatever framework for relations that the future may bring; recognises, however, that this should never interfere in Türkiye’s internal political and social autonomy as a result; underlines that interference is interference no matter whether it is politically aligned or not;
Amendment 395 #
2022/2205(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Reaffirms its support for an upgraded customs union with a broader, mutually beneficial scope, which could encompass a wide range of areas of common interest, including digitalisation and Green Deal alignment; insists that such a modernisation would need to be based on strong conditionality related to human rights and the aforementioned principles; stresses that both parties must be fully aware of this democratic conditionality from the outset of any negotiations, as Parliament will not give its consent to the final agreement if no progress is made in this field; remains ready to advance towards visa liberalisation as soon as the Turkish authorities fulfil the six outstanding benchmarks;
Amendment 26 #
2022/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas enlargement is the most effective EU foreign policy instrument, one of the EU’s most successful policies and a geostrategic investment in long- term peace, stability and security throughout the continent; Union forging ahead, no longer giving consideration to economic rigour criteria and instead using enlargement as a geopolitical tool to cement certain countries' membership of the Euro- Atlantic camp, which exacerbates the spread of the rationale behind blocs and the contraction of the world;
Amendment 71 #
2022/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets Serbia’s continued low level of alignment with the CFSP, in particular in the context of the Russian warUnderlines the fact that Serbia is a sovereign state and thus has the right to determine of its own Ukraine; underlines the fact that, as a candidate country, Serbia must adhere to the EU’s principles and policies, and alignment with a warmongering autocratic regime is unacceptablefree will its foreign policy, its diplomatic alliances and its guidelines, in accordance with its historical traditions;
Amendment 84 #
2022/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 114 #
2022/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expresses concern about the decreasing public support for EU membership in SerbiaReiterates its support for democracy and stresses that if Serbia is to join the EU it must have the consent of the Serbian people;
Amendment 246 #
2022/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Condemns the opening of an RT (formerly Russia Today) office in Belgrade and the launch of its online news service in Serbian; urges the Serbian authorities to counter hybrid threats and align with the Council’s decision on the suspension of the broadcasting activities of Sputnik and RT; calls on Serbia to fight disinformation, including manipulative anti-EU narrativesReiterates its support for freedom of the press and the right to information, and is concerned about the attacks on media plurality in the EU;
Amendment 320 #
2022/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 390 #
2022/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Condemns all actions that endanger stability and jeopardise the reconciliation process; is deeply concerned about the tensions in North Kosovo and the unacceptable shooting on Orthodox Christmas Eve; recalls the shared responsibility for peace and the rule of law for all peopleWarns the Government of Kosovo about the provocations and threats against the Serbian enclaves in Kosovo;
Amendment 10 #
2022/2203(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas enlargement is the most effective EU foreign policy instrument and is a geostrategic investment in long- term peacea headlong rush by the EU, which no longer takes into account the criteria of economic rigor but which uses enlargement as a geopolitical tool to cement the membership of certain countries in the Euro-Atlantic sphere, which aggravates the risk of block logic and the tension in the world;
Amendment 18 #
2022/2203(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas enlargement in the Balkans is contrary to the interests of Member states; whereas the study carried out in 2019 by the European Council on Foreign Relations (C.E.F.R.)1a, confirms that the majority of citizens of the Member States do not desire a Balkan integration into the EU; _________________ 1a https://eupinions.eu/de/blog/eu-citizens- remain-against-further-enlargement
Amendment 35 #
2022/2203(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia have once more failed on the 18th of March 2023; whereas it is incoherent that the EU requires from Serbia to de facto recognize the sovereignty of Kosovo by recognizing official documents produced by Pristina even though five member states still do not recognize the independence of Kosovo;
Amendment 37 #
2022/2203(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the fight against corruption, malicious foreign interference, money laundering and organised crime is a European security issue; whereas those are predominant issues in the Western Balkans;
Amendment 99 #
2022/2203(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses concern about the unjustifiedNotes the delays in the accession process; stresses the need to strengthen the process’s transparency, accountability and inclusiveness, including its parliamentary dimension;
Amendment 106 #
2022/2203(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Generally opposes any further enlargement of the European Union, as its stability, economical and political issues as they result from previous enlargement as well as from the disavowing 2016 "Brexit" referendum do not allow for it;
Amendment 112 #
2022/2203(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Invites policymakers to constructively engage in the continued adoption and implementation of structural reforms, while strengthening decision- making transparency, inclusive consultations and the oversight abilities of the Assembly of North Macedonia, including under the auspices of the Jean Monnet Dialogue;
Amendment 197 #
2022/2203(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Commends North Macedonia’s well-established inter-community harmony and urges the country to sustain its long-standing commitment to multiculturalism and inclusionWarns against a blind promotion of multiculturalism in North Macedonia that would contribute to the fragmentation of the country with border minorities being empowered to form a continuity of their homeland; reiterates that the unitary form of the North Macedonian State must remain unchallenged;
Amendment 275 #
2022/2203(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 5 #
2022/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas enlargement is the EU’s most effective foreign policy instrument and a strategic and future-oriented geopolitical investment in peace, stability and securitya headlong rush by the EU, which no longer takes into account the criteria of economic rigour but uses enlargement as a geopolitical tool to cement the membership of certain countries in the Euro-Atlantic camp, thereby exacerbating the bloc mentality and aggravating global tensions, while putting at risk the economic, political and social stability of existing Member States;
Amendment 36 #
2022/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets the fact that high political tensions and polarisation, the failure to build consensus on matters of national interest and a lack of cross-party dialogue have stalled progress on EU-related reforms and plunged Montenegro into a deep political and institutional crisisDenounces the EU’s sympathetic attitude towards Milo Đukanović, Prime Minister and then President of Montenegro over a period of almost 23 years, on the pretext of his desire to join the European Union and NATO; recalls that the EU’s relationship with Milo Đukanović will remain a blatant example of ‘double standards’, meaning that the EU’s moralising will go unheard in the rest of the world;
Amendment 61 #
2022/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Remains seriously concerned by malign foreign interference, destabilisation efforts, hybrid threats and disinformation campaigns by foreign actors in Montenegro; notes that religious institutions can be used as a tool for external influence and condemns Serbian interference in this regardwarns, however, against attempts to undermine the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro, which is the country’s predominant religion, in the name fighting interference;
Amendment 32 #
2022/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the future of the Western Balkans lies in the European Unionhave the freedom to decide which is the best direction for their future, just as it is the prerogative of Member states to accept the candidates demands;
Amendment 45 #
2022/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Amendment 47 #
2022/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
C b. whereas five Members states do not recognize the independence of the region of the Kosovo ;
Amendment 51 #
2022/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes Kosovo’s application for EU membership, which reflects the pro- European orientation of its citizens and a clear geopolitical strategic choice; notes, however, that Pristina still remains far from EU standards ;
Amendment 63 #
2022/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the long-awaited agreementExpresses concerns on granting visa liberalisation to the citizeninhabitants of Kosovo as this could compromise the safety of the European people;
Amendment 73 #
2022/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. UrgNotes that five Member States that have not yet recognised Kosovo as a sovereign state to do sohus preventing the European Union from entering adhesion negotiations with Pristina ;
Amendment 96 #
2022/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its support forNotes Kosovo’s application for membership of the Council of Europe and the country’s plan to join the NATO Partnership for Peace programme;
Amendment 214 #
2022/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Reiterates its full support for the EU Special Representative for the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue; cCalls on Kosovo and Serbia to engage in this dialogue in good faith and in the spirit of compromise to achieve a comprehensive, legally binding agreement on the normalisation of their relations, based on mutual recognition, in accordance with international law; calls for the full implementation of all the relevant agreements, including the establishment of the Association/Community of Serb- Majority Municipalities;
Amendment 282 #
2022/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Takes note ofWonders on the opportunity of the EU, in the middle of an economic and social crisis, to finance the first annual IPA III programme, which is worth EUR 63.96 million, and will support measures targeting the rule of law and human rights, good governance, socio-economic development, energy and the environment; towards a state entity keen to corruption ;
Amendment 291 #
2022/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Welcomes the Commission’s energy support package to help the Western Balkans overcome the energy crisis – primarily created by the EU’s own decisions; calls on the Kosovar authorities to make the best use of this assistance in order to build a resilient and environmentally friendly energy system;
Amendment 10 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas EU-enlargement is the most effective EU foreign policy instrument and represents a geostrategic investment in long-term peace, democracy, stability and security throughout the continentthe last two decades has proven to be one of the most effective method in destabilizing the Member States, squandering huge amounts of Member State funding on hopeless intuition-building interventions and depopulating large parts of Europe, and represents a completely irresponsible squandering of Member States funds and the stability and security of the people and nations of Europe;
Amendment 12 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas enlargement is the most effective EU foreign policy instrument and represa headlong rush by the EU, which no longer takes into account the criteria of economic rigor but which uses enlargement as a geostrategic investment in long-term peace, democracy, stability and security throughout the continentpolitical tool to cement the membership of certain countries in the Euro-Atlantic sphere, which aggravates the risk of block logic and the tension in the world;
Amendment 21 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 27 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas enlargement in the Balkans is contrary to the interests of Member states; whereas the study carried out in 2019 by the European Council on Foreign Relations (C.E.F.R.)1a, confirms that the majority of citizens of the Member States do not desire a Balkan integration into the EU; __________________ 1a https://eupinions.eu/de/blog/eu-citizens- remain-against-further-enlargement
Amendment 34 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas democratic transformation, the rule of law and reconciliation is claimed to play a central role in the EU Commission´s policy regarding the EU- accession process;
Amendment 38 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the fight against high-level corruptioncorruption at all levels in Albania, malicious foreigclan interference in local and central government, money laundering and, organised crime is a European security issue that is crucial for Albania’s EU accessionand the trafficking of illegal migrants to the EU-area is a major security issue that is crucial for Albania’s ability to claim that she is not a failed state;
Amendment 43 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 46 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia have once more failed on the 18th of March 2023; whereas it is incoherent that the EU requires from Serbia to de facto recognize the sovereignty of Kosovo by recognizing official documents produced by Pristina even though five member states still do not recognize the independence of Kosovo;
Amendment 56 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes Albania’s steadfast commitment to EU integration, reflecting the consensus among political parties and overwhelming support among citizens; commends its solidarity and consistent, full alignment with the EU’s foreign and security policy, including its clear-cut response to the Russian war of aggression against UkraineNotes the lip service made by the ruling elites in Albania to the policies from the EU Commission in regard to a potential EU integration;
Amendment 67 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Encourages its policymakers to accelerate the reforms that enabled the first long overdue intergovernmental conference and a successful start to the screening process, andin order to demonstrate steady progress in guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; urges decision-makers to work jointly towards meeting the membership criteria by 2030; stresses the need to strengthen the transparency, accountability and inclusiveness of the accession process, including its parliamentary dimension;
Amendment 118 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Expresses its concern with the aspects of the draft law on fiscal amnesty and the proposed citizenship by investment scheme that are incompatible with EU norms and its visa policyprovide ample evidence of Albania´s unsuitability as an EU Member State;
Amendment 126 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for continued action to reduce unfoundedstop all fraudulent asylum claims by Albanian nationals, while tackling criminal trafficking networks and increasing cooperation with the EU’s justice and home affairs agencies; welcomes successful international investigations and police operations to combat the trafficking of people, narcotics and firearms, and online fraud;
Amendment 148 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes the legal steps taken to eliminate discrimination against minorities, and calls for practical steps in order to ensure their inclusion, namely the inclusion of LGBTI+, Roma and Egyptian minorities; recalls the need to combat gender-based violence, step up child protection, adopt and implement legislation on minority rights, strengthen property rights and conduct a population census; underlines the importance of removing barriers to the socioeconomic inclusion of persons with disabilities;
Amendment 207 #
2022/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines the transformative nature of the substantial EU assistanceNotes the little results achieved under the substantial EU assistance, based on the funding by the Member States, and provided under the IPA III and the Western Balkans Investment Framework, including the Youth Guarantee in the Western Balkans; recalls that, in line with IPA III conditionality, funding must be reduced or suspended in cases of backtracking or unjustified delays in the reform process all funding to programmes and project for Albania must now cease;
Amendment 15 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the transition to Web 4.0 and the development of virtual worlds are an indispensable part of the future of digitisation and a key building block for the completion of the digital single market; whereas the new virtual worlds should not replace but rather only complement the real world;
Amendment 25 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas virtual worlds also entail significant risks affecting citizen and consumer protection and issues related to competition law, privacy and personal data protection, and cybersecurity;
Amendment 33 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points to the lack of a universally recognised or agreed definitions of virtual worlds and the real world and considers that further work is needed in order to rectify this;
Amendment 36 #
2022/2198(INI)
Amendment 49 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to monitor the development of virtual worlds; invites the Commission to draft a report on this subject every two years and to transmit it to Parliament and the Council; asks the Commission to pay attention to the potential emergence of problems in the Web 4.0 that already exist in the Web 3.0, such as the proliferation of fake news, infringement of intellectual property rights, digital identity fraud, cybercrime, cyberterrorism, sexual abuse of minors and cyberbullying, among others;
Amendment 58 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Signals also the positive impact that these developments will have on employment, includ; stresses the importance of promoting the creation of new jobs in domains such as virtual world architecture or content creation; highlights the importance of promoting the development of appropriate skills to ensure the supply of talented and skilled workers fit for these jobs in the EU, as well as of creating appealing conditions to keep EU talent, attract foreign talent and promote entrepreneurship and innovation in the territory of the EU;
Amendment 64 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. RecallsCriticises the fact that most companies leading the development of virtual worlds are established outside the EU; considers that the EU should take the lead in shaping virtual worlds as ecosystems in which European strategic interests, values and principles are respected and promoted, with users at their centre; signals the importance of fostering the creation of a level playing field that promotes the expansion of European small and medium-sized enterprises, and the establishment of European companies able to compete with foreign competitors, as well as innovation and growth;
Amendment 72 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Acknowledges that multiple virtual worlds have been developed by different undertakings in the absence of open standards and interoperable platforms; considers that interoperability and open standards can contribute to the prevention of quasi-monopolies or abuses of dominant position to the detriment of consumers and European companies, notably SMEs; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to engage with existing multi-stakeholder internet governance institutions to develop common governance standards; supports the establishment of a technical multi- stakeholder forum for the development of technical standards to ensure interoperable virtual worlds;
Amendment 82 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that the debate over the need for the identification of users in virtual worldmaking users in virtual worlds identifiable under predefined conditions should be a priority area in the development process of virtual worlds and that there should be a profound reflection on the possible configuration of this digital reality, bearing in mind that, in some cases, anonymity may be preferable; points out that anonymity in the digital world is always possible under a username (alias), behind which there must always be an individual identifiable only by the competent authorities in case of need;
Amendment 98 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Warns about the potential health problems that may arise from accessing virtual worlds, such as addiction, cybersickness or disturbances in sleep patterns or cognitive development, especially among minors and young people;
Amendment 102 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Recalls the potential of virtual worlds to offer unique experiences that can help minors develop their appetite for learning through, for example, learning through play, which can help them to develop skills in collaboration, communication, critical thinking, innovation and confidence; stresses, however, the risks inherent in early exposure to an excessive use of screens, which can affect well-being and proper cognitive, physical, psychological and social development; calls for information campaigns on limiting screen time, promoting the proper use of screens and the importance of digital parenting to be launched; underlines the importance of protecting minors in virtual worlds, especially against abuse, harassment and bullying;
Amendment 109 #
2022/2198(INI)
15. Notes that virtual worlds will generate high-resolution images, graphics and video to ensure immersive user experiences, further requiring high- performing infrastructure; notes that, in particular 5G and 6G networks with low latency and high bandwidth will be key, as will technologies such as edge computing; recalls the European Court of Auditors’ January 2022 report, which estimated the total cost of 5G deployment across all EU Member States until 2025, between building new 5G infrastructure and upgrading existing infrastructure, to range between EUR 281 billion and EUR 391 billion; calls, in this regard, for the establishment of a framework which would provide for a fair and equitable contribution to be made by very large content providers to Internet access providers;
Amendment 118 #
2022/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to conduct an assessment of how to ensure that the infrastructure needed is delivered to consumers; highlights that a true single market for telecoms is key in this regard;
Amendment 53 #
2022/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 59 #
2022/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Believes that traditional civilian CSDP tasks such as policing, the rule of law reform, civil administration, SSR and monitoring remain very important in order to stabilise and modernise the security and justice sectors; underlines the need to continue updating and enlarging tasks in the framework of the Integrated Approach and the Treaties in light of the new risks and threats that have emerged; stresses the need to integrate and strengthen cross-cutting issues, in particular: and security sector reform have proven largely ineffective and should no longer be pursued, limited monitoring could remain but then only for elections; underlines the need to scale back on all CSDP tasks and missions and provide more support to the OSCE in these matters;
Amendment 64 #
2022/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point c
Paragraph 4 – point c
Amendment 65 #
2022/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point f
Paragraph 4 – point f
Amendment 66 #
Amendment 91 #
2022/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 98 #
2022/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 135 #
2022/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 146 #
2022/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. DeplorNotes the stretched resources of the EEAS in the field of civilian CSDP in general, including CPCC, which currently provides support to 11 missions of 2 200 personnel with a staff of 110 people; calls understand the need for the Member States to ensure the rapid development of CPCC into a fully functional operational headquarters, by ensuring it has the necessary funds, personnel and expertise at its disposal; stresses the need to increase complementarity and synergies with military CSDP, while keeping the civilian and military chains of command separatescale down on luxury commitments such as the civilian CSDP- experiment in time of hardships like most EU Member States now are facing due to the self-made Corona and Energy crises;
Amendment 3 #
2022/2171(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas consumers arseem to be ready to change their purchasing patterns for sustainable options but can be misled by greenwashing practicewhen duly informed about sustainability and origin of the products;
Amendment 18 #
2022/2171(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas supporting a vibrant and dynamic textile sector is strategic for the value chains and the competitiveness of the internal market;
Amendment 21 #
2022/2171(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the long tradition and experience of European textile companies has a priceless value for the European historical heritage;
Amendment 33 #
2022/2171(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for stricter customs controls to avoid the import of counterfeit and unsafe textile products or goods without the specific requirements to be sold in the internal market; calls for the implementation of a trusted-flagger alert and notification mechanism and of an appropriate European redress mechanism for consumers affected by misleading labels and textiles that do not comply with Union law;
Amendment 59 #
2022/2171(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that textile producers and brands should be drivers of sustainability by being transparent in their practices and respecting human rights and the environment; believes that these goals could be also achieved supporting the value chain, promoting reshoring in EU of delocalized productions, lowering burdens, promoting the textile value chain with incentives and creating a clear and efficient legal framework for companies and customers;
Amendment 67 #
2022/2171(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that some fast fashion companies located outside the EU contribute to puts enormous stress on suppliers and their workforce through unfair trading practices;
Amendment 83 #
2022/2171(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for mandatorytransparent criteria onfor a responsible consumption to applyied to public procurement, avoiding fragmentation of the internal market;
Amendment 93 #
2022/2171(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls the need to support the EU textile value chain, which actively contribute to the EU competitiveness, while at the same time defending it from external unfair practices, which are also distortive of the internal market;
Amendment 3 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 19 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union has extensive experience in deploying multinational missions abroad in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world, recognises that these missions have had mixed results, particularly in Africa; whereas these common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions regularly operate alongside and complement missions of the Member States, United Nations, international organisations and third countries;
Amendment 48 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the European Union and its Member States should strive for autonomy, including in respect of NATO, when preparing, conducting and sustaining their CSDP missions; whereas the Union should be capable of rapidly deploying multidimensional forces, swiftly reinforcing them where needed and sustaining them as long as required and without depending on third-party support;
Amendment 56 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas for collective defence many Member States coordinate their efforts and employ their forces within the NATO framework, which flies in the face of the idea of an independent, sovereign European defence capability; whereas many Member States also contribute to missions abroad within the CSDP framework;
Amendment 62 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 99 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the integrated approach is also meant to prioritise prevention and promote the human security of local populations over narrow self-often gives rise to ineffectual missions owing to a lack of common aims and shared interests;
Amendment 106 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas joint declarations on EU- NATO cooperation should define areas of cooperation and coordination, favouring at all times a European approach free from foreign interference, establish the tasks to be fulfilled within each framework and be accompanied by roadmaps for their implementation;
Amendment 112 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 142 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas the relevant Union acts should be updated to reflect all of the foregoing while maintaining unanimity in decision-making concerning the CSDP within the Council;
Amendment 147 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 171 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Strongly encourages the VP/HR to propose a Council Decision on establishing an EU RDC to protect the Union’s values and serve its interests along the following lines:
Amendment 267 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that rapid deployment requires flexibility in political decision- making and the high readiness of military modules, which implies not only having land troops on high readiness, but also the necessary air, sea and special operation components and strategic enablers;
Amendment 318 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point a
Paragraph 7 – point a
(a) solely uUpon athe proposal by the VP/HR, who should ensure that the views of Parliament are duly taken into consideration in their proposal, andof the Member States;
Amendment 327 #
2022/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point b
Paragraph 7 – point b
(b) acting by qualified majoron unanimity after deliberation in the Council;
Amendment 4 #
2022/2142(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the potential for fast, efficient and effectivepasserelle clauses in foreign policy, security and defence action, as set out in the Lisbon Treaty, hasve only been used in a very limited way over the past decade due to a lack of political will from the Member States;
Amendment 11 #
2022/2142(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the use of passerelle clauses would immediately boost the efficiency of decision-making in the field of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and would be highly appropriate given the dramatic change to the European security environment as a result of the Russian war against Ukrainecontinue the headlong rush of the European Union, which is increasingly superseding the will of its constituent states;
Amendment 29 #
2022/2142(INI)
1. RegretsWelcomes the fact that passerelle clauses have never been used in the field of the CFSP, even though the Russian war against; is concerned about the attempts to use the war in Ukraine has clearly called for more efficient and swift decision-makinga pretext for giving the EU all the prerogatives of a state, including in foreign and defence policy, by watering down the sovereignty of the Member States;
Amendment 40 #
2022/2142(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Urges the Council Presidency to follow up on the Czech initiative in an effective way by putting the use of the passerelle clausesnot to call into question unanimous decision- making in the field of the CFSP on the agenda;
Amendment 42 #
2022/2142(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 55 #
2022/2142(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates the need for strong parliamentary oversight of the CFSP and CSDP to ensure accountability and democratic legitimacy; callStresses that the European Parliament must under no circumstances undermine the prerogatives onf the Council, Commission and European External Action Service to proactively engage with Parliament and keep it informed; commits itself to improving the efficiency of its oversight mechanisms, so as to potentially speed up decision-making within the Councilparliaments of the Member States by becoming a monitoring body for a supposed EU foreign policy, which would not be the desired outcome of its constituent states but would have its own rationale.
Amendment 1 #
2022/2090(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1 Points out that the fact the EEAS exists is helping to develop the EU’s own unwarranted powers in the field of diplomacy and foreign policy; considers that the existence of this service constitutes in itself an unjustified increase in expenditure for the EU budget;
Amendment 2 #
2022/2090(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that, in the opinion of the Court of Auditors (‘the Court’), the EEAS’s level of error in spending was not material and that the Court has not found any significant issues with its supervisory and control systems; points out, however, that the EEAS needs to provide a higher degree of transparency, especially in regard to accurately disclose the EU missions and their individual spending as well as their failure/success in fulfilling mission mandates;
Amendment 5 #
2022/2090(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 11 #
2022/2090(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. DeplorNotes the remaining lack of diversity, gender and geographical imbalances within the EEAS staff; reiterates the importance of ensuring an intersectional distribution, greater diversity, and gender equality, as well as promotunderstands recruitment within the institutions as being a balance of staff in terms of gender and geographical origin within different categories and grades, particularly at senior management levels; calls on the EEAS to significantly improve the representation of women and marginalised groups across all levels and calls on all Member States to nominate more women and candidates from marginalised groups to seconded positions in the EEAS; draws attention to the remaining overrepresentation of some Member States’ diplomats among the Heads of Delegation and calls for further efforts to address those imbalancessed on merit and qualifications rather than on gender and race alone, especially at senior management level; encourages the EEAS to create and share guidelines on bestgood practices onfor the conducting of recruitment procedures in order to ensure diversity, openness, fairness and transparency;
Amendment 17 #
2022/2090(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Encourages EU delegations to engage with local actors, civil society organisations and social partners in third countriesPoints out that the EU delegations replicate and tend to replace Member States’ diplomacy and are therefore detrimental to the sovereignty of the Member States; points out that the role of diplomacy is not to stimulate social dialogue. in third countries;
Amendment 1 #
2022/2081(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the rule of law, the EU’s fundamental values and respect for human rights in recipient countries are embedded in the basic acts of IPA III and of NDICI; calls on the Commission to modify assistance should threats to democracy, the rule of law, human rights or fundamental freedoms so require; calls in this regard for a definitive end to all pre-accession aid funding for those states in which such threats exist, including Turkey and a number of Balkan countries;
Amendment 2 #
2022/2081(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the rule of law, the EU’s fundamental values and respect for human rights in recipient countries are embedded in the basic acts of IPA III and of NDICI; calls on the Commission to modify assistance should threats tofailure to control migration flows, or the state of internal democracy, the rule of law, human rights or fundamental freedoms so require;
Amendment 5 #
2022/2081(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that EU enlargement efforts will be extremely costly for the Union, the Member States and taxpayers in the event of accession of some or all of the applicant countries, and are likely to generate very little by way of revenue in return;
Amendment 2 #
2022/2079(INI)
1. UnderlinNotes that the EU’s defence sector is fragmented, which creates strategic vulnerabilities for the Union, Member States and industry; is concerned about the lack of coordination and calls for more strategic cohesion in security and defence policies at Union level; welcomes, in this context, the Commission’s launch of the European Defence Industry Reinforcement through common Procurement Act (EDIRPA) and encourages the Commission and Member States to take this initiative a step further and strive towards a de facto military union supported by a strongly articulated common market for defence equipment, followed by a review of the Treaties for more EU; condemns the Commission’s launch of the European Defence Industry Reinforcement through common Procurement Act (EDIRPA), which, in terms of its size, appears insufficiently ambitious to have a real impact on European rearmament potential, but which will further extend the Commission’s competence, including in the defence sector, which must remain the sovereign competences on critical technologies for defence, innovation in defence, and security and defence affairf the Member States, as stipulated in the Treaties;
Amendment 29 #
2022/2079(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. CRecalls onthat the Commission to encourage Member States to review all defence programmes and policy tools, check if they are still fit for purpose, and summarise findings; suggests that the Europeahas no authority to interfere with, control or correct the sovereign Ddefence Agency can provide light touch support and coordination suggestions, including a strategic assessment of the findingpolicies of the Member States;
Amendment 49 #
2022/2079(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the need to stimulate the development of skills for innovation, research and development (R&D), and fundamental research in critical areas related to emerging technologies; calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to establish and fund defence innovation hubbasis of agreements between Member States;
Amendment 64 #
2022/2079(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is concerned about the EU’s dependence on China and the United States for raw materials and weapons and calls on Member States to reduce their vulnerabilities resulting from dependence on non-democratic suppliers of critical technologies and materials, and to enhance defence production chains in Europe by localising or near-shoring production;
Amendment 76 #
2022/2079(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for military and strategic interoperabilityIs concerned that the interoperability of military equipment between NATO, the EU and like- minded partners and NATO, and among Member States, to be ensured, given that the risk of fragmentation is exacerbated by different national requirements and national public spending and investment and procurement schemtheir allies is de facto causing a major dependence on US armaments, leading to an unacceptable loss of sovereignty for the Member States;
Amendment 18 #
2022/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the space capabilities of the EU and its Member States generate activities that are essential to the economy and the functioning of our societies; including in the EU’s outermost regions (OR), such as French Guiana, which is home to the world-renowned Kourou launch centre, a European spaceport;
Amendment 173 #
2022/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses the importance of developing cooperation with strategic partners; supports the continuation of an enhanced dialogue with the United States, as equals, while remaining vigilant to the risk that it may seek to steer or dictate outlooks, standards and rules that the Member States have not helped to shape; calls for deeper cooperation and for alliances to be established with like-minded states (the UK, Canada, Japan) or other EU partners (India)with G7 states (the UK, Canada, Japan) but also with new partners from South America, Africa or Asia, in order to make the cosmos a space for cooperation that is governed by law, that goes beyond the increasing bloc- oriented approach on Earth and that takes into account the emergence of new powers on all continents;
Amendment 35 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas enlargement is the most effective EU foreign policy instrument and one of the Union’s most successful policies, and it remains a strategic investment in stability and prosperity onany further EU enlargement is contrary to the interests of the Member States and the European continentnations;
Amendment 75 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine has prompted three countries with EU Association Agreementree countries – Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova – to submitted EU membership applications on 28 February and 3 March 2022;
Amendment 110 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
(a) recognise that the EU’s prosperity and security rests on its ability to defend democracy, human rights and the rules- based multilateral orderEU Member States are free to defend their prosperity and security in accordance with the existing international legal framework;
Amendment 126 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
(b) retaistrengthen the geostrategic relevance and credibility of the EU by enhancing integration in the areas of common foreign, security and defence policies, and by streamlining its decision-making processMember States;
Amendment 161 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
(e) strengthen Member States’ commitment to enlargement by delivering on EU’s obligations towardsrecall that a study carried out in 2019 by the European Council on Foreign Relations confirmed that the majority of EU citizens and Member States do not support EU enlargement to the Western Balkan countries;
Amendment 169 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) recall that the Western Balkan countries are on the ‘Balkan route’ used as a transit route for immigrants wishing to travel illegally to EU Member States and that, according to data published by Frontex on 13 June 2022, the total number of illegal border crossings between January and May 2022 increased by 82% compared to 2021;
Amendment 209 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point h
Paragraph 1 – point h
Amendment 216 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
(i) accelerate the integration of countries that demonstrate strategic orientation and unwavering commitment to EU-related reforms, democratic consolidation and foreign policy alignmentstress that, despite the progress allegedly made in some areas, the integration of EU candidate countries should not be on the agenda, as these countries are still far from European standards;
Amendment 239 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l
Paragraph 1 – point l
Amendment 258 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point n
Paragraph 1 – point n
(n) recognise Western Balkan countries’ achievements by opening long over-due accession talks with Albania and Nin certain areas; recall, however, that, according to the conclusions of a special report on ‘EU support for th Macedonia and granting visa liberalisation to Kosovo without delaye rule of law in the Western Balkans’ published in January 2022, despite relative progress, fundamental problems persist;
Amendment 265 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point n a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point n a (new)
(na) express concern about the attempts to implement a visa-free regime for citizens of Kosovo, as this would compromise the security of citizens of EU Member States; recall that 250 000 illegal firearms are circulating freely in the country; recall that Kosovo is a major hub for human trafficking, and more specifically organ trafficking and prostitution; recall also that the country is a major hub for the trafficking of cigarettes, cars and illicit substances via Albania and Montenegro; note, in this connection, that five EU Member States and Ukraine do not recognise Kosovo and that this should prevent the European Union from entering into negotiations with Kosovo;
Amendment 305 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point r
Paragraph 1 – point r
(r) step up the EU’s constructive engagement with the authorities of both Serbregret the decision of the Prime Minister of Kosovo not to allow Serbia to organise voting for its presidential and Kosovo to achieve a comprehensive legally bindingparliamentary elections on Kosovo territory, which further deteriorates relations between the two countries and thus undermines the normalisation agreement between the two in the framework of the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue; criticise the European Union, however, for having made several attempts, in Serbia in particular, to impose its own views on the internal structure and institutional development of these countries, at the risk of rekindling internal divisions;
Amendment 310 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point s
Paragraph 1 – point s
Amendment 322 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point s a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point s a (new)
(sa) with a view to ensuring peace and stability in the Balkans, call on the EU to work towards the return of Serbian, Christian, Roma and non-Albanian- speaking refugees to Kosovo, from where they were deported;
Amendment 327 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point t
Paragraph 1 – point t
(t) formally suspend accession negotiations with Turkey, in accordance with the negotiating framework, untilgiven that the country reengages with the EU andhas not demonstratesd clear and significant progress in EU-related reforms, while continuing partnership in essential areas of joint interestin particular as regards the serious concerns over the rule of law and fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of religion; recall the migration pressure exerted on the EU by President Erdogan , while possibly continuing partnership in essential areas of joint interest; call on the EU to stop any allocation of funds, including those under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III), made available to so-called candidate countries, including Turkey;
Amendment 341 #
2022/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point u
Paragraph 1 – point u
(u) proposenote that the proposal for ‘special partnerships’ for countries that do not intend to join the EU or do not fulfil membership criteria is contrary to the interests of the European nations; stress that the majority of Member States do not support this initiative;
Amendment 6 #
2022/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that competition policy is key to a well-functioning single market and economy and that it should aim to creates incentives for variety in products, lower prices, higherfair prices for both producers and consumers, support for European players in global competition, higher social, safety, health and environmental standards, innovation and better services for the consumer;
Amendment 14 #
2022/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the removal of State aid limits due to the COVID-19 crisis and now Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine have led to Member States providing different amounts of support to the same sectors; underlines that this has led to a playing field that is not level for the same industries within the single market; calls on the Commission to seek ways to counterbalance this problem once the disruptions that caused it have come to an end; calls on the Commission to put in place a new state aid framework to support Member States in the face of international economic tensions, including soaring inflation and the general rise in energy prices;
Amendment 35 #
2022/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that consolidation within the telecommunications and internet service providers sector could have a significant negative effect on competition within the Union, as it could develop into a monopolistic market, and that the Commission should be vigilant about this; notes, moreover, that mergers between internet service providers, media content broadcasters and streaming providers could create incentives to abuse a dominant position, which would have a negative effect on consumers; underlines that competition policy must support, without political or partnership preferences, net neutrality and prevent all attempts to undermine it;
Amendment 42 #
2022/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that competition is global by nature; encourages the Commission, therefore, to use all tools provided for in the Union’s trade agreements and the Union’s Customs Code4 to counter unfair commercial trading practices and competition from non-EU companies which could affect the single marketdopt global strategies that are territorially beyond the EU's regulatory capabilities but nevertheless cause economic and social harm to European players on the world stage, in particular by preventing the emergence of industrial and technological champions; calls on the Commission, in the event that recourse to the tools provided for by the World Trade Organization would not make it possible to resolve the problems created by third-country rules and regulations, to take all the necessary measures to respond to them, such as the introduction of a Buy European Act and the adoption of a general regulation exempting the most critical areas from European competition law; asks the Commission to look into international agreements and State aid rules in order to seek suitable solutions; _________________ 4 Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (recast) (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 52 #
2022/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that consumers are facing rising energy prices in general, while the number of energy producers in some markets has collapsed; asks the Commission to help ensure the availability of a choice of providers for consumersrevise the rules governing the European electricity market as soon as possible in order to ensure that cheap and environmentally friendly sources of production are maintained;
Amendment 55 #
2022/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Observes that the uptake of electric vehicles will lead to higher electricity consumption in the futuredecision to ban the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles in favour of electric vehicles will lead to huge costs for car manufacturers and will jeopardise the biofuel vehicle sector; observes further that this decision will lead to a dependence on lithium producing countries and their exporting companies; notes that it will also lead to higher electricity consumption and new ways of consumers ‘fuelling’ their vehicles; asks the Commission and Member States to ensure competition and price transparency between energy providers for electric vehicle charging stations; notes that a lack of competition may lead to consumers paying higher rates than necessary to charge their vehicles;
Amendment 68 #
2022/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that services represent the largest economic sector in the European Union and have still not yet reached their competitive potential and the level of the single market for goods; beli; believes howevesr that the work to remove remaining obstacles should be accelerated andsupport Europe's industrial sectors should be accelerated before acting on the disproportionate obstacles to the establishing of a single market for services fully established;
Amendment 38 #
2022/2058(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 54 #
2022/2058(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 62 #
2022/2058(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. The continued use of traditional European standards on consumer products is essential to ensure that they can be understood by purchasers, for the measurement of speed (km/h), weight (kg), temperature (°C) or dates (30 January 2023), for example. It must be remembered that a number of EU partners such as the United States and the United Kingdom use other standards (°F, miles, 2023-01-30). Dates and times on computers and other items sold in Europe should be displayed in accordance with the configurations used in the Member State or European Union.
Amendment 103 #
2022/2058(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the focus on national- level involvement of wider stakeholders in standardisation activities; notes that not all organisations listed in Annex III have national counterparts in the Member States; considers that the Commission may direct funding or technical support to those organisations to ensurcommunicate with those organisations and offer them technical support to encourage participation in national standardisation activities, including not only technical work on standards, but also the preparation of positions vis-à-vis standardisation requests at the European and international levels, thereby reinforcing the inclusivity of the process as a whole;
Amendment 130 #
2022/2058(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises that prioritising standardisation matters in cooperation with third countries in bi-, multi- and pluri- lateral settings is also important to ensure that like-minded, inclusive approaches towards standardisation can prevail at international level; encourages, in this regard, the Commission and the CSO to develop key performance indicators to monitor commitments on standardisation between the Union and third countries;
Amendment 8 #
2022/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas every human being has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; whereas this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium and regardless of borders; whereas democracies can only function when citizens have access to independent information; whereas media freedom and pluralism are crucial components of the right to freedom of expression and information; whereas key democratic tasks of the media include strengthening transparency and democratic accountability; whereas journalists play an essential, as the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled, this freedom applies not only to information or ideas which are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those which offend, shock or disturb; whereas the media cannot thus be required to play a role in the promoting democratic values, human rights and fundamental freedomson of any given political ideas or values, since such a role, especially if supported by the public authorities, would in reality be tantamount to propaganda work, which would be contrary to the freedom and plurality of public debate;
Amendment 18 #
2022/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas states have obligations to safeguard the fundamental rights associated with journalists, such as the right to freedom of expression and opinion, the right to life and the right to personal dignity; whereas international human rights law establishes that the protection of journalists includes preventing all forms of discrimination without distinction of any kind, including race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, and property, birth or other status; whereas journalists must enjoy this protection, not as a special privilege of their profession, but by virtue of their participation in public debate in accordance with the fundamental right of expression enjoyed by all human beings;
Amendment 59 #
2022/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas there is a conceptual difficulty surrounding the notion of the 'truth' of a fact, in particular because of the various perspectives and consequences in which a fact can be grasped and the various meanings or interpretations that can be attached to it without however making it untruthful or misleading;
Amendment 65 #
2022/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas according to the Commission, political journalism is particularly at risk, as social shocks or crises often serve as instigators for government measures to constrain media freedom, pluralism and independence; whereas the notions of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' are used to support, even when at adds with the truth, the logic behind crackdowns against professional or citizen journalists who challenge the political thinking or action of an authority;
Amendment 85 #
2022/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas the spread of misinformation, fake news, propaganda and disinformation, notions that are by their nature complex to define and subject to acts of political instrumentalisation, creates a climate of global scepticism among the population with regard to information in general, which exposes journalists to distrust and poses a threat to freedom of information, democratic debate and the independence of the media, and has increased the need for high-quality media sources;
Amendment 92 #
2022/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that every human being has the right to freedom of opinion and expression and that this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium and regardless of borders; recalls the essential role thatat this freedom applies not only to information or ideas which are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those which offend, shock or disturb; takes the view, therefore, that affording journalists playa role in promoting democratic values, human rights and fundamental freedomsany given political ideas or values would undermine this freedom by letting the public authorities determine which opinions are valid and which are worthy of censure;
Amendment 101 #
2022/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls the essential role played by political and investigative journalists in fighting against human rights violations by performing their role as watchdogs for democracy and the rule of lawcontributing to public political debate through the collection of reliable and relevant information, thereby exposing state repression, corruption, criminal networks and all kind of human rights abuses, which ensures the necessary checks and balances to hold persons in power to account; highlights the fact that these activities put journalists at increased personal risk; strongly rejects any attempt to entrust journalists with any 'mission' as 'guardians' of any given political views, which would destroy the plurality of public debate in a given field;
Amendment 137 #
2022/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Underlines the conceptual difficulties associated with the notions of the 'objectivity' or 'truth' of facts, which can be seen from various perspectives and to different extents, and can be interpreted differently depending on the intellectual context in which they are placed; stresses the need to exercise extreme caution when legislating on issues such as disinformation or the manipulation of facts with a view to ensuring that such legislation cannot become an instrument with which to restrict political expression;
Amendment 1 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Conference on the Future of Europe served as an unprecedented platform for discussion between citizens and politicians andartificial project to bypass democratic institutions and has resulted in concrepre-written proposals that need to be honoured even if they necessitated Treaty changesreacted with indifference; notes with regret that the process was fundamentally undemocratic, lacked transparency, legitimacy and is not binding in any legal sense;
Amendment 20 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas honouring those recommendations would make the Union a stronger and more visible global player, would lead to more efficient decision- making and would improve the European Parliament’s scrutiny rights in the field of foreign policy being the only democratically elected institution of the Unionuper State;
Amendment 38 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for the main citizens’ recommendations in the field of foreign and security policy, notably the need to switch to more efficient decision-making, through the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) instead of unanimity, and the need to improve the Union’s methods to impose sanctions, not to be incorporated in a Treaty change; calls the European institutions to stop bypassing the citizens of the Member States by seeking to emancipate themselves from their main means of expression: the vote;
Amendment 42 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that Article 48(7) and Article 31(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) contain passerrelle clauses that can make switching from unanimity to qualified majority voting possible in the area of common foreign and security policy (CFSP) without military implications; calls for a switch toto maintain QMV in all decisions in the field of CFSP, notably those concerning sanctions and human rights, as the passerelle clauses have never been used due to the lack of political will;
Amendment 59 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 61 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for an amendment ofstrengthening Article 42 TEU that would allow switchingin order to preinforced QMV, requiring 72% of Council members representing at least 65% of population,serve the unanimity rule in the Council, which is the only way to respect national sovereignty, especially for decisions with military implications;
Amendment 69 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the need to strengthen the role of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Unioat Member States remain free to determine their own for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and to ensure that the Union speaks with one voice, as requested by the citizens of the Union in the Conference on the Future of Europe; points out that his can be done through a Treaty change that would name the Vice-President/High Representative a foreign minister of the Union, would make him or her the main external representative of the Union in international fora and would allow him or her to be present ex-officio in negotiating formats initiated or led by thepolicy and that an increased role for the European Union and its bodies in this regard would severely undermine the sovereignty of Member States;
Amendment 79 #
2022/2051(INL)
5. Considers it necessary to broaden the scope of threats defined in the mutual defence clause stipulated in Article 42(7) TEU to include hybrid threats, disinformation campaigns and economic coercion by third countriepotential threats from countries presented as like-minded partners;
Amendment 88 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Requests the strengthening ofat the role of Union delegations in the implementation of foreign policy by amending the wording of Article 221 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) not be strengthened as this would create unnecessary duplication of actions in countries where Member States already have diplomatic representation;
Amendment 103 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for inclusion of the principle of “strategic autonomy” not to be included into the list of objectives to be achieved through the Union’s foreign and security policy enshrined in Article 21 TEU, since the term is vague and has not been adequately defined;
Amendment 104 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for inclusion of the principle of “strategic autonomy” of the Member States into the list of objectives to be achieved through the Union’s foreign and security policy enshrined in Article 21 TEU;
Amendment 114 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for the introduction of provisions in Articles 42 and 46 TEU enabling the joint procurement of defence equipment and other security-related spending from the budget of the Union as well as the establishment of joint military units and command structures;
Amendment 31 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 43 a (new)
Citation 43 a (new)
— having regard tο the United Nations Security Council Resolutions concerning Cyprus,
Amendment 34 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Europe is facing the most complex combination of both military and non-military threats since the end of the Cold War accentuated by Russia’s unjustified and illegal war against Ukraine; and the ongoing illegal Turkish occupation of 38% of the Republic of Cyprus; whereas this requires the EU to enhance the effectiveness of its security and defence policy to defend its interests and values; whereas the Strategic Compass aims to equip the EU with the necessary tools to make it an effective security provider and an assertive global actor; whereas there is a new urgency to boosting EU security and defence capabilities, including building on the unprecedented support for Ukraine and including the use of the EPF;
Amendment 111 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights the dramatic deterioration in European security accelerated by Russia’s unjustified and illegal war against Ukraine and the ongoing illegal occupation in Cyprus; stresses that this situation demands that the EU step up its defence capacities and show greater willingness to act in order to deliver the security expected by the EU’s citizens; underlines the unprecedented and united EU response to Russia’s war against Ukraine, including the provision of military equipment through the EPF; remains committed to supporting Ukraine’s defence of its territorial integrity and sovereignty;the defence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of every EU Member State, as well as Ukraine's; calls on the EU to provide a timeline of one year for the complete withdrawal of Turkey's troops from the Republic of Cyprus, before the activation of Article 42, Paragraph 7 TEU, aiming to provide military assistance to the Republic of Cyprus in order to liberate its occupied northern part; moreover, calls on the EU to sustain its efforts and provide Ukraine with all necessary financial, humanitarian and military aid;
Amendment 129 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines the need for solidarity among Member States, especially with those whose geographical position leaves them directly exposed to various imminent threats and challenges to land, sea and air;
Amendment 189 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. CRecalls on Member States to assess the reform of the decision-making process with a view to realising untapped potential within the Treaties, in particular by activating Article 31 TEU extending qualified majority voting (QMV) to areas relating to the CSDP and pursuing full use of the ‘passerelle clauses’ and scope of articles that enhance EU solidarity and mutual assistance in the event of crises; proposes changes to the Treaties in the CSDP, to be discussed and decided upon within a convention following up on the Conference on the Future of Europe, primarily focusing on switching from unanimity to QMVthat foreign policy and defence policies remain the sole responsibility of the Member States and, in this context, recalls that unanimity voting must remain the rule for Council decisions with military implications and on defence matters for situations where passerelle clauses do not apply;
Amendment 225 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Amendment 275 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the need to significantly raise the ceiling of the EPF and create a separate EPF envelope for Ukraine which guarantees adequate support for the country without systematically neglecting other priority regions, including Africa; calls for significantly increased military support in all its aspects, including training and information sharing with other particularly vulner to tackle instability in Africa and the Middle East, in particular by increasing cooperation with stable countries such as the Republic of Moldova, Georgia and Western Balkan countMorocco and Egypt in order to prevent future destabilisation and new migration crises; calls for all EPF support for the provision of equipment to be carried out in coordination with NATO to increase efficiency and avoid unnecessary duplication;
Amendment 287 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Expresses deep concern about developments in the Sahel region and the recent coups d’état in the region; condemns the increasing presence of the Kremlin- backed Wagner Groupparamilitary groups and local militias in the Sahel; firmly believes that the latter’s involvement of these groups in West Africa runs counter to the objective of bringing peace, security and stability to the region; acknowledges that the various international missions have not yet achieved their primary goal of lasting peace in the region and, largely because of a woeful absence of support from most of the Member States for French operations in the region and a lack of EU funding for the Takuba task force, that a reflection process on the mandates and roles of international missions and policies is therefore needed; expresses similar concern over the increased presence and activity of Islamist terrorist groups, in particular Al-Qaeda, Daesh and Al- Shabaab in the Middle East and Africa;
Amendment 400 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Denounces the lack of initiatives to prevent Turkish aggression against the Republic of Cyprus, Greece, Syria, Iraq and Armenia, as well as Turkey's ongoing genocidal acts against 18 million Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq;
Amendment 405 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Underlines the fundamental shared democratic values at the heart of the EU and NATO; calls for the deepening of EU- NATO relations, such as through a third Joint EU-NATO Declaration; underlines the need to strongly upgrade the strategic partnership with NATO to base it on the strengthening of political unity and solidarity and enhanced , while pointing out that values cannot be placed above the interests of EU citizens in foreign policy and defence issues; stresses that the expansion of military alliances further ramps up geopolitical dialogue tensions all aspects of common challenges and strategically relevant issues; encourages coordinated responses in conflict prevention and crisis management mechanisms to counter emerging common threatsnd is therefore harmful to European citizens; stresses that diplomacy and search for compromise should always be preferred to military options when it comes to resolving geopolitical problems with other actors in the field;
Amendment 408 #
2022/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Underlines the fundamental shared democratic values at the heart of the EU and NATO; calls for the deepening of EU- NATO relations, such as through a third Joint EU-NATO Declaration; underlines the need to strongly upgrade the strategic partnership with NATO to base it on the strengthening of political unity and solidarity and enhanced political dialogue on all aspects of common challenges and strategically relevant issues; encourages coordinated responses in conflict prevention and crisis management mechanisms to counter emerging common threats; expresses its concerns about the irrational and anti-institutional stance of the NATO Secretary General, who favours the Turkish military aggression against Greece and Cyprus;
Amendment 75 #
2022/2049(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Insists that the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms must be the cornerstone of the Union’s external policy; sStrongly encourages the Union, to that end, to strive for a continued ambitious commitment to make the protection of human rights a central part of all EU policies in a streamlined manner and to enhance the consistency between the EU’s internal and external policies in this field;
Amendment 139 #
2022/2049(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes with regret that the post of the EU Special Envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the EU has remained vacant for more than a year; reiterates its call for the Council and the Commission to carry out a transparent and comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and added value of the position of the Special Envoy as part of renewing and reinforcing its mandate, to provide the Special Envoy with adequate resources, and to adequately support the Special Envoy’s institutional mandate, capacity and duties; recalls that the Special Envoy’s duties should focus on promoting freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, and the rights to non-belief, apostasy and the espousal of atheistic views, as well as the protection of the Christian communities, which appear to be the most persecuted in the world;
Amendment 167 #
2022/2049(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Welcomes the fact that the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime has been increasingly used as an essential tool that strengthens the EU’s role as a global human rights actor through the use of targeted sanctions by the Council; calls for the restrictive measures that have already been adopted to be implemented effectively and in full, and for the adoption of additional measures if necessary; reiterates its request for a legislative proposal to extend the scope of the GHRSR to include acts of corruption or, alternatively, for a proposal for a new thematic sanctions regime against serious acts of corruption in order to effectively target the economic and financial enablers of human rights abusers; reiterates its call for the introduction of qualified majority voting for the Council’s decisions and implementation of sanctions under the GHRSR; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to strive to incorporate Parliament’s recommendations for future targeted sanctions, as stipulated in its resolutions and elsewhere;
Amendment 265 #
2022/2049(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Reiterates its principled opposition to the death penalty, which is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and is irreversible; stresses that the EU must be relentless in its pursuit of the universal abolition of the death penalty as a major objective of its human rights foreign policy; calls on all countries that have not yet done so to abolish the death penalty or establish an immediate moratorium as a first step towards its abolition; condemns any incidents of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and deplores the fact that they continue to be common in many countries, including democratic and allied countries; notes with great concern the trend of increasing instances of torture worldwide and widespread impunity of its perpetrators;
Amendment 266 #
2022/2049(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Is deeply concerned about the long- term negative consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on both the general state of democracy and human rights worldwide; highlights the disproportionate adverse impact on groups in most vulnerable situations, including women, children, persons with disabilities, elderly, LGBTIQ persons, impoverished people, persons belonging to ethnic, belief and religious minorities, refugees and migrants and persons in prison or detention; praises the role that human rights defenders and journalists have played, sometimes even risking their lives, in reporting or attempting to prevent human rights violations during the pandemic;
Amendment 322 #
2022/2049(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Recalls that parents are the first educators of their children and expresses concern about the restrictions recently introduced in Europe on the freedom of education, and home-schooling in particular;
Amendment 385 #
2022/2049(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Notes, with concern, that some Member States seriously undermined the religious freedom of their citizens by prohibiting the holding of religious services during the COVID-19 crisis;
Amendment 423 #
2022/2049(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Reaffirms the inalienable human rights of migrants, refugees and forcibly displaced persons, which must be reflected in the EU’s migration policy and in its cooperation with third countries in this area; stresses that the EU should step up its efforts to acknowledge and develop ways to address the root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement, building the resilience of migrants’ communities of origin and helping them offer their members the possibility to enjoy a decent life in their home country; calls for the EU and its Member States to continue and where possible step up their support for countries hosting most refugees, as well as transit countries; reiterates that close cooperation and engagement with third countries remain key to preventing migrant smuggling; stresses, in this regard, that the dissemination of information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of smuggling is crucial; calls for EU- funded humanitarian operations to take into consideration the specific needs and vulnerabilities of children and to ensure their protection while they are displaced; underlines the importance of developing an effective framework of safe and legal pathways to the EU and welcomes, in this regard, the Commission communication on attracting skills and talent to the EU13 , including the development of Talent Partnerships with partner countries; _________________ 13 Commission communication of 27 April 2022 on attracting skills and talent to the EU (COM(2022)0657).
Amendment 436 #
2022/2049(INI)
38. Recalls its commitment to the rights of refugees, as provided by international human rights and refugee laws, in particular the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto; recalls the obligations of states to protect refugees and respect their rights in accordance with the relevant international law, but emphasises that these rights have to be balanced with the rights of the citizens of the Member States; notes with concern that the number of people forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations or events seriously disturbing public order reached an unprecedented 89 million by the end of 2021, 36.5 million of whom are children; stresses, in this context, that international action and cooperation is more essential than ever to ensure protection for refugees;
Amendment 1 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
Amendment 21 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, 48 years following the illegal Turkish invasion and occupation of 38% of the Republic of Cyprus from Turkey, the unprovoked and unjustified military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine has brought war back to the European continent, has seriously undermined European and global security, has created economic uncertainty, has led to a spike in energy prices, has considerable potential to further destabilise many non-EU countries and has therefore significantly changed the geopolitical context of the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP);
Amendment 24 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the unprovoked and unjustified military aggression by the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine has once again brought war back to the European continent after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the wars in former Yugoslavia, has seriously undermined European and global security, has created economic uncertainty, has led to adisrupted food chains, has worsened the spike in energy prices, has considerable potential to further destabilise many non-EU countries and has therefore significantly changed the geopolitical context of the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP);
Amendment 34 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine was a wake-up call for the European Union, presenting a real threat to European security and creating momentum to achieve a geopolitical redefinition of the CFSP; whereas it is also an opportunity for the Member Stinternational events such as the war in Ukraine should not be used as a pretext for expanding the competences and capacities of the European Union beyond the mechanisms laid down by the Treaties to show the political will to transform the CFSP into a fully fledged European policyand without first implementing the usual democratic consultation process;
Amendment 80 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 91 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – indent 1
Paragraph 4 – indent 1
- strengthening the EU’s institutional and decision-making arrangements inmaintaining unanimity in the Council in respect of decisions concerning issues of foreign and, security and defence policy,
Amendment 103 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – indent 3
Paragraph 4 – indent 3
- building partnerships for a better world based on the interests of the EU Member States,
Amendment 112 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the remarkable level of unity and resolve in responding swiftly and forcefully to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukrainassiduity of the EU Member States in reacting to the invasion of Ukraine; calls for continued coordination between the Member States to limit the adverse effects of the war and for a peaceful solution to the conflict to be found as swiftly as possible;
Amendment 124 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point a
Paragraph 6 – point a
(a) switching progressively to qualified majority voting for decisions in areas of the CFSP that do not have military or defence implications, as well as for other EU external policy tools such as the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, by using the passerelle clauses provided for in the Treatiesretaining the principle of unanimity in the Council for all decisions in areas of the CFSP;
Amendment 177 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and the grave and massive violation of human rights and the fundamental norms of international law, following the pattern of the illegal occupation of 38% of the land of the Republic of Cyprus, have highlighted the need for stronger, more ambitious, credible, strategic and unified EU action on the world stage, and accentuated the necessity for the EU to autonomously set its own strategic objectives and develop the capabilities to pursue them;
Amendment 183 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the shift in the Member States’ approaches, moving towards creating more EU strategic sovereignty by adopting the Versailles Declaration of 11 March 2022 and the Strategic Compass on 21 March 2022, which highlight the need to strengthen EU defence capabilities and to contribute positively to global and transatlantic security, in close collaboration with NATO, and demands an independent enquiry to shed light on the incidents in the Nord Stream I and II gas pipelines, which constitute extremely serious attacks on the interests of the Member States and pose significant economic risks at a time of global energy crisis;
Amendment 199 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 224 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Underlines the importance of stepping up the EU’s efforts, in cooperation with NATO and other international partners, to address hybrid threats, cyberattacks, disinformation and propaganda campaigns; notes that these threats emanate from all the main global geopolitical actors;
Amendment 229 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Underlines the importance of stepping up the EU’s efforts, in cooperation with NATO and otherevery relevant international partners, to address hybrid threats, the weaponization of illegal migration, cyberattacks, disinformation and propaganda campaigns;
Amendment 313 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. CallIs con the Commission and the VP/HR to establish strategic cooperation with Taiwan; cerned about the announcements made within the framework of the Strategic Compass concerning future European naval exercises in the South China Sea that could needlessly worsen tensions in the region; stresses their belligerent nature, contrary to the aim of promoting peace that is enshrined in Article 3(1) TEU;
Amendment 332 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Underlines that the EU is committed to a free, open and rules-based Indo-Pacific region; reiterates that the EU’s new Indo-Pacific Strategy needs to be implemented swiftly, as it offers our partners in theIs concerned about the desire to make the EU a participant in the struggles for influence in the South China Sea; is alarmed by the EU’s lack of means and capacity to support such ambitions; underlines that, of all the Member States, only France has territories and therefore actual interests in the Indo-Pacific region, an opportunity to address the common challenges together, to defend the rules-based international order and to stand up for the values and principles we shared that the EU should not assume France’s international political interests at the expense of its own, nor take the place of France’s own mechanisms, authorities or personnel;
Amendment 353 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Points out that relations with India are deepening through the ongoing trade negotiations; questions the effectiveness of sanctions on Russian hydrocarbons if the EU buys Russian oil from India at exorbitant prices;
Amendment 356 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Acknowledges that the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine is having a negative impacMaintains its opposition to any future enlargement onf the Eastern Partnership countries first and foremost; calls for the EU institutions and the Member States to engage in a thorough reflection on a reform of the Eastern Partnership policyU, particularly involving unstable, war-torn or secession-ridden countries;
Amendment 395 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Reiterates its strong support for the European future of the Western Balkans; calls on the Member States to renew their commitment to enlargement by delivering on the EU’s commitments towards the Western Balkan countries, in particular byIs opposed to any enlargement of the EU and concerned about the risk of migration that may be triggered by the lifting of visa requirements for Kosovo citizens; welcomes the start of accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia; welcomes the European Council’s readiness to grant candidate status to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and urges the country’s political actors to show commitment and make significant steps towards EU membership by advancing on the 14 key priorities and implementing the substthe states of the Western Balkans, including Kosovo and Albantial set of reforms;
Amendment 418 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Condemns in the strongest possible terms the Turkish illegal invasion and occupation of 38% of the Republic of Cyprus and calls on the Turkish leadership to end it immediately and withdraw unconditionally from the Republic of Cyprus and any other country whose territory, or parts thereof, it has unlawfully occupied; urges the international community to hold Turkey accountable for the countless war crimes and human rights violations its armed forces have perpetrated in Cyprus and elsewhere, and reaffirms that Turkey will have to pay compensation for all of the damage and destruction it has caused in Cyprus;
Amendment 436 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Commends the incremental strengthening of the bilateral relations with Egypt, recognizing its efforts for better protection of human rights, and encouraging further reforms. Commends Egypt's significant contribution to reducing the migration pressure to the EU.
Amendment 450 #
2022/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Condemns the destabilising practices carried out by the Polisario Front, supported by the Algerian regime, in the Maghreb, which threatens the peace and security of the North African region and areas beyond it;
Amendment 15 #
2022/2047(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas culture has major potential to promote the EU’s values, solidify itsEuropean civilisation in all the diversity of the nations of which it is formed and solidify their national identityies and contribute toheritages in order to contribute to its influence and the fulfilment of itsthe objectives of the European Union’s Member States worldwide, as well as addressing global challenges;
Amendment 41 #
2022/2047(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas illiberal andvalues, aulthoritariugh claimed as universal, are increasingly marginalised and regimes attempt to redefine international rules and values by challenging their universality and claiming them to be a weapon of cultural hegemony deployed by the EU; cognised as a weapon of cultural hegemony deployed by the US and the EU under international rules of which they proclaim themselves the guarantors, but which are in reality dictated, interpreted and, where necessary, circumvented by them; whereas such a contention prompts a political reaction by liberal regimes which, in order to conceal the struggle for influence in which they are engaged, have recourse to a rhetoric of demonisation and present their own principles as true and indisputable;
Amendment 86 #
2022/2047(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 108 #
2022/2047(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for an update to the 2016 EU strategy for international cultural relations with a view to establishing a permanent structural and institutional EU dimension and developing and implementing a long- term strategy to be integrated permanently and horizontally within the EU’s external action toolbox.
Amendment 4 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
Citation 17 a (new)
— having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Single Market emergency instrument and repealing Council Regulation No (EC) 2679/98 (COM(2022)0278);
Amendment 12 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas any EU strategy to address the current and possible future shortages should follow a comprehensive approach that takes into consideration the root causes of shortages and includes concrete actions for their prevention;
Amendment 24 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas large increases in commodity prices, higher prices around the globe and a troublesome spike in inflation are expected to further challenge global supply chains; whereas the EU is experiencing the strongest inflation of the last 30 years and is visibly heading for an energy crisis; whereas the war in Ukraine acts as a catalyst to the existing challenges, such as the monetary policy of the European Central Bank (ECB), the politically intended “green inflation” or the price increases resulting from disrupted supply chains due to the excessive lockdown policy;
Amendment 27 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the EU is strategically dependent on external sources of energy, a situation that is undermining the EU’s economic resilience and strategic autonomy; whereas skyrocketing energy prices are a serious threat to the EU’s production and may put further pressure on many supply chains that have already faced disruption; whereas the EU decision to halt all economic cooperation with Russia has worsen its own economic situation considerably, as inflation and energy prices are rising, energy supply is not secured, and risks in production failures increase the possibilities of insolvencies and job losses;
Amendment 34 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas even though the EU must gain more strategic independenceautonomy in different fields, including agricultural products, critical raw materials, semiconductors, medicines and health products, new digital technologies and energy production, this independence has not yet been achieved;
Amendment 37 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. Whereas Covid-19 restrictions, the Russian naval blockade and other external accidents as the Suez Canal obstruction have highlighted how much trade is dependent on transport; whereas transport and logistics management are of crucial importance for the supply of products, not least given the increasing degree of complexity of the transport chain;
Amendment 39 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
E b. Whereas long term reliable supply chains should be environmentally, socially and economically sustainable; whereas a growing number of EU businesses have already taken voluntary initiatives to deploy due diligence processes; whereas EU businesses may face difficulties in this challenging time in matching the need to find new suppliers in a short time and the obligation to screen their production methods;
Amendment 41 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) account for 99 % of all EU businesses, 65 % of all EU jobs and more than 50 % of the EU’s economic output from the non-financial sector; whereas the lack of coordination and coherence among the large number of EU support actions designed for SMEs hinders their participation in the global supply chains and as a consequence their contribution to international trade;
Amendment 53 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that it is crucial to respond to the possible negative consequences of any external shocks with a coordinated approach at national and EU level; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring the supply chains, especially those which are at higher risk, and to develop a multifaceted strategy for each sector or product concerned in order to be able to promptly address current and future shortages; recalls the importance of avoiding passing from a given dependency to another dependency;
Amendment 64 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the COVID-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine have highlighted the EU agricultural sector’s dependence on imports from a small number of countries, especially in the case of wheat and ammonium, which is essential for fertilisers; notes that many non-EU countries have imposed food export restrictions as a response to the crisis; recalls that the EU should be much more autonomous in primary sector products in order to guarantee its security and avoid dependence on third parties; with a view to ensuring a self-sufficient, fair, resilient and sustainable agricultural model anchored in EU territories; stresses the need to recognize and promote the food sovereignty of EU Member States and their right to regulate their imports, exports and stocks to secure their own needs while keeping an open trade policy;
Amendment 77 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. SUnderlines that the EU is highly dependent on only few countries for critical raw materials, in particular on China which currently provides 98% of the EU’s supply of rare earth elements (REE); stresses that the war in Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions on Russia have increased the difficulty of sourcing raw materials; takes note of the announcement of the forthcoming publication of the Critical Raw Materials Act during the 2022 State of the Union address; calls on the Member States and the Commission to enhance EU capacity for extraction, processing, recycling and refining of those critical raw materials present in the EU; underlines the importance to ensure the respect of high social, environmental and labour standards in the mining activities not only in the EU, but also in partner countries;
Amendment 113 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that medical supply chains can be strengthened by investing in skills, building health data infrastructure, and supporting regulatory framework and intellectual property policies that foster innovation and ensure affordable medicines; asks for the fast and transparent implementation of a database at EU level that could improve the coordination among Member States; calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of reshoring the production for essential medicines and active pharmaceutical ingredients to the EU; underlines the difficulties that a broad range of the pharmaceutical industries face in receiving EU funds related to R&D and production investments which are key to ensure that their products can respond to tomorrow’s needs;
Amendment 117 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. New digital technologies Underlines that new digital technologies are transforming digital trade facilitating new business models and reducing the geographical barriers of economic transactions; regrets that the EU is highly dependent on third countries for services such as edge and cloud computing whichare crucial to increase Europe’s data sovereignty as outlined in the EU DigitalStrategy; calls on the EU and the Member States to create favorable conditions for major investments in the research, development and deployment of next generation cloud and edge technologies; emphasizes that the brain- drain and the sell-off of technology industries to third countries must be prevented by appropriate trade policy and other measures, as technological knowledge must be preserved within the EU;
Amendment 119 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. a.Energy production Hopes that the REPowerEU Plan will effectively respond to the energy market disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine; calls on the Commission for the suspension of the Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) Directive in order to reduce energy expenditure in the medium term; calls on the Member States to restore security of energy supply through the unrestricted use of coal-fired and nuclear power plants in the EU; calls on the Commission to update the Energy Taxation Directive to enable the abolition of the energy and electricity tax in the medium term;
Amendment 126 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Takes note of the Commission proposal on the Single Market emergency instrument hoping that it can be useful to effectively respond to emergency situations in a coordinated manner in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the Single Market and the preservation of EU competitiveness;
Amendment 129 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the development of an EU toolbox of autonomous trade instruments, including an anti-coercion instrument, the foreign-direct-investment screening mechanism, the foreign subsidies instrument and the international procurement instrument as well as the creation of the post of Chief Trade Enforcement Officer (CTEO) to respond to these emerging challenges and protect EU competitiveness;
Amendment 135 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises that the continuing rise in the cost of bureaucracy, particularly as a result of national or EU legislation such as the Supply Chain Act, places a particular burden on the export industry, which is dominated by SMEsfuture directive on Due Diligence or the German Supply Chain Act, places a particular burden on industries, in particular on SMEs; calls on the Commission to introduce a moratorium on bureaucracy and to postpone legislative projects that cause additional bureaucratic costs for businesses; calls for a so-called “bureaucracy brake” and to widen the "one in, one out" principle to a "one in, two out" rule in the medium term in order to effectively cut red tape;
Amendment 138 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Underlines that should be a priority for the EU to harmonize the existing instruments in support to SMEs to increase their awareness on the opportunities and risks of the international trade;
Amendment 139 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. Calls on the Member States to work towards a back stock of materials and increase transparency of supply chains by spending data, N-tier mapping, or both, as many of today’s most pressing supply shortages such as semiconductors occur in supplier sub-tiers; calls for national risk mitigation plans including finding new suppliers, redesigning networks, resetting inventory targets, keeping safety stocks, and sourcing locally or regionally
Amendment 141 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that in cooperation with the Member States and international partners, the EU must guarantee freedom of the sea and trade routes and thus ensure access to raw materials, energy and export markets; calls on the Member States to get capacity on alternative routes in case logistics disruptions are likely as well as simulate the effects of regional demand shifts on production, examine the risks in supplier networks, labour, manufacturing, and delivery to determine if any part of the value chain is exposed to internal or external disruptions, and set up controls to minimize their effects;
Amendment 146 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Underlines that enhancing EU industrial production capacities through dedicated public policies and favorable economic, social and environmental conditions would help to secure supplies and boost EU competitiveness;
Amendment 151 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls for the shortening of supply chains, in combination with other instruments, and the relocation to the EU of EU businesses’ production facilities in countries outside the blocwhich would lead to a reduction in emissions cause by transport, the improvement of the functioning of the internal market and the reduction of administrative barriers simultaneously; calls on the Member States and the Commission to provide financial incentives to EU businesses for reshoring their production facilities back to the EU;
Amendment 161 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Calls on the Member States to stimulate and plan for extreme supply- and-demand disruptions, such as ordering components earlier than usual and allowing extra time for delivery, accounting for the higher cost of energy, materials, and transportation, and checking inventories of critical materials to reprioritize production should shortages seem inevitable;
Amendment 166 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that the circular economy action plan is intended to help the EU to reduce its dependence on external players so as to support strategic autonomy in a wide range of sectors, including mining; emphasizes that this is an ongoing process and strategic autonomy is far from achieved;
Amendment 175 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Believes that free trade agreements (FTAs) may be crucial to diversifying sources of supply and reducing the EU’s dependence on just a few countries; calls foron the EU to prioritise strategic FTAs, in particular with countries rich in raw materials such Chile, Australia, and India, with a particular focus on chapters on raw materials and energy, technical barriers to trade and regulatory cooperation; unterlines that a Bilateral Investment Agreement (BIA) with Taiwan will enhance supply-chain resilience in the semiconductor industry;
Amendment 182 #
2022/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes the launch of the EU-US Trade and Technology Council (TTC) in June 2021 and the EU-India agreement on launching a trade and technology council in April 2022; regards these initiatives as meaningful forums for addressing new challenges in the areas of trade, technology and security; calls on the Commission to include in the future EU-India TTC a working group dedicated to “secure supply chains” as in the case of the EU- US TTC in order to share good practices and find common solutions to common external dependencies; underlines that the decision taken at this level are not legally binding since the Commission has not any mandate to negotiate;
Amendment 2 #
2022/2038(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. Whereas the Secretariat of the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) is staffed and hosted by the Commission diminishing its independence;
Amendment 3 #
2022/2038(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
A b. Whereas only the strict maintenance of responsibilities and competences of the Member States can guarantee the success of the European media policy;
Amendment 4 #
2022/2038(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
A c. Whereas media policy is not mentioned in the relevant catalogues of exclusive or shared competences assigned to the EU under primary Union law;
Amendment 7 #
2022/2038(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the importance of the proper implementation of the Directive; regrets that not all Member States have done this and encourages them to do so urgently;
Amendment 14 #
2022/2038(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Underlines that the strategy of the Commission to harmonise legislation in the field of media, a policy area where the EU clearly lacks competences, by feigning internal market considerations is unacceptable; emphasises that the concept of freedom of establishment has to be interpreted narrowly and must by no ways serve as a general authorisation to legislate in other policy areas for which there is no clear competence; notes that any regulatory approach that would limit entrepreneurial freedom in the internal market would not be compatible with the internal market concept of Article 26 TFEU, which aims at progress towards cross-border freedom of development;
Amendment 23 #
2022/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that, in order to strengthen the single market, it is necessary to carry out a digital transformation that inensure the development of an independent European single market, it is necessary to provide for a revision of European competition law and thus creaseste the availability of online public services; recalls that eGovernment facilitates relationships with citizens, businesses, employees and governments, and calls for the establishment of a European digital identityconditions conducive to the emergence of strategic European digital sectors; regrets that Member States rely on private solutions from third countries when drawing up national cloud strategies;
Amendment 25 #
2022/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that in order to strengthen the single market, it is necessary to carry out a digital transformation that increases the availability of online public services; recalls that eGovernment facilitates relationships with citizens, businesses, employees and governments, and calls for the establishment of a European digital identity;
Amendment 31 #
2022/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Firmly bBelieves that the further development of digital public services can significantly contribute to the reduction of administrative barriers for entrepreneurs, especially micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs); calls on Member States to redouble their efforts to further digitalise public services without that meaning that citizens of Member States who so wish cannot avail themselves of those services in a traditional and non- digitalised manner; stresses the importance of not sacrificing public services that are accessible in a non- computerised manner, but, rather, of allowing easy and rapid access to such public services;
Amendment 34 #
2022/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the provision of digital public services implies the use of personal data, and therefore calls on the Commission and Member States to pay special attention to the protection of citizens’ personal data, including in connection with data transfer agreements with third countries; calls on the Commission not to compromise the high level of personal-data protection to which Member State citizens are entitled; calls on the Commission to foster the development of sovereign European digital infrastructure guaranteeing that the rights of European users, and the security of their data, will be protected;
Amendment 42 #
2022/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that broadband internet coverage, especially on islands and in rural areas, is of key importance for the development of eGovernment; calls on the Commission, therefore, to complete the necessary infrastructure for broadband internet access in cooperation with the Member States; highlights the high cybersecurity risks with regard to submarine cables in particular; calls on Member States to redouble their efforts to protect them;
Amendment 46 #
2022/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that without improvements to digital skills and digital literacy, as well as an awareness of Member States' extreme dependence on third countries and the means to rectify that, the European digital single market cannot be built; invites the Commission, therefore, to robustly implement the Digital Education Action Plan;
Amendment 54 #
2022/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 85 #
2022/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative to create a European data space for public procurement as a cornerstone of the future public procurement data strategy; regrets the lack of any European ambition to foster the emergence of world-class data centres and sovereign clouds in the Member States; considers that improved publication of procurement data above and below EU thresholds as well as better quality and aligned data sources and formats will particularly help the Commission in this task;
Amendment 100 #
2022/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative to create European data spaces in various sectors, including health, justice and public procurement; considers it crucial for these data spaces to be interoperable so that consumers and entrepreneurs, especially SMEs, can achieve their full potential; points out that the interoperability of data spaces should be the starting point for all future digitalisation strategies; calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal as soon as possible that will ensure the interoperability of data spaces in the European single market;
Amendment 31 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the video games industry employed 86 953 people in 2019, of whom around 20% were women; 3a; _________________ 3a ISFE, Europe’s Video Games Industry, ISFE-EGDF Key Facts, 2021.
Amendment 45 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas spending excessive amounts of time playing online video games, in the absence of appropriate safeguards, can create addictions and lead to ‘gaming disorder’, and can also lead to consumer-protection related issues as well as mechanisms that can be reminiscent of electronic forms of gambling, in particular with regard to minors;
Amendment 55 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas monetized video games may have very few consumer protection guarantees, which could pose financial risks for users and, in the case of minors, parents and those legally responsible for their actions;
Amendment 56 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Recital F b (new)
Fb. whereas the control and verification tools set up for accessing online video games may lack efficiency, particularly when it comes to verifying with absolute certainty players’ age;
Amendment 68 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas, with regard to the psychosocial effects of certain reward mechanisms, children are more at risk to develop habits in response to certain stimuli;
Amendment 70 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the European video games industry represented a market size of EUR 23.3 billion in 2020 and is still growing8a; whereas, since 2015, digital revenues have increased threefold and account for more than half of European market revenues; _________________ 8a ISFE, Europe’s Video Games Industry, ISFE-EGDF Key Facts, 2021
Amendment 73 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas the industry has historically generated revenue from the sale of video games but has been rapidly shifting to purely digital services sold through online storefronts, leading the grounds for new and complex business models; whereas one of the currently predominant business models is represented by in-game purchases that unlock digital content in the video game environment;
Amendment 77 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K b (new)
Recital K b (new)
Kb. whereas the video games industry represents an important and rapidly growing segment of the creativity sector in Europe, which has historically lagged behind in the emergence of 'European champions' within the global digital sector;
Amendment 92 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the measures taken to better protect consumers; notes, however, the need for a single, coordinated approach between Member States in order to avoid fragmentation of the single market and to protect European consumers;
Amendment 104 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the development and implementation of parental-control tools that help to filter content and video games by age, monitor time spent playing games, disable or limit online spending and restrict communications with others or the viewing of content created by other players; notes, however, that parents may find it difficult to use such tools, which reduces their effectiveness; calls for mechanisms to be put in place to exercise stricter parental control over the amount of time and money children spend on games, among other thingsstresses that instructions for effective use of parental control should be made user-friendly, accessible and clear;
Amendment 108 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that some video games offer their users the possibility to pay, sometimes even with real money, in order to obtain rewards through loot boxesbuy in-game currencies and to obtain randomized rewards through loot boxes; stresses that the use of in-game currencies constitutes an additional transaction layer that abstracts the real-world cost of the virtual item;
Amendment 115 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Observes that generally the ownership of in-game currencies does not guarantee the right of refund nor the right of withdrawal for consumers, notably given the complicated licensing agreements through which video games companies often grant themselves the power to unilaterally change contractual clauses;
Amendment 145 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that consumers should have all the necessary information about an online video game before starting to play it, as well as during the game, in terms of the multiple options for possible purchases while playing and other information that may be considered to be of interest; observes in particular that clear information shall be provided to consumers in advertising materials on what to expect from in-game purchases and how they affect gameplay;
Amendment 153 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points out that in cases where algorithmic decision-making is employed in video games, particularly when it aims at influencing user behaviour, consumers shall be explicitly informed;
Amendment 171 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Stresses that, when adopting regulatory action, the Commission shall prioritize banning misleading designs, increasing minors protection and ensuring transactional transparency for in-game purchasing systems;
Amendment 193 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Recalls that children are less able to disentangle costs when presented with virtual currencies and may have problems understanding and taking probabilities into account particularly when it comes to randomized rewards;
Amendment 215 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Stresses the importance of creating enforceable accessibility standards for consumers affected by disabilities, in particular when minors;
Amendment 250 #
2022/2014(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Calls on the Commission to take advantage of the fitness check to be conducted on digital fairness, as part of the New Consumer Agenda2020, to assess key concepts relevant for the protection of consumer in online video games as vulnerability, deceptive design and monetisation techniques;
Amendment 7 #
2022/2008(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the new Industrial Strategy was updated to reflect the lessons learned from COVID-19, and that this strategy will be key toshould go further in enhancing EU competitiveness and overcoming future challenges, such as Union independence for the most strategic economic sectors; recalls that a strong governance system, European preference and market surveillance are essential in order to relaunch the single market; calls on the Commission to focus on ensuring that the industrial strategy helps remove single market barriers and avoid further fragmentation;
Amendment 8 #
2022/2008(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the new Industrial Strategy was updated to reflect the lessons learned from COVID-19, and that this strategy will be key to enhancing EU competitiveness and overcoming future challenges; recalls that a strong governance system and market surveillance are essential in order to relaunch the single market; calls on the Commission to focus on ensuring that the industrial strategy helps remove single market barriers and avoid further fragmentation;
Amendment 33 #
2022/2008(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the need to strengthen the competitiveness of SMEs and industry by addressing supply risks, dependencies, disruptions and vulnerabilities, especially in the green and digital economies; stresses that effective public procurement will lead to more jobs, growth and innovative investments; recalls that the selection and award criteria should not result in an unreasonable administrative burden, particularly for European micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises;
Amendment 34 #
2022/2008(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the need to strengthen the competitiveness of SMEs and industry by addressing supply risks, dependencies, disruptions and vulnerabilities, especially in the green and digital economies; stresses that public procurement can play an active role in achieving the New Industrial Strategy objectives, such as the emergence of competitive European businesses; stresses that effective public procurement will lead to more jobs, growth and innovative investments;
Amendment 46 #
2022/2008(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates the need to enhance European strategic autonomy by investing in skills, digital infrastructures, particularly for the storage and processing of European user data, and key technologies such as AI, cybersecurity, 5G and 6G, microprocessors and semiconductors, high-performance computing and quantum technologies;
Amendment 55 #
2022/2008(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that developing these key sectors requires that a European preference system be established for local or European production in public procurement contracts in Europe;
Amendment 77 #
2022/2008(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Re-affirms the right of Member States to exclude consultancy firms such as McKinsey, which do not pay any national or European taxes, from their Industrial Strategy public procurement;
Amendment 60 #
2022/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the war in Ukraine has underlined the threat posed by third countries that seek political and economic hegemony in the EU’s neighbourhood to the detriment of the democratic aspirations and territorial integrity of target countries; whereas Russia, China and Iran, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar are all seeking to increase their capacity to exercise political and/or economic hegemony in certain Southern Neighbourhood countries and, therefore, the EU’s capacity-building for fighting disinformation and promoting freedom of the press is crucial; whereas the EU should reaffirm its role as the primary political, economic and democratic anchor for the countries of the Southern Neighbourhood;
Amendment 108 #
2022/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
(b) Address, as a matter of priority, the impact of the war in Ukraine on certain Southern Neighbourhood countries in terms of food security, with particular reference to countries most vulnerable because of their population size, dependence on food imports or economic model; asks the Commission to engage with Parliament on ways to ensure food security for countries in the Southern Mediterranean that face difficulties in this regard and devise a robust policy and assistance response for this purpose without further delay, also building on the Food and Resilience Facility in order to address food security in the regionrecalls that countries in the Middle East and North Africa import almost half their grain from Russia and Ukraine; stresses that sanctions imposed by the West on Russian exports of grain, wheat and fertiliser risk worsening the ongoing food crisis on the African continent; points out that according to FAO estimates, in addition to the 720 to 811 million people already suffering from chronic hunger in 2020, the war in Ukraine could push the number of undernourished people up from 7.6 to 13.1 million in 2022 and 2023;
Amendment 125 #
2022/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
(c) ImplemenNotes that under the NDICI, as a matter of priority, strategies and dedicated programming forwill enable broader youth access to education, vocational training, higher education together with adequate funding for access to education; recalls that youth migration, whether regular or irregular, and professional brain drain are a matter of serious concern to our partners in the region, as well as a serious threat to the longer-term capacity for economic growth and economic viability of Southern Neighbourhood countries; stresses the importance of expanding access to the Erasmus and Erasmus+ programmes for participants from Southern Neighbourhood countries; recalls the importance of circular mobility, including South-to- South exchanges, so that professionals from Southern Neighbourhood countries can have concrete opportunities to further their professional training in the EU and return to their country of origin to share and build knowledge; recalls the importance of mainstreamat the professional brain drain caused by illegal immigration has to be a matter of serious concern to our partners ing the socioeconomic integration of women in the region and of gender equality region, as well as a serious threat to the longer term capacity for economic growth and economic viability of Southern Neighbourhood countries, requiring vigorous and resolute action against illegal immigration, putting all EU policies areas whenever possible stop to the harmful work of NGOs, beginning with those funded by the Soros network; stresses the importance of targeted EU support for women with the objective of improving their access to education, training and employment and, more generally, promoting equal professional and socioeconomic opportunities;
Amendment 202 #
2022/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
(i) Implement the new agenda for the Mediterranean through dedicated dialogue and consultation with local and regional authorities, as well as reinforce the links between EU Delegations and the Euro- Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM); recalls that these are important drivers for development and are closer to the people, so that implementation strategies can reach all communities, including those most disadvantaged geographically or in socioeconomic terms; accord, with that in mind, particular attention to Lebanon because of the historical, political and humanitarian message this country conveys concerning coexistence by many diverse religious communities; provide political, material and moral support to Christian communities in the Middle East, threatened more than ever today by radical Islamism;
Amendment 106 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Competent authorities that wish to receive from online short-term rental platforms information about hosts’ activities and have registration systems in place should be able to obtain activity data from online platforms on a regular basis. The type of data that may be obtained should be fully harmonised and include information on the number of nights for which a registered unit has been rented, the number of guests that stayed in the unit per night, their country or geographical area of residence, the registration number and the URL of the listing of the unit, which is needed in order to facilitate the identification of the host and the unit offered for short-term accommodation rental services in cases where the registration number is missing or incorrect. Only online platforms that have effectively facilitated the conclusion of direct transactions between hosts and guests are covered by the obligation to provide the activity data, the registration number and the URL of the listing of the unit, as only those platforms are in a position to collect data, such as on the number of nights for which a unit is rented and the number of guests that stayed in the unit per night. Member States should not maintain or introduce measures that require platforms to report on short-term accommodation rental service providers and their activities diverging from those laid down in this Regulation, unless otherwise provided under Union law.
Amendment 131 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation applies to providers of online short-term rental platforms that offer services to hostand online short-term rental advertising platforms that offer services to hosts and other online short-term rental platforms providing short-term accommodation rental services in the Union, irrespective of their place of establishment.
Amendment 132 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. This Regulation also applies to hosts providing short-term accommodation rental services in the Union, their intermediaries and the local authorities managing the data collected, irrespective of their place of establishment.
Amendment 139 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part
(1) ‘unit’ means a furnished accommodation located in the Union that is the subject of the provision of a short-term accommodation rental service, as further defined by national law. It does not include the following:
Amendment 145 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
(3a) ‘property manager’ means any entity that has been retained to perform and carry out short term rentals, operation and management services at one or more of the units owned by the host;
Amendment 147 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
(6a) ‘online short-term rental advertising platform’ means a service within the meaning of Article 3, point (i) and (j) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, that display advertising of short-term accommodation rental services on their platform but that do not allow guests to conclude distance contracts with hosts for the provision of short-term accommodation rental services;
Amendment 157 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 11
(11) ‘activity data’ means the number of nights for which a unit is rented corresponding to the number of actual stays in the unit and the number of guests that have been declared to stayed in the unit per night, and, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 692/2011, their country or geographical area of residence;
Amendment 161 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) the requirements on hosts underlying the registration procedures are proportionate, non-discriminatory and justified;
Amendment 163 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) registration procedures allow for theonline, automatic and, immediate issue of a registration number for a specific unit upon the submission by the host of the information referred to in Article 5(1) and, where appropriate, any supporting documentation required pursuant to Article 5(2);
Amendment 169 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point g
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) hosts are required, when offering their short-term accommodation rental services via an online short-term rental platform or an online short-term rental advertising platform, to declare whether the unit offered is located in an area where a registration procedure has been established or applies and, if so, to provide the registration number.
Amendment 184 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a – point 4 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a – point 4 a (new)
(4a) where applicable, if the host uses the intermediary services of a property manager;
Amendment 195 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 6
Article 5 – paragraph 6
6. Hosts shall be responsible for the accuracy of the information that they provide to competent authorities pursuant to this Article, and of the information that they provide to online short-term rental platforms and to online short-term rental advertising platforms pursuant to Article 7 of this Regulation.
Amendment 200 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Where a host fails to rectify the requested information pursuant to paragraph 2, the competent authority shall have the power to suspend the validity of the affected registration numbers and to issue an order requesting online short-term rental platforms and short-term advertising platforms to remove or disable access to any listing relating to the unit or units in question without undue delay.
Amendment 205 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Where a competent authority, after verification pursuant to paragraph 1, finds that there are manifest and serious doubts as regards the authenticity and validity of the information or documentation submitted pursuant to Article 5(1) and 5(2), it shall have the power to suspend the validity of the affected registration numbers and to issue an order requesting online short-term rental platforms and online short-term rental advertising platforms to remove or disable access to any listing relating to the unit or units in question without undue delay.
Amendment 215 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – point b
(b) clear information enabling the provider of the online short-term rental platform or the provider of the online short-term rental advertising platform to identify and locate the listing or listings concerned, such as one or more exact uniform resource locators (URL) and the identity of the competent authority;
Amendment 217 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – point c
(c) the identity of the host andregistration number of the unit offered for short-term accommodation rental services.
Amendment 233 #
2022/0358(COD)
(c) make reasonable efforts to regularly carry out randomly checks of the declaration of the hosts concerning the existence or not of a registration procedure, taking into account the list made available pursuant to Article 13(1), point (a), and, where such a procedure exists, the validity of the registration number provided by the host, including through the use of the functionalities offered by the Single Digital Entry Points referred to in Article 10(2), point (b), after allowing the offering of the short-term accommodation rental services by the host.
Amendment 259 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) facilitate random checks by online short-term rental platforms and by online short-term rental advertising platforms pursuant to Article 7(1), point (c) of the validity of registration numbers provided by hosts;
Amendment 311 #
2022/0358(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 2
It shall apply from [OP please insert date = 12 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. However, Article 7 and Article 9 shall apply from [OP please insert date = 24 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation].
Amendment 168 #
2022/0269(COD)
(22) Before initiating an investigation, competent authorities should request from the economic operators under assessment information on actions taken to mitigate, prevent or bring to an end risks of forced labour in their operations and value chains with respect to the products under assessment. Carrying out such due diligence in relation to forced labour should help the economic operator to be at a lower risk of having forced labour in its operations and value chains. Appropriate due diligence means that forced labour issues in the value chain have been identified and addressed in accordance with relevant Union legislation and international standards. This Regulation should be subsidiary to Due Diligence processes and be the last resort instrument to be applied when supply chain due diligence has not been properly executed according to applicable international guidelines. That implies that where the competent authority considers that there is no substantiated concern of a violation of the prohibition, for instance due to, but not limited to the applicable legislation, guidelines, recommendations or any other due diligence in relation to forced labour being applied in a way that mitigates, prevents and brings to an end the risk of forced labour, no investigation should be initiated.
Amendment 384 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. In their assessment of the likelihood that economic operators violated Article 3, competent authorities shall focus on the economic operators involved in the steps of the value chain as close as possible to where the risk of forced labour is likely to occcausing forced labour and take into account the size and economic resources of the economic operators, the quantity of products concerned, as well as the scale of suspected forced labour.
Amendment 406 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Economic operators shall respond to the request of the competent authority referred to in paragraph 3 within 15 30 working days from the day they received such request. Economic operators may provide to competent authorities any other information they may deem useful for the purposes of this Article.
Amendment 430 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7
Article 4 – paragraph 7
7. Competent authorities shall not initiate an investigation pursuant to Article 5, and shall inform the economic operators under assessment accordingly, where, on the basis of the assessment referred to in paragraph 1 and the information submitted by economic operators pursuant to paragraph 4, the competent authorities consider that there is no substantiated concern of a violation of Article 3, for instance due to, but not limited to, the applicable legislation, guidelines, recommendations or any other due diligence in relation to forced labour referred to in paragraph 3 being applied in a way that mitigates, prevents andor brings to an end the risk of forced labour.
Amendment 432 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a Burden of evidence Competent authorities shall bear the burden of establishing that forced labour has been used at any stage of production, manufacture, harvest or extraction of a product, including working or processing related to the product on the basis of all information and evidence gathered during the investigation, including its preliminary phase.
Amendment 435 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Competent authorities that, pursuant to Article 4(5), determine that value chain due diligence has not been properly executed according to applicable international guidelines and that therefore there is a substantiated concern of a violation of Article 3, shall decide, as last resort instrument. to initiate an investigation on the products and economic operators concerned.
Amendment 471 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Economic operators shall submit the information within 1530 working days from the request referred to in paragraph 3 or make a justified request for an extension of that time limit.
Amendment 580 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. Economic operators that have been affected by a decision of a competent authority pursuant to this Regulation shall have access to a court to review the procedural and substantive legality of the decision. Economic operators shall be entitled to compensation or damages for the prohibition, withdrawal or destruction of products arising from a wrongful decision by a competent authority.
Amendment 626 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall call upon external expertise and all relevant stakeholders to provide an indicative, non- exhaustive, verifiableed, solid and regularly updated database of forced labour risks in specific geographic areas or with respect to specific products including with regard to forced labour imposed by state authorities. The database shall be based on the guidelines referred to in Article 23, points (a), (b) and (c), and relevant reliable external sources of information from, amongst others, international organisations and third country authorities.
Amendment 643 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall ensure that the database is made publicly available by the external expertise at the lateleast 2410 months after the entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 728 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The Commission shall issue guidelines no later than 180 months after the entry into force of this Regulation, which shall include the following:
Amendment 749 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) further information to facilitate the competent authorities’detailed guidance for competent authorities to garantee homogeneous implementation of this Regulation;
Amendment 799 #
2022/0269(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1
Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. In order to facilitate effective implementation and enforcement of this Regulation, the Commission mayshall as appropriate cooperate, engage and exchange information with, amongst others, authorities of third countries, international organisations, civil society representatives and business organisations. International cooperation with authorities of third countries shall take place in a structured way as part of the existing dialogue structures with third countries or, if necessary, specific ones that will be created on an ad hoc basis.
Amendment 31 #
2022/0252M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that the EU is not designed to be a fully-fledged geopolitical actor, including in the Indo-Pacific region; condemns the EU’s desire to organise naval exercises in the region, as stated in the Strategic Compass; denounces the growing desire to expand the CSDP, in particular by strengthening the ties with South Korea and Japan, which would serve only to promote a bloc- based approach and increase tensions in the region;
Amendment 22 #
2022/0221M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the Indo-Pacific region is of increasing strategic significance for Europe; reiteratPoints out that the EU is not designed to be a fully-fledged geopolitical actor, including in the Indo-Pacific region; condemns the EU’s desire to organise naval exercises in the region, as stated in the Strategic Compass; denounces the growing desire to expand the CSDP, in particular by strengthening the ties wits support for an EU strategy for cooperath South Korea and Japan, which would serve only to promote a bloc- based approach and increase tensions in the Indo- Pacificregion;
Amendment 47 #
2022/0221M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 16 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Such a new instrument will contribute to reinforce common defence procurement and, through the associated Union financing, to strengthen EU Member States' defence industrial capabilities.
Amendment 19 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) This Instrument will build on and take into account the work of the Member States and the Defence Joint Procurement Task Force established by the Commission and the High Representative/Head of Agency, in line with the Joint Communication ‘Defence Investment Gaps Analysis and Way Forward”, to coordinate very short-term defence procurement needs and engage with Member States and EU defence manufacturers to support joint procurement to replenish stocks, notably in light of the support provided to Ukraine.
Amendment 21 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) As the instrument aims to enhance the competitiveness and efficiency of the Union’s defence industry, to benefit from the instrument, common procurement contracts will need to be placed with legal entities which are principally established in the Union or exceptionally in associated countries and are not subject to control by non-associated third countries or by non- associated third- country entities. In that context, control should be understood to be the ability to exercise a decisive influence on a legal entity directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediate legal entities. Additionally, in order to ensure the protection of essential security and defence interests of the Union and its Member States, the infrastructure, facilities, assets and resources of the contractors and subcontractors involved in the common procurement which are used for the purposes of the common procurement shall be located principally on the territory of a Member State or exceptionally of an associated third country.
Amendment 25 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) Following the recent military and diplomatic posturing of Turkish President Erdogan in his dealings with European countries, Turkey, unlike other NATO member countries, can no longer be considered a reliable ally when it comes to defence and security. It can therefore not be allowed to participate in the European defence programme.
Amendment 26 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) It is considered that too many Member States are reliant mainly on third countries to meet their defence needs;
Amendment 27 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 b (new)
Recital 16 b (new)
(16b) Calls for tenders financed by ‘European’ funds should be reserved for European bidders.
Amendment 28 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 c (new)
Recital 16 c (new)
16c. European internal market preference for local or European defence industries is necessary for their revival in Europe.
Amendment 29 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 d (new)
Recital 16 d (new)
16d. It is necessary to bolster the strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty of the Member States by reducing technological and industrial dependency and ensuring better supervision of foreign subsidies and foreign direct investment in Europe, in order to fend off attempts by third countries to gain control of critical European companies;
Amendment 30 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 d (new)
Recital 16 d (new)
Amendment 31 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 41 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) The purpose of the emergency instrument is to strengthen existing industries in Europe and not to disrupt the internal market by creating competitors through public subsidies.
Amendment 42 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 b (new)
Recital 18 b (new)
(18b) European subcontractors and manufacturers of critical components or systems must be strengthened and protected from predatory tactics adopted by third country undertakings;
Amendment 44 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) To generate the incentive effect, the level of Union contribution may be differentiated based on factors such as (a) the complexity of the common procurement, for which a proportion of the anticipated size of the procurement contract, based on experience gained in similar actions, may serve as an initial proxy, (b) the characteristics of the cooperation, such as joint usage, stockpiling, ownership or maintenance, which are likely to induce stronger interoperability outcomes and long-term investment signals to industry, and (c) the number of participating Member States or associated countries or the inclusion of additional Member States or associated countries to existing cooperations and (d) the proportion of production taking place in Europe.
Amendment 44 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The EU Heads of State or Government, meeting in Versailles on 11 March, committed to “bolster European defence capabilities” in light of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine. They agreed to increase defence expenditures, step up cooperation through joint projects, and common procurement of defence capabilities, close shortfalls, boost innovation and strengthen and develop the EU defence industry, particularly SMEs.
Amendment 48 #
2022/0219(COD)
(22) Member States should appoint a procurement agent to conduct a common procurement on their behalf. The procurement agent should be a contracting authority established in a Member State or an associated third country, including Union bodies or international organisationand designated by at least three Member States, such as the Organisation Cconjointe de Ccoopération en matière d'AR’armement (OCCAR).
Amendment 49 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) According to a report by the European Parliament Research Service - EPRS (p.111), US foreign military sales for 2016-2018 amounted to USD 55 billion or 32% of the total defence expenditure of all the EU Member States. The latter are required to set a minimum annual quota for the production in Europe of acquisitions through this instrument. That quota may not be less than 50%, to be reassessed annually with a view to increasing the European share of procurement and strengthening the European defence industry.
Amendment 60 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the actions shall comply with the annual minimum production quota in Europe and fulfil the additional conditions as set out in Article 8.
Amendment 62 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Such a new exceptional and temporary instrument will contribute to reinforce common defence procurement and, through the associated Union financing, to strengthen EU defence industrial capabilities. This instrument, which Member States may use on a completely optional basis, should not have a detrimental effect on the specific nature of Member States’ security and defence policies, nor should it compromise national choices concerning investment in the relevant sector. In that regard, it may under no circumstances be used to exert strategic, political or economic pressure on one of the state sponsors.
Amendment 73 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Reinforcing the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base should therefore be at the core of those efforts. Indeed difficulties and gaps still exist and the European defence industrial base remains highly fragmented, lacking sufficient collaborative action and inter- operability of product, while avoiding merging European defence industries together, which would lead to a loss of know-how and sovereignty for Member States.
Amendment 121 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point 1
1. The contribution of the action to strengthening and developing the Union defence industrial base of the EU Member States to allow ithem to address in particular the most urgent and critical defence products needs as referred to in Article 3, including with respect to procurement procedure and delivery lead times, replenishment of stocks, availability and supply;
Amendment 122 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) As the instrument aims to enhance the competitiveness and efficiency of the Union’s defence industry, to benefit from the instrument, common procurement contracts will need to be placed with legal entities which are established in the Union or in associated countries and are not subject to control by non-associated third countries or by non-associated third- country entities. In that context, control should be understood to be the ability to exercise a decisive influence on a legal entity directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediate legal entities. Additionally, in order to ensure the protection of essential security and defence interests of the Union and its Member States, the infrastructure, facilities, assets and resources of the contractors and subcontractors involved in the common procurement which are used for the purposes of the common procurement shall be located on the territory of a Member State or of an associated third country.
Amendment 127 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 162 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘common procurement’ means a cooperative procurement jointly conducted by at least threewo Member States;
Amendment 177 #
2022/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) to foster the competitiveness and efficiency of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) for a more resilient Union, in particular by speeding up, in a collaborative manner, the adjustment of industry to structural changes, including ramp-up of its manufacturing capacities; accordingly, 100% of the orders to be financed by EDIRPA must be placed with EU undertakings;
Amendment 11 #
2022/0212(BUD)
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas a report published by the EU Court of Auditors in September 2021 begins thus: ‘Ukraine has been suffering from corruption – particularly grand corruption – for many years’, and describes in great detail the ‘state capture’ by private interests and an economy controlled by 3 500 state-owned enterprises at central level and 11 000 at municipal level1a, and whereas there is a need for tighter monitoring of the use of funds allocated to Ukraine; _________________ 1a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/SR21_23/SR_fight-against-grand- corruption-in-Ukraine_EN.pdf
Amendment 42 #
2022/0212(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Continues to see the Western Balkans integration as a geopolitical priority, especially inTakes the view that the integration of the Western Balkans is at odds with the cointext of Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, which resonated strongly across the region, but insists on the conditionality requiremrests of the Member States and the European nations, and points out, in that regard, that a study carried out in 2019 by the European Council on Foreign Relations confirmed that a majority of Member State citizents regarding rule of law for every euro committeddid not support the integration of the Western Balkans into the 2023 budget; EU1b ; _________________ 1b https://eupinions.eu/de/blog/eu-citizens- remain-against-further-enlargement
Amendment 63 #
2022/0212(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls to urgently launch a discussion on Heading 6, with a view to propose further measures; notes that the funding for external action has been lagging behind theWonders how appropriate it is for the EU to fund third countries when the EU is in the grip of an economic and geopolitical necessitiescrisis ;
Amendment 64 #
2022/0212(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 240 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b
Article premier – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) obligations on providers of hosting services and providers of interpersonal communication services to detect and report online child sexual abuse;
Amendment 246 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
Article premier – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) Regulation (EU) .../... [laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts], in particular Article 5;
Amendment 255 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) ‘interpersonal communications service’ means a publicly available service as defined in Article 2, point 5, of Directive (EU) 2018/1972, includingexcept services which enable direct interpersonal and interactive exchange of information merely as a minor ancillary feature that is intrinsically linked to another service;
Amendment 260 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f – point ii
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f – point ii
Amendment 267 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) ‘to offer services in the Union’ means to offer services in the Union as defined in Article 2, point (d(1), of Regulation (EU) …/… [2022/1925 on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC];
Amendment 279 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of hosting services and providers of interpersonal communications services shall identify, analyse and assess, for each such servcarry out the risk assessment in accordance with Article that they offer,34 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 in relation to the risk of use of the service for the purpose of online child sexual abuse.
Amendment 308 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point e – point iii a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point e – point iii a (new)
Amendment 309 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The fact that a provider of interpersonal communications services ensures that interpersonal communications remain confidential or are encrypted cannot be considered a risk factor within the meaning of this Regulation.
Amendment 322 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Providers of hosting services and providers of interpersonal communications services shall take the reasonable mitigation measures set out in Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, tailored to the risk identified pursuant to Article 3, to minimise that risk. Such measures shall include some or all of the following:
Amendment 335 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 347 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The requirement that the providers of interpersonal communications services take risk mitigation measures shall in no way constitute a requirement that they access the content of communications or make provision for methods to access these communications or to compromise their encryption.
Amendment 356 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Providers of hosting services and providers of interpersonal communications services shall clearly describe in their terms and conditions the mitigation measures that they have taken. That description shall not include information that may reduce the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, unless the measures impinge on the essence of the service underlying the contract of use, or unless they amend, derogate from or invalidate another clause in the provider's terms and conditions.
Amendment 397 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The Coordinating Authority of establishment shall have the power to request the competent judicial authority of the Member State that designated it or another independent administrative authority of that Member State to issue a detection order requiring a provider of hosting services or a provider of interpersonal communications services under the jurisdiction of that Member State to take the measures specified in Article 10 to detect online child sexual abuse on a specific service.
Amendment 411 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) where the draft implementation plan concerns an intended detection order concerning the solicitation of children other than the renewal of a previously issued detection order without any substantive changes, conduct a data protection impact assessment and a prior consultation procedure as referred to in Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, respectively, in relation to the measures set out in the implementation plan;
Amendment 413 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) where point (b) applies, or wherehas revealed circumstances pointing to the conditions of Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 are met, adjust the draft implementation plan, where necessary in view of the outcome of the data protection impact assessment and in order to take into account the opinion of the data protection authority provided in response to the prior consultation;
Amendment 416 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Where, having regard to the implementation plan of the provider and the opinion of the data protection authority, that Coordinating Authority continues to be of the view that the conditions of paragraph 4 have met, it shall submit the request for the issuance of the detection, adjusted where appropriate, to the competent judicial authority or independent administrative authority. It shall attach the implementation plan of the provider and the opinions of the EU Centre and the data protection authority to that request.
Amendment 419 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The Coordinating Authority of establishment shall request the issuance of the detection order, and the competent judicial authority or independent administrative authority shall issue the detection order where it considers that the following conditions are met:
Amendment 423 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the reasons for issuing the detection order outweigh negative consequences for the rights and legitimate interests of all parties affected, including all users where the implementation plan would undermine the structure processing the interpersonal communications, having regard in particular to the need to ensure a fair balance between the fundamental rights of those parties.
Amendment 434 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. As regards detection orders concerning the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material, the significant risk referred to in paragraph 4, first subparagraph, point (a), shall be deemed to exariste where the following conditions are met:
Amendment 436 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) there is evidence of the service, or of a comparable service if the service has not yet been offered in the Union at the date of the request for the issuance of the detection order, having been used in the past 12 months and to an appreciable extent for the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material.
Amendment 439 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. As regards detection orders concerning the dissemination of new child sexual abuse material, the significant risk referred to in paragraph 4, first subparagraph, point (a), shall be deemed to exariste where the following conditions are met:
Amendment 441 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 6 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 6 – point b
(b) there is evidence of the service, or of a comparable service if the service has not yet been offered in the Union at the date of the request for the issuance of the detection order, having been used in the past 12 months and to an appreciable extent, for the dissemination of new child sexual abuse material;
Amendment 443 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
As regards detection orders concerning the solicitation of children, the significant risk referred to in paragraph 4, first subparagraph, point (a), shall be deemed to exariste where the following conditions are met:
Amendment 444 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) there is evidence of the service, or of a comparable service if the service has not yet been offered in the Union at the date of the request for the issuance of the detection order, having been used in the past 12 months and to an appreciable extent, for the solicitation of children.
Amendment 447 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1
The Coordinating Authority of establishment when requesting the issuance of detection orders, and the competent judicial or independent administrative authority when issuing the detection order, shall target and specify it in such a manner that the negative consequences referred to in paragraph 4, first subparagraph, point (b), remain limited to what is strictly necessary to effectively address the significant risk referred to in point (a) thereof.
Amendment 451 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 3 – point b a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) under no circumstances, shall the detection order require providers of interpersonal communications services to access the content of communications or make provision for methods to access these communications or to compromise their encryption;
Amendment 453 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1
The competent judicial authority or independent administrative authority shall specify in the detection order the period during which it applies, indicating the start date and the end date.
Amendment 460 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The competent judicial authority or independent administrative authority shall issue the detection orders referred to in Article 7 using the template set out in Annex I. Detection orders shall include:
Amendment 464 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) identification details of the competent judicial authority or the independent administrative authority issuing the detection order and authentication of the detection order by that judicial or independent administrative authority;
Amendment 473 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) the date, time stamp and electronic signature of the judicial or independent administrative authority issuing the detection order;
Amendment 477 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The competent judicial authority or independent administrative authority issuing the detection order shall address it to the main establishment of the provider or, where applicable, to its legal representative designated in accordance with Article 24.
Amendment 489 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Exercising the right to recourse under paragraph 1 shall suspend execution of the detection order.
Amendment 490 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
When the detection order becomes final, the competent judicial authority or independent administrative authority that issued the detection order shall, without undue delay, transmit a copy thereof to the Coordinating Authority of establishment. The Coordinating Authority of establishment shall then, without undue delay, transmit a copy thereof to all other Coordinating Authorities through the system established in accordance with Article 39(2).
Amendment 497 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
In respect of the detection orders that the competent judicial authority or independent administrative authority issued at its request, the Coordinating Authority of establishment shall, where necessary and in any event following reception of the reports referred to in paragraph 3, assess whether any substantial changes to the grounds for issuing the detection orders occurred and, in particular, whether the conditions of Article 7(4) continue to be met. In that regard, it shall take account of additional mitigation measures that the provider may take to address the significant risk identified at the time of the issuance of the detection order.
Amendment 499 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
That Coordinating Authority shall request to the competent judicial authority or independent administrative authority that issued the detection order the modification or revocation of such order, where necessary in the light of the outcome of that assessment. The provisions of this Section shall apply to such requests, mutatis mutandis.
Amendment 502 #
Amendment 509 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) respect the confidentiality of communications enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Amendment 527 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 534 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Where a provider of hosting services or a provider of interpersonal communications services becomes aware in any manner other than through a removal order issued in accordance with this Regulation of any information indicating potential online child sexual abuse on its services, it shall promptly submit a report thereon to the EU Centre in accordance with Article 13. It shall do so through the system established in accordance with Article 39(2)competent national law enforcement and judicial authorities.
Amendment 577 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Amendment 590 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. When carrying out their tasks and exercising their powers in accordance with this Regulation, the Coordinating Authorities shall act with complete independence. To that aim, Member States shall ensure, in particular, that theyMember States shall ensure that the Coordinating Authorities:
Amendment 591 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 593 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) neither seek nor take instructions from any other public authority or any private party;
Amendment 594 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point e
Amendment 596 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Amendment 600 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the power to require those providers, as well as any other persons acting for purposes related to their trade, business, craft or profession that may reasonably be aware of information relating to a suspected infringement of this Regulation, to provide such information within a reasonable time period, excluding content protected by confidentiality of correspondence for which authorisation by a judicial authority is required;
Amendment 601 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the power to carry out on-site inspections of any premises that those providers or the other persons referred to in point (a) use for purposes related to their trade, business, craft or profession, or to request other public authorities to do so, in order to examine, seize, take or obtain copies of information relating to a suspected infringement of this Regulation in any form, irrespective of the storage medium, excluding content protected by confidentiality of correspondence for which authorisation by a judicial authority is required;
Amendment 607 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point b – introductory part
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point b – introductory part
(b) request the competent judicial authority or independent administrative authority of the Member State that designated the Coordinating Authority to order the temporary restriction of access of users of the service concerned by the infringement or, only where that is not technically feasible, to the online interface of the provider on which the infringement takes place, where the Coordinating Authority considers that:
Amendment 614 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 34 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where national law does not grant a minor the legal capacity to lodge a complaint, his or her legal representative may do so on his or her behalf.
Amendment 618 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Coordinating Authorities shall submit to the EU Centre, without undue delay and through the system established in accordance with Article 39(2), the evidence gathered through the procedures provided for in this Regulation:
Amendment 32 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In health systems, personal electronic health data is usually gathered in electronic health records, which typically contain a natural person’s medical history, diagnoses and treatment, medications, allergies, immunisations, as well as radiology images and laboratory results, spread between different entities from the health system (general practitioners, hospitals, pharmacies, care services). A patient’s Covid vaccination status does not need to be included in the electronic health data. In order to enable that electronic health data to be accessed, shared and changed by the natural persons or health professionals, some Member States have taken the necessary legal and technical measures and set up centralised infrastructures connecting EHR systems used by healthcare providers and natural persons. Alternatively, some Member States support public and private healthcare providers to set up personal health data spaces to enable interoperability between different healthcare providers. Several Member States have also supported or provided health data access services for patients and health professionals (for instance through patients or health professional portals). They have also taken measures to ensure that EHR systems or wellness applications are able to transmit electronic health data with the central EHR system (some Member States do this by ensuring, for instance, a system of certification). However, not all Member States have put in place such systems, and the Member States that have implemented them have done so in a fragmented manner. In order to facilitate the free movement of personal health data across the Union and avoid negative consequences for patients when receiving healthcare in cross-border context, Union action is needed in order to ensure individuals have improved access to their own personal electronic health data and are empowered to share it.
Amendment 36 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Timely and full access of health professionals to the medical records of patients is fundamental for ensuring continuity of care and avoiding duplications and errors. However, due to a lack of interoperability, in many cases, health professionals cannot access the complete medical records of their patients and cannot make optimal medical decisions for their diagnosis and treatment, which adds considerable costs for both health systems and natural persons and may lead to worse health outcomes for natural persons. Electronic health data made available in interoperable format, which can be transmitted between healthcare providers are entirely controlled by the patient and can be shared by the patient with healthcare providers on a strictly voluntary basis, which can also reduce the administrative burden on health professionals of manually entering or copying health data between electronic systems. Therefore, health professionals should be provided with appropriate electronic means, such as health professional portals, to use personal electronic health data for the exercise of their duties. Moreover, the access to personal health records should be transparent to the natural persons and natural persons should be able to exercise full control over such access, including by limiting access to all or part of the personal electronic health data in their records. To that end, patients must be asked, in a clear and comprehensible manner, for their explicit consent whenever their personal health data could be shared. Health professionals should refrain from hindering the implementation of the rights of natural persons, such as refusing to take into account electronic health data originating from another Member State and provided in the interoperable and reliable European electronic health record exchange format.
Amendment 40 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The level of availability of personal health and genetic data in an electronic format varies between Member States. The EHDS should make it easier for natural persons who so wish to have those data available in electronic format. This would also contribute to the achievement of the target of 100% of Union citizens having access to their electronic health records by 2030, as referred to in the Policy Programme “Path to the Digital Decade”. In order to make electronic health data accessible and transmissible, such data should be accessed and transmitted in an interoperable common European electronic health record exchange format, at least for certain categories of electronic health data, such as patient summaries, electronic prescriptions and dispensations, medical images and image reports, laboratory results and discharge reports, subject to transition periods. Electronic health records should only be processed and stored on servers in Europe, under the supervision of Member States, and by European undertakings which provide the necessary technology and employees for those purposes. Where personal electronic health data is made available to a healthcare provider or a pharmacy by a natural person, or is transmitted by another data controller in the European electronic health record exchange format, the electronic health data should be read and accepted for the provision of healthcare or for dispensation of a medicinal product, thus supporting the provision of the health care services or the dispensation of the electronic prescription. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2019/24345provides the foundations for such a common European electronic health record exchange format. The use of European electronic health record exchange format shcouldbecome moregeneralised at EU andnational level. While the eHealth Network under Article 14 of Directive 2011/24/EU 46of the European Parliament and of the Council46 recommended Member States to use the European electronic health record exchange format in procurements, in order to improve interoperability, uptake was limited in practice, resulting in fragmented landscape and uneven access to and portability of electronic health data. _________________ 45 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2019/243 of 6 February 2019 on a European Electronic Health Record exchange format (OJ L 39, 11.2.2019, p. 18). 46 Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 45).
Amendment 118 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
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. For most of these products, the link between quality and origin is provided by the tradition of production, so it is appropriate that this regulation can protect geographical names that coincide with the names of specific places or regions where the tradition of production in question is present in a known and established way. __________________ 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).
Amendment 123 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Member States should have the possibility to charge a registration fee to cover their costs of managing the geographical indication system for craft and industrial products. Member States should charge lower fees for micro, small or medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs). The Office should not charge a fee for the management of the Union application process. However, the Office should have the possibility to charge a fee for the direct registration. In that case, the fees charged by the Office should be laid down by an implementing act in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council14 . __________________ 14 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).
Amendment 127 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) To qualify for protection in the Member States, geographical indications should be registered only at Union level. However, with effect from the date of application for such registration at Union level, Member States should be able to grant temporary protection at national level without affecting the internal market of the Union or international trade. The protection afforded by this Regulation upon registration should be equally available to geographical indications of third countries that meet the corresponding criteria and that are protected in their country of origin. The Office should carry out the corresponding procedures for geographical indications originating in third countries.
Amendment 129 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) The procedures for registration, amendments to the product specification and cancellation of the registration in respect of geographical indications originating in the Union under this Regulation should be carried out by the Member States and the Office. The Member States and the Office should be responsible for distinct stages of the procedures. Member States should be responsible for the first stage, which consists of receiving the application from the applicants, assessing it, running the national opposition procedure, and, following the positive results of the assessment, submitting the Union application to the Office. The Office should be responsible for examining the applications in the second stage of the procedure, running the worldwide opposition procedure at the European level and taking a decision on granting or refusing the protection to the geographical indication. The Office should also carry out the corresponding procedures for geographical indications originating in third countries, without prejudice to the direct registration procedure.
Amendment 132 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) It is possible for certain Member States to obtain a derogation from the Member States’ obligation to designate a national authority in respect of geographical indications for craft and industrial products to take charge of the procedures for registration, national opposition, amendments to the product specification and cancellation of the registration under certain circumstances specified in this Regulation. That derogation, that should take the form of a Commission Decision, takes into account the fact that certain Member States do not have a specific national system for the management of geographical indications for craft and industrial products and that the local interest in these countries to protect these geographical indications is minimal. Under these circumstances, it would not be justified to oblige the respective Member State to set up an infrastructure, employ the necessary personnel and purchase facilities for the management of these geographical indications. It is more effective and economical to provide an alternative procedure for the producer groups from these Member States to protect their products by a geographical indication. The “direct registration procedure” has cost advantages reaped by Member States. Pursuant to this derogation, procedures for registration, amendments to the product specification and cancellation should be managed directly by the Office. In this regard the Office should receive the effective assistance of the administrative authorities of that Member State when required by the Office, through designation of a contact point, as regards in particular aspects related to the examination of the application. In those cases, the Office should be entitled to charge a registration fee, considering that this procedure generates more work for the Office than the management of Union applications. However, the application of the “direct registration procedure” should not exempt Member States from the obligation to designate a competent authority for the controls and enforcement and to take the necessary actions to enforce the rights set out in this Regulation. The competent authority maintained or designated for the management of the geographical indications and the competent authority designated for the controls and enforcement may differ, when a Member State so decides.
Amendment 136 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 144 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) The use of Union symbols and indications on the packaging of craft and industrial products designated by a geographical indication should be recommended in order to make this category of products, and the guarantees attached to them, better known to consumers and to permit easier identification of these products on the market, thereby facilitating checks. The use of such symbols or indications should remain voluntary for third-country geographical indications.
Amendment 156 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the registration, protection, control and enforcement of certain names that identify craft and industrial products with given quality, reputation or other characteristics linked to their geographical origin and,
Amendment 159 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation applies to craft and industrialnon- agricultural and non-food products listed under the combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/8724 Products covered by Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council are also excluded from the scope of this Regulation. __________________ 24 Council Regulation (EEC) N0 2685/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff Regulation (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987 p.1)
Amendment 163 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Amendment 168 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘craft products’ means products produced either totally by hand ormade by undertakings that national law defines as artisan, with the aid of manual tools or by mechanical means, whenever or digital means, including withe direct manual contribution is the mostinput during the production process which constitutes an important component of the finished product;
Amendment 176 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) ‘producer group’ means any association, irrespective of its legal form, mainly composed of producers or processors, manufacturers, processors or any other operator working with the same product;
Amendment 181 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
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;
Amendment 184 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) 'producer' means an operator engaged in anyone or more production step of a product the name of which is protected as a geographical indication, including processing activities, covered by the product specification;
Amendment 185 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h – point i
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h – point i
(i) the common names of products in the Union or the names of products which, although relating to the place, region or country where the product was originally produced or marketed, have become the common name of a product in the Union or do not have a given quality, reputation or other characteristics traditionally linked to their geographical origin;
Amendment 186 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h – point ii
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h – point ii
(ii) a common term descriptive of the type of product, or product attributes or other terms that do not refer to specific product;
Amendment 194 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
For the name of a craft andor industrial product to qualify for “geographical indication” protection, the product shall comply with the following requirements:
Amendment 201 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Amendment 203 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. 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: if the person concerned is the only producer willing to submit an application for the registration of a geographical indication.
Amendment 204 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point a
Amendment 205 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b
Amendment 208 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. In the case of a geographical indication that designates a cross-border geographical area, producer groups from different Member States may lodge a joint application for the registration of a geographical indication from either Member State. When the cross-border geographical area concerns a Member State and a third country, they may lodge a joint application for registration with the national authority of the Member State concerned. When the cross-border geographical area concerns several third countries, several producer groups may lodge a joint application with the Office.
Amendment 210 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Craft and industrial products the names of which are registered as a geographical indication shall comply with a product specification, which shall include at least:
Amendment 211 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
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 a name used in trade or in common language to describe the specific product in the defined geographical area or both;
Amendment 227 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i a (new)
(ia) the type of products;
Amendment 229 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii a (new)
(iia) a description of the method of producing or obtaining the product, where appropriate, the traditional method and specific practices used;
Amendment 232 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Amendment 233 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Amendment 236 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Where a Member State charges a fee, for the administrative costs of filing applications the level of the fees shall be reasonable, foster the competitiveness of the producers of the geographical indications and shall take into account the situation of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, enabling them full access to the protection of geographical indications and the safeguarding of their intellectual property rights.
Amendment 240 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Amendment 242 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Amendment 245 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. TIn the case of geographical indication that designates a cross-border geographical area, two or more Member States may agree that the competent authority of one Member State is in charge of the national phase of the registration and other procedures, including the submission of the Union application to the Office, also on behalf of the other Member State, or Member States.
Amendment 248 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
The competent authority shall examine the application and shall check 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. The competent authority shall, where appropriate, enter into consultation with the most representative local, regional or national sector associations to obtain their opinion.
Amendment 252 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. The competent authority shall establish the detailed arrangements of the opposition procedure. Those detailed arrangements may include criteria for the admissibility of an opposition, a period of consultation between the applicant and each national opponent, and submission of a report from the applicant on the outcome of the consultations including any changes the applicant has made to the application. When the national opposition procedure is concluded, the competent authority shall draw up and publish a report.
Amendment 269 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Amendment 272 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. A joint application for registration referred to in Article 6(4) shall be submitted to the Office by one of the Member States concerned or by the applicant producer group in a third country, directly or by the competent authority of that third country. If the cross- border area concerns any Member State and a third country, the joint application shall be submitted by the Member State concerned.
Amendment 274 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5
Article 17 – paragraph 5
5. The joint application referred to in Article 6(4) shall include, where relevant, the documents listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, from the Member States or third countries, in case of a cross-border geographical area with one or more non-EU countries, from a third country concerned. The related national procedure for application, the examination and opposition procedure referred to in Articles 11, 12 and 13 shall be carried out in all the Member States and from a third countriesy concerned.
Amendment 276 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 6
Article 17 – paragraph 6
Amendment 277 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 279 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4
Article 19 – paragraph 4
4. The Office may seek supplementary information from the Member State concerned. If the application is lodged by a producer group from a third country or by the competent authority of a third country, such producer group or competent authority shall provide supplementary information where requested to do so by the Office.
Amendment 280 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 6
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).
Amendment 289 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 2
Amendment 292 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 6
Article 23 – paragraph 6
6. Paragraph 5 shall apply mutatis mutandis to a geographical indication referring to a cross-border geographical area swituated inh a third country, with the exception of the opposition procedure.
Amendment 295 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25
Article 25
Amendment 306 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4
Article 28 – paragraph 4
4. Union amendments shall be approved by the Office or, where Article 25 applies, the Commission. The approval procedure shall follow mutatis mutandis the procedure and publication requirements laid down in Articles 6 to 254.
Amendment 307 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 8
Article 28 – paragraph 8
8. Standard amendments shall be approved by Member States or third countries in whose territory the geographical area of the product concerned is located. Such amendments shall be communicated to the Office. Where Article 25 applies, the Office shall approve the standard amendments. The Office shall make those amendments public in the Union register of geographical indications for craft and industrial products.
Amendment 309 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Office may, own its own initiative or on a duly substantiated request by a Member State, a third country or any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest, decide to cancel the registration of a geographical indication in the following cases:
Amendment 314 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 4
Article 29 – paragraph 4
4. Before deciding to cancel the registration of a geographical indication, the Office shall consult the competent authority of the Member State, the competent authorities of the third country or,or where possible, the third country producer group which had applied for the registration of the geographical indication concerned, unless the cancellation is directly requested by the original applicants. Any natural person affected by the cancellation of the registration of a geographical indication may submit observations during the cancellation procedure. If the geographical indication was registered pursuant to Article 15, the Office shall consult the Advisory Board referred to in Article 33.
Amendment 326 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Geographical indications entered in the Union register of geographical indications for craft and industrial products and geographical indications protected under an international agreement within the Union shall be protected against:
Amendment 328 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) any direct or indirect commercial use of the geographical indication in respect of products not covered by the registration, where those products are identical or similar to the products registered under that geographical indication or where use of the name exploits, weakens, dilutes, or is detrimental to the reputation of, the protected geographical indication even if these products are parts or components of manufactured products;
Amendment 331 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) any misuse, counterfeiting, 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’, ‘like’ or similar, even if these products are parts or components of manufactured products;
Amendment 334 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, point (b), the evocation of a geographical indication shall be deemed to arise, in particular, where a term, sign, or other labelling or packaging device presents a direct and clear linkclear link is present with the product covered by the registered geographical indication in the mind of the reasonably circumspect consumer, thereby exploiting, weakening, diluting or being detrimental to the reputation of the registered name.
Amendment 336 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 5
Article 35 – paragraph 5
5. The producer group or any producer that is entitled to usethe holder of 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.
Amendment 342 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. Generic terms not associated with names of a specific place, region or country shall not be registered as a geographical indication.
Amendment 343 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2
Article 37 – paragraph 2
Amendment 345 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39
Article 39
A name shall not be registered as a geographical indication where, in the light of a trade mark’s reputation and renown, registration of the name proposed as a geographical indication could mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product.rticle 39 deleted Trade marks
Amendment 347 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Article 40 – paragraph 1
1. Member States or the Office, when Article 15 applies, shall verify that the producer group operates in a transparent and democratic manner and that all producers of the product designated by the geographical indication enjoy right of membership in the group. Member States may provide that public officials, and other stakeholders such as consumer groups, retailers and suppliers, also participate in the work of the producer group.
Amendment 349 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) develop and amend the product specification and manage internal controls that ensure compliance of production steps of product designated by the geographical indication with that specification;
Amendment 352 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) take legal action to ensure the protection of the geographical indication and of the intellectual property rights that are directly connected with it and prevent and counteract any measures that are or risk being detrimental to the image of their products;
Amendment 353 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) agree sustainability undertakings, whether or not included in the product specification or as a separate initiative, including arrangements for verification of compliance with these undertakings and assuring adequate publicity for them in particular in an information system provided by the Commission;
Amendment 355 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point d – point v
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point d – point v
(v) providing advice and training to current and future producers, including on gender mainstreaming and equality; and
Amendment 358 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 2
Article 42 – paragraph 2
2. The Office and, when applicable, the competent national authorities shall invalidate ex officio trade marks registered in breach of paragraph 1.
Amendment 360 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 4
Article 42 – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 of this Article, a trade mark the use of which contravenes Article 35, which has been applied for, registered, or established by use in good faith within the territory of the Union, if that possibility is provided for by the legislation concerned, or protected within the territory of the Union before the date on which the application for registration of the geographical indication is submitted to the Office, may continue to be used and reneweduntil the expiry of the trade mark registration, notwithstanding the registration of a geographical indication, provided that no grounds for invalidity or revocation of the trade mark exist under Directive (EU) 2015/243632 of the European Parliament and of the Council or Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. In such cases, the use of the geographical indication and that of the relevant trade mark shall be permitted. After the expiry of the trade mark registration, products so labelled may be marketed until the stocks are exhausted. __________________ 32 Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 336, 23.12.2015, p. 1).
Amendment 361 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1
Article 43 – paragraph 1
1. A registered geographical indication may be used by any producer marketing a product conforming to the corresponding product specification or to a single document or an equivalent to the latter.
Amendment 364 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2
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 mayshall appear on the labelling and advertising material. The geographical indication shall be in the same field of vision as the Union symbol.
Amendment 365 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 3
Article 44 – paragraph 3
3. The abbreviation ‘PGI’ corresponding to the indication ‘protected geographical indication’ mayshall appear on the labelling of products designated by a geographical indication of craft and industrial products and, where applicable, on the advertising material.
Amendment 367 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 5
Article 44 – paragraph 5
Amendment 369 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 6
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 appear on the labelling and, where applicable, on advertising material only after the publication of the decision on registration in accordance with Articles 24 and 25.
Amendment 370 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 7
Article 44 – paragraph 7
Amendment 371 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 8 – introductory part
Article 44 – paragraph 8 – introductory part
8. TIn order not to mislead the reasonably cautious consumer as to the origin of the products, the following mayshall also appear on the labelling:
Amendment 372 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 8 – point a
Article 44 – paragraph 8 – point a
(a) depictions of the geographical area of origin, as referred to in the product specification; and
Amendment 373 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 8 – point b
Article 44 – paragraph 8 – point b
(b) text, graphics or symbolindication of the country of origin of the product ("Made in [country of origin]") and emblems or flags referring to the Member State or the region in which that geographical area of origin is located.
Amendment 374 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 44 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Where the size or nature of the product does not allow for the indications in (a) and (b), such information shall be provided on the packaging or in a document accompanying the product.
Amendment 375 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 9
Article 44 – paragraph 9
Amendment 378 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 4
Article 46 – paragraph 4
Amendment 380 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 6
Article 46 – paragraph 6
6. The costs of verification of compliance with the product specification may be borne by the producers, which are subject to those controls. Member States may also contribute to those costs, in particular for micro, small, medium-sized enterprises.
Amendment 383 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 2
Article 48 – paragraph 2
2. The enforcement authority shall carry out controls, based on a risk analysis and notifications of interested producers of products designated by geographical indications, to ensure conformity with the product specification or the single document or an equivalent to the latter.
Amendment 386 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 48 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. As provided for in Article 47(c), applicant producer groups as referred to in Article 6, which obtained the registration of the geographical indication, shall be entitled to notify the authorities designated pursuant to paragraph 1 in order for them to carry out checks as provided for in this Title. In such cases, upon request by the associations, the authorities shall provide information on the progress of the process initiated by such notification.
Amendment 396 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
Regulation (EU)2019/1753
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
In respect of craft and industrial geographical indications, the decision whether to grant protection shall be adopted by the Office, or, in cases referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2022/…, by the Commission.. The related implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 15(2).
Amendment 399 #
2022/0115(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 3
Article 67 – paragraph 3
3. In accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 17 to 254, the Office or, in cases referred to in Article 25, the Commission shall register the names referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, which comply with Articles 2, 5, 7 and 8. Article 21 and 22 shall not apply. However, generic terms shall not be registered.
Amendment 101 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In the absence of legislation at Union level, diverging national approaches to improving the environmental sustainability of products have already emerged, ranging from information requirements on the duration of software compatibility of electronic devices to reporting obligations on handling unsold durable goods. This is an indication that further national efforts to achieve the aimsless ambitious aims than those pursued by this Regulation will likely lead to further fragmentation of the internal market. Therefore, in order to safeguard the functioning of the internal market while ensuring a high level of environmental protection, there is a need for a regulatory framework to progressively introduce ecodesign requirements for products. This Regulation will, by making the ecodesign approach initially set out in Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council29 applicable to the broadest possible range of products, provide such a framework. _________________ 29 Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10).
Amendment 105 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) This Regulation will contribute to making products fit for a climate-neutral, more local, resource-efficient and circular economy, achieving the highest level of strategic independence for Member States, reducing waste and ensuring that the performance of frontrunners in sustainability progressively becomes the norm. It should provide for the setting of new ecodesign requirements to improve product durability, reusability, upgradability and reparability, improve possibilities for refurbishment and maintenance, address the presence of hazardous chemicals in products, increase their energy and resource efficiency, reduce their expected generation of waste materials and increase recycled content in products, while ensuring their performance and safety, enabling remanufacturing and high-quality recycling and reducing carbon and environmental footprints.
Amendment 116 #
2022/0095(COD)
(11) In order to create an effective and future-proof regulatory framework, it is necessary to allow for the setting of ecodesign requirements on all physical goods placed on the market or put into service, including components and intermediate products. This should allow the Commissions to take into account the broadest range of products possible when prioritising the establishment of ecodesign requirements and thereby maximise their effectiveness. Where needed, specific exemptions should be made when setting ecodesign requirements, for example for defence-related products or for products with a particular purpose that could not be fulfilled when complying with ecodesgign requirements. In addition, exemptions should be made at the level of the framework for those products for which it is already clear that ecodesign requirements would not be suitable or where other frameworks provide for the setting of such requirements. This should be the case for food and feed as defined in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council44, medicinal products for human use as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council45, veterinary medicinal products as defined in Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council46, living plants, animals and micro-organisms, products of human origin, and products of plants and animals relating directly to their future reproduction. _________________ 44 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1). 45 Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67). 46 Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on veterinary medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC (OJ L 4, 7.1.2019, p. 43).
Amendment 124 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
(19 a) To encourage the consumption of sustainable products, traders should provide, before the conclusion of the contract, for all types of goods, where applicable as a first step, the reparability score of the good as provided by the producer in accordance with national and Union law. This reparability score shall be established according to several criteria, namely the availability and sale price of spare parts in relation to the price of new equipment, including the ordering procedure, information about the disassembly of and access to parts, the length of availability on the market of spare parts and delivery times, and the availability of a user and repair manual. This reparability score should be affixed directly to the product or its packaging. In shops it should be displayed on or in the immediate vicinity of the product, and on websites in the presentation of the equipment and close to the price. Within two years of this Directive entering into force, this reparability score should be extended to a wider category of goods.
Amendment 127 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) To improve environmental sustainability of products, information requirements should relate to a selected product parameter relevant to the product aspect, such as the location of the stages of manufacture, the product’s environmental footprint or its durability. They may require manufacturer to make available information on the product’s performance in relation to a selected product parameter or other information that may influence the way the product is handled by parties other than the manufacturer in order to improve performance in relation to such a parameter. Such information requirements should be set either in addition to, or in place of, performance requirements on the same product parameter as appropriate. Where a delegated act includes information requirements, it should indicate the method for making the required information available, such as its inclusion on a free- access website, product passport or product label. Information requirements are necessary to lead to the behavioural change needed to ensure that the environmental sustainability objectives of this Regulation are achieved. By providing a solid basis for purchasers and public authorities to compare products on the basis of their environmental sustainability, information requirements are expected to drive consumers and public authorities towards more sustainable, i.e. more local and circular, choices.
Amendment 130 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) The information requirements set under this Regulation should include the requirement to make available a product passport. The product passport is an important tool for making information available to actors along the entire value chain, such as the location of the stages of manufacture, and the availability of a product passport should significantly enhance end- to-end traceability of a product throughout its value chain. Among other things, the product passport should help consumers make informed choices by improving their access to product information relevant to them, allow economic operators other value chain actors such as repairers or recyclers to access relevant information, and enable competent national authorities to perform their duties. To this end, the product passport should not replace but complement non-digital forms of transmitting information, such as information in the product manual or on a label. In addition, it should be possible for the product passport to be used for information on other sustainability aspects applicable to the relevant product group pursuant to other Union legislation.
Amendment 136 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) Digitalised information about the product and its life cycle or, where applicable, its passport should be easily identifiable and accessible by scanning a data carrier, such as a watermark or a quick response (QR) code. Where possible, the data carrier should be on the product itself to ensure the information remains accessible throughout its life cycle. However, exceptions are possible depending on the nature, size or use of the products concerned.
Amendment 142 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) To drive consumers towards more sustainable choices, labels should, when required by the delegated acts adopted pursuant to this Regulation, provide information allowing for the effective comparison of products, for instance by indicating classes of performance and the location of the stages of manufacture. Specifically for consumers, physical labels can be an additional source of information at the place of sale. They can provide a quick visual basis for consumers to distinguish between products based on their performance in relation to a specific product parameter or set of product parameters. They should, where appropriate, also allow for the accessing of additional information by bearing specific references like website addresses, dynamic QR codes, links to online labels or any appropriate consumer-oriented means. The Commission should set out in the relevant delegated act the most effective way of displaying such labels, including in the case of online distance selling, taking into account the implications for customers and economic operators and the characteristics of the products concerned. The Commission may also require the label to be printed on the packaging of the product.
Amendment 162 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article premier – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(a a) defence-related products as defined in the Annex to Directive 2009/43/EC
Amendment 165 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
(9 a) 'Reparability score' means a rating intended to be made known to consumers at the time of purchase of new equipment expressing the capacity of a good to be repaired, based on a methodology established in accordance with EU law
Amendment 269 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b – paragraph 1 a (new)
information for consumers and other end- users on the location of the stages of their manufacture;
Amendment 337 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the information indicating the location of the manufacturing stages of the products;
Amendment 476 #
2022/0095(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 a (new)
Annex III – paragraph 1 a (new)
information on the location of the various manufacturing stages;
Amendment 294 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) In order for a construction product covered by a harmonised technical specification to be placed on the market, the manufacturer is obliged to draw a declaration of performance for such product. The manufacturer assumes the responsibility for the conformity of the product with such declared performance. Certain exemptions to this obligation are provided.
Amendment 309 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18 a) To provide predictability for manufacturers, public authorities and the wider construction ecosystem, the Commission should, at the latest 6 months after the entry into force of this Regulation and based on a scientific and evidence-based approach, adopt a working plan, covering at least 3 years, laying down a list of product groups for which it plans to adopt requirements and standardisation requests.
Amendment 313 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) In particular, in the case of energy- related products included in ecodesign working plans which are also construction products and for intermediary products, with the exception of cement, priority for the setting of sustainability requirements will be given to the [ESPR]. This should be the case for instance fore intermediary products concerned are heaters, boilers, heat pumps, water and space heating appliances, fans, cooling and ventilating systems and photovoltaic products, excluding building- integrated photovoltaic panels. In this respect, a detailed definition of energy- related products together with a full list of energy-related products which are also construction products shall be drafted by the European Commission within the framework of the [ESPR] with the aim to avoid unnecessary legislative overlaps and duplications of sustainability requirements which may hinder the internal market. This Regulation may still intervene in a complementary manner where needed, mainly in relation to safety aspects also taking account of other Union legislation on products such as on gas appliances, low voltage, and machinery. For other products, in order to avoid unnecessary burden for economic operators, the need may arise in future to determine the conditions under which the fulfilment of obligations under other Union law also fulfils certain obligations under this Regulation. The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to determine such conditions.
Amendment 319 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) To create transparency for users of construction products and to avoid inappropriate use of those products, construction products and their intended use should be precisely identified by the manufacturer. For the same reason, the manufacturer should make clear whethern the construction products are intended for professional use only, or also for use by consumers. To ensure that construction products can be traced back, manufacturers should be indicated on the product or, where this is not possible e.g. due to the product’s size or surface, on its packaging or, where that is not possible either, in a document accompanying it.
Amendment 325 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
Amendment 326 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
Recital 52
Amendment 338 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
This Regulation establishes harmonised rules for the making available on the market and direct installation of construction products, regardless of whether undertaken in the framework of a service or not, by establishing:
Amendment 339 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) rules on how to express the environmental, including climate, and safety performance of construction products in relation to their essential characteristics;
Amendment 343 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) environmental, including climate, functional and safety product requirements for construction products.
Amendment 345 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
This Regulation also establishes obligations incumbent on economic operators dealing with construction products or their components or with products that could be regarded as construction products whilst not being intended by their manufacturer to be construction products.
Amendment 351 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) 3D-datasets placed on the market to permit the 3D-printing of construction products covered by this Regulation and 3D-printed construction products and moulds;
Amendment 355 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) materials intended to be used for the 3D-printing of construction products on or close to the construction site or for the manufacturing using moulds on or close to the construction siter for the manufacturing using moulds;
Amendment 358 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 361 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point f
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point f
Amendment 364 #
2022/0094(COD)
Amendment 367 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 380 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) boilers, pipes, tanks and ancillaries and other products intended to be in contact with water for human consumption;
Amendment 382 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point c
Amendment 385 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point d
Amendment 388 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point e
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point e
Amendment 392 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
(e a) photovoltaic elements other than building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) elements;
Amendment 393 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point e b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point e b (new)
(e b) Electrical and electronic products which are not included in products in line 1-32 of the table I of Annex IV.
Amendment 395 #
2022/0094(COD)
Amendment 403 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘construction product’ means any formed or formless physical item, including its packaging and instructions for use, or a kit or assembly combining such items, that isproduct or kit which is produced and placed on the market or produced for incorporation in a permanent manner in construction works or parts thereof within the Union, with the exception of items that are necessarily first integrated into an assembly, kit or other construction product prior to being incorporated in a permanent manner in construction worksand the performance of which has an effect on the performance of the construction works with respect to the basic requirements for construction works, including3D-printed products or other items covered by this Regulation in accordance with Article 2(1) to (3);
Amendment 405 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) ‘permanent’ means for a duration of two years or longerinstalled or affixed in such a manner that may significantly affect the basic work requirements and that the item cannot be removed without tools or mechanical force;
Amendment 408 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Amendment 412 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Amendment 418 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘product requirements’ means a threshold level or another characteristic with which a product has to comply before it can be placed on the market or installed directly, including those requirements relating to labelling and instructions for use or other information to be provided;
Amendment 422 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9
(9) ‘economic operator’ means the manufacturer, the authorised representative, the importer, the distributor, the fulfilment service provider, the 3D- printing service provider, manufacturer, importer or distributor of materials intended for 3D-printing of products, online seller, the broker, the supplier, the service provider, the own- brand-labeller or any other natural or legal person, other than authorities, notified bodies, technical assessment bodies and product contact points for construction who is subject to this Regulation in relation to the manufacturing, de- installation for re-use, re-manufacturing or repackaging of products, or making those products available on the market or installing those products directly in accordance with this Regulation, and economic operators as defined in Article 3, point (13) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council44 ; _________________ 44 Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on market surveillance and compliance of products and amending Directive 2004/42/EC and Regulations (EC) No 765/2008 and (EU) No 305/2011 (OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 1).
Amendment 424 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10
Amendment 427 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Amendment 430 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Amendment 432 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Amendment 434 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 16
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 16
(16) ‘level’ means the result of the assessment of the performance of a product in relation to its essential characteristics, expressed as a numerical valueexpression of performance without a classification of potential performances and/or a specified minimum or maximum;
Amendment 435 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 17
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 17
(17) ‘class’ means a range of levels, delimited by a minimum and a maximum value, of performance of a productn expression of performance according to a systematic division of potential performances;
Amendment 439 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Amendment 440 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 25
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 25
(25) ‘intended use’ means the use intended by the manufacturer, including the conditions for usage, as laid out in technical documentation, on labels, in instructions for use, or in publicity material, whilst usages mentioned only in one of these are already part of the ‘intended use’intended use as determined by the manufacturer of the construction product as defined in the applicable harmonised technical specification;
Amendment 452 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 39
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 39
Amendment 464 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 48
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 48
Amendment 465 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 51
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 51
Amendment 467 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 57
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 57
(57) ‘broker’ means any natural or legal person providing an intermediation service for the placing on the market or direct installation of products;
Amendment 488 #
2022/0094(COD)
The Commission mayshall issue standardisation requests in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 laying down the basic principles and corner stones for the establishment of these essential characteristics and their assessment methods.
Amendment 492 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
These standardisation requests shall be issued in accordance with the working plan established in accordance with Article 93a.
Amendment 495 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Amendment 522 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 532 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. IWhile priority shall be given to the elaboration of standards in order to cover the regulatory needs of Member States and to pursue the environmental, safety and harmonisation goals of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission is empowered to supplement this Regulation, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 87, after consultation of the relevant European standardisation organisations and European stakeholder organisations receiving Union financing under Regulation(EU) No 1025/2012, by determining, for particular product families and categories, the following:
Amendment 539 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 5
Article 4 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission, after consultation of the relevant European stakeholder organisations, is empowered to amend Annex I Part A by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 87 in order to adapt it to technical progress and to cover new risks and environmental aspects.
Amendment 547 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. All products covered by this Regulation shall, prior to their placing on the market or direct installation, satisfy the generic, directly applicable product requirements set out in Annex I Part D and, satisfy the product requirements laid down in Annex I Part B, C and C asD when specified for the respective product family or category in accordance with paragraph 2. The product requirements laid down in Annex I Part B, C and CD are only applicable where they have been specified in accordance with paragraph 2.
Amendment 557 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. In order to specify the product requirements set out in Annex I Part B, C and D, the Commission is empowered to supplement this Regulation, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 87, by specifying, for particular product families and categories, these product requirements and by laying down the corresponding assessment methods. Once the Commission has specified these product requirements by delegated acts, it mayshall issue standardisation requests which aim at the elaboration of voluntary harmonised standards providing presumption of conformity with these mandatory product requirements as specified by these delegated acts.
Amendment 562 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission, after consultation with European stakeholder organisations, is empowered to amend Annex I Part B, C and D by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 87 in order to adapt it to technical progress and in particular to cover new risks and environmental aspects.
Amendment 570 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – title
Article 6 – title
Assessment and verification systems and their product specific modalities
Amendment 573 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Amendment 578 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The harmonised zone shall be presumed to be comprehensive, covering all potential legal requirements for products other than those covered by other Union lawconstruction products.
Amendment 582 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
7. This Regulation does not hinder Member States to introduce mandatory deposit-refund systems, to oblige manufacturers to take back used or not used non-custom-made products directly or via their importers and distributors and to establish obligations regarding the collection and the treatment of products for waste, provided that all of the following is complied with:
Amendment 589 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 8
Article 7 – paragraph 8
8. Member States may ban the destruction of non-custom-made products taken back in accordance with Article 22(2), point (j) and Article 26 or make the destruction of these products dependent on their prior making available on a national brokering platform for non-commercial use of products.
Amendment 596 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. By drawing up the declaration of performance, the manufacturer assumes responsibility for the conformity of the product with such declared performance and becomes liable in accordance with Union and national laws on contractual and extra-contractual liability, and this even where it did not act negligently. In the absence of objective indications to the contrary, Member States shall presume the declaration of performance drawn up by the manufacturer to be accurate and reliable.
Amendment 597 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the product is, otherwise than by 3D-printing or already existing moulds, individually manufactured or custom-made in a non- series process in response to a specific order, and installed in a single identified construction work, by a manufacturer who is also responsible for the safe incorporation of the product into the construction work in compliance with the applicable national rules, and under the supervision of those responsible for the safe execution of the construction works designated under the applicable national rules;
Amendment 598 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the product is otherwise than by 3D-printing or already existing moulds manufactured on the construction site, in a non-series process for its incorporation in the respective construction work in compliance with the applicable national rules and under the supervision of those responsible for the safe execution of the construction works designated under the applicable national rules; or
Amendment 599 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Amendment 612 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Where there is no declaration of performance available for a used product issued by the initial manufacturer or another economic operator pursuant to this Regulation or Regulation (EU) 305/2011, an economic operator may issue a new declaration of performance without undergoing a full procedure in accordance with this Regulation where it limits the intended use to “decoration”ve purposes. Where the economic operator has used this derogation, the declaration of performance shall be labelled “declaration of performance for used product with decorative purposes”.
Amendment 619 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. By the declaration of conformity, the manufacturer assumes responsibility for the conformity of the product with the product requirements and becomes liable in accordance with national laws on contractual and extra-contractual liability, and this even where it did not act negligently. In case of non-compliance or absence of a declaration of conformity, the product may not be made available on the market. In the absence of objective indications to the contrary, Member States shall presume the declaration of conformity drawn up by the manufacturer to be accurate and reliable.
Amendment 627 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Declarations may contain permalinks to unamendable environmental product declarations or other unamendable documents containing the requested information if those documents follow the order and structure of the declarations or if a correlation table linking the order of the declarations to the order of these documents is provided together with the permalinkdocuments containing the requested information.
Amendment 643 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. The CE marking shall be affixed to those products for which the manufacturer has drawn up a declaration of performance or a declaration of performance and conformity in accordance with Articles 9 and 11 to 14. The CE marking shall be affixed to key parts. The CE marking may not be affixed to parts which are not key parts.
Amendment 649 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) the unique identification code of the product-type, the permalink to the manufacturer’s products registration(s) in Union databases and the precise location therein where the product can be found;
Amendment 651 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point g
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point g
Amendment 653 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
3. The CE marking shall be affixed before the product is placed on the market or directly installed into a construction work. It may be subsequently followed by a pictogram or any other mark indicating a special risk or use.
Amendment 659 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Markings other than the CE marking, including private ones, may contain additional information that could help users to make an informed choice on which product would be best suited for the needs of their construction work
Amendment 661 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 664 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Amendment 666 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 671 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point iii
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point iii
(iii) email addresses, and websites and social media profiles, if any, of these operators;
Amendment 672 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point v
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point v
Amendment 678 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. The manufacturer shall determine the product type, respecting the boundaries set up therefore by the definition provided in Article 3 point (31). The product type shall be processed in accordance with the applicable assessment and verification system set out in Annex V. The manufacturer shall draw up a declaration of performance and a declaration of conformity in accordance with Articles 9 and Articles 11 to 15 and affix the CE marking in accordance with Articles 16 and 17.
Amendment 679 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 2
Amendment 682 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The manufacturer shall, as the basis for the declarations referred to in paragraph 1, draw up a technical documentation describing the intended use including the precise conditions for use and all the elements necessary to demonstrate performance and conformity.
Amendment 683 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
That technical documentation shall contain the mandatory or facultative calculation of environmental, including climate sustainability assessed in accordance with harmonised technical specifications adopted under this Regulation or with Commission acts adopted under this Regulation.
Amendment 684 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
The manufacturer shall ensure that its product bear a manufacturer-specific type number and, a batch or serial number or any other element allowing their identification. If this is impossible, the required information shall be provided on the packaging, on an affixed tag or, as last resort, in a document accompanying the product.
Amendment 692 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 9
Article 21 – paragraph 9
9. Where the product presents a risk or is likely to present a risk, the manufacturer shall within two working days thereof inform, the manufacturer shall inform without undue delay the authorised representative, importers, distributors, fulfilment service providers, and online market places involved in the distribution, as well as the competent national authorities of the Member States in which the manufacturer or – to its knowledge – other economic operators made the product available. The manufacturer shall, to that effect, provide all useful details and, in particular, specify the type of the non- compliance, the frequency of accidents or incidents and the corrective measures taken or recommended. In case of risks caused by products which have already reached the final user or consumer, the manufacturer shall also alert the media andat cannot be identified or contacted directly. The manufacturer shall through media and other appropriate channels, ensuring the widest possible reach, disseminate the inform themation about appropriate measures to eliminate or, if not possible, to reduce the risks. In case of a “serious risk” in the meaning of Article 3, point (71) the manufacturer shall withdraw and recall the product at their own cost.
Amendment 695 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) respect the minimum recycled content obligations and other limit values regarding aspects of environmental, including climate sustainability contained in harmonised technical specifications; sustainability as assessed per each product category. Minimum recycled content obligations should be set by the European Commission after consulting with industry stakeholder
Amendment 697 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5
Article 22 – paragraph 5
Amendment 698 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 6
Article 22 – paragraph 6
Amendment 702 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 2
2. Authorised representatives shall act with due care in relation to the obligations of this Regulation. They shall be liable for gross negligence or conscious infringement of this Article and of Article 19 in accordance with national law on contractual and extra-contractual liability.
Amendment 703 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) terminate the contract, when deemed appropriate, where the manufacturer infringes this Regulation and inform thereof the competent national authorities of the Member States where the product is placed on the market and the national competent authority of his own place of business;
Amendment 704 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) when having reason to believe that a product in question is non-compliant or presents a risk, inform the manufacturer and the national competent authorities of the Member States where the product is placed on the market and the national competent authority of his own place of business thereof; and
Amendment 705 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5
Article 23 – paragraph 5
5. Where an authorised representative considers that there iidentifies a non-compliance mentioned in the paragraph 4, the authorised representative shall ask the manufacturer to remedy the non- compliances. The manufacturer shall thereon stop the placing on the market and ask other economic operators involved in the distribution to stop their commercial activities, until the authorised representative regards the infringements as remedied. Where the non-compliances are not remedied within one month whilst products possibly continue to be made available on the market, the authorised representative shall be allowed to terminate his contract with the manufacturer and thereof inform the national competent authorities of the Member States where the products are placed on the market and the national competent authority of his own place of business. The latter shall coordinate joint actions of all competent authorities, unless the national competent authorities agree on another national competent authority to coordinatenon-compliance is remedied.
Amendment 706 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 4
Article 24 – paragraph 4
Amendment 708 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 7
Article 24 – paragraph 7
7. The importer shall investigate complaints, and, if necessary, keep a register of complaints, of non-conforming products and of product withdrawals or recalls, and shall keep manufacturers and distributors informed of any such monitoring.
Amendment 710 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. When making a product available on the market, the distributors shall verify at a documentary level that the manufacturer and the importer have complied with the requirements set out in Article 21(1), (5) and (6) and where applicable in Article 22(2), points (f) and (i) and shall fulfil the obligations incumbent on importers in accordance with Article 24(13) to (5) whilst references to “placing on the market” shall be understood as “further making available on the market”.
Amendment 712 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3
Article 25 – paragraph 3
Amendment 717 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1
Article 27 – paragraph 1
1. When contributing to the making available on the market or direct installation of a product, fulfilment service provider or broker shall act with due care in relation to the obligations of this Regulation. It shall be liable for infringement of this Article and of Article 19 in accordance with national law on contractual and extra-contractual liability.
Amendment 718 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28
Article 28
Amendment 719 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29
Article 29
Amendment 722 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30
Article 30
Amendment 727 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31
Article 31
Amendment 731 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33
Article 33
Amendment 734 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Following a request for a European technical assessment by a manufacturer or a group of manufacturers or on initiative of the Commission, a European assessment document may be drawn up and adopted by the organisation of technical assessment bodies (‘TABs’) in agreement with the Commission for any kind or category of products product not covered by:
Amendment 745 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a description of the kind or category of products product covered; and
Amendment 747 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the list of essential characteristics, relevant for the intended use of the kind or category of products product as set out by the manufacturer and agreed between the manufacturer and the organisation of TABs, and the methods and criteria for assessing the performance of the product in relation to those essential characteristics.
Amendment 749 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2
Article 40 – paragraph 2
2. Principles for the applicable factory production control to be applied shall be set out in the European assessment document, taking into account the conditions of the manufacturing process of the kind or category of products product concerned.
Amendment 750 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3
Article 40 – paragraph 3
3. Where the performance of some of certain essential characteristics of the kind or category of products product can appropriately be assessed with methods and criteria established in harmonised technical specifications or European assessment documents, those existing methods and criteria shall be incorporated as parts of the European assessment document, unless there are good reasons to deviate from this rule.
Amendment 775 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 78 – paragraph 1
Article 78 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission is empowered to supplement this Regulation by means of delegated act according to Article 87, by setting up a voluntary Union construction products database or system where information related to showing compliance with this regulation can be stored or linked to. This initiative should that builds to the extent possible on the Digital Product Passport established by Regulation (EU) ... [Regulation on ecodesign for sustainable products] in order to avoid overlaps with other EU legislation and to ensure interoperability with already existing requirements.
Amendment 792 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1
Article 79 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall support economic operators by product contact points for construction. Member States shall designate and maintain at least one product contact point for construction on their territory and shall ensure that their product contact points for construction have sufficient powers and adequate resources for the proper performance of their tasks and at any rate at least one full- time equivalence per Member State and one additional full-time equivalence per each ten millions of inhabitants. They shall ensure that product contact points for construction deliver their services in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/172449 and that they coordinate with the contact points for mutual recognition established by Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2019/51550 . _________________ 49 Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012; OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 1–38. 50 Regulation (EU) 2019/515 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Regulation (EC) No 764/2008; OJ L 91, 29.3.2019, p. 1–18.
Amendment 794 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission after consultation with the Member states may cooperate, including through the exchange of information, with third countries or international organisations in the field of application of this Regulation, such as:
Amendment 797 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83
Article 83
Amendment 804 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84
Article 84
Amendment 833 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 88 – paragraph 1
Article 88 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall be assistguided by the Committee on Construction Products. This committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply (advisory procedure).
Amendment 839 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 90 – paragraph 4
Article 90 – paragraph 4
Amendment 849 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 92 – paragraph 1
Article 92 – paragraph 1
Regulation (EU) 305/2011 is repealed with effect from 1 January 2045.10 years after entry into force of this Regulation
Amendment 858 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 93 a (new)
Article 93 a (new)
Article 93 a Prioritisation and planning 1. The Commission shall adopt by six months after entry into force of the Regulation and regularly update a working plan, covering a period of at least 3 years, setting out a list of product families or categories it intends to establish obligations and the necessary standardisation requests to be adopted in accordance with this Regulation. In the development of the working plan, the Commission shall consult the Member States, the European Parliament and the European Standardisation Organisations. 2. The Commission shall once a year report to the Member States and the European Parliament about the progress in implementing the working plan including the standardisation requests issued.
Amendment 861 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Part A – point 1 – paragraph 4
Annex I – Part A – point 1 – paragraph 4
Amendment 903 #
2022/0094(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Part D – point 1 – introductory part
Annex I – Part D – point 1 – introductory part
1. PWhere the information is not already provided with the declaration of performance, products shall be accompanied by the following information:
Amendment 63 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In order to tackle unfair commercial practices which prevent consumers from making sustainable consumption choices, such as practices associated with the early obsolescence of goods, misleading environmental claims (“greenwashing”), non-transparent and non-credible sustainability labels or sustainability information tools, specific rules should be introduced in Union consumer law. This would enable national competent bodies to address those practices effectively. By ensuring that environmental claims are fair, consumers will be able to choose products that are genuinely better for the environment than competing products. This will encourage competition towards more environmentally sustainable products, thus reducing negative impact on the environment. To enable sustainable consumption choices, the products offered must be competitive, particularly in terms of their price compared to similar non- sustainable products.
Amendment 71 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Comparing products based on their environmental or social aspects, including through the use of tools to provide information about their sustainability, information toolsmpact on jobs in the EU (‘social outcome’) and greenhouse gas emissions (‘carbon footprint’), is an increasingly common marketing technique. In order to ensure that such comparisons do not mislead consumers, Article 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC should be amended to require that the consumer is provided with information about the method of the comparison, the products which are the object of comparison and the suppliers of those products and their location, and the measures to keep information up to date. This should ensure that consumers make better informed transactional decisions when using such services. The comparison should be objective by, in particular, comparing products which serve the same function, using a common method and common assumptions, and comparing material and verifiable features of the products being compared.
Amendment 87 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) In order to improve the welfare of consumers, the amendments to Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC should also address several practices associated with early obsolescence, including planned obsolescence practices, understood as a commercial policy involving deliberately planning or designing a product with a limited useful life so that it prematurely becomes obsolete or non-functional after a certain period of time. Purchasing products that are expected to last longer than they actually do causes consumer detriment. Furthermore, early obsolescence practices have an overall negative impact on the environment in the form of increased material waste. Therefore, addressing those practices are also likely to reduce the amount of waste, contributing to a more sustainable consumption. In this respect, the marketing of certain disposable consumer products that generate unnecessary waste, such as disposable electronic cigarettes, should be prohibited.
Amendment 90 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) It should be prohibited to omit to informce the consumer thato make a software update, including a security update, that will negatively impact the use of goods with digital elements or certain features of those goods, even if the update improves the functioning of other features. For example, when inviting consumers to update the operating system on their smartphone, the trader will have to inform the consumer if such an update will negatively impact the functioning of any of the features of the smartphone. Furthermore, manufacturers should be required to provide, free of charge, the updates needed to keep the good in conformity for a period corresponding to the estimated lifespan.
Amendment 94 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) It should also be prohibited to omit to inform the consumer about the existence of a feature of the good introducintroduce a feature aimed ato limit itsing the durability of a product. For example, such a feature could be software which stops or downgrades the functionality of the good after a particular period of time, or it could be a piece of hardware which is designed to fail after a particular period of time. Theis prohibition of omitting to inform consumers of such features of the goods complements and doesshall not affect the remedies available to consumers when they constitute a lack of conformity under Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council26. For such a commercial practice to be considered unfair, it should not be necessary to demonstrate that the purpose of the feature is to stimulate the replacement of the respective good. The use of features limiting the durability of the goods should be distinguished from manufacturing practices using materials or processes of general low quality resulting in limited durability of the goods. Lack of conformity of a good resulting from the use of low quality materials or processes should continue to be governed by the rules on the conformity of goods set out in Directive (EU) 2019/771. __________________ 26 Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC (OJ L 136, 22.5.2019, p. 28).;
Amendment 101 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Another practice associated with early obsolescence which should be prohibited and added to the list in Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC is marketing goods that inducinge the consumer into replacing the consumables of a product earlier than would otherwise be necessary for technical reasons. Such practices mislead the consumer into believing that the goods will no longer function unless their consumables are replaced, thus leading them to purchase more consumables than necessary. For example, the practice of urging the consumer, via the settings of the printer, to replace the printer ink cartridges before they are actually empty in order to stimulate the purchase of additional ink cartridges would be prohibited. Furthermore, it should also be prohibited to fail to inform the consumer of the actual price of a product which has a component or element that needs to be replaced regularly (printer ink cartridge, battery, etc.).
Amendment 106 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC should also be amended to prohibit omitting to inform the consumer that the the marketing of a good is designed to limit its functionality when using consumables, spare parts or accessories that are not provided by the original producer. For example, the marketing of printers that are designed to limit their functionality when using ink cartridges not provided by the original producer of the printer without disclosing this information to the consumer would be prohibited. This practice could mislead consumers into purchasing an alternative ink cartridge which cannot be used for that printer, thus leading to unnecessary repair costs, waste streams or additional costs due to the obligation to use the original producer’s consumables which the consumer could not foresee at the time of purchase. Similarly, marketing smart devices designed to limit their functionality when using chargers or spare parts that are not provided by the original producer without disclosing this information to the consumer would be prohibited as well.
Amendment 121 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) In view of the established minimum duration of two years of the seller’s liability for lack of conformity in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/771 and, of the fact that many product failures occur after two years, the trader’s obligation to inform consumers about the existence and duration of the producer’s commercial guarantee of durability should apply to guarantees that are of more than two years and of the fact that Directive (EU) 2019/771 is to be reviewed by 2024, the two-year legal guarantee period should be extended to suit product categories with a longer estimated lifespan.
Amendment 129 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) To allow consumers to make an informed transactional decision and choose goods that are easier to repair, traders should provide, before the conclusion of the contract, for all types of goods, where applicable as a first step, the reparability score of the good as provided by the producer in accordance with Union lawnational and Union law. This reparability score shall be established according to several criteria, namely the availability and sale price of spare parts in relation to the price of new equipment, including the ordering procedure, information about the disassembly of and access to parts, the length of availability on the market of spare parts and delivery times, and the availability of a user and repair manual. This reparability score should be affixed directly to the product or its packaging. In shops it should be displayed on or in the immediate vicinity of the product, and on websites in the presentation of the equipment and close to the price. Within two years of this Directive entering into force, this reparability score should be extended to a wider category of goods.
Amendment 134 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Pursuant to Article 5(1), point (e), and Article 6(1), point (m), of Directive 2011/83/EU traders are obliged to provide the consumer before the consumer is bound by the contract with information on the existence and the conditions of after-sales services, including repair services, where such services are provided. In addition, in order to ensure that consumers are well informed about the reparability of the goods they purchase, where a reparability score is not yet established in accordance with Union law, traders should provide, for all types of goods, other relevant repair information that is made available by the producer, such as information about the availability of spare parts, andabout the availability and sale price of spare parts in relation to the price of new equipment, including the ordering procedure, information about the disassembly of and access to parts, the length of availability on the market of spare parts and delivery times, and the availability of a user and repair manual.
Amendment 140 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33 a (new)
Recital 33 a (new)
(33a) Given the key role played by small and medium-sized enterprises in the transition to a more local and circular economy, the Member States and the Commission shall take measures to help them face the administrative and financial burdens.
Amendment 141 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) Since the objectives of this Directive, namely, enabling better informed transactional decisions by consumers to promote sustainable consumption, supporting a more local and circular economy, eliminating practices that cause damage to the sustainable economy and mislead consumers away from sustainable consumption choices, and ensuring a better and consistent application of the Union consumer legal framework, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States individually but can rather, by reason of the Union-wide character of the problem, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.
Amendment 181 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2005/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the main characteristics of the product, such as its availability, benefits, risks, execution, composition, environmental or social impact, accessories, durability, reparability, recyclability, after- sale customer assistance and complaint handling, method and date of manufacture or provision, delivery, fitness for purpose, usage, quantity, specification, geographical or commercial origin or the results to be expected from its use, or the results and material features of tests or checks carried out on the product.;
Amendment 205 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14 d
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14 d
(14d) ‘reparability score’ means a score to be made known to the consumer when they are purchasing new equipment, expressing the capacity of a good to be repaired, based on a method established in accordance with Union law;
Amendment 216 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e a
(ea) for all goods, where the producer makes it available, information that the goods benefit from a commercial guarantee of durability and its duration in units of time, where that guarantee covers the entire good and has a duration of more than two years;
Amendment 224 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e b
(eb) for energy-using goods, where the producer does not make available the information referred to in point (ea), information that the producer has not provided information on the existence of a commercial guarantee of durability of more than two years. This information shall be at least as prominent as any other information about the existence and the conditions of after-sales services and commercial guarantees provided in accordance with point (e);
Amendment 239 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Directive 2011/83/UE
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point j
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) when point (i) is not applicable, information made availableprovided by the producer about the availability of spare parts, including the procedure of ordering them, and about the availability of a user and repair manual.; and sale price of spare parts in relation to the price of new equipment, including the procedure of ordering them, information about the disassembly of and access to parts, the length of availability on the market of spare parts and delivery times, and about the availability of a user and repair manual: when this information is not provided by the producer, the consumer shall be informed thereof; support shall be provided to small and medium-sized enterprises to enable them to provide such information;
Amendment 253 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m a
(ma) for all types of goods, where the producer makes it available, information that the goods benefit from a commercial guarantee of durability and its duration in units of time, where that guarantee covers the entire good and has a duration of more than two years;
Amendment 274 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point v
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point v
(v) when point (u) is not applicable, information made availableprovided by the producer about the availability of spare parts, including the procedure of ordering them, and about the availability of a user and repair manual.and sale price of spare parts in relation to the price of new equipment, including the procedure of ordering them, information about the disassembly of and access to parts, the length of availability on the market of spare parts and delivery times, and about the availability of a user and repair manual; when this information is not provided by the producer, the consumer shall be informed thereof; support shall be provided to small and medium-sized enterprises to enable them to provide such information;
Amendment 319 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2005/29/EC
Annex I – point 23 d
Annex I – point 23 d
23d. Omitting to inform the consumer thatImposing a software update that will negatively impact the use of goods with digital elements or certain feature of those goods even if the software update improves the function of other features.
Amendment 320 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2005/29/EC
Annex I – point 23d a (new)
Annex I – point 23d a (new)
23da. Failing to inform the consumer of the actual price of a product which has a component or element that needs to be replaced regularly (printer ink cartridge, battery, etc.).
Amendment 321 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2005/29/EC
Annex I – point 23d b (new)
Annex I – point 23d b (new)
23db. Manufacturers not providing, free of charge, the updates needed to keep the good in conformity for a period corresponding to the estimated lifespan.
Amendment 335 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2005/29/EC
Annex I – point 23h a
Annex I – point 23h a
23ha. The person responsible for placing a product on the market employing stratagems seeking to reduce its lifespan and encourage the consumer to buy a one.
Amendment 339 #
2022/0092(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2005/29/EC
Annex I – point 23 i
Annex I – point 23 i
23i. Omitting to inform that a goodPlacing a good on the market that is designed to limit its functionality when using consumables, spare parts or accessories that are not provided by the original producer.
Amendment 37 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The concept of human rights due diligence was specified and further developed in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises80 which extended the application of due diligence to environmental and governance topics. The OECD Guidance on Responsible Business Conduct and sectoral guidance81 are internationally recognised frameworks setting out practical due diligence steps to help companies identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address actual and potential impacts in their operations, value chains and other business relationships. The concept of due diligence is also embedded in the recommendations of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy82. _________________ 80 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 2011 updated edition, available at http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/guidelines/. https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/mneguidel ines. 81 OECD Guidance on Responsible Business Conduct, 2018, and sector- specific guidance, available at https://www.oecd.org/investment/due- diligence-guidance-for-responsible- business-conduct.htm.recommendations of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy82. It was also studied by international economic policy and research organisations, such as the OECD. _________________ 82 The “International Labour Organization’s Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, 2017, available at: https://www.ilo.org/empent/Publications/ WCMS_094386/lang--en/index.htm.
Amendment 38 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) International agreements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the Union and the Member States are parties, such as the Paris Agreement84 and the recent Glasgow Climate Pact85, set out precisalthough non-binding, set out precise and proactive avenues to address climate change and keep global warming within 1.5 C degrees. Besides specific actions being expected from all signatory Parties, the role of the private sector, in particular its investment strategies, is considered central to achieve these objectives. _________________ 84 https://unfccc.int/files/essential_backgroun d/convention/application/pdf/english_paris _agreement.pdf. 85 Glasgow Climate Pact, adopted on 13 November 2021 at COP26 in Glasgow, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resourc e/cma2021_L16_adv.pdf.https://unfccc.int/ sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_L16_ adv.pdf.
Amendment 39 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) This Directive is in coherence with the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-202499. This Action Plan defines as a priority to strengthen the Union’s engagement to actively promote the global implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other relevant international guidelines such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, including by advancing relevant due diligence standards. _________________ 99 Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024 (JOIN/2020/5 final).
Amendment 65 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Under this Directive, EU companies with more than 500 employees on average and a worldwide net turnover exceeding EUR 150 million in the financial year preceding the last financial year should be required to comply with due diligence. As regards companies which do not fulfil those criteria, but which had more than 250 employees on average and more than EUR 40 million worldwide net turnover in the financial year preceding the last financial year and which operate in one or more high-impact sectors, due diligence should apply 2 years after the end of the transposition period of this directive, in order to provide for a longer adaptation period. In order to ensure a proportionate burden, companies operating in such high- impact sectors should be required to comply with more targeted due diligence focusing on severe adverse impacts. Temporary agency workers, including those posted under Article 1(3), point (c), of Directive 96/71/EC, as amended by Directive 2018/957/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council103, should be included in the calculation of the number of employees in the user company. Posted workers under Article 1(3), points (a) and (b), of Directive 96/71/EC, as amended by Directive 2018/957/EU, should only be included in the calculation of the number of employees of the sending company. Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), defined in accordance with the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises103 a, should be excluded from the scope of this Directive so as to reduce the administrative burdens and excessive requirements imposed upon them. _________________ 103 Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ L 173, 9.7.2018, p. 16). 103 a Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (C(2003) 1422) (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, pp. 36–41).
Amendment 71 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) In order to reflect the priority areas of international action aimed at tackling human rights and environmental issues, the selection of high-impact sectors for the purposes of this Directive should be based on existing sectoral OECD due diligence guidance as defined by the OECD. The following sectors should be regarded as high-impact for the purposes of this Directive: the manufacture of textiles, leather and related products (including footwear), and the wholesale trade of textiles, clothing and footwear; agriculture, forestry, fisheries (including aquaculture), the manufacture of food products, and the wholesale trade of agricultural raw materials, live animals, wood, food, and beverages; the extraction of mineral resources regardless of where they are extracted from (including crude petroleum, natural gas, coal, lignite, metals and metal ores, as well as all other, non- metallic minerals and quarry products), the manufacture of basic metal products, other non-metallic mineral products and fabricated metal products (except machinery and equipment), and the wholesale trade of mineral resources, basic and intermediate mineral products (including metals and metal ores, construction materials, fuels, chemicals and other intermediate products). As regards the financial sector, due to its specificities, in particular as regards the value chain and the services offered, even if it is covered by sector-specific OECD guidance, it should not form part of the high-impact sectors covered by this Directive. At the same time, in this sector, the broader coverage of actual and potential adverse impacts should be ensured by also including very large companies in the scope that are regulated financial undertakings, even if they do not have a legal form with limited liability.
Amendment 73 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
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 in the Union in the financial year preceding the last financial year or a net turnover of more than EUR 40 million but less than EUR 150 million in the financial year preceding the last financial year in one or more of the high- impact sectors, as of 2 years after the end of the transposition period of this Directive.
Amendment 76 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) For defining the scope of application in relation to non-EU companies the described 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 effectscriterion of contracts concluded with companies or individuals established in the European Union should be chosen. This connection already justifyies the application of Union law to third- country 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 ofnon-EU companies in EU legal acts such as the Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. With a view to ensuring that the supervisory authority knows which 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 turnove conclude contracts with companies or aind revenue definitions are similar in international accounting frameworks too. With a view to ensuring that the supervisory authority knows which third country companies generateividuals established in the Union and the required turnover in the Union tofore 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.
Amendment 195 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. This Directive shall also apply under the same conditions to companies which are formed in accordance with the legislation of a third country, and fulfil one of the following conditconclude contracts with companies or individuals established in the Unions:.
Amendment 197 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 201 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 506 #
2022/0051(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
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 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 Agreementpolluting emissions and material pollution and with reducing climate impacts with the aim of preventing the average increase in global warming from exceeding 1.5 °C. 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.
Amendment 87 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In recent years, data-driven technologies have had transformative effects on all sectors of the economy. In recent years, data-driven technologies have had transformative effects on all sectors of the economy. High quality and interoperable data from different domains increase competitiveness and innovation and ensure sustainable economic growth. In the light of those challenges, it is critical that the Commission support the Member States in their digital independence strategies, including in the development of European digital infrastructure, and ensure that European users’ privacy, data security and rights are strongly protected. The same dataset may potentially be used and reused for a variety of purposes and to an unlimited degree, without any loss in its quality or quantity.
Amendment 90 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Barriers to data sharing prevent an optimal allocation of data to the benefit of society. These barriers include a lack of incentives for data holders to enter voluntarily into data sharing agreements, uncertainty about rights and obligations in relation to data, abuse of dominant positions by companies from third countries, the EU’s lack of ambition with regard to strategic independence vis-à-vis third countries and their companies, costs of contracting and implementing technical interfaces, the high level of fragmentation of information in data silos, poor metadata management, the absence of standards for semantic and technical interoperability, bottlenecks impeding data access, a lack of common data sharing practices and abuse of contractual imbalances with regards to data access and use.
Amendment 99 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The fundamental right to the protection of personal data is safeguarded in particular under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. Directive 2002/58/EC additionally protects private life and the confidentiality of communications, including providing conditions to any personal and non- personal data storing in and access from terminal equipment. These instruments provide the basis for sustainable and responsible data processing, including where datasets include a mix of personal and non-personal data. This Regulation complements and is without prejudice to Union law on data protection and privacy, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. No provision of this Regulation should be applied or interpreted in such a way as to diminish or limit the right to the protection of personal data or the right to privacy and confidentiality of communications. In the event of a conflict between this Regulation and Union law on the protection of personal data or national law adopted in accordance with Union law of that kind, the relevant Union or national law on the protection of personal data shall prevail. This Regulation does not create a legal basis for the processing of personal data, nor does it affect any of the rights or obligations set out in Regulations (EU) 2016/679 or (EU) 2018/1725 or Directives 2002/58/EC or (EU) 2016/680.
Amendment 102 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The principles of data minimisation and data protection by design and by default are essential when processing involves significant risks to the fundamental rights of individuals. Taking into account the state of the art, all parties to data sharing, including where within scope of this Regulation, should implement technical and organisational measures to protect these rights. Such measures include not only pseudonymisation and encryption, but also the use of increasingly available technology that permits algorithms to be brought to the data and allow valuable insights to be derived without the transmission between parties or unnecessary copying of the raw or structured data themselves. Products should, therefore, be designed in a way that makes it possible for data subjects to use products covered by this Regulation anonymously or with the least possible infringement of their privacy.
Amendment 107 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Physical products that obtain, generate or collect, by means of their components, data concerning their performance, use or environment and that are able to communicate that data via a publicly available electronic communications service (often referred to as the Internet of Things) should be covered by this Regulation. Electronic communications services include land- based telephone networks, television cable networks, satellite-based networks and near-field communication networks. Such products may include vehicles, home equipment and consumer goods, medical and health devices or agricultural and industrial machinery. The data represent the digitalisation of user actions and events and should accordingly be accessible to the user, while information derived or inferred from this data, where lawfully held, should not be considered within scope of this Regulation. Such data are potentially valuable to the user and support innovation and the development of digital and other services protecting the environment, health and the circular economy, in particular though facilitating the maintenance and repair of the products in question. The processing, use and sharing of and access to personal and sensitive data, such as health data, by data holders, users and third parties or recipients shall be subject to all the conditions and rules laid down in the EU regulatory framework on data protection and privacy.
Amendment 208 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 2 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) manufacturers of products and suppliers of related services placed on the market in the Union, regardless of their place of establishment, and the users of such products or services;
Amendment 217 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
(1a) ‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person; an identifiable natural person is a natural person who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;
Amendment 224 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new)
(1b) ‘non-personal data’ means data other than personal data as defined in point (1) of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
Amendment 322 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. The user and/or third party shall not use the data obtained pursuant to a request referred to in paragraph 1 to develop a product that competes with the product from which the data originate.
Amendment 343 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) coerce, deceive or manipulate the user in any way, whether that person is the person concerned or not, by subverting or impairing the autonomy, decision-making or choices of the user, including by means of a digital interface with the user;
Amendment 359 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Where a data holder is obliged to make data available to a data recipient under Article 5 or under other Union law or national legislation implementing Union law, it shall do so under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and in a transparent manner in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter IV and without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 391 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – title
Article 13 – title
Unfair contractual terms unilaterally imposed on a micro, small or medium- sized enterprise
Amendment 395 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. A contractual term, concerning the access to and use of data or the liability and remedies for the breach or the termination of data related obligations which has been unilaterally imposed by an enterprise on a micro, small or medium-sizednother enterprise as defined in Article 2 of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC shall not be binding on the latter enterprise if it is unfair.
Amendment 406 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
An exceptional need to use data within the meaning of this Chapter shall be strictly limited in time and scope and only deemed to exist in any of the following circumstances:
Amendment 421 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point c – point 2
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point c – point 2
Amendment 477 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) terminating, after a maximum notice period of 3015 calendar days, the contractual agreement of the service;
Amendment 545 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2
Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. Where the mandatory transition period as defined in paragraph 1, points (a) and (c) of this Article is technically unfeasible, the provider of data processing services shall notify the customer within 7 working days after the switching request has been made, duly motivating the technical unfeasibility with a detailed report and indicating an alternative transition period, which may not exceed 63 months. In accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, full service continuity shall be ensured throughout the alternative transition period against reduced charges, referred to in Article 25(2).
Amendment 555 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. From [date X+3yr + 3 months] onwards, providers of data processing services shall not impose any charges on the customer for the switching process.
Amendment 564 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. From [date X, the date of entry into force of the Data Act] until [date X+3yr + 3 months], providers of data processing services may impose reduced charges on the customer for the switching process.
Amendment 601 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1
Article 27 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of data processing services shall take all reasonablethe necessary technical, legal and organisational measures, including contractual arrangements, in order to prevent international transfer or governmental access to non-personal data held in the Union where such transfer or access would create a conflict with Union law or the national law of the relevant Member State, without prejudice to paragraph 2 or 3.
Amendment 603 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2
Article 27 – paragraph 2
2. Any decision or judgment of a court or tribunal, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and any decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a provider of data processing services to transfer from or give access to non-personal data within the scope of this Regulation held in the Union may only be recognised or enforceable in any manner if based on an international agreement, such as a mutual legal assistance treaty, in force between the requesting third country and the Union or any such agreement between the requesting third country and a Member State.
Amendment 606 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 607 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the reasoned objection of the addressee is subject to a review by a competent court or tribunal in the third- country, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and
Amendment 659 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 7 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 7 a (new)
Amendment 660 #
2022/0047(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 7 b (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Entities falling within the scope of this Regulation shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Member State where the entity is established. In the event that the entity is established in more than one Member State, it shall be deemed to fall under the territorial jurisdiction of all Member States if the entity is a gatekeeper designated pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 on fair and competitive markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828.
Amendment 83 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) In light of the structural deficiencies of the semiconductor supply chain and the resulting risk of future shortages, this Regulation provides instruments for a coordinated approach to monitoring and effectively tackling possible market disruptions. The long-term objective of the monitoring exercise enshrined under this Regulation should be a shift from crisis mitigation to crisis prevention.
Amendment 84 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Due to the complex, quickly evolving and interlinked semiconductor value chains with various actors, a coordinated approach to regular monitoring is necessary to increase the ability to mitigate risks that may negatively affect the supply of semiconductors. Member States, in close coordination with relevant stakeholders, should monitor the semiconductor value chain focusing on early warning indicators and the availability and integrity of the services and goods provided by key market actors,. The monitoring activity shall be targeted and purpose driven in such a way that it would not represent an excessive administrative burden for undertakings nor jeopardize confidentiality requirements .Information collected within the scope of this exercise shall be consistent, comparable at EU level and paced in line with evolving global developments. In this regard the Commission may provide guidance in order to avoid excessive defragmentation in the set-up of national monitoring mechanisms.
Amendment 92 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) As part of the monitoring, national competent authorities should also do a mapping of undertakings operating in the Union along the semiconductor supply chain established in their national territory and notify this information to the Commission. Strategic mapping shall complement the monitoring activity under this Regulation and should serve the objective of understanding long-term interdependencies across the supply chain.
Amendment 97 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) In order to forecast and prepare for future disruptions of the different stages of the semiconductor value chain in the Union, the Commission should, assisted by the European Semiconductor Board, identify early warning indicators in the Union risk assessment. Such indicators could include the availability of raw materials, intermediate products and human capital needed for manufacturing semiconductors, or appropriate manufacturing equipment, the forecasted demand for semiconductors on the Union and global markets, price surges exceeding normal price fluctuation, the effect of accidents, attacks, natural disasters or other serious events, the effect of trade policies, tariffs, export restrictions, trade barriers and other trade related measures, and the effect of business closures, delocalisations or acquisitions of key market actors. Member States should monitor these early warning indicators. A strong involvement of the industry in the monitoring of identified indicators should be a prerequisite for earlier qualitative assessment and simulation of potential shortages.
Amendment 110 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) The semiconductor crisis stage should be triggered as last resort in the presence of concrete, serious, and reliable evidence of such a crisis. A semiconductor crisis occurs in case of serious disruptions to the supply of semiconductors leading to significant shortages which entail significant delays and negative effects on one or more important economic sectors in the Union, either directly or through ripple effects of the shortage, given that the Union’s industrial sectors represent a strong user base of semiconductors. Alternatively or in addition, a semiconductor crisis also occurs when serious disruptions of the supply of semiconductors lead to significant shortages which prevent the supply, repair and maintenance of essential products used by critical sectors, for instance medical and diagnostic equipment.
Amendment 112 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) In order to ensure an agile and effective response to such a semiconductor crisis, the Commission should be empowered to activate the crisis stage by means of an implementing acts and for a predetermined duration period, taking into account the opinion of the European Semiconductor Board. The Commission should assess the need for prolongation and prolong the duration of the crisis stage for a predetermined period, should such a necessity be ascertained, taking into account the opinion of the European Semiconductor Board. Equally, should supply chain recovery conditions be ascertained, the Commission, in accordance with the European Semiconductor Board, should assess the possibility of ending the crisis stage and related measures in advance.
Amendment 124 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) setting up a coordination mechanism between the Member States and, the Commission as well as key market actors and relevant end user industries for monitoring the supply of semiconductors and crisis response to semiconductor shortages.
Amendment 126 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 16
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 16
(16) ‘critical sector’ means any sector referred to in the Annex of the Commission proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the resilience of critical entities, the defence sector and other, activities that are relevant for public safety and security as well as any other activity or sector of strategic economic importance for Member States;
Amendment 148 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall invite the main users of semiconductors and other relevant stakeholders to provide information regarding significant fluctuations in demand and known disruptions of their supply chain. To facilitate the exchange of information, Member States shall provide for a mechanism and administrative set-up for these updates. In doing so, Member States shall consult relevant end user industries with a view to build the necessary mechanisms on existing industry best monitoring practices.
Amendment 174 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall review the Union risk assessment including the early warning indicators as necessary, including upon indication of the European Semiconductor Board.
Amendment 188 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. During the crisis stage the Commission shall, upon request from a Member State or on its own initiative, equally assess whether advance termination of crisis stage should be considered. Where the assessment concludes that earlier termination is appropriate, the Commission may conclude activation after consulting the European Semiconductor Board.
Amendment 207 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4
Article 19 – paragraph 4
4. The use of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and restricted to what is necessary for addressing serious disruptions of vital societal functions or strategic economic activities in the Union and must be in the best interest of the Union. The use of these measures shall avoid placing disproportionate administrative burden on SMEs.
Amendment 215 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission may, upon the request of two or more Member States, establish a mandate to act as a central purchasing body on behalf of the participating Member States (‘participating Member States’) for their public procurement of crisis-relevant products for certain critical sectors or strategic economic activities in the Union (‘common purchasing’).
Amendment 219 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall, in consultation with the European Semiconductor Board, assess the utility, necessity and proportionality of the request. Where the Commission intends not to follow the request, it shall inform the Member States concerned and the European Semiconductor Board without undue delay and give reasons for its refusal.
Amendment 223 #
2022/0032(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4
Article 22 – paragraph 4
4. Procurement under this Regulation shall be carried out by the Commission in accordance with the rules set out in the Financial Regulation for its own procurement. The Commission may have the ability and responsibility, on behalf of all participating Member States, to enter into contracts with economic operators, including individual producers of crisis- relevant products, concerning the purchase of such products or concerning the advance financing of the production or the development of such products in exchange for a priority right to the result. The Commission shall keep Member States duly informed of the progress of the procurement procedure.
Amendment 11 #
2022/0021(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The decision-making bodies of the European standardisation organisations are open to participation not only by national standardisation bodies, but also by national standardisation organisations of acceding countries, candidate countries and potential candidates to the Union, among oth as observers. In order to avoid excluding those organisations from participation in the work of decision- making bodies concerned, while preserving the interests and autonomy of the European Union regarding its decisions in standardisation, it is only necessary to provide that the decisions in those bodies concerning European standards and European standardisation deliverables requested under Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 be taken exclusively by representatives of the Member States' national standardisation bodies, without imposing any other requirements on the work of the decision-making bodies of the European standardisationhile also taking into account the input of national standardisation organisations of third-party States or organisations.
Amendment 12 #
2022/0021(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order for the requirement for decisions in the decision-making bodies of European standardisation organisations concerning European standards and European standardisation deliverables requested by the Commission under Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 to be taken exclusively by representatives of Member States' national standardisations bodies to be effective, it is necessary to provide that the Commission may only make such requests to a European standardisation organisation that complies with that requirement.
Amendment 13 #
2022/0021(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
The Commission may within the limitations of the competences laid down in the Treaties, request that one or several European standardisation organisations draft a European standard or European standardisation deliverable within a set deadline, provided that the European standardisation organisation concerned complies with paragraph 2a. European standards and European standardisation deliverables take into account the public interest and are based on consensus.;
Amendment 15 #
2022/0021(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
2a. Each European standardisation organisation shall ensure that the following decisions concerning European standards and European standardisation deliverables referred to in paragraph 1 are taken exclusively by representatives of the Member States' national standardisation bodies within the competent decision- making body of that organisation, taking into account the opinion of participating third-party States' or organisations' national standardisation organisations:
Amendment 2 #
2021/2252(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomTakes the Council’s recognition that an enhanced European financial architecture for development (EFAD) should follow the ‘policy first’ principle and stresses that the EU’s crucial efforts in development cooperation must be consistent with other EU external activities and in line with its strategic interests, and especially with the EU’s valuview that solidarity between Member States must be prioritised, and states that the European Union is not intended to be a 'global and international player' as often said or meant to manage development aid for the entire the world; considers that development aid must mainly be provided within the normal framework of cooperation between states;
Amendment 36 #
2021/2252(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recognises that the EFAD is focused on least developed and fragile countries, especially in Sub-Saharan AfTakes the view that development aid must be subject to strict conditionality criterica, but urges that it be borne in mind that around two thirds of the EIB and EBRD’s combined external opersuch as the obligation for beneficiary countries to readmit nationals arend concentoperated i on taccession and neighbourhood countries where the EU needs to deliver okling illegal immigration; notes that, as highlighted in thewo recently launched Economic and Investment Plans for the Western Balkans as well as in the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhoods; calls in this regard for the EIB and EBRD’s operations and role to be strengthened reports published by the European Court of Auditors, the increase in aid provided to the Eastern Neighbourhood and Western Balkans has only bolstered high-level corruption in the countries in these areas.
Amendment 87 #
2021/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. RegretUnderlines the fact that Serbia has not aligned with EU sanctions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; calls on the newly elected authorities to show real commitment to EU values and to align with the EU’s decisions and positions in foreign and security policy, including sanctions against Russiathe right to determine of its own free will its foreign policy, its diplomatic alliances and its guidelines, in accordance with its historical traditions;
Amendment 295 #
2021/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Appreciates the work of the European External Action Service Strategic Communications Task Force forPoints out theat Western Balkans and calls for its reinforcementpolicy should be based primarily on inter- state relations;
Amendment 307 #
2021/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Reconfirms its support for the EU- facilitated Belgrade-Pristina dialogue and reiterates the importance of constructive engagement on the part of the authorities of both Serbia and Kosovo in order to achieve a comprehensive legally binding normalisation agreement, which is crucial for both countries to advance on their respective European paths; calls for all past agreements to be respected and fully implemented, including the Association of Serb-Majority MunicipalitiesUnderlines that there should be no obligation on Serbia to recognise Kosovo given that five EU Member States have yet to recognise it as an independent state;
Amendment 332 #
2021/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Regrets the decision ofWarns the Government of Kosovo to reject a proposal enabling the collection of the ballots of eligible voters to allow them to vote in the territory of Kosovo in the 3 April 2022 Serbian elections, as had been the case previouslyabout the provocations and threats against the Serbian enclaves in Kosovo;
Amendment 7 #
2021/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas 80 % of its citizens support the country’s future membership of the EUa recent poll conducted by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) confirmed that the majority of EU citizens and Member States do not support EU enlargement to the Western Balkan countries;
Amendment 16 #
2021/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes Montenegro’s continued commitStresses that, like any other Western Balkan country, the accession of Montenegro to the EU would be detrimental to European integration and the unwavering supthe Member States because of the internal problems faced by the country, whose very independence is still questioned by a significant proportion of its citizens for membership of the EU; underlines that progress in the negotiations continues to depend on meeting the rule of law interim benchmarks; population, as evinced by the tight results of the 2007 referendum; recalls the findings of the European Court of Auditors special report titled 'EU support for the rule of law in the Western Balkans: despite efforts, fundamental problems persist', on the subject of which the reporting member Juhan Parts said that 'the modest progress made over the last 20 years threatens the overall sustainability of the EU support provided under the accession process. Constant reforms lose credibility if they do not deliver tangible results';
Amendment 17 #
2021/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. NotStresses that all 33 screof the 33 opened chapters have been opened, but regrets that none have been closed since 2017; encourages Montenegro to specifically focus on meeting the interim benchmarks in Chapters 23 and 24 and thereafter on closing chapters, none have been closed since 2017;
Amendment 48 #
2021/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 60 #
2021/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. EncourageCalls Montenegro to make best use of the EU funds the EU to suspend the allocation of funds available to so-called candidate countries, in particular those available under the Instrument for Pre- Accession InstrumentAssistance (IPA III) and the Economic and Investment plan for the Western Balkans;
Amendment 84 #
2021/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is worried about widespread corruption and urges Montenegro to boost the criminal justice response to high-level corruption and create conditions forTakes the view that Montenegro is one of the countries most blighted by grand corruption in Europe today; underlines to theis effective and independent functioning of judicial institutions and independent bodies dealing with corruption that even President Djukanovic is accused of being involved in several cases of malpractice at the highest levels of the state, and that the Panama Papers revealed that he and his son Blazo have set up shell companies in several tax havens;
Amendment 113 #
2021/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Expresses concern about the high degree of polarisation in the media landscape, in particular the growing volume of disinformation spreading ethno- nationalist narratives that negatively impact democratic processes in the country; notes the attacks against the Serbian Church in Montenegro and the many attempts made by authorities to challenge the ownership of its religious property; condemns the protests held on 5 September 2021 against the inauguration of the new head of the Serbian Church in Montenegro;
Amendment 129 #
2021/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Condemns all violent acts during the demonstrations in Cetinje linked to the inauguration of the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church; condemns Serbian interference in this regard;
Amendment 153 #
2021/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Welcomes progress on the protection and promotion of LGBTIQ rights and the first same-sex marriage in July 2021Takes the view that the EU has no right to interfere in a country's societal debates, regardless of whether that country is a Member State or a candidate country;
Amendment 168 #
2021/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Commends Montenegro’s constructive role in regional cooperation and welcomes the implementation of actions under the Western Balkans Common Regional Market; encourages efforts to find and implement definite and binding solutions to bilateral disputes, including border disputes; criticises the EU, however, for having made several attempts, in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in particular, to impose its own views on the internal structure and institutional development of these countries, at the risk of further provoking internal divisions;
Amendment 32 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Kosovo has made progress in fighting corruption and organised crime but still remains far from EU standards;
Amendment 58 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Regrets the decision of the Kosovo Assembly of 16 January not to allow the entry of Serb ballot papers into Kosovo, thus preventing the Serb ethnic minority from voting in the Serbian referendum aimed at amending its Constitution in order to bring Serbian legislation into line with EU legislation, in the context of Serbia's accession process into the Union;
Amendment 59 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Regrets the decision of the Prime Minister of Kosovo not to allow Serbia to organise voting for its presidential and parliamentary elections on Kosovan territory, thus further deteriorating the relations between the two countries and therefore compromising the normalisation agreement between Serbia and Kosovo;
Amendment 66 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Generally opposes any further enlargement of the European Union, as the stability, economy and political tensions of the Union resulting from previous enlargement as well as from the disavowal of the 2016 "Brexit" referendum do not allow for it;
Amendment 70 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its call oExpresses concern about the attempts to implement a visa-free regime for the citizens of Kosovo, as this would compromise the security of citizens of EU Member States; recalls that 250 000 illegal firearms run free in the Ccouncil to proceed urgently with the adoption of a visa-free regime for the citizens of Kosovtry; recalls that Kosovo is a major hub for human trafficking, more precisely organ trafficking and prostitution; recalls also that the country is a major hub for cigarette, car and illicit drugs trafficking through the countries of Albania and Montenegro;
Amendment 77 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 93 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Regrets the factNotes that five EU Member States have not yedo not recognisedze Kosovo and reiteratethat this sits call for them to do suation should prevent the European Union from entering into negotiations with Kosovo;
Amendment 102 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 111 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls that according to a report by KFOR, the NATO force in Kosovo, former President Hashim Thaçi is one of the three most important figures of organised crime in Kosovo, involved in the trafficking of human beings, arms and narcotics in 1990 to keep financing the war;
Amendment 153 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that Kosovo’'s legal and institutional framework broadly guarantees the protection of human, minority and fundamental rights; points out, however, that many members of the Ashkali, Bosnian, Croatian, Gorani, Roma, Serbian and Egyptian minorities are exposed to multiple discrimination and as a result are forced to leave the country;
Amendment 169 #
2021/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Reiterates its call for greater inclusion of persons belonging to minorities, including the Roma, Ashkali and Egypt, Bosnian, Croat, Egyptian, Gorani, Roma and Serbian communities, as well as persons with disabilities and displaced persons, by providing them with access to adequate healthcare and social protection;
Amendment 13 #
2021/2236(INI)
B. whereas in its conclusions of 23- 24 June 2022, the European Council recognisjected Georgia’s European perspective and expressed its readiness to grant it candidate country status once the priorities specified in the Commission’s opinion on Georgia’s application have been addressedapplication for candidate status, merely recognising, in deliberately vague terms, its ‘European perspective’, which has no meaning in law;
Amendment 48 #
2021/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the decision of the European Council to recognise Georgia’s European perspective; notes that this decision is a strong signal of political support for the European aspirations of the people of Georgia; reiterates that to be granted candidatefuse to grant candidate country status to Georgia, a reality that cannot be masked by any status, Georgia needs to successfully address the key priorities indicated by the Commission in its opinion on Georgia’s application for membership of the European Unionisfaction derived from the recognition of a so- called ‘European perspective’, which does not correspond to any status and does not confer any rights;
Amendment 50 #
2021/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Georgian authorities to uphold the highest standards of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental freedoms and to determinedly pursueStresses, in this regard, that the de facto autonomy of the prioterritories for reform set out in the Commission’s opinion in order to unambiguously demonstrate their political determination to implement the nation’s ambitious European aspirations, as expressed by the application for EU membership that Georgia submitted on 3 March 2022; calls on the Georgian authorities to initiate and lead the work on these priorities in an inclusive manner before the Commission reportsof South Ossetia and Abkhazia since 2008 constitutes a serious obstacle to compliance with the Copenhagen criteria as regards the stability onf their implementation by the end of 2022; calls on all Georgian political forces to constructively participate in and contribute to these efforts; stresses that Georgia’s bid for accession to the EU will continue to be assessed based on its own merits and its success in meeting the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership state; stresses that compliance with these criteria is essential in order for the prospect of European Union membership to be envisaged;
Amendment 96 #
2021/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. RegretNotes that deep polarisation continues to be the definingremains a feature of Georgia’s political environment; calls on all political stakeholders to unite their forces around the key goal of Georgia’s EU membership through the implementation of ambitious democratic, judicial and anti-corruption reforms; reiterates that the core provisions of the EU-brokered agreement of 19 April 2021 continue to present a pathway towards strengthening democracy and the rule of law in Georgiastresses that such polarisation in no way precludes the exercise of democracy, which consists in opposing views being debated, not neutralised within a permanent consensus;
Amendment 1 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 a (new)
— having regard to its resolution of 15 April 2015 on the centenary of the Armenian genocide,
Amendment 5 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8
Citation 8
Amendment 14 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas Armenia has suffered an unprovoked, illegal and unjustified act of military aggression by Azerbaijan to which the European union remained apathetic, thus demonstrating double standard depending on whether the aggressor is or isn’t a geopolitical enemy pursuant to the EU’s political agenda;
Amendment 15 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)
Recital -A a (new)
-Aa. whereas more than 300 people were killed since the renewal of the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region; whereas footages were released of multiple acts of torture, mutilation and execution of Armenian prisoners by the Azerbaijani armed forces;
Amendment 16 #
2021/2230(INI)
-Ab. whereas Turkey stands by the Republic of Azerbaijan with all its economic, security, political, and military facilities; whereas Turkey is the most important supporter of Baku in the border dispute; whereas, according to intelligence reports, Syrian fighters from jihadist groups have transited through Gaziantep, southeaster Turkey, to reach the Nagorno-Karabakh theatre of operations;
Amendment 20 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas, in the past, the Armenian people have previously been the victims of terrible violence and abuses, most notably the horrific genocide of 1915;
Amendment 39 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the EU is committed to promoting a South Caucasus region thatsecurity, stability and peace are essential for the South Caucasus, so that appropriate relations with the EU and its secure, stable, peaceful and prosperousMember States can be further cultivated in this region;
Amendment 52 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas a sustainable normalisation of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan requires that all violence cease and that all the root causes of conflict be addressed to achieve lasting peace as soon as possible;
Amendment 69 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine has had implications for the South Caucasus and has further complicated the security situation in the region; whereas Turkey has not contributed to the peace process, but has instead exacerbated the conflict; whereas the EU and its Member States should condemn with the same intensity any acts of war and aggression against sovereign countries;
Amendment 76 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas Turkey has not yet recognized the Armenian genocide;
Amendment 101 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges Armenia and Azerbaijan to fully implement the tripartite ceasefire agreement of 9 November 2020 and to urgently implement measures to prepare their respective populations for peaceful coexistence; calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to avoid using inflammatory rhetoric which threatens toput an immediate end to the use of propaganda that is likely to only undermine the peace process;
Amendment 108 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the EU to condemn more explicitly any future ceasefire violations or aggression by Azerbaijan against Armenia and not to use ideological or even geopolitical scales to do so;
Amendment 111 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the EU’s passive stance during and immediately after the 2020 war gave other regional actors, such as Russia and Turkey, the opportunity to gain influence; strongly supports, therefore, the initiative taken by the President of the European Council Charles Michel to convene and mediatSupports any initiatives to convene bilateral meetings of the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan ion Brussels and encourages the work on the ground of the EU’s special representative for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgianeutral ground; urges the governments of both countries to fully engage in the drafting of a peace treaty and welcomes in this regard the meetings of the foreign affairs ministers of both countries;
Amendment 127 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes note of the initial discussions on the process of border delimitation; welcomes the agreement to deploy a civilian EU mission to build trust and contribute to the border commissions;
Amendment 160 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Condemns the footage that has appeared depicting the torture, mutilation and killingthe murder of an Armenian servicewoman and unarmed Armenian prisoners of war by Azerbaijani armed forces; calls for a full and impartial investigation of the videos to identify those responsible and hold them accountable for their actions;
Amendment 163 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Strongly insists that Azerbaijan and Armenia refrain from destroying cultural, religious or historical heritage; recalls that, according to the EU 2021 annual report of 10 March 2022 on the destruction of cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh, irreversible destruction of religious and cultural heritage was carried out by Azerbaijan in the region, resulting in the destruction of 89 Armenian churches, 20,000 graves and more than 5,000 tombstones; calls for the restoration of damaged sites in accordance with UNESCO standards and indications; calls on Armenia and Azerbaijan to quickly allow a UNESCO mission to visit both countries without preconditions;
Amendment 181 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Supports the normalisation of relations between Armenia and Turkey and welcomes the progress achieved so far; is looking forward to the recognition, on the part of the Turkish authorities, of their responsibility in the Armenian Genocide; calls for the speedy implementation of agreements reached by the special representatives; calls on both sides to engage in the process in good faith and without preconditions;
Amendment 185 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on Armenia to consider diversifying its security partnerships, as its long-standing in addition to its reliance on Russia and its allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization has proved insufficientin order to reinforce even further its capacities of resistance against a foreign invader; recalls in this regard that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that took place between September 27 and November 9, 2020, killing nearly 5,000 people, was halted by Russian intervention even though it resumed later; insists that ideologically refusing possible support from national stakeholders other than the ones aligned with the EU would be detrimental to Armenia's security;
Amendment 192 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Condemns Turkey's military support, which actively intervened in the conflict on the side of Azerbaijan; notes that Turkey is in no way a reliable treaty partner that could exert influence within the framework of peaceful coexistence between Armenia and Azerbaijan; condemns further interventions by the Turkish government in the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh; calls in this regard for a reorientation of Turkey's EU accession process, which should be stopped once and for all;
Amendment 199 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 216 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Underlines the important role of civil societyat Armenian citizens as a whole play an important role in the shaping and implementation of key reforms;
Amendment 231 #
2021/2230(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Strongly urges the Turkish Government to recognise the Armenian genocide;
Amendment 66 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
(c) coordinate efforts in the region with the African Union and its regional components, as well as with the UN and other like-minded partners and bring on board countries such as Chad that have historic links with the EU Member States;
Amendment 79 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
(e) contribute to regional security and stability both through conflict resolution and mediation activities and by addressing the root causes of conflicts; point out that the latest discussions in the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF) have failed to reach agreement on the conditions for holding the next presidential election; underline the need for a more realistic attitude in Libya to achieve peace;
Amendment 93 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
(f) support all diplomatic efforts devoted to ending the ongoing conflict within Ethiopia, both at national level and in the forums provided by the African Union, in order to agree on a permanent ceasefire and facilitate internal reconciliation; point out that the holding of elections within the deadlines set by national constitutional laws is essential to avoid internal political crises; express regret, therefore, at the further postponement of the presidential election in Somalia;
Amendment 101 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) ask Ethiopia as well to consider the consequences for Egypt of the recent refilling of the Grand Renaissance Dam and to seek an equitable water-sharing agreement with Cairo and Khartoum;
Amendment 115 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point h
Paragraph 1 – point h
(h) acknowledge the positive impacts of Operation Atlanta in guaranteeing maritime security, and take note of the non-extension of its mandate within the UNSC; call on the Member States to show adequate commitment to the EU Training Mission in Somalia both in terms of personnel and means, in order to empower the Somali Armed Forces to guarantee security in the country; call on the Security Council, through the Member States, to renew Operation Atalanta;
Amendment 126 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
(i) take note of the growing activity of Islamist terrorist groups in the whole region, and provide tailored and effective assistance to the affected countries in countering both the immediate effects of this expansion and the root causes of extremism and radicalisation; call on all ruling powers in the region to maintain a dialogue in order to prevent Islamist terrorism;
Amendment 145 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point k
Paragraph 1 – point k
(k) fully support democratic transitions, the rule of law and state- building processes and promote an open political space; deploy, whenever possible, election observation missions; call for former Sudanese President al-Bashir to be brought before the International Criminal Court under the international arrest warrant issued by its judges on 12 July 2010;
Amendment 153 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l
Paragraph 1 – point l
(l) work in partnership with our African counterparts and civil society to identify and address the main human rights challenges and priorities in the region, drawing inspiration from the comprehensive human rights strategy launched on 11 September 2021 by President el-Sisi in Egypt, which undertakes to 'promote and respect all civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, in order to increase support for the rights of women, children, youth, the elderly, and (...) all segments of society';
Amendment 158 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point l a (new)
(la) draw attention to the particularly serious situation facing Christians in the region, primarily in Eritrea; remain attentive to the fate of the historic Christian heritage, especially in the Tigray region of Ethiopia;
Amendment 200 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point q
Paragraph 1 – point q
(q) adopt a holistic, conflict-sensitive approach to cooperation on migration, in line with the Khartoum Process, taking into account the different drivers of migration in the region and the persistent vulnerability of migrants, respecting the rights of migrants and refugees, and recognising the benefits of circular migration and regional mobilitymake the fight against massive and illegal immigration an absolute priority; focus primarily on formulating readmission policies with the countries concerned; condemn the actions of certain NGOs, particularly those directed by the Soros networks, which are actually colluding with criminal trafficking;
Amendment 213 #
2021/2206(INI)
(ra) underline that the commissioning of the Grand Renaissance Dam on the Nile is likely to lead to new migratory influxes; reiterates in this connection the urgency of resolving the civil war in Ethiopia to achieve stability in the region;
Amendment 218 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point s
Paragraph 1 – point s
(s) adopt a team Europe approach support African-owned initiatives by facilitating the region, working with a wide spectrum of actorsinvolvement of a wide range of participants in the region, including from the private sector, in supporting African-owned initiatives;
Amendment 223 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point t
Paragraph 1 – point t
(t) acknowledge that efficient infrastructures are key to consistent, sustainable and fair development in the region; fully exploit the potential of new EU-sponsored initiatives aiming at enhancing regional integration and connectivity; increase consultation and coordination with African counterparts in the definition of specific projects to be developed in the global gateway frameworkhat are of mutual interest;
Amendment 237 #
2021/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point u
Paragraph 1 – point u
(u) take note of the growing, multifaceted influence of third parties in the region; recognise that the increasing presence of actors that do not share the Union`s values, interests and objectives could undermine the EU’s role as a privileged partnerwarn of Turkey's growing role in the region, as evidenced by the Turkey- Africa summit of 17 and 18 December 2021 in Istanbul and its clearly destabilising effect on Somalia;
Amendment 33 #
2021/2185(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Deplores the fact that the Commission allows dominant players on the digital market to pursue aggressive external growth strategies, making it impossible for a European champion to emerge in this sector.
Amendment 65 #
2021/2185(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Commission to take account of the impact on jobs in Europe and on prices for consumers in the procedures to assess the different options put forward by DG Competition to companies looking to merge.
Amendment 67 #
2021/2185(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Calls on the Commission to adapt competition rules and ensure their enforcement in the digital sector to allow for the emergence of European giants capable of competing in global markets and offering European consumers competitive, safe and sovereign digital solutions that keep their data in Europe.
Amendment 69 #
2021/2185(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Calls on the Commission to amend the rules to introduce a quota for European production in the digital sector to restore competitive market structures and respond to consumer demand.
Amendment 75 #
2021/2185(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls for a quota or European preference to be introduced for local or European production in public procurement in the digital sector in Europe.
Amendment 15 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas in order to achieve the strategic objective of developing itsthe global leadership role, of the EU must continue to take the lead in strengthenuropean continent, the Member States must continue to bolster their autonomy with regard to certaing multilateral partnerships on global priorities, in particular its partnership with the UN, and its comprehensive and open cooperation with NATO and other like- minded countries, and in protecting and promoting democracy and human rights globally;
Amendment 25 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the time is ripeany attempts to reform EU decision-making, making full and more eff would not be well recteive use of the EU’s hard and soft power instruments, including by introducing qualified majority votingd, particularly in times of instability; whereas voting by unanimity for decision-making in certainall EU foreign policy areas is irrevocable, including in areas such as human rights and the protection of international law, while also ensuring that the EU’s external and internal actions are coherently interlinkedin particular with regard to decisions having military implications;
Amendment 34 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the role of the EEAS is anot the heart of implementing the necessary reforms of the EU’s foreign, security and defence policieo substitute the Member States in foreign policy matters;
Amendment 46 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas Parliament’'s determination and resolverole is to protect and defend the Union and the values and principles for which it stands, including the principle of territorial integrity, national sovereigntyinterests of the citizens of the Member States and twhe rules-based international order, must be matched by adequate decision-making and institutional structures for external actionsreas the promotion of liberal values cannot replace this absolute priority;
Amendment 51 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the structure of the EEAS should be reformed, using the pragmatic space created by the recent crises and whereas these reforms should clarify some of the unclear boundaries between the EEAS, the Commission, the Council and the structuresrecent crises cannot be exploited to carry out reforms that weaken the sovereignty of the Member States;
Amendment 64 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ensure that development cooperation, trade policy and security and defence policy are coherent with the overall goals of the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and especially ensure conditionality for development-aid in relation to the beneficiaries ability for migration-management;
Amendment 71 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
(b) revise the EEAS Decision with a view to increasing the leverage of the EEAS, sharpening its tools and increasing its legitimacyto reaffirm the primacy of the Member States in foreign policy matters;
Amendment 82 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
(c) increase leverage by introducing qualified majority voting for certain foreign policy areas, such as human rights and the protection of international law, and for imposing sanctions, in order to increase the effectiveness of the EU’s foreign policystrongly reaffirm the keeping in place of voting by unanimity for foreign policy decisions, in particular for decisions imposing sanctions or with military implications;
Amendment 89 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
(d) sharpen the tools by aligning all external action with the Treaties, which state that the EU must achieve an ever- increasing degree of convergence of Member States’ actions, which requires that the EEAS be given a clearer role in proposcoordinating policy development so that policies conducted, defined and implemented on the basis of mutual political solidarity among the Member States can be formed;
Amendment 92 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
(e) increase legitimacy by adhering more closely to the principles of the Treaties, especially Article 24 TEU, which notes that the ‘Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity’, without prejudice to the national strategic independence of the Member States in the area of defence;
Amendment 101 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
(f) integrate fully the ‘more for more’ principle into relations with third countries, whereby the EU will develop stronger partnerships with those that share the CFSP’s principles and the fundamental values of the Unionrepresent the best platform of influence for it;
Amendment 112 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g
Paragraph 1 – point g
(g) adapt the structure of the EEAS tofor the new enlargement policies, hybrid threats and disinformation, the development of defence instruments and other emerging challengesdownsizing and closure of all offices outside the EU;
Amendment 127 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ensure that the use of financial resources available match the level of ambition and support the operative flexibilities needed in order to react in real time to emerging geopolitical challengesnd the conditionality for migration managment is transparent;
Amendment 129 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point j
Paragraph 1 – point j
Amendment 139 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point k
Paragraph 1 – point k
Amendment 153 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l
Paragraph 1 – point l
Amendment 169 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point m
Paragraph 1 – point m
(m) establish an EU Crisis Response Centre with the task of coordinating the response of EU embassies of the Member States and the services they offer to EU citizens in times of crisis;
Amendment 181 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point p
Paragraph 1 – point p
Amendment 196 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point q
Paragraph 1 – point q
(q) adapt the organisation of the EEAS and the corresponding Commission services to new strategic needs without further delay, starting with the Arctic;
Amendment 204 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point r
Paragraph 1 – point r
Amendment 208 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point s
Paragraph 1 – point s
Amendment 221 #
2021/2065(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point t
Paragraph 1 – point t
(t) support fully and develop the pilot project ‘Towards a European Diplomatic Academy’, which has been extended by one year in order to assess whether it is appropriate to establish these functions within permanent organisational structures, whether permanent or not, depending on the choice that is made;
Amendment 62 #
2021/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas it is of utmost importance that the Member States speak with one voice, strengthening the EU’s mediation efforts and underlining the central role of the UNfor themselves;
Amendment 69 #
2021/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the increasing involvement in the conflict of local and foreign armed groups, as well as Islamic terrorist groups and foreign forces, poses a threat to the security of Libya and the entire region;
Amendment 84 #
2021/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas a comprehensive security sector reform is critical to preventing futureensuring stability in the region and creating an enabling framework for protection of human rights violations;
Amendment 106 #
2021/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas migrants, refugees and asylum seekers often become victims of traffickers and are subjected to violence, arbitrary arrest, detention, extortion, kidnapping for blackmail and exploitationwhereas cooperation on border control should be enhanced to prevent illegal crossings into Europe;
Amendment 261 #
2021/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point m
Paragraph 1 – point m
(m) encourage the Libyan authorities to enhance cooperation with neighbourhood countries regarding the creation of safe and legal pathways for migrationborder control;
Amendment 265 #
2021/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point n
Paragraph 1 – point n
Amendment 17 #
2021/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas many barriers affecting the single market derive from incorrect or incomplete application of EU legislation; whereas the effective implementation of existing EU legislation and abolition of barriers depends on both the Commission and Member States;
Amendment 22 #
2021/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas continuously evolving regulatory intervention at EU level might also adversely affect the single market, creating barriers such as high compliance costs in the business environment, especially for SMEs, and legal uncertainty for individual consumers as well;
Amendment 59 #
2021/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that the single market remains the European Union’s greatest achievement; urges the Commission, therefore, to simplify the application of the current EU regulatory framework as well as refocus resources at issues plaguing the single market, in particular non-tariff barriers (NTBs), which continue to limit opportunities for consumers and businesses;
Amendment 64 #
2021/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Regrets that in some cases EU regulations have increased social dumping and unfair competition within the single market instead of reducing them, thereby also discriminating against those companies and Member States that produce with very high social and environmental standards;
Amendment 108 #
2021/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Regrets that some of the identified restrictions under the Services Directive come as a result of the legal uncertainty it has triggered since its entry into force with regard to its scope, in particular for SMEs in the tourism sector;
Amendment 117 #
2021/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recognises the insufficient use of the notification procedure under the Services Directive; calls on the Commission to reflect on improving this framework, possibly by means of a new initiative which would increase clarity and transparency on the measures that need to be notified, while remaining cautious in order to not undermine the Services Directive and avoiding the situation which led to the withdrawal of the previous proposal;
Amendment 125 #
2021/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Underlines that provisions aimed at safeguarding consumers safety, working conditions and the environment as well as preserving the regional cultural heritage shall not be considered as barriers to the free movement of goods and services;
Amendment 189 #
2021/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consistently, speedily and rigorously assess whether EU and national rules hinder the internal market, and where they do, to assess if they are necessary, proportional and justified;
Amendment 194 #
2021/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Observes that the incorrect enforcement of single market rules comes also as a result of obstacles encountered by Member States in transposing EU legislation on certain production sectors;
Amendment 36 #
2021/2007(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that patents exist to reward innovation, not to provide income for products that are not particularly innovative. Consumers consider that some software products that have been around for decades (such as Word and Excel, invented in 1981) are too expensive and that the protection afforded to them no longer corresponds to the innovation they bring.
Amendment 37 #
2021/2007(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Notes that the Commission is very active in genericizing certain innovative industries such as the pharmaceutical industry, sometimes at the expense of employment and research in Europe, while allowing other less innovative industries (consumer software, music from the 1960s...) to reap a quasi- perpetual income at the expense of consumers.
Amendment 45 #
2021/2007(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on Member States and the Commission to draw up a list of foreign companies found guilty of espionage, piracy or aggravated theft of intellectual property at the expense of European companies or Member States, and to exclude companies on that list from public procurement in Europe.
Amendment 141 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a REGULATIONDIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the transparency and targeting of political advertising (Text with EEA relevance) (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)
Amendment 163 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) This situation leads to the fragmentation of the internal market, decreases legal certainty for providers of political advertising services preparing, placing, publishing or disseminating political advertisements, creates barriers to the free movement of related services, distorts competition in the internal market, including between offline andbetween online service providers, and requires complex compliance efforts and additional costs for relevant service providers.
Amendment 165 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Member States should not maintain or introduce, in their national laws, provisions diverging fromin contrast with those laid down in this Regulation, in particular more or less stringent provisions to ensure a different level of transparency in political advertising. Full. The harmonisation of the transparency requirements linked to political advertisement increases legal certainty and reduces the fragmentation of the obligations that service providers meet in the context of political advertising.
Amendment 178 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The definition of political advertising should include advertising published or disseminated directly or indirectly by or published or disseminated directly or indirectly, upon financial remuneration, for or on behalf of a political actor. Since advertisements by, for or on behalf of a political actor cannot be detached from their activity in their role as political actor, they can be presumed to be liable to influence the political debate, except for messages of purely private or purely commercial nature.
Amendment 179 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The publication or dissemination by other actors of a message that is liable to influence the outcome of an election or referendum, legislative or regulatory process or voting behaviour should also constitute political advertising. In order to determine whether the publication or dissemination of a message is liable to influence the outcome of an election or referendum, a legislative or regulatory process or voting behaviour, account should be taken of all relevant factors such as the content of the message, the language used to convey the message, the context in which the message is conveyed, the objective of the message and the means by which the message is published or disseminated. Messages on societal or controversial issues may, as the case may be, be liable to influence the outcome of an election or referendum, a legislative or regulatory process or voting behaviour.
Amendment 193 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) It is necessary to define political advertisement as an instance of political advertising. Advertisements include the means by which the advertising message is communicated, including in print, by broadcast media or via an online platforms service.
Amendment 207 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) The transparency requirements should also not apply to the sharing of information through electronic communication services such as electronic message services or telephone calls, as long as no political advertising service is involved.
Amendment 239 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) Information about the amounts spent on and the value of other benefits received in part or full exchange for political advertising services can usefully contribute to the political debate. It is necessary to ensure that an appropriate overview of political advertising activity can be obtained from the annual reports prepared by relevant political advertising publishers. To support oversight and accountability, such reporting should include information about expenditure on the targeting of political advertising in the relevant period, aggregated to campaign or candidate. To avoid disproportionate burdens, those transparency reporting obligations should not apply to enterprises qualifying under Article 3(1), (2) and (3) of Directive 2013/34/EU.
Amendment 256 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) For the oversight of those aspects of this Regulation that do not fall within the competence of the supervisory authorities under Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Regulation (EU) 2018/725 Member States shouldmay designate competent authorities. To support the upholding of fundamental rights and freedoms, the rule of law, democratic principles and public confidence in the oversight of political advertising it is necessary that such authorities are structurally independent from external intervention or political pressure and are appropriately empowered effectively monitor and take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with this Regulation, in particular the obligations laid down in Article 7. Member States may designate, in particular, the national regulatory authorities or bodies under Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council13. _________________ 13 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1).
Amendment 264 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
Amendment 278 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation shall apply to political advertising prepared, placed, promoted, published or disseminated online in the Union, or directed to individuals in one or several Member States, irrespective of the place of establishment of the advertising services provider, and irrespective of the means used.
Amendment 302 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Amendment 304 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Amendment 322 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point h
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point h
(h) any natural or legal person representing or acting, according to the provisions of its governing statute, on behalf of any of the persons or organisations in points (a) to (g), promoting the political objectives of any of those.
Amendment 341 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9
9. ‘electoral period’ means the period preceding or during or immediately after an election or referendum in a Member State and during which the campaign activities are subject to specific rules;
Amendment 344 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11
11. ‘political advertising publisher’ means a natural or legal person that, upon financial remuneration, broadcasts, makes available through an interface or otherwise brings to the online public domain political advertising through any medium;
Amendment 353 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3
Article 3
Amendment 354 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall not maintain or introduce, on grounds related to transparency, provisions or measures diverging fromin contrast with those laid down in this Regulation.
Amendment 358 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a Exemption of micro-undertakings The obligations laid down in this Regulation shall not apply to micro- undertakings qualified under art. 3 (1) of Directive 2013/34/EU.
Amendment 441 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Political advertising publishers shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the information referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 is complete, and where they find this is not the case, they shall not make available the political advertisement.
Amendment 468 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 8
Article 7 – paragraph 8
Amendment 482 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to undertakings that qualifying under as micro, small or medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU.
Amendment 494 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Information on how to notify political advertisements as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be user friendly and easy to access, including for people with disabilities, even from the transparency notice.
Amendment 547 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 7 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Any information provided pursuant to this article may only be used in the context for which it was requested i.e. for the purpose specified in the request made to the provider of political advertising services by the entity referred to in paragraph 2.
Amendment 564 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
Article 12 – paragraph 6
6. Information to be provided in accordance with this provision shall be presented in a format which is easily accessible and, where technically feasible, machine readable , clearly visible and user- friendly, including for people with disabilities, even through the use of plain language.
Amendment 566 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 8
Article 12 – paragraph 8
Amendment 584 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall designate competent authorities to monitor the compliance of providers of intermediary services within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2021/xxx [DSA] with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 to 11 and 14 of this Regulation, where applicable. The competent authorities designated under Regulation (EU) 2021/xxx [Digital Services Act] may also be one of the competent authorities designated to monitor the compliance of online intermediaries with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 to 11 and 14 of this Regulation. The Digital Services Coordinator referred to in Article 38 of Regulation (EU) 2021/xxx in each Member State shall be responsible for ensuring coordination at national level in respect of providers of intermediary services as defined by Regulation (EU) 2021/xxx [Digital Services Act]. Article 45(1) to (4) and Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/xxx [Digital Services Act] shall be applicable for matters related to the application of this Regulation as regards providers of intermediary services.
Amendment 592 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Each Member State shallmay designate one or more competentther authorities to be responsible for the application and enforcement of the aspects of this Regulation not referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. Each competent authority designated under this paragraph shall structurally enjoy full independence both from the sector and from any external intervention or political pressure. It shall in full independence effectively monitor and take the measures necessary and proportionate to ensure compliance with this Regulation.
Amendment 598 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
4. Competent authorities referred to in paragraph 3, where exercising their supervisory tasks in relation to this Regulation, shall have the power to request to access data, documents or any necessary information from providers of political advertising services for the performance of their supervisory tasks.
Amendment 600 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Competent authorities referred to in paragraph 3, where exercising their enforcement powers in relation to this Regulation, shall have the power to:
Amendment 617 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 8 – introductory part
Article 15 – paragraph 8 – introductory part
8. Where a provider of political advertising services is providing services in more than one Member State, or has its main establishment or a representative in a Member State but provides its main activities in another Member State, theeach competent authority of the Member State of the main establishment or other establishment or of the represenwhere the services are being provided shall be considered competent for applying supervisory or enforcement measures. The authorities of the different Member States shall cooperate and provide each other with support if necessary. Unless already provided for under EU law, a competent authority may request, via the contact point referred to in paragraph 7, in a substantive, and ated, justified and proportionate manner, that another competent authorities of those other Member States shall cooperate with and assist each other as necessary. Unless already regulated by Union law,y, where it is better placed, take the supervisory or enforcement measures referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5; The relevant competent authority so requested shall, via the contact points referred to in paragraph 7 and within a time frame proportionate to the urgency of the request, provide a response or inform that it does not consider that the conditions for requesting assistance under this Regulation have been met. Any information exchanged in thate cooperation shall entail, at least, the following: ntext of the request for assistance and provided under this article shall only be used in the context of the matter for which it was requested.
Amendment 618 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 8 – point a
Article 15 – paragraph 8 – point a
Amendment 622 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 8 – point b
Article 15 – paragraph 8 – point b
Amendment 625 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 8 – point c
Article 15 – paragraph 8 – point c
Amendment 631 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 9
Article 15 – paragraph 9
9. Contact points shall meetexchange information periodically at Union level in the framework of the European Cooperation Network on Elections to facilitate the swift and secured exchange of information on issues connected to the exercise of their supervisory and enforcements tasks pursuant to this Regulation.
Amendment 637 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. In relation to Articles 5 to 11, 13 and 14 Member States shall lay down rules on sanctions including administrative fines and financial penalties applicable to providers of political advertising services under their jurisdiction and under the applicable data protection legislation, where appropriate, for infringements of the present Regulation, which shall in each individual case be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment 665 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a (new)
Amendment 666 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Amendment 667 #
2021/0381(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Amendment 34 #
2021/0293(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) As outlined in the Commission’s Communication updating the 202032 new industrial strategy32, it is necessary for the European Union to identify systems of critical technologies and strategic sectors, to address strategic weaknesses and high- risk dependencies which could lead to supply shortages or cybersecurity risks, to promote in this sense the development of sovereign European digital infrastructures that guarantee the protection of rights and the security of European users' data, and to foster digital transition. This underlines the importance for Member States to join forces and to support industry’s efforts to address these dependencies and to develop strategic capacity needs. This , which also responds to the analysis in the 2021 Strategic Foresight Report33. In the framework of the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the preparation of national recovery and resilience plans, the Commission encouraged Member States to coordinate their efforts in favour of Multi-Country Projects in the digital area. This experience highlighted the need for the Commission to support coordination efforts by Member States, and for the Union to dispose of implementation mechanisms that facilitate joint investments, in order for Multi-Country Projects to materialise. In conjunction with other Commission’s initiatives such as the Observatory for Critical Technologies34, a governance structure implementing the Digital Compass Communication should be established and should help to identify the Union’s current and possible future digital strategic dependencies and contribute to strengthening its digital sovereignty. _________________ 32 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions updating the 2020 new industrial strategy: Building a stronger Single Market for Europe’s recovery”, 5.5.2021 COM(2021) 350 final. 33 COM(2021) 750 final of 8.9.2021 – “"2021 Strategic Foresight Report - The EU’s capacity and freedom to act”". 34 Action Plan on synergies between civil, defence and space industries, 22.02.2021, COM(2021) 70 final, Action 4.
Amendment 76 #
2021/0293(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) The Commission and one or more Member States may undertake joint commitments regarding coordinated actions they would like to undertake in order to achieve the targets, establish Multi-Country Projects, and agree on any other measures and actions at Union and national level with the objective to progress towards achieving the targets in alignment with the projected trajectories. The Commission should ensure that competition law as well as, for example, State aid rules take into account the need to achieve the general objectives set out in Article 2 of this decision, inter alia the development of an independent digital industry.
Amendment 109 #
2021/0293(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) ensure digital sovereignty notably by an independent, secure and accessible digital infrastructure capable to stock and process vast volumes of data, in the Union, that enables other technological developments, supporting the competitiveness of the Union's industry;
Amendment 112 #
2021/0293(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) work towards the development of an independent European digital industry that guarantees the protection of the rights and security of European users' data, as well as the protection of the strategic interests of Member States when using these services;
Amendment 152 #
2021/0293(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part
(2) secure, performant and sustainable European digital infrastructures:;
Amendment 164 #
2021/0293(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
(2a) the European Commission and the Member States encourage the promotion of an innovative and independent European industry in order to protect the strategic interests of the Member States, the rights of European users and the security of their data;
Amendment 172 #
2021/0293(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – introductory part
(4) digitalisation of public services, without this meaning that citizens of the Member States who so wish cannot benefit from these services in a traditional, non-digitised manner:
Amendment 217 #
2021/0293(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) addressing strategic vulnerabilities and dependencies of the Union along the digital supply chains, in particular by establishing independent European digital companies governed by EU rules and regulations;
Amendment 218 #
2021/0293(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) widening the diffusion and best use of digital solutions in areas of public interest and the private sector, while taking into account existing disparities in digital coverage and respecting the choice of citizens in Member States not to use digital solutions;
Amendment 226 #
2021/0293(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 12 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 5 a (new)
(5a) If at least three Member States request the Commission to adjust the applicable rules in order to promote the objectives pursued and foster the success of a multinational project, such as the promotion of an independent European digital industry, the Commission must respond to this request within less than three months stating its grounds. In the event that the Commission responds favourably, it must submit a legislative initiative within less than six months.
Amendment 72 #
2021/0214(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Tackling climate and other environmental-related challenges and reaching the objectives of the Paris Agreement are at the core of the European Green Deal. The value of the European Green Deal has only grown in light of the very severe effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and economic well- being of the Union’s citizens, the need to develop European policies promoting localism and the relocation of the most strategic industries.
Amendment 400 #
2021/0214(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24a Usage of revenues from the sale of CBAM certificates The revenues generated from the sale of CBAM certificates shall be allocated to Member States to be used for the decarbonisation of European industries and the deployment of low-carbon technologies, as they face higher production costs as a result of the ambitious targets set under the European Green Deal, as well as to cover the administrative costs of the CBAM.
Amendment 442 #
2021/0214(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and the Council, with a view to drawing up an exhaustive list of unfair and circumvention practices related to the CBAM in third countries.
Amendment 527 #
2021/0214(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 36 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) Articles 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 3127 shall apply from 1 January 2026.
Amendment 528 #
2021/0214(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)
Article 36 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)
(da) In order to guarantee carbon neutrality and a level playing field, Article 31 shall only apply once carbon costs are equal between the EU and third countries.
Amendment 115 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In recent years, credit offered to consumers has evolved and diversified considerably. New credit products have appeared, in particular in the online environment, and their use continues to develop. This has raised legal uncertainty with regard to the application of the Directive 2008/48/EC to such new products. Practices such as the use of minicredits and long-term leases have experienced unprecedented growth in recent years, often leading to abuses and unfair commercial practices where consumers have been left in a precarious financial situation, or even heavily in debt, which they could have avoided if such practices were properly regulated and if contractual information were provided in a transparent, comprehensive and timely manner.
Amendment 137 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Advertising tends to focus on one or several products in particular, while consumers should be able to make their decisions in full knowledge of the range of credit products on offer. In that respect, general information plays an important role in educating the consumer in relation to the broad range of products and services available and the key features thereof, such as the total cost of the credit and the total amount payable by the consumer. Consumers should therefore be able at all times to access general information on credit products available. This should be without prejudice to the obligation to provide consumers with personalised pre- contractual information.
Amendment 193 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 49 a (new)
Recital 49 a (new)
(49 a) Creditors, providers of crowdfunding credit services and insurers should not take into account the medical history of people who have been affected by cancer. Currently, five Member States have national provisions to help specific groups of people affected by cancer, under certain circumstances, to access financial services, including insurance, without reference to the risk associated with cancer. Such provisions should be implemented in all Member States. To this end, Member States should define, with the support of medical, scientific and statistical experts, the conditions determining the right to access financial services, including insurance, without reference to the risk associated with cancer. Member States should also undertake to adopt measures to inform consumers of the existence of this right. The imposition of restrictive conditions in policies, which are not based on medical, scientific and statistical data, should be avoided whenever pre-existing conditions are disclosed.
Amendment 204 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) The consumer should have the right to discharge his or her obligations before the date agreed in the credit agreement. As provided by the Court of JusticeThe consumer should have the right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit in the event of early repayment of the credit, which includes all the costs imposed by the creditor ofn the EU Lexitor ruling,34 the right of the consumer to a reduction in the total cost of the credit in the event of early repayment of the credit includes all the costs imposconsumer with the exclusion of up-front costs - in so far as they are preliminary and preparatory activities for the granting of the loan, and are fully exhausted at the time of granting the loan - that have been adequately identified and declared and the cost of third parties (e.g fee of credit intermediaries, insurance charges and taxes). As regards the method of reimbursement, the amortised cost criterion (interest curve) for the calculation of the proportional reduction of costs should apply unless it is otherwise regulated oin the consumertract taken in account. In the case of early repayment the creditor should be entitled to a fair and objectively justified compensation for the costs directly linked to the early repayment, taking into account also any savings thereby made by the creditor. However, in order to determine the method of calculating the compensation, it is important to respect several principles. The calculation of the compensation due to the creditor should be transparent and comprehensible to consumers already at the pre-contractual stage and in any case during the performance of the credit agreement. In addition, the calculation method should be easy for creditors to apply, and supervisory control of the compensation by the competent authorities should be facilitated. Therefore, and due to the fact that consumer credit is, given its duration and volume, not financed by long- term funding mechanisms, the ceiling for the compensation should be fixed in terms of a flat-rate amount. This approach reflects the specific nature of consumer credits and should not prejudice the approach in respect of other products which are financed by long-term funding mechanisms, such as fixed-rate mortgage loans. _________________ 34 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 September 2019, Lexitor, C-383/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:702.
Amendment 278 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
(3a) 'minicrédit' means any instant loan of small sums up to EUR 1 000 contracted for a short term equivalent to less than three months and managed as an advance against salary repaid when the borrower finally receives his or her income;
Amendment 280 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
(3a) 'long-term lease' means any operation enabling the transfer of the use of an asset from a lessor to a lessee in return for a lease payment without an option to purchase at the end of the lease term;
Amendment 445 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Any additional information which the creditor may provide to the consumer shall be given in a separate document which may be annexed to the Standard European Consumer Credit Information form or the Standard European Consumer Credit Overview form.
Amendment 460 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 7
Article 10 – paragraph 7
7. If the agreement has been concluded at the consumer's request using a means of distance communication which does not enable the information to be provided in accordance with this article, the creditor and, where applicable, the credit intermediary or the provider of crowdfunding credit services shall provide the consumer with the Standard European Consumer Credit Information form and the Standard European Consumer Credit Overview form immediately after the conclusion of the credit agreement or of the agreement for the provision of crowdfunding credit services.
Amendment 464 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 8
Article 10 – paragraph 8
8. Upon request from the consumer, the creditor and, where applicable, the credit intermediary or the provider of crowdfunding credit services shall, in addition to the Standard European Consumer Credit Information form and the Standard European Consumer Credit Overview form, provide the consumer free of charge with a copy of the draft credit agreement, or of the draft agreement for the provision of crowdfunding credit services, provided that the creditor at the time of the request is willing to proceed to the conclusion of the credit agreement or of the agreement for the provision of crowdfunding credit services with the consumer.
Amendment 517 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may allow creditors or providers of crowdfunding credit services to require the consumer to hold a relevant insurance policy related to the credit agreement or crowdfunding credit services, taking into account proportionality considerations. In such cases, Member States shall ensure that the creditor or the provider of crowdfunding credit services is required to accept the insurance policy from a supplier different to his or her preferred supplier where such insurance policy has a level of guarantee equivalent to the one the creditor or the provider of crowdfunding credit services has proposed, without modifying the condition of the credit offering to the consumer. Under those circumstances, the insurance policy shall avoid imposing restrictive conditions, whenever specific requirements related to pre-existing medical conditions are fulfilled (such as the “right to be forgotten” criteria for cancer survivors). Member States shall guarantee that people cured of specific pathologies have equal access to insurance policies. For this purpose, Member States should define, with the support of medical, scientific and statistical experts, the conditions that determine the right to access financial services, including insurance, without reference to cancer, committing themselves to review these conditions periodically. Member States should also take measures to inform consumers of the existence of this right.
Amendment 541 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Member States shall prohibit any sale of credit to consumers, without their prior request and explicit agreement. This provision shall not apply to credit agreements concluded at point of sale to finance the purchase of a good or a service
Amendment 552 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall require that, before concluding a credit agreement, or an agreement for the provision of crowdfunding credit services, the creditor or, where applicable, the provider of crowdfunding credit services makes a thorough assessment of the consumer’s creditworthiness. That assessment shall be done in the interest of the consumer, taking into account the nature and the risks of the credit, to prevent irresponsible lending practices and over-indebtedness, and shall take appropriate account of factors relevant to verifying the prospect of the consumer to meet his or her obligations under the credit agreement or the agreement for the provision of crowdfunding credit services. The obligation to assess the creditworthiness is considered fulfilled if the creditor has met the requirements provided by Directive 2013/36/EU, Regulation n. 575/2013 EU and EBA Guidelines ABE/GL/2020/06.
Amendment 570 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Given that STIF credit agreements (as defined in Article 3) are a relatively new and rapidly expanding market, Member States shall impose additional reporting requirements on STIF credit providers licensed in their territory including on usage levels, default rates and late fee revenues accrued. Where default rates and late fees are found to be excessively high, Member States shall take additional steps to ensure the full compliance of the STIF credit provider with the conduct rules set out in Article 38 and require remedial measures as appropriate.
Amendment 592 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 651 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Member States shall identify, among the elements listed in paragraph 1, those which, if absent or uncertain, shall lead to the nullity of the contract, those which can be replaced by law and those which extend the period for exercising the right of withdrawal defined by article 26.
Amendment 688 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the consumer is at any time entitled to early repayment. In such cases, the consumer shall be entitled to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract. When calculating that reduction, all the costs imposed on the consumer by the creditor shall be taken into consideration, except for up-front costs, which are fully exhausted at the time of granting of the loan and corresponded to services effectively provided to the consumer or to costs effectively incurred by creditor as well as third party costs. The up-front costs should be adequately identified and declared in the credit contract. In any case, costs that remunerate credit intermediaries activities or costs that remunerate creditor’s services as well as taxes are excluded from the calculation of the reduction of the total cost of credit. As regards the method of reimbursement the amortised cost criterion (interest curve) for the calculation of the proportional reduction of costs should be used unless otherwise regulated in the contract.
Amendment 711 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. 1. Member States shall introducemay set caps on one or more of the following:
Amendment 721 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may introduce additional caps for revolving credit facilitiesThe provision of Paragraph 1 is considered fulfilled whereas there are national legislations already in force setting up caps on one of the options listed in letters a,b, c.
Amendment 796 #
2021/0171(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 46 – paragraph 2
Article 46 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall also monitor the effect of the existence of the regulatory choices referred to in Article 42 on the internal market and consumers. Given that STIF credit products (as defined in Article 3) are a relatively new and rapidly expanding market, it is appropriate that the Commission gives particular consideration in its review to the further development of this market and the evidence base regarding consumer harm, and to whether the treatment of such products under this Directive needs to be revised.
Amendment 203 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)
Recital 24 a (new)
(24 a) The indication of origin is a necessary supplement to the basic traceability requirements laid down in this Regulation concerning the name and address of the manufacturer. Furthermore, the indication of the country of origin helps to identify the actual place of manufacture in all those cases where the manufacturer cannot be contacted, in particular where its given address is different from the actual place of manufacture, where the name and address of the manufacturer is missing altogether or where the address was on the packaging that has been lost. Suchinformation can facilitate the task of market surveillance authorities in tracing the product back to the actual place of manufacture and enable contacts with the authorities of the countries of origin in the framework of bilateral or multilateral cooperation on consumer product safety for appropriate follow-up actions.
Amendment 294 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(a a) printed books and periodical different from children's books and printed periodicals;
Amendment 316 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
3. ‘dangerous product’ means any product which does not conform to the definition of ‘safe product’, by virtue of the manner it is created, or the components with which it is manufactured, or use to which it is intended, may potentially endanger the health and/or safety of consumers;
Amendment 336 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Amendment 337 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Manufacturers and a natural or legal person, other than the manufacturer, that substantially modifies the product pursuant to article 12 thereof, shall place or make available on the Union market only products as defined in accordance with this Regulation.
Amendment 390 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 a (new)
Article 7 a (new)
Amendment 398 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Manufacturers shall make publicly available to consumers, communication channels such as telephone number, electronic address or dedicated section of their website, allowing the consumers to file complaints and to inform them of any accident or safety issue they have experienced with the product. These communication channels and the reporting methods shall be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities.
Amendment 429 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 6
Article 8 – paragraph 6
6. Manufacturers shall ensure that their products bear a type, batch or serial number or other element allowing the identification of the product which is easily visible and legible for consumers, or, where the size or nature of the product does not allow it, that the required information is provided on the packaging or in a document accompanying the product. This information shall be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities.
Amendment 432 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7
Article 8 – paragraph 7
7. Manufacturers shall indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and the postal and electronic address at which they can be contacted on the product or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the product. The address shall indicate a single contact point at which the manufacturer can be contacted. This information shall be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities.
Amendment 437 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 8
Article 8 – paragraph 8
8. Manufacturers shall ensure that their product is accompanied by instructions and safety information in a language which can be easily understood by consumers, as determined by the Member State in which the product is made available. Alternatively, the instructions may be provided in a digital format. However, upon consumer’s request at the time of the purchase of the product, the instructions shall be provided in paper format free of charge. This requirement shall not apply where the product can be used safely and as intended by the manufacturer without such instructions and safety information.
Amendment 459 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) provide asupport market surveillance authority, upon its reasoned request, withand ensure that all information and documentation necessary is available for inspection by the market surveillance authority to demonstrate the safety of the product in an official language which can be understood by that authority;
Amendment 468 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Amendment 474 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. ITaking into account the practices and characteristics of each product sector, importers shall indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark, the postal and electronic address at which they can be contacted on the product or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the product. They shall ensure that any additional label does not obscure any information on the label provided by the manufacturer. This information shall be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities.
Amendment 523 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. In addition to the tasks referred to in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, the economic operator referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 shall periodically carry out sample testing ofaking into account the practice and characteristics of each product sector as well as the evidence, based on the same characteristics and functions, of the safety of the product, the economic operator referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 shall be able to provide testing documentation against harmonized standards upon request for randomly chosen products made available on the market. When the products made available on the market have been subject to a Commission decision adopted under Article 26(1) of this Regulation, the economic operator referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 shall carry out, at least once a year, for the entire duration of the decision, representative sample testing of products made available on the market chosen under the control of a judicial officer or any qualified person designated by the Member State where the economic operator is situated.
Amendment 545 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Where products are made available on the market online or through other means of distance sales by the relevant economic operators, the relevant offer of the product shall clearly and visibly indicate at least the following information to achieve parity with offline sales, such as:
Amendment 548 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) information that allow to identify the product, includingfor example its type and, when available, batch or serial number and any other product identifier;
Amendment 550 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) any warning or safety information that is to be affixed on the product or to accompany itpackaging in accordance with this Regulation or the applicable Union harmonisation legislation in a language which can be easily understood by consumers. and enable additional information to be accessible through manufacturer’s e-label. This information shall be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities
Amendment 574 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Online marketplaces should comply with the obligations set out in Article 10 for products they facilitate the sale of when there is no manufacturer established in the Union and no importer.
Amendment 579 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Online marketplaces shall take the necessary measures to receive and process the orders issued in accordance with this paragraph. They shall act upon receipt of the order issued without undue delay, and in any event within two working days in the Member State where the online marketplace operates, from receipt of the order. They shall inform the issuing market surveillance authority of the effect given to the order by using the contacts of the market surveillance authority published in the Safety Gatereplying via email to the notified order.
Amendment 585 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Article 20 – paragraph 3
3. Online marketplaces shall take into account regular information on dangerous products notified by the market surveillance authorities in line with Article 24, received via the Safety Gate portal, for the purpose of applying their voluntary measures aimed at detecting, identifying, removing or disabling access to the illegal content referring to dangerous products offered on their marketplace, where applicable. They shall informprovide periodic agreed reports to the authority that made the notification to the Safety Gate of any action taken by using the contacts of the market surveillance authority published in the Safety Gate.
Amendment 592 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 4
Article 20 – paragraph 4
4. Online marketplaces shall give an appropriate answer without undue delay, and in any event within five working days, in the Member State where the online marketplace operates, to notices related to product safety issues and dangerous products received in accordance with [Article 14] of Regulation (EU) […/…] on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Service Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.
Amendment 698 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. In the framework of the activities referred to in Article 28(3), point (b), market surveillance authorities may agree with other relevant authorities orand with organisations representing economic operators orand consumers to carry out activities aimed at ensuring safety and protection of consumers health with respect to specific categories of products placed or made available on the market, in particular categories of products that are often found to present a serious risk.
Amendment 710 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 2
2. Member States and the Commission shall take the necessary steps to ensure that their officials and agents are required not to disclose information, different from the ones pointed out in article 31(1), obtained for the purposes of this Regulation which, by its nature, is covered by professional secrecy in duly justified cases, except for information relating to the safety properties of products pursuant to article 31(1) which must be made public in order to protect consumers.
Amendment 720 #
2021/0170(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2
Article 32 – paragraph 2
2. Consumers shall have the possibility to inform the Commission of products which may presenting a risk to consumer health and safety through a separate section of the Safety Gate portal. The Commission shall take in due consideration the information received and ensure follow up, where appropriate.
Amendment 14 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) A more harmonised approach to digital identification should reduce the risks and costs of the current fragmentation due to the use of divergent national solutions and will strengthen the Single Market by allowing citizens, other residents as defined by national law and businesses to identify online in a convenient and uniform way across the Union. Everyone should be able to securely access public and private services relying on an improved ecosystem for trust services and on verified proofs of identity and attestations of attributes, such as a university degree legally recognised and accepted everywhere in the Union. Users should, however, not be obliged to use a digital identity wallet to access public or private services. It should be possible to use digital key generator applications or ID card readers, for example. The framework for a European Digital Identity aims to achieve a shift from the reliance on national digital identity solutions only, to the provision of electronic attestations of attributes valid at European level. Providers of electronic attestations of attributes should benefit from a clear and uniform set of rules and public administrations should be able to rely on electronic documents in a given format.
Amendment 18 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) It should be made clear that recognition of a qualified electronic attestation of attributes in a given Member State is limited to the confirmation of the facts. Recognition of a qualified electronic attestation of attributes in any other Member State shall be limited to confirming the factual circumstances relating to the attribute concerned, and shall not have legal effect there unless the attested attributes are in accordance with its national law.
Amendment 23 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) It is necessary to set out the harmonised conditions for the establishment of a framework for European Digital Identity Wallets to be issued by Member States, which should empower all Union citizens and other residents as defined by national law to share securely data related to their identity in a user friendly and convenient way under the sole control of the user. Technologies used to achieve those objectives should be developed aiming towards the highest level of security, user convenience and wide usability. Member States should ensure equal access to digital identification to all their nationals and legal residents.
Amendment 27 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) All European Digital Identity Wallets should allow users to electronically identify and authenticate online and offline across borders for accessing a wide range of public and private services. Without prejudice to Member States’ prerogatives as regards the identification of their nationals and residents, Wallets can also serve the institutional needs of public administrations, international organisations and the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Offline use would be important in many sectors, including in the health sector where services are often provided through face-to-face interaction and ePrescriptions should be able to rely on QR-codes or similar technologies to verify authenticity. Relying on the level of assurance “high”, the European Digital Identity Wallets should benefit from the potential offered by tamper-proof solutions such as secure elements, to comply with the security requirements under this Regulation. The European Digital Identity Wallets should also allow users to create and use qualified electronic signatures and seals which are accepted across the EU. To achieve simplification and cost reduction benefits to persons and businesses across the EU, including by enabling powers of representation and e- mandates, Member States should issue European Digital Identity Wallets relying on common standards to ensure seamless interoperability and a high level of security. Only Member States’ competent authorities can provide a high degree of confidence in establishing the identity of a person and therefore provide assurance that the person claiming or asserting a particular identity is in fact the person he or she claims to be. It is therefore necessary that the European Digital Identity Wallets rely on the legal identity of citizens, other residents or legal entities. Trust in the European Digital Identity Wallets would be enhanced by the fact that issuing parties are required to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security commensurate to the risks raised for the rights and freedoms of the natural persons, in line with Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Amendment 32 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Only Member States’ competent authorities may establish the identity of a person with a high degree of assurance and, therefore, guarantee that the person claiming or asserting a particular identity is in fact the person he or she claims to be. The process of notification of electronic identification schemes should be simplified and accelerated to promote the access to convenient, trusted, secure and innovative authentication and identification solutions and, where relevant, to encourage private identity providers to offer electronic identification schemes to Member State’s authorities for notification asto issue national electronic identity card schemes under Regulation 910/2014.
Amendment 33 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) Penalties for negligence in protecting personal data by private identity providers or on consumer platforms and sites should be dissuasive so as to foster access to convenient, reliable, secure and innovative authentication and identification solutions.
Amendment 64 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point i
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point i
EU 910/2014
Article 3
Article 3
Amendment 72 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 7
EU 910/2014
Article 6a – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 6a – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) under a mandate from a Member State by a European public organisation or company, based in Europe and which employs staff and pays a significant amount in taxes in Europe;
Amendment 105 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 7
EU 910/2014
Article 6a – paragraph 7a
Article 6a – paragraph 7a
7a. Digital identity wallets shall not contain health data.
Amendment 106 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 7
EU 910/2014
Article 6a – paragraph 7b
Article 6a – paragraph 7b
7b. Digital identity wallets should not be used as a means of discriminating between EU citizens.
Amendment 119 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 7
EU 910/2014
Article 6b – paragraph 3
Article 6b – paragraph 3
3. Relying parties shall be responsible for carrying out the procedure for authenticating person identification data and electronic attestation of attributes originating from European Digital Identity Wallets.
Amendment 123 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 11
EU 910/2014
Article 10 b (new)
Article 10 b (new)
3a. Users of European Digital Identity Wallets should be ensured compensation for any undesirable situation related to their data, such as theft, loss, disclosure or use for purposes other than those originally intended. This liability should extend to all of the above situations, regardless of the provider's intentions or negligence (whether it is culpable or not).
Amendment 137 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 16
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 16
EU 910/2014
Article 12 a – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 12 a – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. It must be possible to check attributes without fully identifying the digital identity wallet holder.
Amendment 138 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 16
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 16
EU 910/2014
Article 12 a – paragraph 3 b (new)
Article 12 a – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. The issuance and systematic use of EU-wide persistent unique identifiers gives rise to data protection and privacy risks for individuals. The use of privacy by design architectures should therefore be promoted by the Member States and the Commission.
Amendment 142 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 16
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 16
EU 910/2014
Article 12 a – paragraph 5
Article 12 a – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall make an assessment within 18 months after deployment of the European Digital Identity Wallets whether on the basis of evidence showing availability, security and usability of the European Digital Identity Wallet, additional private online service providers shall be mandated to accept the use of the European Digital identity Wallet strictly upon voluntary request of the user. Criteria of assessment may include extent of user base, cross-border presence of service providers, technological development, evolution in usage patterns. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts based on this assessment, regarding a revision of the requirements for recognition of the European Digital Identity wallet under points 1 to 4 of this article.
Amendment 143 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 17
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 17
EU 910/2014
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Notwithstanding paragraph 2 of this Article, tThe liability of trust service providers cannot be limited by an internal policy on service provision. Trust service providers shall be liable for damage caused intentionally or negligently to any natural or legal person due to a failure to comply with the obligations under this Regulation and with the cybersecurity risk management obligations under Article 18 of the Directive XXXX/XXXX [NIS2].’;
Amendment 144 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 18
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 18
EU 910/2014
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission may not adopt implementing acts, in accordance with Article 48(2), setting out the conditions under which the requirements of a third country applicable to the trust service providers established in its territory and to the trust services they provide can be considered equivalent to the requirements applicable to qualified trust service providers established in the Union and to the qualified trust services they provide.
Amendment 146 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 18
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 18
EU 910/2014
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Amendment 153 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 24
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 24
EU 910/2014
Article 23 – paragraph 2 a
Article 23 – paragraph 2 a
Amendment 159 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 38
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 38
EU 910/2014
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Article 45 – paragraph 2
2. Qualified certificates for website authentication referred to in paragraph 1 shall be recognised by web-browsers. For those purposes web-browsers shall ensure that the identity data provided using any of the methods is displayed in a user friendly manner. Web-browsers shall ensure support and interoperability with qualified certificates for website authentication referred to in paragraph 1, with the exception of enterprises, considered to be microenterprises and small enterprises in accordance with Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC in the first 5 years of operating as providers of web- browsing services. This new digital identity framework does not prevent web browsers from undertaking additional security processes with due diligence to protect consumers and their reputation.
Amendment 165 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 39
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 39
EU 910/2014
Article 45 b – paragraph 3
Article 45 b – paragraph 3
3. Personal data relating to the provision of qualified electronic attestation of attributes services shall be kept physically and logically in Europe, separate from any other data held.
Amendment 169 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 40
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 40
(EU)910/2014
Article 48a – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 48a – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the number of natural and legal persons having a valid European Digital Identity Wallet;
Amendment 170 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 40
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 40
EU 910/2014
Article 48 a – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 48 a – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(c a) The number of people who have suffered data theft; the number of companies that have reported data theft; the number of complaints to the authorities about a data breach (identity theft, data fraud, etc).
Amendment 172 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 40
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 40
EU 910/2014
Article 48 a – paragraph 2 – point c b (new)
Article 48 a – paragraph 2 – point c b (new)
(c b) The most stringent sanctions imposed on companies during the year for failure to protect identity data (both within and outside the EU).
Amendment 176 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 41
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 41
EU 910/2014
Article 49 – paragraph 2
Article 49 – paragraph 2
2. The evaluation report shall include an assessment of the availability, security and usability of the identification means including European Digital Identity Wallets in scope of this Regulation and assess whether all online private service providers relying on third party electronic identification services for users authentication, shall be mandated to accept the use of notified electronic identification means and European
Amendment 178 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VI – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Annex VI – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Further to Article 45d, Member States shall ensure that measures are taken to allow qualified providers of electronic attestations of attributes to verify by electronic means at the request of the user, the authenticity of the following attributes against the relevant authentic source at national level or via designated intermediaries recognised at national level, in accordance with national or Union law and in cases where these attributes rely on authentic sources stored in Europe within the public sector:
Amendment 180 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VI – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
Annex VI – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
2a. Whether or not they are on the national register of paedophiles or sex offenders;
Amendment 186 #
2021/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VI – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
Annex VI – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
9a. Criminal records index;
Amendment 317 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market by laying down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, marketing and use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values. This Regulation pursues a number of overriding reasons of public interest, such as a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights, and it ensures the free movement of AI- based goods and services cross-border, thus preventing Member States from imposing restrictions on the development, marketing and use of AI systems, unless explicitly authorised by this Regulation and without prejudice to stricter national legislation governing the protection of fundamental rights.
Amendment 323 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Artificial intelligence systems (AI systems) can be easily deployed in multiple sectors of the economy and society, including cross border, and circulate throughout the Union. Certain Member States have already explored the adoption of national rules to ensure that artificial intelligence is safe and is developed and used in compliance with fundamental rights obligations. Differing national rules may lead to fragmentation of the internal market and decrease legal certainty for operators that develop or use AI systems. A minimum, consistent and high level of protection throughout the Union should therefore be ensured, while divergences hampering the free circulation of AI systems and related products and services within the internal market should be prevented, by laying down uniform obligations for operators and guaranteeing the uniform protection of overriding reasons of public interest and of rights of persons throughout the internal market based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). To the extent that this Regulation contains specific rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data concerning restrictions of the use of AI systems for ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement, it is appropriate to base this Regulation, in as far as those specific rules are concerned, on Article 16 of the TFEU. In light of those specific rules and the recourse to Article 16 TFEU, it is appropriate to consult the European Data Protection Board.
Amendment 361 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The notion of AI system should be clearly defined to ensure legal certainty, while providing the flexibility to accommodate future technological developments. The definition should be based on the key functional characteristics of the software, in particular the ability, for a given set of human-defined objectivesobjectives or parameters which have human control at their origin, to generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions which influence the environment with which the system interacts, be it in a physical or digital dimension. AI systems can be designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and be used on a stand- alone basis or as a component of a product, irrespective of whether the system is physically integrated into the product (embedded) or serve the functionality of the product without being integrated therein (non-embedded). The definition of AI system should be complemented by a list of specific techniques and approaches used for its development, which should be kept up-to–date in the light of market and technological developments through the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission to amend that list. These delegated acts should consist only of additions to the list of techniques used.
Amendment 381 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) For the purposes of this Regulation the notion of publicly accessible space should be understood as referring to any physical place that is accessible to the public, irrespective of whether the place in question is privately or publicly owned. Therefore, the notion does not cover places that are private in nature and normally not freely accessible for third parties, including law enforcement authorities, unless those parties have been specifically invited or authorised, such as homes, private clubs, offices, warehouses and factories. Online spaces are not covered either, as they are not physical spaces. However, the mere fact that certain conditions for accessing a particular space may apply, such as admission tickets or age restrictions, does not mean that the space is not publicly accessible within the meaning of this Regulation. Consequently, in addition to public spaces such as streets, relevant parts of government buildings and most transport infrastructure, spaces such as cinemas, theatres, shops and shopping centres are normally also publicly accessible. Whether a given space is accessible to the public should however be determined on a case-by-case basis by the competent judicial or administrative authority, having regard to the specificities of the individual situation at hand.
Amendment 389 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In light of their digital nature, certain AI systems should fall within the scope of this Regulation even when they are neither placed on the market, nor put into service, nor used in the Union. This is the case for example of an operator established in the Union that contracts certain services to an operator established outside the Union in relation to an activity to be performed by an AI system that would qualify as high-risk and whose effects impact natural persons located in the Union. In those circumstances, the AI system used by the operator outside the Union could process data lawfully collected in and transferred from the Union, and provide to the contracting operator in the Union the output of that AI system resulting from that processing, without that AI system being placed on the market, put into service or used in the Union. To prevent the circumvention of this Regulation and to ensure an effective protection of natural persons located in the Union, this Regulation should also apply to providers and users of AI systems that are established in a third country, to the extent the output produced by those systems is used in the Union. Nonetheless, to take into account existing arrangements and special needs for cooperation with foreign partners with whom information and evidence is exchanged, this Regulation should not apply to public authorities of a third country and international organisations when acting in the framework of international agreements concluded at national or European level for law enforcement and judicial cooperation with the Union or with its Member States. Such agreements have been concluded bilaterally between Member States and third countries or between the European Union, Europol and other EU agencies and third countries and international organisations.
Amendment 398 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) This Regulation should also apply to Unionthe institutions, offices, bodibodies, offices and agencies when acting as a provider or user of an AI systemof the Union. AI systems exclusively developed or used for military purposes should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation where that use falls under the exclusive remit of the Common Foreign and Security Policy regulated under Title V of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU). This Regulation should be without prejudice to the provisions regarding the liability of intermediary service providers set out in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [as amended by the Digital Services Act].
Amendment 410 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety and fundamental rights, minimum common normative standards for all high-risk AI systems should be established. Those standards should be consistent with the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (the Charter) and should be non- discriminatory and in line with the Union’s international trade commitments.
Amendment 412 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) In order to introduce a proportionate and effective set of binding rules for AI systems, a clearly defined risk- based approach should be followed. That approach should tailor the type and content of such rules to the intensity and scope of the risks that AI systems can generate. It is therefore necessary to prohibit certain artificial intelligence practices, to lay down requirements for high-risk AI systems and obligations for the relevant operators, and to lay down transparency obligations for certain AI systems. It is also necessary to establish the criteria and conditions which determinine the category to which an AI system belongs.
Amendment 416 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Aside from the many beneficial uses of artificial intelligence, that technology can also be misused and provide novel and powerful tools for manipulative, exploitative and social control practices. Such practices are particularly harmful and should be prohibited because they contradict Union the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, democracy and the rule of law, which are protected values under EU law, and Union fundamental rights, including the right to non-discrimination, data protection and privacy and the rights of the child.
Amendment 426 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems intended to distort human behaviour, whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur, should be forbidden. Such AI systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age, physical or mental incapacities. They do so with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. The intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the AI system which are outside of the control of the provider or the userpeople such as children or people who are vulnerable due to their age, physical or mental incapacities, or other traits. Research for legitimate purposes in relation to such AI systems should not be stifled by the prohibition, if such research does not amount to use of the AI system in human- machine relations with uninformed or non-consenting third parties that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research.
Amendment 432 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by public authorities or on their behalf may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groupsare, by definition, discriminatory. They may violate the right to dignity and non- discrimination and the values of equality and justice. Such AI systems evaluate or classify the trustworthiness of natural persons based on their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics. The social score obtained from such AI systems may leads to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts, which are unrelated to the context in which the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. Such AI systems should be therefore prohibited.
Amendment 455 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement is considered particularly intrusive in the rights and freedoms of the concerned persons, to the extent that it may affects the private life of a large part of the population, evoke a feeling ofconstitutes constant surveillance and indirectly dissuades the exercise of the freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights. In addition, the immediacy of the impact and the limited opportunities for further checks or corrections in relation to the use of such systems operating in ‘real-time’ carry heightened risks for the rights and freedoms of the persons that are concerned by law enforcement activities.
Amendment 471 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The use of those systems for the purpose of law enforcement should therefore be prohibited, except in three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, where the use is ad hoc and strictly necessary to achieve a substantial public interest, the importance of which outweighs the risks. Those situations involve the search for potential victims of crime, including missing children; certain threats to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack; and the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of perpetrators or suspects of the criminal offences referred to in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA38if those criminal offences are punishable in the Member State concernedif they are punishable by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least threen years and as they are defined in the law of thatin the Member State concerned. Such threshold for the custodial sentence or detention order in accordance with national law contributes to ensure that the offence should be serious enough to potentially justify the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems. Moreover, of the 32 criminal offences listed in the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, some are in practice likely to be more relevant than others, in that the recourse to ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification will foreseeably be necessary and proportionateThe nature of the offences deemed sufficiently serious to justify a penalty up to thighly varying degrees for the practical pursuit of the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of the different criminal offences listed and having regard to the likely differences in the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm or possible negative consequences. _________________ 38 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1)s threshold is a matter for the national legislation of each Member State in accordance with its own criminal law.
Amendment 505 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement necessarily involves the processing of biometric data. The rules of this Regulation that prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, such use, which are based on Article 16 TFEU, should apply as lex specialis in respect of the rules on the processing of biometric data contained in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, thus regulating such use and the processing of biometric data involved in an exhaustive manner. Therefore, such use and processing should only be possible in as far as it is compatible with the framework set by this Regulation, without there being scope, outside that framework, for the competent authorities, where they act for purpose of law enforcement, to use such systems and process such data in connection thereto on the grounds listed in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. In this context, this Regulation is not intended to provide the legal basis for the processing of personal data under Article 8 of Directive 2016/680. However, the use ofThe use of biometric identification systems, including ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for purposes other than law enforcement, including by competent authorities, should not be covered by the specific framework regarding such use for the purpose of law enforcement set by this Regulation. Such use for purposes other than law enforcement should therefore not be subject to the requirement of an authorisation under this Regulation and the applicable detailed rules of national law that may give effect to itset by this Regulation, with the exception of customs formalities and individual authentication.
Amendment 526 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) High-risk AI systems should only be placed on the Union market or put into service if they comply with certain mandatory requirements. Those requirements should ensure that high-risk AI systems available in the Union or whose output is otherwise used in the Union do not pose unacceptable risks to important Union public interests as recognised and protected by Union law. AI systems identified as high-risk should be limited to those that have a significant harmful impact on the health, safety and fundamental rights of persons in the Union, as well as the public order and national security of the Member States, and such limitation minimises any potential restriction to international trade, if any.
Amendment 536 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) The classification of an AI system as high-risk pursuant to this Regulation should not necessarily mean that the product whose safety component is the AI system, or the AI system itself as a product, is considered ‘high-risk’ under the criteria established in the relevant Union harmonisation legislation that applies to the product. This is notably the case for Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council47 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council48, where a third-party conformity assessment is provided for medium-risk and high-risk products. However, the classification of an AI system as high risk for the sole purpose of this Regulation will apply to all products which use that AI system or which are themselves AI systems, irrespective of their classification under the sector-specific harmonisation legislation of the Union under which they are otherwise covered. _________________ 47 Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (OJ L 117, 5.5.2017, p. 1). 48 Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU (OJ L 117, 5.5.2017, p. 176).
Amendment 555 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) As regards the management and operation of critical infrastructure, iIt is appropriate to classify as high- risk the AI systems intended to be used as safety components in the management and operation of critical infrastructure such as road traffic andor the supply of water, gas, heating and electricity, since their failure or malfunctioning may put at risk the life and health of persons at large scale and lead to appreciable disruptions in the ordinary conduct of social and economic activities.
Amendment 558 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) AI systems used in education or vocational training, notably for determining access or assigning persons to educational and vocational training institutions or to evaluate persons on tests as part of or as a precondition for their education should be considered high-risk, since they may determine the educational and professional course of a person’s life and therefore affect their ability to secure their livelihood. When improperly designed and used, such systems may violate the right to education and training as well as the right not to be discriminated against and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination.
Amendment 562 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) AI systems used in employment, workers management and access to self- employment, notably for the recruitment and selection of persons, for making decisions on promotion and termination and for task allocation, monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships, should also be classified as high-risk, in so far as such use does not correspond to practices prohibited by this Regulation, since those systems may appreciably impact future career prospects and livelihoods of these persons. Relevant work-related contractual relationships should involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the Commission Work Programme 2021. Such persons should in principle not be considered users within the meaning of this Regulation. Throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation, promotion, or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships, such systems may perpetuate historical patterns oflead to discrimination, for example against women, certain age groups, persons with disabilities, or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. AI systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of these persons may also impact their rights to data protection and privacy.
Amendment 575 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Another area in which the use of AI systems deserves special consideration is the access to and enjoyment of certain essential private and public services and benefits necessary for people to fully participate in society or to improve one’s standard of living. In particular, AI systems used to evaluate the credit score or creditworthiness of natural persons should be classified as high-risk AI systems, in so far as such use does not correspond to practices prohibited by this Regulation, since they determine those persons’ access to financial resources or essential services such as housing, electricity, and telecommunication services. AI systems used for this purpose may lead to discrimination of persons or groups and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example based on racial or ethnic origins, disabilities, age, sexual orientation, or create new forms of discriminatory impacts. Considering the very limited scale of the impact and the available alternatives on the market, it is appropriate to exempt AI systems for the purpose of creditworthiness assessment and credit scoring when put into service by small- scale providers for their own use. Natural persons applying for or receiving public assistance benefits and services from public authorities are typically dependent on those benefits and services and in a vulnerable position in relation to the responsible authorities. If AI systems are used for determining whether such benefits and services should be denied, reduced, revoked or reclaimed by authorities, they maywill have a significant impact on persons’ livelihood and maywill infringe their fundamental rights, such as the right to social protection, non- discrimination, human dignity or an effective remedy. Those systems should therefore be classified as high-risk. Nonetheless, this Regulation should not hamper the development and use of innovative approaches in the public administration, which would stand to benefit from a wider use of compliant and safe AI systems, provided that those systems do not entail a high risk to legal and natural personallow for experimentation in the public administration, in a regulatory sandbox, with innovative approaches which would stand to benefit from a wider use of compliant and safe AI systems, in accordance with the established rules. Finally, AI systems used to dispatch or establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services should also be classified as high- risk sincebe prohibited as they make decisions in very critical situations for the life and health of persons and their property, and such ethical choices should not be given over to computer systems.
Amendment 580 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) Actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of AI systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance, arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter. In particular, if the AI system is not trained with high quality data, does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness, or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service, it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. Furthermore, the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights, such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, could be hampered, in particular, where such AI systems are not sufficiently transparent, explainable and documented. It isAI systems intended to assess or rank the refore appropriate to classify as high-risk a number of AI systemsliability of natural persons, to identify natural persons based on biometric data, to serve as polygraphs or similar tools, to detect the emotional state of natural persons, to predict the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons or to assess personality traits of natural persons or groups for profiling in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, shall be prohibited except in the three specific cases provided for in this Regulation. AI systems other than the aforementioned and intended to be used in thea law enforcement context where accuracy, reliability and transparency is particularly important shall be classed as high-risk AI systems to avoid adverse impacts, retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. In view of the nature of the activities in question and the risks relating thereto, those high-risk AI systems should include in particular AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for individual risk assessments, polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of natural person, to detect ‘deep fakes’, for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings, for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons, or assessing personality traits andor assessing characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups, for profiling in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. AI systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be considered high-risk AI systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.
Amendment 590 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) AI systems used in migration, asylum and border control management affect people who are often in particularlysometimes in a vulnerable position and who are dependent on the outcome of the actions of the competent public authorities. The accuracy, non-discriminatory nature and transparency of the AI systems used in those contexts are therefore particularly important to guarantee the respect of the fundamental rights of the affected persons, notably, and where applicable, their rights to free movement, non- discrimination, protection of private life and personal data, international protection and good administration. It is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk AI systems intended to be used by the competent public authorities charged with tasks in the fields of migration, asylum and border control management as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person; for assessing certain risks posed by natural persons entering the territory of a Member State or applying for visa or asylum; for verifying the authenticity of the relevant documents of natural persons; for assisting competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the objective to establish the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status. AI systems in the area of migration, asylum and border control management covered by this Regulation should comply with the relevant procedural requirements set by the Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council49, the Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council50 and other relevant legislation. _________________ 49 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60). 50 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).
Amendment 598 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) Certain AI systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as high-riskprohibited, considering their potentially significant impact on democracy, rule of law, individual freedoms as well as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In particular, to address the risks of potential biases, errors and opacity, it is appropriate to qualify as high-riskprohibit the use of AI systems intended to assist judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts. Such qualification should not extend, however, to AI systems intended for purely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases, such as anonymisation or pseudonymisation of judicial decisions, documents or data, communication between personnel, administrative tasks or allocation of resources.
Amendment 624 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) High data quality is essential for the performance of many AI systems, especially when techniques involving the training of models are used, with a view to ensure that the high-risk AI system performs as intended and safely and it does not become the source of discrimination prohibited by Union law. High quality training, validation and testing data sets require the implementation of appropriate data governance and management practices. Training, validation and testing data sets should be sufficiently relevant, representative and free of errors and complete in view of the intended purpose of the system. They should also have the appropriate statistical properties, including as regards the persons or groups of persons on which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. In particular, training, validation and testing data sets should take into account, to the extent required in the light of their intended purpose, the features, characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, behavioural or functional setting or context within which the AI system is intended to be used. In order to protect the right of others from the discrimination that might result from the bias in AI systems, the providers shouldbe able to process also special categories of personal data, as a matter of substantial public interest, in order to ensure the bias monitoring, detection and correction in relation to high-risk AI systems.
Amendment 632 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
Recital 45
(45) For the development of high-risk AI systems, certain actors, such as providers, notified bodies and other relevant entities, such as digital innovation hubs, testing experimentation facilities and researchers, should be able to access and use high quality datasets within their respective fields of activities which are related to this Regulation. European common data spaces established by the Commission, developed and operated by European actors and which do not transfer any data outside the territory or legal jurisdiction of the European Union, and the facilitation of data sharing between businesses and with government in the public interest will be instrumental to provide trustful, accountable and non- discriminatory access to high quality data for the training, validation and testing of AI systems. For example, in health, the European health data space will facilitate non- discriminatory access to health data and the training of artificial intelligence algorithms on those datasets, in a privacy- preserving, secure, timely, transparent and trustworthy manner, and with an appropriate institutional governance. Relevant competent authorities, including sectoral ones, providing or supporting the access to data may also support the provision of high-quality data for the training, validation and testing of AI systems.
Amendment 642 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) High-risk AI systems should be designed and developed in such a way that natural persons can actually oversee their functioning. For this purpose, appropriate human oversight measures should be identified by the provider of the system before its placing on the market or putting into service. In particular, where appropriate, such measures should guarantee that the system is subject to in- built operational constraints that cannot be overridden by the system itself and, that it cannot make decisions without approval by the human operator, that it is responsive to the human operator, and that the natural persons to whom human oversight has been assigned have the necessary competence, training and authority to carry out that role.
Amendment 646 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49
Recital 49
(49) High-risk AI systems should perform consistently throughout their lifecycle and meet an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity in accordance with the generally acknowledged state of the art. The level of accuracy and accuracy metrics should be communicated to the userdefined by standards or common technical specifications and communicated to the users. The European Commission should be able to decide on such standards or common technical specifications or to adopt existing ones developed by third parties such as suppliers, stakeholders or standardisation bodies.
Amendment 654 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) Cybersecurity plays a crucial role in ensuring that AI systems are resilient against attempts to alter their use, behaviour, performance or compromise their security properties by malicious third parties exploiting the system’s vulnerabilities. Cyberattacks against AI systems can leverage AI specific assets, such as training data sets (e.g. data poisoning) or trained models (e.g. adversarial attacks), or exploit vulnerabilities in the AI system’s digital assets or the underlying ICT infrastructure. To ensure a level of cybersecurity appropriate to the risks, suitable measures should therefore be taken by the providers of high-risk AI systems, also taking into account as appropriate the underlying ICT infrastructure.
Amendment 655 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Recital 53
(53) It is appropriate that a specific natural or legal person, defined as the provider, takes the responsibility for the placing on the market or putting into service of a high-risk AI system, regardless of whether that natural or legal person is the person who designed or developed the system, without prejudice to the right of a provider to take action against the manufacturer of that system.
Amendment 664 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) Given the nature of AI systems and the risks to safety and fundamental rights possibly associated with their use, including as regard the need to ensure proper monitoring of the performance of an AI system in a real-life setting, it is appropriate to set specific responsibilities for users. Users should in particular use high-risk AI systems in accordance with the instructions of usefor the purpose for which they were intended and in accordance with the instructions of use, to that end high-risk AI systems should structurally limit, to the greatest extent possible, the technical possibility for a user to use these AI systems in another way, and certain other obligations should be provided for with regard to monitoring of the functioning of the AI systems and with regard to record- keeping, as appropriate.
Amendment 669 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59
Recital 59
(59) It is appropriate to envisage that the user of the AI system should be the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body under whose authority the AI system is operated except where the use is made in the course of a personal non- professional activity.
Amendment 673 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61
Recital 61
(61) Standardisation should play a key role to provide technical solutions to providers to ensure compliance with this Regulation. Compliance with harmonised standards as defined, in particular as regards the levels and metrics of accuracy and robustness for high-risk AI systems. The Commission should be able to adopt common technical specifications in areas where no harmonised standards exist or where they are insufficient. The Commission should also be able to adopt standards or common technical specifications developed by third parties such as suppliers, stakeholders or standardisation bodies. Compliance with the common technical specifications adopted by the Commission should be a means for suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Regulation. Compliance with other harmonised standards set out in Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council54 should be a means for providers to demonstrate conformity with the requirements of this Regulation. However, the Commission could adopt common technical specifications in areas where no harmonised standards exist or where they are insufficientalso help to demonstrate suppliers’ compliance with the requirements of this Regulation, without having the same probative value as the common technical specifications adopted by the Commission. _________________ 54 Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 12).
Amendment 680 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) It is appropriate that, in order to minimise the burden on operators and avoid any possible duplication, for high- risk AI systems related to products which are covered by existing Union harmonisation legislation following the New Legislative Framework approach, the compliance of those AI systems with the requirements of this Regulation should be assessed as part of the conformity assessment already foreseen under that legislation. The applicability of the requirements of this Regulation should thus not affect the specific logic, methodology or general structure of conformity assessment under the relevant specific New Legislative Framework legislation. This approach is fully reflected in the interplay between this Regulation and the [Machinery Regulation]. While safety risks of AI systems ensuring safety functions in machinery are addressed by the requirements of this Regulation, certain specific requirements in the [Machinery Regulation] will ensure the safe integration of the AI system into the overall machinery, so as not to compromise the safety of the machinery as a whole. The [Machinery Regulation] applies the same definition of AI system as this Regulation. However, should this Regulation and another legislative act of the European Union both cover the same product or component of a product and provide diverging definitions or impose different safety requirements, the applicable text shall be the one with the definition or safety requirements offering the best protection for people, Member States, society and fundamental rights.
Amendment 682 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
Recital 64
(64) Given the more extensive experience of professional pre-market certifiers in the field of product safety and the different nature of risks involved, it is appropriate to limit, at least in an initial phase of application of this Regulation, the scope of application of third-party conformity assessment for high-risk AI systems other than those related to products. Therefore, the conformity assessment of such systems should be carried out as a general rule by the provider under its own responsibility, with the only exception of AI systems intended to be used for the remote biometric identification of persons, for which the involvement of a notified body in the conformity assessment should be foreseen, to the extent theyallow them to carry out a conformity assessment for AI systems, including high-risk AI systems, as qualified bodies, to the extent that these systems are not prohibited.
Amendment 692 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
(66) In line with the commonly established notion of substantial modification for products regulated by Union harmonisation legislation, it is appropriate that an AI system undergoes a new conformity assessment whenever a change occurs which may affect the compliance of the system with this Regulation or when the intended purpose of the system changes. In addition, as regards AI systems which continue to ‘learn’ after being placed on the market or put into service (i.e. they automatically adapt how functions are carried out), it is necessary to provide rules establishing that changes to the algorithm and its performance that constitute substantial modifications are subject to new conformity assessments, including in cases where the substantial modifications have been pre-determined by the provider and assessed at the moment of the initial conformity assessment should not constitute a substantial modification.
Amendment 715 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70
Recital 70
(70) Certain AI systems intended to interact with natural persons or to generate content may pose specific risks of impersonation or deception irrespective of whether they qualify as high-risk or not. In certain circumstances, the use of these systems should therefore be subject to specific transparency obligations without prejudice to the requirements and obligations for high-risk AI systems. In particular, natural persons should be notified that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use. Moreover, natural persons should be notified when they are exposed to an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system. Such information and notifications should be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. Further, users, who use an AI systems used to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, places or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic, should disclosesystematically contain an indication on the content generated that the content has been artificially created or manipulated by labelling the artificial intelligence output accordingly and disclosing its artificial origi, and users who use such AI systems or reuse the content generated should not be allowed to remove or conceal that indication.
Amendment 731 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73
Recital 73
(73) In order to promote and protect innovation, it is important that the interests of small-scale providers and users of AI systems are taken into particular account. To this objective, Member States should develop initiatives, which are targeted at those operators, including on awareness raising and information communication. Moreover, the specific interests and needs of small-scale providers shall be taken into account when Notified Bodies set conformity assessment fees. Translation costs related to mandatory documentation and communication with authorities may constitute a significant cost for providers and other operators, notably those of a smaller scale. Member States should possibly ensure that one of the languages determined and accepted by them for relevant providers’ documentation and for communication with operators is one which is broadly understood by the largest possible number of cross-border users.
Amendment 747 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78
Recital 78
(78) In order to ensure that providers of high-risk AI systems can take into account the experience on the use of high-risk AI systems for improving their systems and the design and development process or can take any possible corrective action in a timely manner, all providers should have a post-market monitoring system in place. In view of the sensitive nature of high-risk AI systems, this post-market monitoring system should not be able to automatically send data or error reports to the supplier via the AI system. This system is also key to ensure that the possible risks emerging from AI systems which continue to ‘learn’ after being placed on the market or put into service can be more efficiently and timely addressed. In this context, providers should also be required to have a system in place to report to the relevant authorities any serious incidents or any breaches to national and Union law protecting fundamental rights resulting from the use of their AI systems.
Amendment 769 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 85
Recital 85
(85) In order to ensure that the regulatory framework can be adapted where necessary, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to amend the techniques and approaches referred to in Annex I to define AI systems, the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II, the high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III, the provisions regarding technical documentation listed in Annex IV, the content of the EU declaration of conformity in Annex V, the provisions regarding the conformity assessment procedures in Annex VI and VII and the provisions establishing the high-risk AI systems to which the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation should apply. As the purpose of delegating that power is to allow this Regulation to be adapted to technical advancements, the Commission should only be able to adopt such delegated acts to include non- restrictive additions or clarifications in the lists in those Annexes, whereas deletions, restrictive clarifications or amendments to the definitions of the items in those Annexes should only result from the adoption of amending regulations. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making58. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. _________________ 58 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
Amendment 785 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) harmonised minimum rules for the development of human-centric AI in the Union through the placing on the market, the putting into service and the use of artificial intelligence systems (‘AI systems’) in the Union;
Amendment 877 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 915 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means software that is developed with one or more of the techniques and approaches listed in Annex I and can, for a given set of human-defined objectivesobjectives or parameters subject to human command, generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the environments they interact with;
Amendment 922 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
(1a) ‘human-centric AI’ means an approach which strives to ensure that human values are central to the development, deployment, use and monitoring of AI systems, by ensuring respect for fundamental rights, including those set out in the Treaties of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, all of which are united by reference to a common foundation rooted in respect for human dignity, in which every human being enjoys a unique and inalienable moral status, which also entails consideration of the natural environment and of other living beings that are part of the human ecosystem, as well as a sustainable approach enabling the flourishing of future generations;
Amendment 941 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘user’ means any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body using an AI system under its authority, except where the AI system is used in the course of a personal non- professional activity;
Amendment 996 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
(18a) ‘lifecycle of AI’ means the process of developing, deploying and using an AI system, including the research, design, data supply, training, limited-scale deployment, implementation and withdrawal stages;
Amendment 1006 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23
(23) ‘substantial modification’ means a change, including a change based on ‘learning’, to the AI system following its placing on the market or putting into service which affects the compliance of the AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation or results in a modification to the intended purpose for which the AI system has been assessed;
Amendment 1011 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 25
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 25
(25) ‘post-market monitoring’ means all activities carried out by providers of AI systems to proactively collect and review experience gained from the use of AI systems they place on the market or put into service for the purpose of identifying any need to immediately apply any necessary corrective or preventive actions, whereby such activities may not consist in the AI system automatically sending data or error reports to the provider;
Amendment 1013 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 28 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 28 a (new)
(28a) ‘sandbox’, in connection with the development of AI systems, means an isolated operating and experimental environment enabling certain actions to be carried out using an AI system while protecting the user from any harm resulting from computer bias, damage or compromise;
Amendment 1024 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33
(33) ‘biometric data’ means personal data resulting from specific technical processing relating to the physical, or physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, which allow or confirm the unique identification of that natural person, such as facial images or dactyloscopic data;
Amendment 1034 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 34
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 34
(34) ‘emotion recognition system’ means an AI system for the purpose of identifying or inferring emotions or intentions of natural persons on the basis of their biometric dataor behavioural data or by means of biological or brain implants;
Amendment 1042 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 35
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 35
(35) ‘biometric categorisation system’ means an AI system for the purpose of assigning natural persons to specific categories, such as sex, age, hair colour, eye colour, tattoos, health, ethnic origin or sexual or political orientation, on the basis of their biometric data;
Amendment 1060 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 36
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 36
(36) ‘remote biometric identification system’ means an AI system for the purpose, after a unique process, of identifying natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, and without prior knowledge of the user of the AI system whether the person will be present and can be identified ;
Amendment 1066 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 38
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 38
(38) ‘‘post’ remote biometric identification system’ means a remote biometric identification system other than a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system, regardless of whether the acquired data is hosted in a separate system prior to the comparison and identification;
Amendment 1070 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 40 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 40 – introductory part
(40) ‘law enforcement authority’ means: any public authority competent for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security;
Amendment 1071 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 40 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 40 – point a
Amendment 1073 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 40 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 40 – point b
Amendment 1082 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – introductory part
(44) ‘serious incident’ means any incident or malfunctioning that directly or indirectly leads, might have led or might lead to any of the following:
Amendment 1087 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point a
(a) the death of a person or serious damage to a person’s health or wealth, to property or the environment,
Amendment 1093 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point b
(b) a serious and irreversible disruption of the management and operation of critical infrastructure.,
Amendment 1094 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point b a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point b a (new)
(ba) a breach of obligations under national law or Union law intended to protect fundamental rights.
Amendment 1102 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)
(44a) ‘bias’ means any inclination of prejudice towards or against a person, object or position, whether voluntary or involuntary, that may arise as a result of the design, data supply, interactions, personalisation or configuration of an IA system;
Amendment 1113 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 b (new)
(44b) ‘auditability’ means the ability of an AI system to undergo an assessment of the system’s algorithms, data and design processes;
Amendment 1115 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 c (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 c (new)
(44c) ‘reproducibility’ means the ability of an AI system to exhibit the same behaviour when an experiment is repeated under the same conditions;
Amendment 1139 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to amend the list of techniques and approaches listed in Annex I, in order to update that list to market and technological developments by means of additions or non-restrictive precisions on the basis of characteristics that are similar to the techniques and approaches listed therein.
Amendment 1142 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The techniques and approaches listed in Annex I may only be amended by an amending regulation if the amendment concerns a withdrawal, a restrictive precision or a change in the definition of those techniques and approaches.
Amendment 1161 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness in order to materially distort a person’s behaviour in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
Amendment 1179 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that exploits any of the vulnerabilities of a person or a specific group of persons due to their, such as age, or physical or mental disability, in order to materially distort the behaviour of a person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
Amendment 1188 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems by public authorities or on their behalf for the evaluation or classification of the trustworthiness of natural persons over a certain period of time based on their social behaviour or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics, with the social score leading to either or both of the following:;
Amendment 1198 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
Amendment 1210 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
Amendment 1224 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that takes decisions to dispatch or set priorities for dispatching emergency response services on which the lives of those rescued depend;
Amendment 1226 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
(c b) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that performs individual risk assessments, serves as polygraphs or similar tools, or analyses the emotional state of natural persons, or predicts the occurrence or repetition of an actual or potential criminal offence on the basis of profiling of natural persons or groups, or which assesses the personality traits of natural persons or groups for profiling purposes in the context of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences;
Amendment 1227 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)
(c c) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system for the administration of justice and for democratic processes, which helps judicial authorities to investigate and interpret facts and the law, and to apply the law to a specific set of facts, with the exception of purely ancillary administrative activities which have no impact on the actual administration of justice in individual cases;
Amendment 1228 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c d (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c d (new)
(c d) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that performs genomic, physiological, psychological or behavioural analyses of a natural person for the purpose of profiling that natural person;
Amendment 1229 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c e (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c e (new)
(c e) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that may affect the cognitive integrity or personality of a natural person, with or without the support of physical implants;
Amendment 1231 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
(d) the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of, except those strictly used for individual authentication of access to protected spaces or systems, those used for the execution of administrative procedures by tax and customs authorities, and by law enforcement, unless authorities if and in as far as such use is strictly necessary for one of the following objectives:
Amendment 1281 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point iii
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point iii
(iii) the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of a criminal offence referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA62and punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least threen years, as determined by the law of that Member State. _________________ 62 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).
Amendment 1378 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The competent judicial or administrative authority shall only grant the authorisation where it is satisfied, based on objective evidence or clear indications presented to it, that the use of the ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system at issue is necessary for and proportionate to achieving one of the objectives specified in paragraph 1, point (d), as identified in the request. In deciding on the request, the competent judicial or administrative authority shall take into account the elements referred to in paragraph 2. It shall grant the authorisation for a limited period and scope. Any renewal or amendment of the authorisation shall be subject to the submission of a new request to the competent judicial or administrative authority.
Amendment 1465 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to update the list set out in Annex III by adding fields of high-risk AI systems where both of the following conditions are fulfilled:they present a risk of harm to health and safety or a risk of a negative impact on fundamental rights which, taking into account its severity and likelihood of occurrence, is equivalent to or higher than the risk of harm or negative impact of high-risk AI systems already listed in Annex III.
Amendment 1471 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 1477 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 1487 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. When assessing an AI system for the purposes of paragraph 1 whether an AI system poses a risk of harm to the health and safety or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights that is equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III, the Commission shall take into account the following criteria:
Amendment 1546 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. When assessing an AI system for the purposes of paragraph 1, the Commission shall consult, where appropriate, national and European authorities and bodies, representatives of the groups concerned by that system, industry professionals, independent experts and civil society organisations. The Commission shall organise public consultations in this regard.
Amendment 1551 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. The Commission shall publish a detailed report on the assessment referred to in paragraph 2.
Amendment 1552 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 c (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 c (new)
Amendment 1589 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) identification of the risks, damage and harm actually caused by the high-risk AI system in the past, whether these are the result of use of the high-risk AI system for its intended purpose or of another use;
Amendment 1599 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) sandbox experimentation on the functioning of the AI systems;
Amendment 1604 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall give due consideration to the effects and possible interactions resulting from the combined application of the requirements set out in this Chapter 2. They shall take into account the generally acknowledged state of the art, including as reflected in the common technical specifications adopted by the Commission or in relevant harmonised standards or common specifications.
Amendment 1608 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall be such that any residual risk associated with each hazard, as well as the overall residual risk of the high-risk AI systems is judged acceptable, provided that the high- risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse. Those residual risks shall be communicated to the user., is:
Amendment 1636 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point a (new)
(a) technically and structurally minimised by the high-risk AI system;
Amendment 1637 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b (new)
(b) deemed acceptable, provided that the high-risk AI system is used for its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse.
Amendment 1638 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Those residual risks shall be communicated to the user.
Amendment 1646 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6
Article 9 – paragraph 6
6. Testing procedures shall be suitable to achieve the intended purpose of the AI system and do not need to go beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose.
Amendment 1649 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
They shall test:
Amendment 1650 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point a (new)
(a) the ability of the high-risk AI system to generate an accurate and robust result;
Amendment 1651 #
2021/0106(COD)
(b) the trustworthiness of the high- risk AI system and its ability to actually generate a result such as that expected in accordance with its intended purpose;
Amendment 1652 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point c (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point c (new)
(c) the structural and technical capacity of the high-risk AI system to ensure it cannot be used for purposes other than its intended purpose.
Amendment 1654 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 7
Article 9 – paragraph 7
7. The testing of the high-risk AI systems shall be performed, as appropriate, at any point in time throughout the development process, and, in any event, prior to the placing on the market or the putting into service. Testing shall be made against preliminarily defined metrics and probabilistic thresholds that are preliminarily defined according to common standards or technical specifications and appropriate to the intended purpose of the high-risk AI system.
Amendment 1687 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the relevant design choices, including the extent to which the functioning of the algorithms can be audited and reproduced;
Amendment 1734 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1741 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The dissemination of data by an AI system to other AI systems, whether or not they are of the same origin and whether or not they are installed on the same medium, shall be checked by the provider and may be retracted if necessary.
Amendment 1763 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to amenddd to Annex IV where necessary to ensure that, in the light of technical progress, the technical documentation provides all the necessary information to assess the compliance of the system with the requirements set out in this Chapter.
Amendment 1765 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed with capabilities enabling the automatic recording of events (‘logs’) while the high-risk AI systems isare operating. Those logging capabilities shall conform to recognised standards or common specifications. Where possible, these capabilities shall be local ones and the logs shall be stored on the medium employed by the user of the AI system.
Amendment 1800 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
(ii) the level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity referred to in Article 15 against which the high-risk AI system has been tested and validated before being placed on the market and which can be expected, and any known and foreseeable circumstances that may have an impact on that expected level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity;
Amendment 1815 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Human oversight shall aim at preventing or minimising the risks to health, safety or fundamental rights that may emerge when a high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, in particular when such risksprovided that those risks, if they persist notwithstanding the application of other requirements set out in this Chapter, do not result in a requirement for the high-risk AI system to be recalled or withdrawn.
Amendment 1864 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
It shall be possible for the user, the provider, the national competent authority or authorities and the Commission, as appropriate, to audit and reproduce the functioning of the high-risk AI systems.
Amendment 1892 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) ensure that the high-risk AI system undergoes the relevant conformity assessment procedure, prior to its placing on the market or putting into service, and ensure it is periodically reviewed;
Amendment 1898 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) take the necessary corrective actions, if the high-risk AI system is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, before the high- risk AI system concerned is placed on the market, made available on the market or put into service, or before a high-risk AI system that has been withdrawn or recalled is placed on the market, made available on the market or put into service once again;
Amendment 1951 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of high-risk AI systems shall ensure that their systems undergo the relevant conformity assessment procedure in accordance with Article 43, prior to their placingbefore they are placed on the market, made available on the market or putting into service. Where the compliance of the AI systems with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title has been demonstrated following that conformity assessment, the providers shall draw up an EU declaration of conformity in accordance with Article 48 and affix the CE marking of conformity in accordance with Article 49.
Amendment 1954 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of high-risk AI systems shall keepguarantee the storage of the logs automatically generated by their high-risk AI systems, where possible on the media employed by users, to the extent such logs are under their control by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law. The logs shall be kept for a period that is appropriate in the light of the intended purpose of the high-risk AI system and applicable legal obligations under Union or national law.
Amendment 1961 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Providers of high-risk AI systems which consider or have reason to consider that a high-risk AI system which they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation shall immediately take the necessary corrective actions to bring that system into conformitywithdraw or recall the system, as appropriate, tso withdraw it or to recall it, as appropriateas to bring it into conformity. They shall inform the distributors of the high-risk AI system in question and, where applicable, the authorised representative and importers accordingly.
Amendment 1983 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. As of the time they are appointed, authorised representatives must be able to correspond, exchange technical information and carry out the duties required of them under this Regulation with the national authorities and in the official languages of all the Member States.
Amendment 1985 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) keep a copy of the EU declaration of conformity and the technical documentation at the disposal of the national competent authorities and national authoritiescarry out or commission the conformity assessment referred to in Article 63(7)43;
Amendment 1987 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) provide a national competent authority, upon a reasoned request, with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk AI system wikeep a copy of the EU declaration of conformity and the the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, including access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by lawechnical documentation at the disposal of the national competent authorities and national authorities referred to in Article 63(7);
Amendment 1990 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) cooperate withprovide a national competent national authoritiesy, upon a reasoned request, on any action the latter takes in relation to the high-risk AI system.with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, including access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law;
Amendment 1994 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) cooperate with competent national authorities, upon a reasoned request, on any action the latter takes in relation to the high-risk AI system.
Amendment 1997 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the appropriate conformity assessment procedure has been carried out by the provider of that AI system following its import and prior to its deployment;
Amendment 2007 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5
Article 26 – paragraph 5
5. Importers shall provide national competent authorities, upon a reasoned request, with all necessary information and documentation to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title in a language which can be easily understood byn official language of that national competent authority, including access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law. They shall also cooperate with those authorities on any action national competent authority takes in relation to that system.
Amendment 2016 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 4
Article 27 – paragraph 4
4. A distributor that considers or has reason to consider that a high-risk AI system which it has made available on the market is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title shall take the corrective actions necessary to bring that systemto withdraw or recall that system in order to bring it into conformity with those requirements, to withdraw it or recall it or shall ensure that the provider, the importer or any relevant operator, as appropriate, takes those corrective actions. Where the high- risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the distributor shall immediately inform the national competent authorities of the Member States in which it has made the product available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective actions taken.
Amendment 2029 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) they have placed on the market or put into service a high-risk AI system which they have substantially modified by their own means;
Amendment 2091 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 8
Article 30 – paragraph 8
8. Notifying authorities shall make sure that conformity assessments are carried out in a proportionate manner, avoiding unnecessary burdens for providers and that notified bodies perform their activities taking due account of the size of an undertaking, the sector in which it operates, its structure and the degree of complexity of and risk posed by the AI system in question.
Amendment 2099 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4
Article 32 – paragraph 4
4. The conformity assessment body concerned may begin to perform the activities of a notified body only where no objections are raised by the Commission or the other Member States within one month of a notification.
Amendment 2106 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 7
Article 33 – paragraph 7
7. Notified bodies shall have procedures for the performance of activities which take due account of the size of an undertaking, the sector in which it operates, its structure, and the degree of complexity of and risk posed by the AI system in question.
Amendment 2108 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3
Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. Activities may be subcontracted or carried out by a subsidiary only with the agreement of the provider and the notifying authority.
Amendment 2114 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 4
Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Commission ascertains that a notified body does not meet or no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33, it shall adopt a reasoned decision requesting the notifying Member State to take the necessary corrective measures, including withdrawal of notification if necessary. That implementing acrequest shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 74(2).
Amendment 2117 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39
Article 39
Amendment 2123 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Article 40 – paragraph 1
High-risk AI systems which arshall be in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, to the extent those standards cover those requirements.
Amendment 2145 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Amendment 2147 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Amendment 2158 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For high-risk AI systems listed in point 1 of Annex III, where, in demonstrating the compliance of a high- risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, the provider has applied harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, the provider shall follow one of the following procedures:the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII.
Amendment 2162 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 2167 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 2184 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 2
Article 43 – paragraph 2
2. For high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III, providers shall follow the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control as referred to in Annex VI, which does not provide forassessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII. For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 5(b) of Annex III, placed on the market or put into service by credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU, the conformity assessment shall be carried out as part of the procedure referred to in Articles 97 to101 of that Directive.
Amendment 2187 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 43 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. High-risk AI systems shall periodically be subject to a conformity assessment review procedure.
Amendment 2195 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 43 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
For high-risk AI systems that continue to learn after being placed on the market or put into service, changes to the high-risk AI system and its performance tshatll constitute a substantial modification, including if they have been pre-determined by the provider at the moment of the initial conformity assessment and are part of the information contained in the technical documentation referred to in point 2(f) of Annex IV, shall not constitute a substantial modification.
Amendment 2202 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 5
Article 43 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 for the purpose of updating Annexes VI and Annex VII in order to introduce elements of the conformity assessment procedures that become necessary in light of technical progress.
Amendment 2203 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 6
Article 43 – paragraph 6
Amendment 2209 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1
Article 44 – paragraph 1
1. Certificates issued by notified bodies in accordance with Annex VII shall be drawn-up in anthe official Union language determined byof the Member State in which the notified body is established or in an official Union language otherwise acceptable to the notified body.
Amendment 2211 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Each notified body shall inform the other notified bodies and the notifying authority of:
Amendment 2231 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1
Article 49 – paragraph 1
1. The CE marking shall be affixed visibly, legibly and indelibly for high-risk AI systems before they are placed on the market, made available on the market or put into service. Where that is not possible or not warranted on account of the nature of the high-risk AI system, it shall be affixed to the packaging or to the accompanying documentation, as appropriate.
Amendment 2354 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) natural persons whose personal data are used for the development and testing of certain innovative AI systems in the sandbox shall be informed of the collection and use of their data and shall have given their consent thereto;
Amendment 2433 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1
Article 57 – paragraph 1
1. The Board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities, who shall be represented by the head or equivalent high-level official of that authority, and the European Data Protection Supervisor and the national data protection bodies. Other national authorities may be invited to the meetings, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them.
Amendment 2446 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2
Article 57 – paragraph 2
2. The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure by a simpletwo-thirds majority of its members, following the consent of the Commission. The rules of procedure shall also contain the operational aspects related to the execution of the Board’s tasks as listed in Article 58. The Board may establish sub-groups as appropriate for the purpose of examining specific questions.
Amendment 2452 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3
Article 57 – paragraph 3
3. The Board shall be chaired by the Commission. The Commissionnational supervisory authority of the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The latter shall convene the meetings and prepare the agenda in accordance with the tasks of the Board pursuant to this Regulation and with its rules of procedure. The Commission shall provide administrative and analytical support for the activities of the Board pursuant to this Regulation.
Amendment 2565 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 2
Article 59 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State shall designate aone or more national supervisory authorityies among the national competent authorities. The national supervisory authority or authorities shall act as notifying authorityies and market surveillance authority unless a Member State has organisational and administrative reasons to designate more than one authorityies.
Amendment 2567 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 3
Article 59 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall inform the Commission of their designation or designations and, where applicable, the reasons for designating more than one authority.
Amendment 2579 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 5
Article 59 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall report to the Commission on an annual basis on the status of the financial and human resources of the national competent authorities with an assessment of their adequacy. The Commission shall transmit that information to the Board for discussion and possible recommendations.
Amendment 2645 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 2
Article 61 – paragraph 2
2. The post-market monitoring system shall actively and systematically collect, document and analyse relevant data provided by users or collected through other sources, not including the automated transmission of data, on the performance of high- risk AI systems throughout their lifetime, and allow the provider to evaluate the continuous compliance of AI systems with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2.
Amendment 2647 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 3
Article 61 – paragraph 3
3. The post-market monitoring system shall be based on a post-market monitoring plan. The post-market monitoring plan shall be part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex IV. The Commission shall adopt an implementing act laying down detailed provisions establishing a template for the post-market monitoring plan and the list of elements to be included in the plan. These provisions shall not provide for the automated and systematic transmission of data.
Amendment 2659 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 62 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Such notification shall be made immediately after the provider has established a causal link between the AI system and the incident or malfunctioning or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and, in any event, not later than 15 day72 hours after the providers becomes aware of the serious incident or of the malfunctioning.
Amendment 2707 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 1
Article 65 – paragraph 1
1. AI systems presenting a risk shall be understood as a product presenting a risk defined in Article 3, point 19 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 insofar as risks to the health or safety or to the protection of fundamental rights of persons, or of public order or the national security of the Member States are concerned.
Amendment 2718 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where, in the course of that evaluation, the market surveillance authority finds that the AI system does not comply with the requirements and obligations laid down in this Regulation, it shall without delay require the relevant operator to take all appropriate corrective actions to bring the AI system into compliancwithin a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, and which it may prescribe, to withdraw the AI system from the market, or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, as it may prescribto bring it into compliance.
Amendment 2732 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 7
Article 65 – paragraph 7
7. The market surveillance authorities of the Member States other than the market surveillance authority of the Member State initiating the procedure shall without delay inform the Commission and the other Member States of any measures adopted and of any additional information at their disposal relating to the non-compliance of the AI system concerned, and, in the event of disagreement with the notified national measure, of their objections.
Amendment 2734 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 8
Article 65 – paragraph 8
Amendment 2738 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66
Article 66
Amendment 2757 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 4
Article 67 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the Member States and the relevant operator and shall evaluate the national measures taken. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the measure is justified or not and, where necessary, propose appropriate measures.
Amendment 2767 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 2
Article 68 – paragraph 2
2. Where the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 1 persists for longer than one week following receipt of the relevant notice, the Member State concerned shall take all appropriate measures to restrict or prohibit the high- risk AI system being made available on the market or ensure that it is recalled or withdrawn from the market. , imposing, where necessary, the penalties laid down in national law.
Amendment 2789 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 2
Article 69 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission and the Board shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct intended to foster the voluntary application to AI systems of requirements related for example to environmental sustainability, accessibility for persons with a disability, and stakeholders’ participation in the design and development of the AI systems and diversity of development teams on the basis of clear objectives and key performance indicators to measure the achievement of those objectives.
Amendment 2814 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 1
Article 71 – paragraph 1
Amendment 2834 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The following infringements shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 31 000 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 610 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher:
Amendment 2889 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 2897 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The following infringements shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 530 000 000 EUR:
Amendment 2907 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 3
Article 72 – paragraph 3
3. The non-compliance of the AI system with any requirements or obligations under this Regulation, other than those laid down in Articles 5 and 10, shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 250 000 000 EUR.
Amendment 2914 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 6
Article 72 – paragraph 6
Amendment 2944 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Regulation shall not apply to the AI systems which are components of the large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex IX that have been placed on the market or put into service before [12 months after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)], unless the replacement or amendment of those legal acts leads to a significant change in the design or intended purpose of the AI system or AI systems concerned.
Amendment 2958 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 2
Article 83 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation shall apply to the high-risk AI systems, other than the ones referred to in paragraph 1, that have been placed on the market or put into service before [date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)], only if, from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their design or intended purpose.
Amendment 3026 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point c a (new)
Annex I – point c a (new)
(c a) Approaches based on neural network imitation and neuro-robotic networks;
Amendment 3027 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point c b (new)
Annex I – point c b (new)
(c b) Machine learning tasks on graphs for repetition tasks or pattern recognition;
Amendment 3028 #
2021/0106(COD)
(c c) Natural language programming techniques, including emotion detection and recognition systems, using interactions between human language and computer language;
Amendment 3029 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point c d (new)
Annex I – point c d (new)
(c d) Artificial vision for pattern recognition, including graphical analysis or digital signature identification;
Amendment 3030 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point c e (new)
Annex I – point c e (new)
(c e) Interactive systems related to mechatronics, robotics and automation systems.
Amendment 3036 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – Part A – point 12 a (new)
Annex II – Part A – point 12 a (new)
12a. [REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC]
Amendment 3037 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – Part A – point 12 b (new)
Annex II – Part A – point 12 b (new)
12b. [REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act)].
Amendment 3061 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used for the ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification of natural persons, within the strict limits of the exemption from the general prohibition on their use laid down in Article 5;
Amendment 3070 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new)
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) AI systems intended to be used by autonomous devices, drones or vehicles to transport or collect natural persons;
Amendment 3141 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
(c) AI systems intended to be used, without taking any decisions on the matter, to dispatch, or to establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services, including by firefighters and medical aid.
Amendment 3148 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a
Amendment 3156 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
Amendment 3173 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point e
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point e
Amendment 3180 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point f
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point f
Amendment 3228 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8
Amendment 3283 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VI
Annex VI
Amendment 46 #
2021/0045(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital (29)
Recital (29)
(29) Roaming providers should be able to apply a ‘fair use policy’ to the consumption of regulated retail roaming services provided at the applicable domestic retail price. The ‘fair use policy’ is intended to prevent abusive or anomalous usage of regulated retail roaming services by roaming customers, such as the use of such services by roaming customers in a Member State other than that of their domestic provider for purposes other than periodic travel. Roaming providers should, in cases of force majeure caused by circumstances such as pandemics or natural catastrophes which involuntarily extend the period of temporary stay of the roaming customer in another Member State, consider extending the applicable fair use allowance for an appropriate period, upon a justified request by the roaming customer . Any fair use policy should enable the roaming provider’s customers to consume volumes of regulated retail roaming services at the applicable domestic retail price that are consistent with their respective tariff plans.
Amendment 50 #
2021/0045(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) A contract which includes any type of regulated retail roaming service should specify the characteristics of that regulated retail roaming service, including the expected level of quality of serviceclear and comprehensible information on the expected level of quality of service. Such information should be provided in line with BEREC’s retail roaming guidelines. The provider should make available information on relevant factors that can affect the quality of service, such as availability of certain technologies, coverage or variation due to external factors such as topography.
Amendment 57 #
2021/0045(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Roaming customers and home operators sometimes unwittingly incur large bills as a result of the lack of transparency on the numbers used for value added services across the Union and on the wholesale prices charged for value added services. Communications to certain numbers which are used for providing value added services, for example, premium-rate numbers, freephone numbers or shared cost numbers, are subject to particular pricing conditions at the national level. This Regulation should not apply to the part of the tariff that is charged for the provision of value added services but only to the tariffs for the connection to such services. Nevertheless, the RLAH principle might create an expectation for end-users that communications to such numbers while roaming should not incur any increased cost in comparison to the domestic situation. However, this is not always the case when roaming. End-users are confronted with increased costs, even when they call numbers that are free when called domestically. This could erode customers’ confidence in using their phones when roaming and could result in bill shocks, thus having a negative impact on a genuine RLAH experience. This is mainly caused, at retail level by the insufficient level of transparency on the higher charges which can be incurred because of communications to value added services numbers. Therefore measures should be introduced to increase the transparency on the conditions for communications to value added services numbers. To that end, roaming customers and roaming customers living with a disability should be informed in their contract and notified and warned, in a timely manner and free of charge, that communications to value added services numbers in roaming can entail additional charges.
Amendment 60 #
2021/0045(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) In order to improve the transparency of retail prices for roaming services and to help roaming customers make decisions on the use of their mobile devices while abroad, providers of mobile communication services should supply their roaming customers with information free of charge on the roaming charges applicable to them when using roaming services in a visited Member State. Since certain customer groups might be well informed about roaming charges, roaming providers should provide a possibility to easily opt-out from this automatic message service. In addition, roaming customers should be provided with a text message including a link to a web page giving detailed information about the types of services (calls and SMS) that may be subject to increased costs. Such communications should be guaranteed and easily accessible for roaming customers living with a disability. Moreover, providers should actively give their customers, provided that the latter are located in the Union, on request and free of charge, additional information on the per- minute, per-SMS or per-megabyte data charges (including VAT) for the making or receiving of voice calls and also for the sending and receiving of SMS, MMS and other data communication services in the visited Member State.
Amendment 86 #
2021/0045(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) clear and comprehensible information on the quality of service that can reasonably be expected when roaming in the Union, including in particular information on the speed and potential limitation to the transmission of data.
Amendment 94 #
2021/0045(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Roaming providers shall, except when the roaming customer has notified the roaming provider that he does not require this service, provide the customer, automatically by means of a Message Service, without undue delay and free of charge, when the roaming customer enters a Member State other than that of his domestic provider, with information on the potential risk of increased charges due to the use of value added services including a link to a dedicated webpage providing information about the types of services that may be subject to increased costs and, if available, information on value added services number ranges. Such communications shall be guaranteed and easily accessible in particular for roaming customers living with a disability.
Amendment 1 #
2020/2262(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls the importance, for a properly functioning and competitive, fair and efficient internal market, of effective better law- making tools that take subsidiarity and proportionality fully into account when drawing up scientifically based and, balanced legislation that safeguards Europeans, particularly for consumers and SMEs; deeply regrets that that is very rarely the case, as consideration of those two criteria, though required by the Treaties, often takes up no more than a few lines in presentations of Union legislative acts and is confined to making basic assertions with no analytical content;
Amendment 11 #
2020/2262(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates that internal market objectives such as improving competitiveness, digitalisation, sustainability, safety, autonomy, resilience, justice and consumer protection should be underpinned by the enhanced use of scrutmonitorinyg instruments such as the regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) and the Regulatory Scrutiny Board;
Amendment 37 #
2020/2262(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Warns that legislation which increasesone of the aims of good legislation ought to be to reduce the administrative burdens greatly affectsimposed on SMEs and consumers by hindering competitiveness and prevent, albeit without hindering the fair and efficient functioning of the single market or preventing it from unlocking its full potential; calls on the Commission, with a view to providing evidence on the added value of EU action, and its costs and benefits, to strengthen the SME fitness check.
Amendment 1 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A (new)
Recital A (new)
A (new) whereas in 2019, the value of total trade of agricultural goods between the EU and the rest of the world was €325 billion with a trade surplus of €39billion;1a _________________ 1ahttps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php?title=Extra- EU_trade_in_agricultural_goods#EU_tra de_in_agricultural_products:_surplus_of _.E2.82.AC39_billion
Amendment 3 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that EU trade policy has a major role to play in the transition towards more sustainable agri-food systems, in line with the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal; without putting at risk the competitiveness of the European production; EU trade policy should be designed to provide the consumer with the best products putting European farmers and producers at the core; highlights that domestic related policies and trade should never encourage practices that lead to a significant increase of imports from third countries which might have less ambitious social, environmental and SPS standards;
Amendment 12 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the fact that the aim of the Farm to Fork Strategy is to establish a local, sustainable, healthy and resilient food system which benefits consumers in the EU;
Amendment 27 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that promoting healthy and sustainable food consumption calls for changesinvolves paying attention to diets, production systems and, internal trade and promoting public food education campaigns starting from primary schools;
Amendment 33 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the EU internal market is the world’s biggest importer and exporter of agri-food products; is convinced that the EU should use this position to set the benchmark in terms of standards for sustainable food systems, based on the precautionary principle, environmental protection, , respect of human rights and animal welfare;
Amendment 37 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that quality food, fair profits for producers, fair prices for consumers, food sovereignty, environmental protection and high standards of animal welfare are key objectives for a balanced consumption policy;
Amendment 40 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Deplores that the new initiative proposed does not take into account the impact of the Covid-19crisis and the consequent food insecurity in the European market; in this regard, stresses with big concern that the Covid-19 crisis is expected to significantly increase the EU population unable to afford a healthy and nutritious meal;
Amendment 43 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses that the Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to shorten the EU food supply chain and to make it less dependent on imports from third countries, thus increasing the EU’s resilience in order to meet the needs of consumers and to secure the food production and the stocks;
Amendment 45 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Underlines that local production is - and will always be - more sustainable than global food production as it meets the immediate needs of consumers, reduces food waste, and can have a lesser impact on the environment by reducing transport related GHG emissions;
Amendment 45 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to step up its support for regional food systems and short supply chains, which act as a source of fresh, sustainable and better quality products for consumers; takes the view that legislation on European public procurement should be revised in order to foster local, high-quality food supply systems; underlines the fundamental role of public administrations in the collective catering sector, in which priority should be given to organic, traditional, typical products, products with geographical indication and from a short supply chain;
Amendment 57 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers that local, national or European preference in public tenders for food (canteens, hospitals, etc.) should be encouraged;
Amendment 58 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the Commission to identify practical ways of encouraging short supply chains, such as an exemption from VAT for products sold less than 100 km from their production site, and providing public spaces for the regular or seasonal sale of products from micro- enterprises or regional cooperatives;
Amendment 60 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that sustainable production should become a key characteristic of EU agri-food products, expanding the concept of quality to social and environmentthe Commission should take into account that sustainability is not only focused on environmental issues as it should be taken as a global concept also including economic and social aspects;
Amendment 65 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that the main objective of the Farm to Fork Strategy should be to guarantee the access to healthy and nutritious food for consumers at a fair price, as well as ensuring decent salaries for producers; furthermore the strategy should strengthen the position of EU farmers and producers in the global food supply chain; in this regard the strategy should also set out realistic, achievable, and fair objectives by giving the possibility and the time needed for producers to gradually adapt to any changes required in the production process without any abrupt shifts and without discriminating any sector per se;
Amendment 68 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Remarks that the loss of competitiveness and production capacity caused to European companies - if the announced Farm to Fork target thresholds are confirmed - could only be mitigated if the other major world players also adopted a system of equivalent environmental rules, reminds the Commission that currently there are no elements that make us think that this can happen in a sufficient way;
Amendment 69 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Underlines the importance of preserving the production specificities, the quality and the distinctiveness of the EU productive model forged through historical and cultural practices; in this regard, stresses the need to consider that many farming practices are part of the national and European cultural heritage and are moreover designed by geographic, regionals and climate related specificities; recalls that those practices should be cherished as part of the European and international heritage and preserved from any ideological interferences; furthermore any future evolvement should take into account the local peculiarities of each Member State and the need to define proportionate and calibrated objectives according to the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 71 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Urges the Commission to allow Member States that so wish (Bulgaria, Slovakia, etc.) to encourage the creation of special shelves in supermarkets for local or national products;
Amendment 75 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the Commission to make it easier for quality products from micro- enterprises to access local markets;
Amendment 80 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Supports the establishment of a governance framework and a code of conduct for food and retail businesses, in order to make them accountable and aware of the importance of sustainability and health; points out the importance of tackling free-riding throughout the food supply chain in order to ensure a fair price for products and protect the reputation of those products with quality marks;
Amendment 85 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Supports the establishment of a governance framework and a code of conduct for food and retail businesses, in order to make them accountable and aware of the importance of sustainability and health; recalls the importance of effective application of the Directive on unfair practices in the agri-food chain;
Amendment 87 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises the importance of enforceable Trade and Sustainable Development chapters in trade agreements to promote biodiversity, foster more sustainable agri-food production and stop EU-driven global deforestation; urges support for developing countries to promote food security and alignment with European standards for sustainability;le production and respect of human rights; ; in this regard, expresses its deep concern on how the Farm to Fork Strategy could generate a higher level of food insecurity worldwide, by reducing the European and the global production as suggested in the report published in 2020 by the United States Department of Agriculture; stresses that it has been evidenced that organic production alone is not able to meet the needs and provide the necessary aliments to feed the world population.
Amendment 90 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that, although food prices are soaring for consumers, producers are still receiving too low a share of the value added; calls for the distribution of value added to be rebalanced;
Amendment 100 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomAcknowledges the Commission’s initiative to promote healthier diets by introducing nutritional profiles, accompanied by mandatthrough consumer education campaigns and actions that inforym and harmonised labelling of the nutritional vabout the importance of a varied and balanced diet, which does not exclude ofany food as lon the front of packagingg as it is consumed in the right quantities and frequencies and which is accompanied by adequate physical activity;
Amendment 104 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Regrets the absence of an effective impact assessment for the Biodiversity and Farm to Fork strategies and recalls the need to present legislative proposals only when following an assessment of the overall effects of the strategies from an environmental, social and economic point of view;
Amendment 108 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that the key to pursue the objective of healthier diets should be providing clear and correct information to consumers, not influencing their food choices with distortive claims on nutritional values; it further underlines that nutrition labelling schemes could be detrimental to some products that benefit from an indication of origin;
Amendment 113 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 115 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the risk of putting the EU agri-food sector at a competitive disadvantage in the absence of global convergence of standards, and of leading to increased costs for consumers; calls on the Commission to immediately conduct and present a comprehensive neutral impact assessment of the targets envisaged in the Strategy, as well as proportionate measures to maintain the competitiveness of the EU agri-food sector and ensure reciprocity of standards; recalls that FTAs should be based on a coordinated approach, fostering more consistency between trade, customs and market surveillance; furthermore, urges the Commission to set a more ambitious agenda regarding food fraud and adulteration in FTAs;
Amendment 127 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Regards it as essential, further, to keep consumers better informed by introducing mandatory ingredient origin labelling of processed and unprocessed food, which would be broadened to cover animal welfare, sustainability and pesticide residue levels;
Amendment 134 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Underlines the importance of extending the indication of origin labelling, including that of primary ingredients, to all agricultural supply chains; stresses that the indication of origin requirement should be made uniform throughout the EU internal market in such a way that is sustainable for the entire agri-food chain;
Amendment 135 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Amendment 142 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 143 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Calls for the ‘EU and non-EU’ indication of origin to be immediately prohibited for foodstuffs such as honey and jam, because it is often fake and misleads consumers about the European origin of the product;
Amendment 144 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Calls for a ban on all European public subsidies for slaughterhouses not stunning animals before their slaughter;
Amendment 145 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Considers that the clear and mandatory origin labelling of food should indicate a precise place of origin in the Member State or third country concerned;
Amendment 169 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Supports the Commission in its efforts to combat food fraud, which misleads consumers and distorts competition in the internal market, and regards it as essential to make the penalties imposed on fraudsters more dissuasive and to earmark sufficient resources so that checks can be stepped up and legally define at EU level the concepts of “Fraud and Agri-food Crime” and that of “Sounding”;
Amendment 175 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recalls that numerous food scandals have shocked European consumers: processed meat products, such as lasagne, made from horse meat, tainted Brazilian beef, chicken and beef containing hormones and antibiotics, as well as fake honey and fraudulent alcohol and wine; calls for food checks to be increased in order to protect consumers, by setting a minimum number or rate of annual inspections;
Amendment 183 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Notes that Turkey has engaged in unilateral and provocative activities against the EU, Member States and European leaders; notes, further, that Turkish unilateral and provocative activities in the Eastern Mediterranean are still taking place, including in Cyprus’ Exclusive Economic Zone; calls on the Commission and Member States to temporarily limit the access of Turkish foodstuffs to the internal market and European consumers.
Amendment 186 #
2020/2260(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Recalls that the tools of the Farm to Fork Strategy could be profitable for the European market only if environmental and social sustainability are placed at the core of the EU trade policy in relation to agreements with third Countries;
Amendment 5 #
2020/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that competition policy applies only to actors operating on European territory, but that the globalised nature of the economy and trade enables key players to implement global strategies that are not subject to EU legislation and are designed to circumvent it, generating significant economic and social harm in Europe while appearing to meet the objectives of European competition; strongly recommends that these objectives, in particular those of low prices and the strong competition supposedly conducive to creativity, be revised in the light of the costs and destruction that their implementation entails, with the focus shifting to fair prices and equitable development;
Amendment 8 #
2020/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls the importance of safeguarding consumers' right to a conscious and safe choice by promoting tools that will ensure the highest level of transparency about the composition and origin of products;
Amendment 34 #
2020/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the importance of a few online operators acting as gatekeepers to the digital economy, including access to e- commerce markets and the consequences on freedom of choice for consumers and access to markets for companies; underlines, thereforein that connection, the strategic requirement for the EU to have companies with comparable capacities, and calls on the Commission to adapt competition law rules in order to foster the rapid recovery of Member States’ economies and the emergence of such companies; stresses, further, the need for an internal market ex ante regulatory instrument to ensure that impacted markets remain fair and competitive; looks forward to seeing this instrument in the forthcoming Digital Markets Act proposal;
Amendment 45 #
2020/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation has been inadequately adapted to recent market developments, notably the growth of online sales and online platforms; welcomes the impact assessment recently launched by the Commission and calls for further steps to address the issue, without prejudice to legislation on future services and digital markets;
Amendment 59 #
2020/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Encourages the adoption of measures to strengthen European start- ups and SMEs as a means of supporting their competitiveness with non-EU ones, in accordance with the level playing field principle; stresses the need of a proper application of competition policy to third- country companies operating in the EU internal market;
Amendment 61 #
2020/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to ensure fair and secure access to data for all market participantsin keeping with a European strategy of protection and sovereignty in their hosting, processing and management; notes that ithis should empower all consumers to control their data, whatever form they take and including the metadata of online services, such as connection details, interaction arrangements or information on the IT equipment used, and provide them with additional rights in terms of data portability and interoperability in order to ensure that the single market for data is based on European values and fair competitionthe full and uniform application of European law.
Amendment 37 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission and Member State authorities to combat tax evasion and abuses of dominant positions by non-European businesses active on the market for algorithmic systems for personal-data analysis;
Amendment 38 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Calls for consideration to be given to different models for the taxation of digital businesses in order to prevent across-the-board user surveillance; states that taxing digital businesses according to the volume of data they collect, analyse or store would make it possible to rebalance economic models based on ‘surveillance capitalism’ and to protect consumers;
Amendment 47 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the need to create a single European data space with the aim of ensuring the free flow of non-personal data across borderall Member States and sectors; underlines the principle of the free flow of non-personal data as imperative for a single market for data, providing a level playing field for data sharing between stakeholders; considers that business-to- business (B2B) and business-to- government (B2G) data sharing should be voluntary, while mandatory access to data should also be envisaged to remedy potential market failures relating to the monopoly exercised by particular third- country actors;
Amendment 58 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Emphasises how important it is that European citizens’ personal data should preferably be processed in Europe;
Amendment 62 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Points to the unique nature of certain personal data, such as health data, children’s data and intimate private data, e.g. sexual preferences or personal photos; stresses that anonymisation of such data should be guaranteed and that storage or analysis thereof outside the European Union should not be authorised;
Amendment 72 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Considers that a Member State should be able to oblige cloud service providers and digital businesses operating in the European Union, whether located in the European Union or in a third country, to provide access to any relevant personal data relating to terrorism, even if stored in a third country;
Amendment 76 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Regrets that the Commission does not envisage any specific protection for Europeans with critical economic responsibilities against third-country laws such as the US Cloud Act; states that that legislation allows third-country law enforcement authorities to access personal data in connection with criminal investigations that are sometimes conducted on economic competition grounds; states that the strategic impact of such cases is sometimes considerable for European firms, Alstom being a case in point,;
Amendment 97 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that the development of a European industrial and technological base requires the introduction of a European preference for local or European production in digital procurement in Europe;
Amendment 99 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Considers that any authorisation by a contracting authority for economic operators from countries outside the European Union or the European Economic Area to participate in a procedure for the award of digital contracts, such as for cloud services, must take into account, inter alia, the imperatives of information and supply security, the safeguarding of defence and state security interests, the interest in developing a European digital industrial and technological base, and reciprocity requirements;
Amendment 106 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Points to the need to protect European subcontractors and producers of critical digital components, applications or systems in view of the predatory approach of third-country businesses;
Amendment 107 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Points out that, in the United States, the government has invested massively in new technologies: USD 1 400 billion in 20 years since the inception, in the early 1990s, of Al Gore’s information superhighway plan; points out that, by comparison, the EUR 2 billion investment planned by the Commission in a project on European data spaces and federated cloud infrastructure appears derisory; calls therefore on the Commission to authorise Member State aid to strengthen local or European businesses active in the field of digital data and to put an end to third-country businesses’ monopoly in Europe in this strategic area;
Amendment 9 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas artificial intelligence (AI) can offers many benefits but also presents certain risks;
Amendment 10 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the EU’s technology lag in AI poses a threat to the independence and security of the European states;
Amendment 20 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes the EU needs to become a world leader in digital innovation; considers that the digital single market is about removing national barriers and having a better organised and common European approach for market integration and harmonisation; believes that further actions are needed at both Member State and EU level to achieve this;
Amendment 46 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to follow the ‘one in, one out’ principle in its future legislative proposals, and to address the fragmentation of the digital single market, remove any existing unjustified barriers, and support innovation by reducing red tape;
Amendment 56 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that substantial investment in AI and other key new technologies is required; calls for NextGenerationEU, as well as public and private funding, to increase investment so as to reflect the EU’s ambition of becomstrengthen and improve the EU’s standing at global technological leader and reaping the full benefits of digitalisationlevel;
Amendment 73 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls that we need a data economy that works for the entire EU, as it is a key enabler of digitalisation; believes that it is important for the EU to guarantee a high degree of control over data, with clear and balanced rules on intellectual property rights (IPR), but considers it essential to maintain openness towards third countries, and that the free flow of non-personal data across borders is important;
Amendment 79 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Stresses the need to require that Europeans’ data be processed and hosted on EU territory and in accordance with EU law;
Amendment 99 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Strongly bBelieves that AI can be a force for goodplay a positive role for all European citizens, and offer significant benefits and value for the economy, safety, security, education, healthcare, transport and the environment; believes the security, inclusiveness, accessibility and fairness, especially for groups in vulnerable situations, of AI- driven products and services need to be ensured;
Amendment 105 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that while AI offers greatood potential, it can also present certain risks due to issues such as bias and opacity;
Amendment 157 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that the development of a voluntary labelling scheme for trustworthy AI, based on clear and common guidance drawn up by the Commission, could help improve consumer trust involving all relevant stakeholders and based on transparent standards could help improve consumer trust; this labelling could notably include information on safety aspects, such as a safety score, and minimum age requirements;
Amendment 186 #
2020/2216(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Highlights the importance of education and research for AI; therefore calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish an EUrengthen and enhance existing centres of excellence for AI; considers that this should be done with the involvement of universities, companies and research institutions; believes that such a centre can help to provide specialised training and development for regulatory authoritie such as the European Artificial Intelligence Networks;
Amendment 9 #
2020/2131(INI)
2. Stresses that the implementation of the SME strategy should focus on supporting SMEs to help them maintaand reacting their existence, as the COVID-19 crisis has delivered a shock to many SMEs and their role in the everyday life of Europeanso the COVID-19; micro and SMEs should be considered an essential asset in the post- COVID 19 transition;
Amendment 23 #
2020/2131(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that SMEs should be burdened as little as possible and encourages the Commission to use strong enforcement action to ensure that the single market benefits all businesses and consumers and to counter gold-plating and other regulatory restrictions; recalls that in the post-COVID recovery further market deregulation should be harmonised with workers’ rights protection;
Amendment 30 #
2020/2131(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses Member States to avoid practices of unfair competition inside the internal market, as they could seriously affect micro and SMEs and consumer rights;
Amendment 33 #
2020/2131(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Highlights that unfair competition usually driven by extra - UE companies is very detrimental to the European SMEs, especially in the post-COVID recovery; efficient trade defence instruments should be accessible to SMEs and they should avoid unfair practices from third countries;
Amendment 35 #
2020/2131(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Recalls that an effective “green” approach, favourable to SMEs, should avoid imposing extra burdens on SMEs while allowing imports from third countries which are not respecting free trade and “green” standards;
Amendment 39 #
2020/2131(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the crucial role of data as the lifeblood of the digital economy; supports the Commission in establishing European data spaces for trusted and secure data sharing to ramp up data flows between businesses and with governments; recalls that digital trainings and upskilling and reskilling programs for entrepreneurs and employees could support the recovery of SMEs and foster their competitiveness in the EU market;
Amendment 61 #
2020/2131(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Member States to simplify procurement tendering processes by using the flexibility of the EU’s new procurement framework and to enhance opportunities for SMEs by using digital tools and platforms to expand cross-border procurement; stresses that green public procurement and a simplified access to tenders can make an important contribution to building a sustainable economy; where possible, calls for preferring European micro and SMEs in public tenders;
Amendment 77 #
2020/2131(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Highlights the importance of family -run and family-owned businesses, as the backbone of local economies; they create wealth, provide jobs, are locally rooted and connected to local communities; underlines that family businesses make up more than 60% of all companies in Europe, they range from sole proprietors to large international enterprises; big or small, listed or un- listed, family businesses play a significant role in the EU economy.
Amendment 33 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the US continues to play a relevant role in the region, including through a direct military presence; whereas Israel, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt all have major non-NATO ally status; whereas NATO member Turkey and Qatar, however, have played a particularly destabilising role in the Middle East;
Amendment 43 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the summit of 27 to 28 March 2022 between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt and Morocco aiming to create a security alliance, which was also attended by the US Secretary of State, paved the way for a new regional approach to security and confirmed the countries’ intention to divide the region into blocks;
Amendment 56 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 67 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas countries in the region are key trading partners for the EU and there are important economic ties between the two sides; whereas the ongoing global energy crisis has led to increased contact with Qatar and other countries in the region on the import of energy resources into the EU; whereas there is potential for stronger cooperation in other areas such as the green transition, better governance and human rights; whereas the aforementioned makes the EU dependent on a country that supports Islamist movements by funding, embracing and harbouring terrorist and extremist groups and using charities to sponsor the spread of radical Islam by global terrorist entities;
Amendment 80 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas problems associated with governance and breaches of the rule of law in the region are a significant source of instability; whereas the imprisonment or torture of political opposition figures and social activists across the region is paving the way for further conflict; whereas increasing persecution, ranging from routine discrimination in education, employment and social settings to genocidal attacks, is leading to the exodus of Christians;
Amendment 104 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that the current situation in the broader Middle East region is characterised by ongoing conflicts with a regional dimension; stresses that the presence of foreign forces in these conflicts is contributing to maintaining them and to further regional instability; notes that as well as ongoing conflicts, there are latent ones which the EU must take into consideration when defining its long-term strategy to tackle the underlying causes of instability in the region; stresses that the reopening of the border between Syria and Jordan on 29 September 2021 has benefitted the Syrian economy and people and has reduced tensions across the region; calls on the EU to resume dialogue with Syria and to allow the return of Syrian refugees who wish to do so in order to prevent conflict;
Amendment 114 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that the EU has itsMember States have their own interests in the region, as EU security is interdependent with security in the Middle East; highlights that EU funding instruments directed at the region could make an important contribution to stability and prosperity; criticises the fact that the sanctions imposed by the EU and US are causing more instability in the Middle East;
Amendment 123 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the region is becoming increasingly polarised into blocks; considers this counterproductive for the EU’sdangerous for the Member States’ goals in the area of stability and security; calls on the EU to enhance its bilateral discussions with all the different stakeholders;
Amendment 161 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 182 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on theall countries in the region to refrain from exporting arms or combatants or intervening militarily in other countries, as such interventions are some of the main causes of regional destabilisation; firmly opposes the use of drones in extrajudicial and extraterritorial killings of terror suspects and demands a ban on the use of drones for this purpose;
Amendment 241 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 262 #
2020/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the EU to promote the development of a strong civil society in the region; highlights that the shrinking civil space in several countries poses a threat to regional stabilityfoster support for minorities and Christian communities in the Middle East;
Amendment 15 #
2020/2077(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that placing sustainable products either from member states or third countries on the internal market should be the norm and calls for a horizontal Sustainable Product Framework Directive setting mandatory minimum requirements for durability, interoperability, reparability, by the consumer or by an authorised specialist, upgradability, reusability and recyclability for all products alongside further product- specific requirements; therefore a clear and comprehensible definition of "sustainable products" has to be provided by the Commission;
Amendment 21 #
2020/2077(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Underlines the importance of not unilaterally passing on the additional costs arising from the New Circular Economy Action Plan to consumers; further it is inevitable to set all measures in the sense of the free market economy and the preservation of the competitive ability in the international competition;
Amendment 36 #
2020/2077(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Highlights the sustainability of local supply chains; notes that the definition of the durability of a product or service should accordingly focus on relocalised production, recycling or reparability in Europe;
Amendment 44 #
2020/2077(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to empower consumers to further engage in sustainable consumption practices; calls for mandatory labelling on product durability and reparability, and the development of a repair score, in addition to minimum information requirements; asks for both the legal guarantee rights and the reversed burden of proof rules to be extended based on the lifespan of products, the introduction of direct producer liability, and for legislative measures to ban practices resulting in premature obsolescence; the minimum legal guarantee period of two years is not appropriate for all products. In order to meet consumers legitimate expectations, a guarantee period of five or 10 years should be set for certain categories of products;
Amendment 63 #
2020/2077(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Supports the establishment of an EU-wide ‘right to repair’; calls, in this context, for measures to provide unrestricted and free access to repair and maintenance information and to spare parts for a proportionate price to all market participants, to define a mandatory minimum period of time for the availability of spare parts and/or updates, a maximum time-limit for their delivery, and for repair to be given priority under the legal guarantee regime;
Amendment 73 #
2020/2077(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that effective enforcement is crucial to making sure that products placed on the market comply with sustainability requirements; calls, therefore, for greater EU oversight, through setting harmonised rules on the minimum number of checks and their frequency, and by empowerasking the Commission to monitor, report in a recurrent period to be determined and audit the activities of national authorities, as well as to carry out regular tests and inspections;
Amendment 76 #
2020/2077(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Commission to present an impact assessment of the planned tax on plastics; points out that, if such a tax cannot be avoided, the funds will not be transferred to the EU budget but will be provided to the Member States for the implementation of the New Circular Economy Action Plan;
Amendment 91 #
2020/2077(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls for mandatory country-of- origin information on all products imported or produced in Europe;
Amendment 105 #
2020/2077(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for a revision of EU public procurement legislation introducing mandatory minimum targets, through defining a certain percentage for procurement based on economic, environmental, social and ethical criteria, and introducing a transparent hierarchy of award criteria, together with sector-specific targets.;
Amendment 109 #
2020/2077(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Considers that binding minimum targets should be introduced for public procurement purposes to facilitate the sustainable relocation of jobs in Europe through allocation clauses giving preference to local businesses and workers;
Amendment 5 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the Commission’s initiatives to support European SMEs’ access to international markets; stresses, however, that SMEs have to deal with too many regulations and burdens and excessive bureaucracy; stresses that SMEs are kept at a competitive disadvantage by investing in climate neutrality to comply with the Green Deal while trying to remain competitive and thrive on export markets; furthermore stresses that the European Green Deal represents a disproportionate additional financial burden on SMEs and industry, distorting global competition and, under the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, seriously jeopardising their professional existence;
Amendment 8 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that the Industrial Strategy, prepared prior to the outbreak and published at an early stage of the pandemic in Europe, will require substantial revision, to reflect the change in fundamentals and; calls on the new Commission of the Von Der Leyen Commission:to develop realistic strategies to return economies across the EU to growth and therefore to strengthen all economies, both north and south and east and west, to the benefit of citizens and businesses; stresses that the Green Deal is an inappropriate and unaffordable approach for this;
Amendment 11 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Strongly and crucially highlights that such a revision must be made in accordance with a decisive shift in fundamental political perspective and cannot involve maintaining, let alone reinforcing, previous pieces of legislation such as an indivisible Single Market or global free trade prohibiting barriers to cross-border flows and opening public procurement; underlines that these objectives contradict in essence the goals yet outlined of developing autonomic domestic industries through public driving and support, or promoting the emergence of European global leaders;
Amendment 14 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Underlines that the COVID-19 crisis has severely hit European industry and threatening the employment market, call in this regard the Commission to re- focus on concrete actions to support industrial and local production and related exports alternatively to concentrate on a carbon-neutral economy;
Amendment 14 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Further highlights that the principles of free trade, free movement of economic actors, economic liberalism, shutting down planning, discarding protectionism and the preservation of domestic interests, putting forward economic growth, and aiming for the lowest prices are precisely what has led the European industry to dismantling in order to chase profit without regard to the national interests of Member States and citizens; critically underlines the role of the policies of the Commission in implementing such principles despite obvious, consistent and lasting industrial, social and political negative effects;
Amendment 15 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Emphasizes that any revised Strategy, to have any chance to succeed, should forfeit these principles and focus on putting the economy at the service of nations and people, enabling Member States to drive industrial equipment, the processes and capital of which are located on their soil, giving them effective control over the movement of capital, goods, persons and services, aiming for autonomy and resilience in all fields, protecting European citizens, businesses and economies from future crises, and building heavyweight European global actors for the purpose of outward, not inward, competition;
Amendment 18 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. underlines that european SMEs and instustry are already champion in the green economy and in green tools; in this regard the commission should accompany Member States towards exporting this tools and know-how to create a global level playing field;
Amendment 20 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for the Commission to undertake, together with Members States, a comprehensive and cross-sectoral analysis of the economies within the EU, in order to understand the depth of impacts felt by the COVID-19 pandemic; considers this an essential evidence base in order for the Commission to issue updated recommendations and determine the key policies that will act to strengthen the collective long-term recovery within the Single Market; welcomes the fourteen coherent industrial ecosystems identified by the Commission, whose strategic independence is to be ensured;
Amendment 26 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to focus on domestic productivity on the basis of research and innovation within Europe, in order to establish a strategic autonomy and less dependence on vulnerable supply chains in core industry sectors such as the tech and telecommunications, medical products and, pharmaceuticals and agricultural sectors, especially in times of global crisis, and to remain competitive on the global markets;
Amendment 28 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Calls on the Commission to focus on domestic productivity on the basis of research and innovation within Europe, in order to establish a strategic autonomy and less dependence on vulnerable supply chains in core industry sectors such as the tech and telecommunications, medical products, pharmaceuticals and agricultural sectors, especially in times of global crisis, to remain competitive on the global markets and to provide European consumers with essential goods;
Amendment 36 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Underlines that industry is a national competence, which should be driven by the interest of local business and local producers; stresses however that the European Commission should give the opportunity to Member States of developing a proper strategy to enhance the exchange of information in order to achieve positive impact on trade relations -in and outside of the internal market-;
Amendment 38 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Underlines that industry counts for 80% of European goods exports and employs around 35 million people, calls the Commission to take into account the significant added value industry brings to the European employment market and social rights and its crucial place as a factor of prosperity and competitiveness;
Amendment 42 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that EU industrial competitiveness relies on a fully functioning Single Market in Services; underlines that the Commission must consider how to address barriers to cross- border services as part of any revised set of priorities;
Amendment 44 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Supports, in principle, the initiative to reinforce a rule-based multilateral trading system; expresses its concern, however, about the functioning of the WTO, owing to some international actors abusing their market power; in this regards underlines the need of creating a level playing field while being mobilised on reforming the WTO toghether with international partners;
Amendment 49 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Deplores that during the Covid-19 crisis there has been a spread of disinformation, propaganda and misleading information, as well as a considerable lack of management of the interference of Chinese actors within the EU, which has undermined trust in the trade markets overall and created a negative impact on procurement markets;
Amendment 49 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the importance of a prudent and not rushed sustainability strategy, which is central to plans to develop European industry; recalls in this regard the European Council conclusions of 12 December 2019, highlighting the need to establish a framework for actions that benefits all Member State and which does not jeopardise the global competitiveness of European industry and SMEs;
Amendment 56 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recognises that the public and private sector will encounter significant financial constraints in the coming years, impacting their ability to support a programme of investment, particularly with regard to the Green Deal objectives; expresses concern about an unequal pace of development, particularly in less developed parts of the EU, where achieving transformation demands far more significant adisproportionately high Green Deal objectionves; strongly calls on the Commission in its revised Industrial Strategy to adopt a model with flexibility and support, in order that no one is lefto leave the Green Deal behind;
Amendment 101 #
2020/2076(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that the automotive sector is touched by many of the transformations expected in the future economy and has been deeply affected by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; considers that the revised Industrial Strategy should foresee particular actions for this economic core sector, including appropriate financial support., independent of the orientation of production towards electric motor or combustion engine;
Amendment 1 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. whereas, as stated in the TFEU, environmental affairs are a shared competence with Member States;
Amendment 2 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. whereas the European Union in 2017 was the first net importer of CO2 emissions worldwide;
Amendment 7 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is convinced that a purpose-built trade policy can be an important driver in steering economies towards decarbonisation in order to achieve the climate objectives set in the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal;, taking into account that the latest EU’s ambitious policies in the climate field seem to set unattainable objectives which might damage the EU competitiveness overall
Amendment 14 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Highlights that the CBAM should be formulated as a valuable instrument to protect from unfair competition and counterbalance the higher production costs that the EU Green Deal will evoke to EU companies; in this regard, highlights the need to ensure the level playing field for EU companies, as the standards imposed in the EU Green Deal are not equally ambitious in third countries, which has further increased the phenomenon of delocalisation aggravating the problem of ‘‘carbon leakage’’;
Amendment 20 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports, in the absence of a global carbon price and a multilateral solution, a market-based EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) on condition that it is, notes that this has been the Commission’s intention for a number of years, but that it has only very recently engaged with stakeholders to set such a mechanism in motion and has yet to flesh it out with any real substance, stresses that this mechanism must be compatible with EU free trade agreements (FTAs) and WTO rules (by being non- discriminatory and not constituting a disguised restriction on international trade), and that it is proportionate, based on the polluter pays principle and fit for purpose in delivering the climate, environment and social objectives;
Amendment 40 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the general exception clause of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) should be the basis for any CBAM design and its onlymain rationale should be: an environmental one – reducing global CO2 emissions and preventing carbon leakage by reducing logistics chains, slowing down global flows and promoting local production and consumption circuits; recommends that the price per tonne of CO2 take account of the real environmental cost of a product, encompassing not only production costs but also transportation costs, which should include a coefficient for actual distance travelled; stresses that this real cost must not only offset the environmental cost of products, but also contribute to bolstering the internal market and providing impetus for reducing the carbon footprint and volume of world trade;
Amendment 45 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the general exception clause of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) should be the basis for any CBAM design and its only rationale should be, avoiding any arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail with regards of countries which environmental standards might be lower and its rationale should be competitiveness as well as an environmental one – reducing global CO2 emissions and preventing carbon leakage;
Amendment 63 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for thorough impact assessments and for the utmost transparency of the process leading to the CBAM, as well as engagement with the EU’s trading partners to build coalitions and avoid any possible retaliastresses that this must be accompanied by robust and coherent diplomacy on the part of the European Union and Member States in accordance with their respective competences, with a view to preventing and countering any possible retaliations, by means, inter alia, of engagement with the EU’s trading partners to build coalitions;
Amendment 69 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for thorough objective, independent and periodic impact assessments and for the utmost transparency of the process leading to the CBAM, as well as engagement with the EU’s trading partners to build coalitions and avoid any possible retaliations;
Amendment 82 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that many carbon- and trade- intensive industrial sectors could potentially be impacted by the CBAM, either directly or indirectly, and that it could influence supply chains; stresses that any CBAM should be easy to administer and not place an undue burden on enterprises, especially small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs)., that need a stable and predictable policy and legislative framework in order to make the necessary investments, especially on national custom authorities and the implementation of the Union Customs Code, trying to balance between the complexity and efficiency of the instrument;
Amendment 94 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. In this regard, recalls that the CBAM should comprise a complex and detailed method to calculate objectively the amount of carbon in the products included in its scope; for this purpose a strong system of the effective rules of origin (RoOs) is needed in order to avoid and reduce additional administrative and bureaucratic obstacles for companies, especially for the SMEs;
Amendment 99 #
2020/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Highlights that one of the purposes of the CBAM should be to spur the reshoring of EU manufacturing activities, especially in the context of the Covid19 crisis, considering the fact that the pandemic has further shown the risks of depending on third countries’ economies and non-EU sources;
Amendment 30 #
2020/2023(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Underlines however that the necessary balance of rights and obligations compels not to treat the United Kingdom less favourably than it would treat the European Union with respect to the level playing field and the rights and benefits attached thereto for each party to the future agreement;
Amendment 31 #
2020/2023(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that dynamic regulatory alignment on the market surveillance of products and robust product standards should be an essential and irreplaceable part of any future agreement so as to ensure a level playing field for EU businesses and a high level of protection for EU consumers through effective market surveillance; underlines that a level playing field requires a horizontal mechanism, such as an overall governance framework covering all areas of cooperation, to ensure effective implementation, enforcement and dispute settlement through adequately resourced domestic authorities and effective administrative and judicial proceedings;
Amendment 43 #
2020/2023(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Strongly believes that the arrangements should include provisions on market access and national treatment under host State rules to ensure that EU service providers are treated in a non- discriminatory manner by the UK, including with regard to establishment; stresses that non-discrimination should be reciprocal; underlines that the new arrangements should allow for the temporary entry and stay of EU citizens in the UK for business purposes with the aim of providing services;
Amendment 55 #
2020/2023(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that the public procurement market should remain equally open on both sides, provided there is an effective level playing field covering every relevant aspect, without prejudice to the right for each party to protect its public interests; regrets that the public procurement sector is not mentioned in the UK mandate for the negotiations;
Amendment 84 #
2020/2023(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses the importance of regulatory cooperation, such as occurs with other third countries, in order to tackle non-tariff barriers, to support the economic life of businesses and citizens and to pursue objectives of public interest, so as to protect the interests of EU consumers including to ensure a secure and trustworthy environment for consumers and businesses online, as well as to combat unfair commercial practices.
Amendment 38 #
2020/2022(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that access to the internet is now a fundamental right; notes that European citizens now expect to be able to contact the emergency services wherever they are, even if they do not necessarily know what network coverage they will have as they travel around Europe; considers that access to the telephone and internet network is now essential for reasons of internal market access and security; points out that the technology now exists for 100% coverage of a national network and that operating licences should impose this service requirement on operators.
Amendment 45 #
2020/2022(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that information is sometimes manipulated by dominant media outlets whose loss-making economic models make them dependent on State aid; considers that the Commission authorises this type of public financing too easily without checking whether these subsidised outlets have control over all the information they produce; calls for the scope of the arrangements for monitoring the granting of State aid to be extended to cover such media outlets and public service broadcasters.
Amendment 49 #
2020/2022(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Recalls its opposition to the granting of State aid to certain sectors of the press which then gain an advantage over others not so favoured; stresses that the resulting distortion of competition in the internal market is particularly unfair given the many digital news service providers which are excluded from such aid despite performing a similar activity and having a comparable, if not larger, target audience.
Amendment 61 #
2020/2022(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Acknowledges the fact that, while the illegal nature of certain types of content can be easily established, the decision is less clear-cut for other types of content as it requires contextualisation; warns that some automated tools are not sufficiently sophisticated to take context into account, which could lead to unnecessary restrictions being placed on freedom of expression.
Amendment 68 #
2020/2022(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Stresses that access to the services of a digital network should allow, on equal subscription terms, identical and indiscriminate access to the whole network; calls, therefore, for a ban on the practices of setting content quotas or profiling on the basis of users’ characteristics, opinions or interests, and on the practices of blanking and shadow banning unless justified on the grounds of clearly identified misconduct on the part of the user.
Amendment 71 #
2020/2022(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Emphasises the right to education and cultural identity and the need for an honest presentation of online content, particularly as regards the classification of works of fiction as ‘recreational’ or ‘historical’ products.
Amendment 19 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas a sustainable internal market must be supported by a horizontal strategy that addresses the issue of premature obsolescence, while supporting innovation and jobs locally;
Amendment 43 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the increasing digitalisation of our societies must help forge a sustainable market bacharacterised onby transparency, information-sharing and moderation and excellence;
Amendment 56 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas the model of all- encompassing, untrammelled free trade involving the manufacture, consumption and reprocessing of products on different continents is deeply anti-environmental; whereas this policy has a huge economic, social and environmental cost;
Amendment 98 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
ba) some elements, such as electric batteries, often have a lifetime different to that of the products they support. The undertaking by the retailer or manufacturer to keep compatible replacement batteries available for purchase for twice the expected lifetime of the main product should be a criterion and have a positive impact on the rating awarded,
Amendment 117 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
ea) the minimum legal guarantee period of two years is not appropriate for all products. In order to meet consumers’ legitimate expectations, a guarantee period of five or 10 years should be set for certain categories of product.
Amendment 120 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
f) add to the list in Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC practices which curtail the life of a product, such as: preventing repairs, introducing a design fault, or slowing performance following an update or practices designed to conceal the real price of a product if one costly component or element has to be replaced regularly (printer ink, battery, etc.);
Amendment 125 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
fa) include in Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC measures to protect children and minors against aggressive advertising practices (pop-ups on mobile phones or the internet),
Amendment 144 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
ba) ensuring interoperability between versions of the same dominant software on the market and the retention of essential data over time;
Amendment 173 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Certain crucial elements, such as electric batteries, often have a lifetime different to that of the products they support: computers, bicycles, cars. Their lifetime should therefore be made clear at the time of purchase and the period in question guaranteed for the consumer. Beyond that period, retailers and manufacturers should make arrangements so that defective batteries can be replaced with compatible batteries for a period equal to twice the standard lifetime of the main product.
Amendment 275 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Takes note of digital technologies’ contribution to innovation and in forging a more circular economy; calls for derogations to be made from intellectual property law to allow full use to be made of such technologies when in the public interest of EU citizens, for example during a health crisis;
Amendment 280 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that, whether we consider its manufacturing or services, the digital sector has a significant environmental footprint, and calls for the introduction of an EU digital sustainability index based on an analysis of product life cycles, taking particular account of employment in European countries and environmental considerations;
Amendment 291 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Takes the view that public procurement should be central to the EU’s economic recovery plan, in line with the European Green Deal; calls for absolute priority to be given to employment and the environment in European countries, to stimulating demand for eco-innovative goods and services and ensuring access for small and medium- sized enterprises by introducing, inter alia, preferential award criteria;
Amendment 307 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for the revision of EU public procurement legislation to make the use of sustainability criteria systematic through the setting of binding targets, aligned with EU environmental and climate policies and policies to reduce unemployment in the Member States, which foster sustainable and short supply chains;
Amendment 327 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses the major role that advertising plays in ‘psychological obsolescence’, the phenomenon whereby a functioning product comes to be viewed as outdated; concludes that a regulatory framework in this area is crucial for the creation of a sustainable market conducive to the employment and prosperity of EU citizens;
Amendment 346 #
2020/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls for the introduction of an EU advertising taxin those Member States which so wish of a tax on the advertising of products and services of non-European origin in order to offset their negative externalities resulting from increased consumption;
Amendment 41 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 42 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas a more integrated and interconnected services market is necessarycould contribute to tackle climate change, and createing a sustainable economy, and unleash the full potential of the European Green Deal;
Amendment 50 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas fragmentation, restrictive national regulations and gold-plating in national and EU-law not only hamper businesses, but also hurt consumers, who have fewer choices and pay higher prices;
Amendment 55 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the effective implementation of existing rules and the abolition of excessive requirements dependslies only in the competence onf the Member States;
Amendment 85 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that promoting the single market, including the free movement of services and people, is paramount for tackling the economic crisis caused by COVID-19; urges allthe Commission to simplify the application of the current regulatory framework; calls on Member States to ease restrictions on the free movement within the single market as soon as possible;
Amendment 107 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that the Services Directive aims to reduce fragmentation, deepen the integration of the single market, and pave the way for both businesses and consumers to achieve their full potential; observes, however, that since its entry into force it has triggered legal uncertainty with regard to its scope, deterring investments in important production sectors, like that of seaside businesses and itinerant trade;
Amendment 109 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Urges the Commission to revise the Services Directive, notably the provisions laid down in Chapter III section 1; points out that the application of these provisions caused uncertainty in many Member States, above all in sectors like that of seaside businesses and itinerant trade;
Amendment 118 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Regrets that the Commission is not reacting to unfair competition, both online and offline, which affects certain sectors regulated by the Professional Qualifications Directive; notes that some Member States have higher standards than others and that the application of the Directive does not create a level playing field in sectors like that of seaside businesses and itinerant trade;
Amendment 122 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. RegretsPoints out that Member States frequently uscan legitimately invoke reasons of public interest to insulate their domestic market; highlights that requirements such as territorial restrictions and economic needs tests create unjustified obstacles to cross- border establishment;
Amendment 127 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets that Member States frequently use reasons of public interest to insulate their domestic market; highlights that requirements such as territorial restrictions and economic needs tests create unjustified obstacles to cross-border establishment;
Amendment 137 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the importance of theConsiders that the European Commission’s proposal for a revised services notification procedure; regrets that the proposal could not be adopted due to the lack of an agreement in provides for a reporting procedure, which clearly contradicts the principle of subsidiarity; considers that the Commission is overstepping its mandate; calls on the Commission to withdraw this proposal in view of the opposition of Parliament and the Council;
Amendment 144 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. NoteConsiders that the purpose of the Commission’s legislative proposal for a European services e-card was tonot appropriate, as, under the guise of addressing administrative barriers that remain in place; underlines that such barriers are costly to services providers, and continue to constitute a significant disincentive to the cross-border provision of service, it ended up creating new administrative burdens; asserts, moreover, that the Commission’s proposal aimed indirectly at reintroducing the principle of applying the law of the Member State of origin of the service provider; welcomes the rejection of this proposal by Parliament; calls ion the single marketCommission to definitively withdraw its proposal;
Amendment 161 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the national parliaments to actively engage in supporting the enforcement of existing rules, and to exercise their powers of scrutiny over national authorities and European institutions; welcomes, in this connection, the extensive use of the reasoned opinion procedure by many national parliaments in the context of the proposal for a European services e-card and the proposal for a notification procedure, with a view to addressing the shortcomings;
Amendment 168 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Urges stakeholders, the business community and social partners to play their part in calling on and supporting the governments to revitalise the European services sector;
Amendment 173 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that the free movement of services is at the core of the single market, and could provide substantial economic gains, provided there is sufficient and active enforcement by local and regional authorities, national courts, and the Commission within their competences;
Amendment 177 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 181 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Highlights that overriding reasons of public interest are too often invoked by Member States in a way that damagesto call into question the application of the single market for services; calls on the Commis, which is a siogn to improve the monitoring of Member State performance in transposing and implementinghat this market is not suited to the needs of citizens and Member States; calls on the Commission to take note of this antagonism and to take all necessary action in this regard, in particular by removing the inappropriate legislation;
Amendment 186 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Highlights that overriding reasons of public interest are too often invoked by Member States in a way that damages the single market for services; calls on the Commission to improve the monitoring of Member State performance in transposing and implementing legislation;
Amendment 192 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 198 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Highlights that Member States and Regions are experiencing obstacles when it comes to the full implementation of existing legislation on certain production sectors which do not fit the rules foreseen;
Amendment 200 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for increased vigour from the Commission to ensure efficient and cost- saving coordination and exchange of information between Member States so as to avoid duplication of procedures and checks for the cross-border provision of services;
Amendment 212 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Underlines the importanceNotes the utility of the single digital gateway as an online access point for EU and national information, procedures and assistance services on the single market;
Amendment 215 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recommends that Member States implement the single digital gateway in an SMEenterprise-friendly way, by providing user- centric information, assistance services and procedures on the gateway, so as to make it a virtual one-stop shop as far as possible, and ensure a maximum level of user- centricity;
Amendment 220 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. UrgInvites Member States, in view of the current crisis, to speed up their digitalisation work especially for procedures that affect businesses, although aware that there might be different paces of development;
Amendment 267 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. SupportAcknowledges the Commission’s preliminary initiative to update the single market scoreboard with a new set of indicators with which to evaluate Member State implementation of relevant single market legislation;
Amendment 271 #
2020/2020(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 33 #
2020/2019(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers that the websites of platforms should provide a means for consumers to easily lodge complaints concerning false or misleading third-party advertising on these platforms;
Amendment 34 #
2020/2019(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Is of the opinion that the list of legal representatives established in the EU that can be held responsible for the content of advertisements must be easily accessible on the platforms’ websites;
Amendment 94 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the main principles of the E-Commerce Directive, such as the internal market clause, freedom of establishment and the prohibition on imposing a general monitoring obligation should be maintained; underlines that the principle of “what is illegal offline is also illegal online”, as well as the principles of consumer protection and user safety, should alsomust become guiding principles of the future regulatory framework;
Amendment 106 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that European SMEs and start-ups should be able to compete on a level playing field with non-EU ones; notes that European businesses are often unable to access the same amount and quality of datasets as non EU-businesses, which undermines the competitiveness of European businesses in the European and global markets;
Amendment 145 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Recommends that the legal instrument to be proposed by the Commission should take the form of a directive, following in the footsteps of the other applicable instruments such as the Copyright Directive, in order to preserve the effectiveness of an approach by Member States according to their internal law applicable in matters as diverse as commercial law and freedom of expression;
Amendment 168 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that information society services providers, and in particular online platforms and social networking sites - because of their wide-reaching ability to reach and influence broader audiences, behaviour, opinions, and practices - bear significant social responsibility in terms of protecting users, their data and society at large and preventing their services from being exploited abusively.
Amendment 180 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that recent scandals regarding data harvesting and selling, Cambridge Analytica, fake news, political advertising and manipulation and a host of other online harms (from hate speech to the broadcast of terrorism) have shown the need to revisit the existing rules without any prejudice to the rights to freedom of expression and reinforce fundamental rights;
Amendment 201 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic has shown how vulnerable EU consumers are to misleading trading practices by dishonest traders selling fake or illegal products online that are not compliant with Union safety rules or imposing unjustified and abusive price increases or other unfair conditions on consumers; or defrauding consumers;
Amendment 222 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Considers further that companies established in the territory of several States should declare their legal existence and the economic activities carried out by them in the territory of a Member State of the Union, given that such activities are actually carried out in the territory of that Member State, in order not to evade controls or the tax payable to that State under its internal law and Union law;
Amendment 233 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to require service providers to verify the information and identity of the business partners with whom they have a contractual commercial relationship, and to ensure that the information they provide is accurate and up-to-date, containing in particular the contact details of a responsible natural person;
Amendment 286 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that consumers should be properly informed and their rights should be effectively guaranteed when they interact with automated decision-making systems and other innovative digital services or applications; believes that it should be possible for consumers to request checks and corrections of possible mistakes resulting from automated decisions, as well as to seek redress for any damage related to the use of automated decision-making systems; , both from the entities concerned and national courts, on the model of the mechanism described in Article 17, paragraph 9, of the Copyright Directive1a; __________________ 1a Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 92).
Amendment 311 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Stresses that child pornography is a widespread and steadily growing phenomenon that cannot go unnoticed and must be fought vigorously by common action;
Amendment 357 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to address the increasing differences and fragmentations of national rules in the Member States and to propose concrete legislative measures including a notice- and-action mechanism, that can empower users to notify online intermediaries of the existence of potentially illegal online content or behaviour and require platforms to react more quickly and to be more transparent about the actions taken; is of the opinion that such measures would guarantee a high level of users' and consumers' protection while promoting consumer trust in the online economy;
Amendment 394 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Notes that while online platforms, such as online market places, have benefited both retailers and consumers by improving choice and lowering prices, at the same time, they have allowed sellers, in particular from third countries, to offer products which often do not comply with Union rules on product safety and to create unsustainable, distorted competition both for SMEs and for large companies, whose licensed production they sometimes copy, and do not sufficiently guarantee consumer rights;
Amendment 470 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Believes that, in view of the cross- border nature of digital services, effective supervision and cooperation between Member States is key to ensuring the proper enforcement of the Digital Services Act;
Amendment 473 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 484 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Notes that over the years national authorities managed and solved critical aspects related to the evolution of e- commerce in an effective but fragmented way within the Union; stresses that a consistent approach between Member States is desirable;
Amendment 487 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
Amendment 495 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Considers that a network of independent National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) on DSA should be reinforced;
Amendment 499 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Calls on the Commission to strengthen and moderniseextend to digital services, online markets and consumer protection the current provisions on out-of-court settlement and court actions to allow for an effective enforcement and consumer redress and to harmonise the redress mechanisms present in Union law;
Amendment 520 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part I – paragraph 4
Annex I – part I – paragraph 4
The Digital Services Act should respect the broad framework of fundamental European rights of users and consumers, such as the protection of privacy, non-discrimination, dignity, fairness and free speechdom of expression;
Amendment 546 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part I – paragraph 6 a (new)
Annex I – part I – paragraph 6 a (new)
Digital services legislation should assume the form of a directive.
Amendment 613 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – indent 1 a (new)
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – indent 1 a (new)
- knowledge of the commercial identity of the targeted commercial entities should be accompanied by the designation of a natural person responsible for these entities, a ‘contact point’ for complaints or appeals, whose contact details would be accessible in the event of judicial proceedings in order to render ineffective bankruptcies or fraudulent dissolutions organised by ad hoc companies guilty of online scams;
Amendment 614 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – indent 2
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – indent 2
- that measure should apply only to business-to-business relationships and should be without prejudice to the rights of users under the GDPR, as well as the right to internet anonymity or being an unidentified user; this right, which is very unevenly recognised and applied in the legislation of the Member States, should be the subject of guidelines for its effective recognition; the new general information requirements should review and further enhance Articles 5 and 10 of the E-Commerce Directive in order to align those measures with the information requirements established in recently adopted legislation, in particular the Unfair Contract Terms Directive5 , the Consumer Rights Directive and the Platform to Business Regulation. __________________ 5Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, most recently amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules (OJ L 328, 18.12.2019, p. 7).
Amendment 621 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – indent 2 a (new)
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – indent 2 a (new)
- The information requirements referred to in Articles 5 and 10 of the E- Commerce Directive should lead to the principle of truthful legal and fiscal reporting of the commercial activities, including passive ones (in particular income from advertising), actually carried out in the territory of a Member State of the Union.
Amendment 682 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subheading 5
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subheading 5
The compliance of the due diligence provisions should be reinforced with effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, including the imposition of fines, without prejudice to the penal autonomy of the Member States or the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office.
Amendment 691 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part V – paragraph 1 – indent 1
Annex I – part V – paragraph 1 – indent 1
- clarify that any removal or disabling access to illegal content should not affect the fundamental rights and the legitimate interests of users and consumers, including persons who put the content online when it is the subject of abusive or disproportionate reporting and moderation measures;
Amendment 740 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part V – paragraph 2 – indent 7 a (new)
Annex I – part V – paragraph 2 – indent 7 a (new)
- prescribe that both the alert and the decision which follows it and the notification which is made to the supplier of the notified content cite or mention specifically the alleged illegal content, in particular where it results in the suspension of a service or an account, in order to ensure legal certainty and freedom of expression and to serve as a basis for an effective remedy;
Amendment 772 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part V – subheading 2 – indent 5 a (new)
Annex I – part V – subheading 2 – indent 5 a (new)
- Both the alternative dispute resolution mechanism and the right to have recourse to a competent national court should be expressly notified, together, in a clear and concise manner, when making, contesting, or receiving a decision on an alert. Legislation on digital services should present the principle of this organisation of dispute resolution in a similarly clear and concise manner, within a single article, along the lines of Article 17 (9) of Directive 2019/790/ EU.
Amendment 834 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VI – paragraph 2 – indent 7
Annex I – part VI – paragraph 2 – indent 7
- address, in line with their liability, the liability for the online marketplaces when platforms have predominant influence over suppliers and essential elements of the economic transactions such as payment means, prices, default terms conditions, or conduct aimed at facilitating the sale of goods to a consumer on the European market, and there is no manufacturer, importer, or distributor established in the Union that can be held liable;
Amendment 837 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VI – paragraph 2 – indent 8
Annex I – part VI – paragraph 2 – indent 8
- address, in line with their liability, the liability for online marketplaces if the online marketplace has not informed the consumer that a third party is the actual supplier of the goods or services, thus making the marketplace contractually liable vis-à-vis the consumer; liability should also be considered in case the marketplace provides misleading information, guarantees, or statements;
Amendment 882 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VII – paragraph 2 – indent 6
Annex I – part VII – paragraph 2 – indent 6
- impose high levels of technical interoperability measures requiring “systemic platforms” to share appropriate tools, data, expertise, and resources deployedmake their services, mechanisms and interfaces compatible with alternatives in order to limit the risks of users and consumers’ lock-in and the artificially binding users to one systemic platform with no possibility or incentives for switching between digital platforms or internet ecosystems. As part of those measures, the Commission should explore different technologies and open standards and protocols, including the possibility of a mechanical interface (Application Programming Interface) thatrequire them also, in order to avoid these same risks, to share appropriate tools, data, expertise, and resources deployed; have the Commission study, as part of these measures, several technologies, standards and open protocols allowsing users of competing platforms to dock on to the systemic platform and exchange information with it.exchange information with the systemic platform, while preserving, for the latter, for two years after their effective use, the benefit of its skills, developments and innovations;
Amendment 893 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VIII – paragraph 2
Annex I – part VIII – paragraph 2
Amendment 898 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VIII – paragraph 3
Annex I – part VIII – paragraph 3
Amendment 903 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VIII – paragraph 4
Annex I – part VIII – paragraph 4
Amendment 915 #
2020/2018(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VIII – paragraph 5
Annex I – part VIII – paragraph 5
Amendment 32 #
2020/2017(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to include the education sector in the regulatory framework for high-risk AI applications given the importance of ensuring that education continues to contribute to the public good and given the high sensitivity of data on pupils, students and other learners; underlines that data sets used to train AI should be reviewed to avoid reinforcing gender stereotypes and other biases;
Amendment 41 #
2020/2017(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Draws the Commission's attention to the risks inherent in the use of new digital technologies in primary and secondary education, and even in preschooling; recalls that minors should be given special protection in relation to the digital content to which they are likely to be exposed, and in relation to the use that new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, may make of their personal data, especially in schools or educational activities; stresses that the use of digital resources in education has produced documented negative effects on pupils’ attention, development and capabilities; calls therefore on the Commission to limit the deployment of artificial intelligence to higher education and research in cases where learners would be liable come into contact with it;
Amendment 50 #
2020/2017(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its concern that schools and other public education providers are becoming increasingly dependent on educational technology services, including AI applications, provided by just a few technology companies; stresses that this may lead to unequal access to data and limit competition by restricting consumer choice; calls for this data to be shared with the relevant public authorities so it can be used in the development of curricula and pedagogical practices (in particular since these services are purchased with public money or offered to public education providers for free, and because education is a common good); dependence is likely to lead to a loss of educational know-how that can be used without digital tools, and ultimately to place European education in thrall to technological undertakings in this field, which would limit the autonomy of individual and institutional consumers, or create inequalities between institutions that are equipped with these technologies and those which are not; calls on the Commission to allow Member States leeway to regulate the use and deployment of digital new technologies within their territory in the light of their specific situations;
Amendment 62 #
2020/2017(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that the dependence created in this way on a small number of educational technology players is liable to harm many suppliers, equipment producers or participants, both in the physical resources sector and among producers of knowledge, including as regards the previous generation of IT tools; stresses that it could also lead to unfair differentials in access to data and limit competition by restricting consumer choice, as these risks also arise in the field of culture; calls for this data to be shared with the relevant public authorities so that it can be used in the development of curricula and teaching methods (in particular since these services are purchased with public money or offered to public education providers for free, and because education is a public asset);
Amendment 108 #
2020/2017(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers that, since automatic translation tools have made so much progress, content providers and commercial digital platforms should be encouraged to provide subtitling of educational and cultural programmes in the languages of the European Union;
Amendment 117 #
2020/2017(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Considers that commercial digital platforms should be encouraged to provide access to their programmes in all the languages in which their content is disseminated in Europe, i.e. without blocking access to certain languages according to the geographical location of the consumer when the oral or written version is available for other countries of dissemination.
Amendment 25 #
2020/2016(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Recognizes at the same time that policing is mainly a matter that falls under the responsibility of the Member States and that the possible use of AI in policing is ultimately for each individual Member State to decide upon;
Amendment 59 #
2020/2016(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the high risk of abuse of certain types of AI, including facial recognition technologies in public spaces, automated behaviour detection and profiling to divide people into risk categories at borders, and calls on the Commission to banrespect Member States' right and competence to ban or regulate them;
Amendment 14 #
2020/2015(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out that the pace of innovation is not necessarily comparable in all sectors; takes the view that measures to protect intellectual property rights have been excessively favourable to certain software providers (word, excel...); calls on the Commission and Member States to find legal solutions to ensure that consumers are not constantly and repeatedly being charged for the use of what has become a generic product or technical solution;
Amendment 53 #
2020/2014(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that AI systems and the devices that use them are products and must remain subject to the rules on products and not be treated as an exception;
Amendment 73 #
2020/2014(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights the need for a risk based approach to AI within the existing liability framework, which takes into account different levels of risk for consumers in specific sectors and uses of AI; underlines that such an approach, that might encompass two or more levels of risk, should be based on clear criteria and provide for legal clarity; proposes that these differences in approach be translated into different obligations as regards the manufacture of products, resulting in different liability regimes with clear mechanisms and scope; recommends that these obligations be reflected in safeguards in the configuration of AI systems, particularly as regards their interactions with third- party systems, especially on-line, or with connected objects; calls on the Commission to consider in particular laying down different obligations and liability regimes depending on whether the consumer or user of the AI product is a private individual or a professional, as follows: – As regards professional civil liability, including the provision by an undertaking of subcontracted staff or employees: ○ A simple presumption of liability should apply to the provider of the AI product, whether it is the manufacturer, seller or licensor, the determining factor being, in the case of a product transmission chain, the moment when the capacity or configuration linked to the event giving rise to the liability is defined; ○ The provider in question should be able to exonerate itself from such liability by demonstrating a fault attributable to the professional user, subject to the correct functioning of the technological safeguards in respect of which its liability has been invoked, and provided that the professional user was familiar with the conditions of use of the AI system and that those conditions are readily understandable, for which matters both the obligation and the burden of proof should rest with the provider; – As regards personal civil liability, without prejudice to the liability of professional principals for their employees: ○ Providers, manufacturers or resellers should be required to employ safeguards and configurations commensurate with the highest level of risk when placing AI products intended for private individuals on the market, in particular as regards communication with other systems (such as social networks or the internet) or as regards connected objects (such as security or alarm systems), in accordance with the standards laid down; ○ Any civil damage attributable to an AI product should automatically trigger the liability of the provider, which may exonerate itself by demonstrating compliance with the standards applicable to its product; ○ Given the unforeseeable nature of the effects and damage which may be caused by AI products, consideration could be given to limiting the amount of damages which may be claimed against a person sued for no-fault civil liability in connection with an AI product, without prejudice to the rules applicable to insurance for the excess;
Amendment 83 #
2020/2014(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Urges that AI systems intended for private individuals should have a limited lifetime, which would not rule out the reinstallation of the same system with identical configurations when the lifetime of the system installed at the time of sale expires; suggests that, during this lifetime, the manufacturer should have an obligation to guarantee conformity, which would be enforceable by means of regular technical inspections, the performance of which would trigger a standard extension of the applicable guarantee;
Amendment 87 #
2020/2014(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Strongly recommends that the Member States recruit to their judicial services full-time experts to assist those services in establishing the technical materiality of the circumstances of the case in order to determine the applicable liability, so as to enable the judicial authorities to resolve disputes swiftly, in accordance with the proper administration of justice, and without being dependent on external expertise which, given the specialised nature of AI, may only be available from industry professionals.
Amendment 10 #
2020/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that in the COVID-19 health crisis, several Member States have launched the development of mobile apps to protect public health by alerting citizens to past contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus; calls for a common EU approach to AI-enabled mobile apps, the development of which must remain under state control; notes that development of these mobile apps began late; points out that some experts believe their value is now limited in view of the evolution of the pandemic and availability of alternative tracing methods; draws attention to the legitimate concerns regarding personal data protection and the inadequacy of the tests carried out;
Amendment 37 #
2020/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that Member States and the Commission should promote AI technologies that work for people; calls on the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, to develop AI applications aimed at automating and facilitating e-government services, for example in the areas of tax administration, customs and consumer protection; underlines that explainable algorithms are important to ensure that businesses and consumers benefit from better, non- discriminatory and reliable public services which do not give rise to discrimination between European citizens, and at a lower cost.
Amendment 42 #
2020/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Insists that the Member States and the Commission protect European companies against political sanctions imposed by third countries in the area of public procurement and in the military or civilian sphere: the extraterritorial application of foreign law should not serve as a pretext for the use of artificial intelligence tools when providing services on European territory, even if the tools in question have been bought or developed using technologies which, in full or in part, come from outside Europe.
Amendment 46 #
2020/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Insists that European competition and public procurement law be updated in order to promote the emergence of world- class AI players based in Europe;
Amendment 38 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that the personal data of European citizens should preferably be processed in Europe.
Amendment 59 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 72 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses that where European public funds contribute to the development or implementation of an algorithmic system of a consortium comprising a non-European company, the code and the non-personal data generated should be public by default.
Amendment 74 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Stresses that where non-European public funds contribute to the development or implementation in Europe of an algorithmic system, the code and the non-personal data generated should be public by default.
Amendment 84 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of ensuring that the interests of marginalised and vulnerable consumers and groupEuropean citizens are adequately taken into account and represented in any future regulatory framework; notes that for the purpose of analysing the impacts of algorithmic systems on consumers, access to data should be extended to appropriate parties notably independent researchers, media and civiluniversity or society organisationntific researchers, while fully respecting Union data protection and privacy law; recalls the importance of training and giving basic skills to consumers to deal with algorithmic systems in order to protect them from potential risks and detriment of their rights;
Amendment 97 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 106 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission and the authorities of the Member States to combat tax evasion and the abuse of a dominant position by non-European companies in Europe active in the market for algorithmic systems;
Amendment 117 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Stresses the need for the authorities to put an end to the practices of massive and systematic profiling or tracking of consumers organised by some players in the advertising industry on the internet or mobile phones; notes that these tools collect very sensitive data about behaviour, interests or health, even from minors and that they are then used by third parties; regrets that the lack of supervision by the authorities strengthens the market power of less ethical players and dissuades some players from offering more ethical solutions that are more favourable to consumers.
Amendment 118 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 130 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Demands an update of European competition and public procurement law to promote the emergence of world-class players based in Europe;
Amendment 131 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Calls for measures to encourage global companies to relocate part of their employment, research and digital systems and products to Europe, if they want to benefit from full access to the European market;
Amendment 132 #
2020/2012(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13c. Calls for respect for European and national preferences, for the development of European territories and employment in the sector of artificial intelligence and robotics; stresses the importance of preventing the takeover of strategic companies by non-European players;
Amendment 131 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Core platform services, at the same time, feature a number of characteristics that can bare exploited by their providers. These characteristics of core platform services include among others extreme scale economies, which often result from nearly zero marginal costs to add business users or end users. Other characteristics of core platform services are very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multi-sidedness of these services, a significant degree of dependence of both business users and end users, lock-in effects, a lack of multi- homing for the same purpose by end users, vertical integration, and data driven- advantages. All these characteristics combined with unfair conduct by providers of these services can have the effect of substantially undermining the contestability of the core platform services, as well as impacting the fairness of the commercial relationship between providers of such services and their business users and end users, leading to rapid and potentially far-reaching decreases in business users’ and end users’ choice in practice, and therefore can confer to the provider of those services the position of a so-called gatekeeper.
Amendment 132 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) A small number of large – non- European and notably American – providers of core platform services have emerged with considerable economic power. Typically, they feature an ability to connect many business users with many end users through their services which, in turn, allows them to leverage their advantages and abuse their position, such as their access to large amounts of data, from one area of their activity to new ones. Some of these providers exercise control over whole platform ecosystems in the digital economy and are structurally extremely difficult to challenge or contest by existing or new market operators, irrespective of how innovative and efficient these may be. Contestability is particularly reduced due to the existence of very high barriers to entry or exit, including high investment costs, which cannot, or not easily, be recuperated in case of exit, and absence of (or reduced access to) some key inputs in the digital economy, such as data. As a result, the likelihood increases that the underlying markets do not function well – or will soon fail to function well – to the detriment of European businesses and consumers.
Amendment 136 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Gatekeepers have a significant impact on the internal market, providing gateways for a large number of business users, to reach end users, everywhere in the Union and on different markets. The adverse impact of unfair practices on the internal market and particularly weak contestability of core platform services, including their negative societal and economic implications, have led national legislators and sectoral regulators to act. A number of national regulatory solutions have already been adopted or proposed to address unfair practices and the contestability of digital services or at least with regard to some of them. This has created a risk of divergent regulatory solutions and thereby fragmentation of the internal market, thus raising the risk of increased compliance costs due to different sets of national regulatory requirements.
Amendment 138 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Therefore, bBusiness users and end- users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers should be afforded appropriate regulatory safeguards throughout the Union and the Member States against the unfair behaviour of gatekeepers in order to facilitate cross- border business within the Union and thereby improve the proper functioning of the internal market and to address existing or likely emerging fragmentation in the specific areas covered by this Regulation. Moreover, while gatekeepers tend to adopt global or at least pan-European business models and algorithmic structures, they can adopt, and in some cases have adopted, different and unfair business conditions and practices in different Member States, which is liable to create disparities between thewhich create unequal competitive conditions for the users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, to the detriment of integration with and prevent commercial alternatives, including future innovative players and European digital businesses and SMEs, from entering and operating in the interndigital market.
Amendment 139 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) By approximating diverging national laws, obstacles to the freedom to provide and rWhile the harmonisation of the internal market is not an objecetive services, including retail services, withinin itself, fragmentation of the internal market should be eliminated. A targeted set of harmonised mandatory rules should therefore be established at Union level as far as possible, in pursuit of the objective of that regulation, which is to ensure contestable and fair digital markets featuring the presence of gatekeepers within the internal marketor the benefit of European consumers and businesses.
Amendment 146 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) A fragmentation of the internal market can only be effectively averted if Member States are prevented from applying national rules which are specific to the types of undertakings and services covered by this Regulation. At the same time, sSince this Regulation aims at complementing the enforcement of competition law, it should be specified that this Regulation is without prejudice to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, to the corresponding national competition rules and to other national competition rules regarding unilateral behaviour that are based on an individualised assessment of market positions and behaviour, including its likely effects and the precise scope of the prohibited behaviour, and which provide for the possibility of undertakings to make efficiency and objective justification arguments for the behaviour in question. However, the application of the latter rules should not affect the obligations imposed on gatekeepers under this Regulation and their uniform and effective application in the internal market.
Amendment 189 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
Amendment 191 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
Amendment 204 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are limited to what is necessary and justified to address the unfairness of the identified practices by gatekeepers and to ensure contestability in relation to core platform services provided by gatekeepers. Therefore, the obligations should correspond to those practices that are considered unfair by taking into account the features of the digital sector and where experience gained, for example in the enforcement of the EU and national competition rules, shows that they have a particularly negative direct impact on the business users and end users as well as businesses operating in the digital market including innovative players and European digital businesses and SMEs. In addition, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a regulatory dialogue with gatekeepers to tailor those obligations that are likely to require specific implementing measures in order to ensure their effectiveness and proportionality. The obligations should only be updated after a thorough investigation on the nature and impact of specific practices that may be newly identified, following an in-depth investigation, as unfair or limiting contestability in the same manner as the unfair practices laid down in this Regulation while potentially escaping the scope of the current set of obligations.
Amendment 230 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) To safeguard a fair commercial environment and protect the contestability of the digital sector it is important to safeguard the right of business users, end users and disadvantaged European enterprises to raise concerns about unfair behaviour by gatekeepers with any relevant administrative or other public authorities. For example, business users may want to complain about different types of unfair practices, such as discriminatory access conditions, unjustified closing of business user accounts or unclear grounds for product de-listings. Any practice that would in any way inhibit such a possibility of raising concerns or seeking available redress, for instance by means of confidentiality clauses in agreements or other written terms, should therefore be prohibited. This should be without prejudice to the right of business users and gatekeepers to lay down in their agreements the terms of use including the use of lawful complaints-handling mechanisms, including any use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or of the jurisdiction of specific courts in compliance with respective Union and national law This should therefore also be without prejudice to the role gatekeepers play in the fight against illegal content online.
Amendment 317 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) To ensure the effectiveness of the obligations laid down by this Regulation, while also making certain that these obligations are limited to what is necessary to ensure contestability and tackling the harmful effects of the unfair behaviour by gatekeepers, it is important to clearly define and circumscribe them so as to allow the gatekeeper to immediately comply with them, in full respect of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, consumer protection, cyber security and product safety. The gatekeepers should ensure the compliance with this Regulation by design. The necessary measures should therefore be as much as possible and where relevant integrated into the technological design used by the gatekeepers. However, it may in certain cases be appropriate for the Commission, following a dialogue with the gatekeeper concerned, to further specify some of the measures that the gatekeeper concerned should adopt in order to effectively comply with those obligations that are susceptible of being further specified. This possibility of a regulatory dialogue should facilitate compliance by gatekeepers and expedite the correct implementation of the Regulation. This procedure may be initiated at the request of a competent national authority. The competent national authorities shall be consulted during the procedure.
Amendment 325 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
(60) IA national competent authority within its territory or the Commission within the Union may decide, in exceptional circumstances justified on the limited grounds of public morality, public health or public security, the Commission should be able to decide that the obligation concerned does not apply, for a maximum period of one year, to a specific core platform service. Affecting these public interests can indicate that the cost to society as a whole of enforcing a certain obligation would in a certain exceptional case be too high and thus disproportionate. The regulatory dialogue to facilitate compliance with limited suspension and exemption possibilities should ensure the proportionality of the obligations in this Regulation without undermining the intended ex ante effects on fairness and contestability.
Amendment 327 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
(60) In exceptional circumstances justified on the limited grounds of public morality, public health or public security, the Commission should be able to decide that the obligation concerned does not apply to a specific core platform service. Affecting these public interests can indicate that the cost to society as a whole of enforcing a certain obligation would in a certain exceptional case be too high and thus disproportionate. The regulatory dialogue to facilitate compliance with limited suspension and exemption possibilities should ensure the proportionality of the obligations in this Regulation without undermining the intended ex ante effects on fairness and contestability.
Amendment 330 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61
Recital 61
(61) The data protection and privacy interests of end users are relevantessential to any assessment of potential negative effects of the observed practice of gatekeepers to collect and accumulate large amounts of data from end users. Ensuring an adequate level of transparency of profiling practices employed by gatekeepers facilitates contestability of core platform services, by putting external pressure on gatekeepers to prevent making deep consumer profiling the industry standard, given that potential entrants or start-up providers cannot access data to the same extent and depth, and at a similar scale. Enhanced transparency should allow other providers of core platform services to differentiate themselves better through the use of superior privacy guaranteeing facilities. To ensure a minimum level of effectiveness of this transparency obligation, gatekeepers should at least provide a description of the basis upon which profiling is performed, including whether personal data and data derived from user activity is relied on, the processing applied, the purpose for which the profile is prepared and eventually used, the impact of such profiling on the gatekeeper’s services, and the steps taken to enable end users to be aware of the relevant use of such profiling, as well as to seek their consent.
Amendment 335 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) Following a market investigation, an undertaking providing a core platform service could be found to fulfil all of the overarching qualitative criteria for being identified as a gatekeeper. It should then, in principle, comply with all of the relevant obligations laid down by this Regulation. However, for gatekeepers that have been designated by the Commission as likely to enjoy an entrenched and durable position in the near future, the Commission should only impose those obligations that are necessary and appropriate to prevent that the gatekeeper concerned achieves an entrenched and durable position in its operations. With respect to such emerging gatekeepers, the Commission should take into account that this status is in principle of a temporary nature, and it should therefore be decided at a given moment whether such a provider of core platform services should be subjected to the full set of gatekeeper obligations because it has acquired an entrenched and durable position, or conditions for designation are ultimately not met and therefore all previously imposed obligations should be waived.
Amendment 337 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
Recital 64
(64) TAt the request of the European High-Level Group of Digital Regulators established by this Regulation, or on its own initiative, the Commission shouldall investigate and assess whether additional behavioural, or, where appropriate, structural remedies are justified, in order to ensure that the gatekeeper cannot frustratethwart the objectives of this Regulation by systematically non-t complianceying with one or severalmore of the obligations laid down in this Regulation, which has further strengthened its gatekeeper position. This would be the case if the gatekeeper’s size in the internal market has further increased, economic dependency of business users and end users on the gatekeeper’s core platform services has further strengthened as their number has further increased and the gatekeeper benefits from increased entrenchment of itsthereby maintaining or strengthening its gatekeeper position. The Commission should therefore in such cases have the power to impose, any remedy, whether behavioural or structural, having due regard to the principle of proportionality. St the request of the European High-Level Group of Digital Regulators, any necessary remedy, including structural remedies, suc through as legal, functional or structural separation, including or the divestiture of a business, or parts of it, should only be imposed either where there is no equally effective behavioural remedy or where any equally effective behavioural remedy would be more burdensome for the undertaking concerned than the structural remedy. Changes to the structure of an undertaking as it existed before the systematic non-compliance was established would only be proportionate where there is a substantial risk that this systematic non-compliance results from the very structure of the undertaking concernedin order to ensure compliance with the objectives of this Regulation.
Amendment 344 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
(66) In the event that gatekeepers engage in behaviour that is unfair or that limits the contestability of the core platform services that are already designated under this Regulation but without these behaviours being explicitly covered by the obligations, the Commission should be able, after having consulted the European High-Level Group of Digital Regulators or on a proposal by that group, to update this Regulation through delegated acts. Such updates by way of delegated act should be subject to the same investigatory standard and therefore following a market investigation. The Commission should also apply a predefined standard in identifying such behaviours. This legal standard should ensure that the type of obligations that gatekeepers may at any time face under this Regulation are sufficiently predictable.
Amendment 353 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68
Recital 68
(68) In order to ensure effective implementation and compliance with this Regulation, the Commission should haveand the Member States should pool their strong investigative and enforcement powers, to allow it to investigate, enforce and monitor the rules laid down in this Regulation, while at the same time ensuring the respect for the fundamental right to be heard and to have access to the file in the context of the enforcement proceedings. The Commission should dispose of these investigative powers also for the purpose of carrying out market investigations for the purpose of updating and reviewing this Regulation.
Amendment 356 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70
Recital 70
(70) The Commission should be able to directly request that undertakings or association of undertakings provide any relevant evidence, data and information. In addition, the Commission should be able to request any relevant information from any public authority, body or agency within the Member State, or from any natural person or legal person for the purpose of this Regulation. WhenAny complying with a decision of the Commission, uetent national authority may initiate an investigation and provide information which the Commission must take into account in its assessments. Undertakings are obliged to answer factual questions and to provide documents.
Amendment 363 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73
Recital 73
(73) Compliance with the obligations imposed under this Regulation should be enforceable by means of fines and, periodic penalty payments. To that end, appropriate levels of fin, behavioural and structural measures, and, periodic penalty payments should also be laid down for non-compliance with the obligations and breach of the procedural rules subject to appropriate limitation periods. The Court of Justice should have unlimited jurisdiction in respect of fines and penalty paymentsossibly, personal sanctions against the directors, representatives or employees responsible for the failing within the undertaking concerned.
Amendment 369 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75 a (new)
Recital 75 a (new)
(75a) In order to ensure cooperation and coordination between the Commission and the Member States in their implementing measures, it is essential to set up a European High-Level Group of Digital Regulators, which will identify priorities, provide direct guidance to the Commission and offer advice. The establishment of the High-Level Group should promote the exchange of information and best practices between Member States, as well as better monitoring and more rigorous implementation, which together will ensure that gatekeepers comply with this Regulation.
Amendment 374 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78 a (new)
Recital 78 a (new)
(78a) Points out that the development of a European industrial and technological base in the digital sector requires the introduction of a European preference for local or European production in digital procurement in Europe;
Amendment 375 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78 b (new)
Recital 78 b (new)
(78b) Stresses that the personal data of European citizens should preferably be processed in Europe.
Amendment 376 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 – introductory part
Recital 79 – introductory part
(79) The objective of this Regulation is to ensure a contestable and fair digital sector in general and core platform services in particular, with a view to promoting innovation, high quality of digital products and services, fair and competitive prices, as well as a high quality and choice for end users in the digital sector. This cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can only, by reason of the business model and operae Regulation should also create the conditions ofor the gatekeepers and the scale and effects of their operations, be fully achieved at Union leveldevelopment of the digital sector in Europe. The Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment 383 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1
Article premier – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation layse purpose of this Regulation is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market and consumer protection by laying down harmonised rules ensuring contestable and fair markets in the digital sector across the Union for European undertakings, including SMEs, where gatekeepers are present.
Amendment 395 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 5
Article premier – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall notmay, in keeping with the spirit of this Regulation, impose on gatekeepers further obligations by way of laws, regulations or administrative action for the purpose of ensuring contestable and fair markets. This is without prejudice to rules and pursuing other legitimate public interests, in compliance with Union law. In particular, nothing in this Regulation precludes Member States from imposing obligations, which are compatible with Union law, on undertakings, including providers of core platform services where these obligations are unrelated to the relevant undertakings having a status of gatekeeper within the meaning of this Regulation in order to protect consumers or to fight against acts of unfair competition.
Amendment 407 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 6
Article 1 – paragraph 6
6. This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. It is also without prejudice to the application of: national rules prohibiting anticompetitive agreements, decisions by associations of undertakings, concerted practices and abuses of dominant positions; national competition rules prohibiting other forms of unilateral conduct insofar as they are applied to undertakings other than gatekeepers or amount to imposing additional obligations on gatekeepers; Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200438 and national rules concerning merger control; Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and Regulation (EU) …./.. of the European Parliament and of the Council39 ; Directive (EU) 2019/882. _________________ 38Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1). 39Regulation (EU) …/.. of the European Parliament and of the Council – proposal on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.
Amendment 410 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 7
Article premier – paragraph 7
7. National authorities shall not take decisions against the spirit of the Regulation which would run counter to a decision adopted by the Commission on a proposal by the High-Level Group under this Regulation. The Commission and Member States shall work in close cooperation and coordination in their investigation, supervisory and enforcement actions.
Amendment 468 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14
(14) ‘Ancillary service’ means services provided in the context of or together with core platform services, including payment services as defined in point 3 of Article 4 and technical services which support the provision of payment services as defined in Article 3(j) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, fulfilment, parcel delivery services as defined in Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EU) No 2018/644, freight, identification or advertising services;
Amendment 488 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 a (new)
(23 a) "persons with disabilities" means persons within the meaning of Article 3 (1) of Directive (EU) 2019/882;
Amendment 498 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.
Amendment 516 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b – paragraph 1
for the purpose of the first subparagraph, monthly active end users shall refer to the average number of monthly active end users throughout the largest part of the last financial year;
Amendment 562 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 592 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter III – title
Chapter III – title
III In respect of each of its core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3(7), aContestability of markets and limits to certain unfair practices of gatekeeper shall:s
Amendment 595 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
In respect of each of its core platform services and ancillary services identified pursuant to Article 3(7) and Article 2 (1) (14) respectively, a gatekeeper shall:
Amendment 607 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) Any multinational gatekeeper wishing to continue operating in the internal market must establish itself in the European Union and develop local jobs.
Amendment 608 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
(a b) The creation of local jobs shall be used by the competent national authorities and the Commission in the procedures to determine whether the gatekeepers have fulfilled their obligations.
Amendment 634 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain from preventing or restricting business users, end users or whistleblowers from raising issues with any relevant public authority relating to any practice of gatekeepers, and also refrain from identifying them;
Amendment 642 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) refrain from requiring business users to use, offer or interoperate with an identification service of the gatekeeper or with a specific payment service (Visa, Mastercard, payment service of the gatekeeper or other) in the context of services offered by the business users using the core platform services of that gatekeeper;
Amendment 676 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) provide advertisers and publishers to which it supplies advertising services, upon their request, withregularly publishes information concerning the price paid by the advertiser and publisher, as well as the amount or remuneration paid to the publisher, for the publishing of a given ad and for each of the relevant advertising services provided by the gatekeeper.
Amendment 695 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(g a) not acquire directly or indirectly any undertaking in a killer acquisition.
Amendment 704 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
(g b) refrain from retaliating against undertakings which submit complaints or comments to the competent authorities.
Amendment 706 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Gatekeepers shall report annually to the Commission the number of employees based in each Member State and the percentage of total global employees for each core platform service identified by this Regulation.
Amendment 713 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) refrain from using, in competition with business userdirectly or by any third party belonging to the same undertaking, in competition with business users and providers of ancillary services, any data not publicly available, which is generated through activities by those business users, including by the end users of these business users, of its core platform services or provided by those business users of its core platform services or by the end users of these business users;
Amendment 732 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, without prejudice to the freedom of consumers, duly informed, to choose the software application or software application stores they prefer;
Amendment 750 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain from treating more favourably in ranking services, both basic and ancillary, and products offered by the gatekeeper itself or by any third party belonging to the same undertaking compared to similar services or products of third party and apply fair and non- discriminatory conditions to such ranking;
Amendment 826 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
Amendment 859 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Where the Commission finds that the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement pursuant to paragraph 1, or has implemented, do not ensure effective compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in Article 6, it may by decision specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned shall implement. The Commission shall adopt such a decision within sixthree months from the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18.
Amendment 873 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. In view of adopting the decision under paragraph 2, the Commission shall communicate its preliminary findings within threewo months from the opening of the proceedings. In the preliminary findings, the Commission shall explain the measures it considers to take or it considers that the provider of core platform services concerned should take in order to effectively address the preliminary findings.
Amendment 879 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. A public consultation allows interested businesses and individuals to contribute anonymously and to inform procedures.
Amendment 893 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission may, on a reasoned request by the gatekeeper, exceptionally suspend, in whole or in part, a specific obligation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 for a core platform service by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), where the gatekeeper demonstrates that compliance with that specific obligation would endanger, due to exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the gatekeeper, the economic viability of the operation of the gatekeeper in the Union, and only to the extent necessary to address such threat to its viabilita risk of bankruptcy. The Commission shall aim to adopt the suspension decision without delay and at the latest 3 months following receipt of a complete reasoned request.
Amendment 900 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Where the suspension is granted pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall review its suspension decision every yearsix months. Following such a review the Commission shall either lift the suspension or decide that the conditions of paragraph 1 continue to be met.
Amendment 901 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Amendment 907 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 915 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission is empowered, on a proposal from the High-Level Group, to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 34 to update the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 where, based on a market investigation pursuant to Article 17, it has identified the need for new obligations addressing practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6.
Amendment 922 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) there is an imbalance of rights and obligations on business users or end users and the gatekeeper is obtaining an advantage from business users or end users that is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or end users; or
Amendment 928 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the contestability of markets is weakened as a consequence of such a practice engaged in by gatekeepers, in particular where businesses operating in the digital market, including innovative players and European digital businesses or SMEs, are hindered.
Amendment 935 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. A gatekeeper shall ensure that the obligations of Articles 5 and 6 are fully and effectively complied with. While the obligations of Articles 5 and 6 apply in respect of core and ancillary platform services designated pursuant to Article 3, and to Article 2 (1) (14) their implementation shall not be undermined by any behaviour of the undertaking to which the gatekeeper belogatekeeper or any third party belonging to the same undertakings, regardless of whether this behaviour is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature.
Amendment 957 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A gatekeeper shall inform the Commission and the competent national authorities of any intended concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving another provider of core platform services or of any other services provided in the digital sector irrespective of whether it is notifiable to a Union competition authority under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 or to a competent national competition authority under national merger rules.
Amendment 976 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Within sixthree months after its designation pursuant to Article 3, a gatekeeper shall submit to the Commission an independently audited description of any techniques for profiling of consumers that the gatekeeper applies to or across its core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3. This description shall be updated at least annually.
Amendment 979 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission may conduct a market investigation, on which it shall cooperate with the competent national authorities, for the purpose of examining whether a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3(6), or in order to identify core platform services for a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3(7). It shall endeavour to conclude its investigation by adopting a decision in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) within twelvesix months from the opening of the market investigation.
Amendment 987 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. In the course of a market investigation pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall endeavour to communicate its preliminary findings to the provider of core platform services concerned within sixthree months from the opening of the investigation. In the preliminary findings, the Commission shall explain whether it considers, on a provisional basis, that the provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3(6).
Amendment 995 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1006 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. Where the market investigation shows that a gatekeeper has systematically infringed the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 and has further strengthened or extended its gatekeeper position in relation to the characteristics under Article 3(1), the Commission may by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) impose on such gatekeeper any behavioural or structural remedies which are proportionate to the infringement committed and necessary to ensure compliance with this Regulation. The Commission shall conclude its investigation by adopting a decision within twelvesix months from the opening of the market investigation. This provision shall be without prejudice to third-party liability or proceedings under national law in the event of intentional non-compliance or gross negligence.
Amendment 1017 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission may only impose structural remedies pursuant to paragraph 1 either where there is no equally effective behavioural remedy or where any equally effective behavioural remedy would be more burdensome for the gatekeeper concerned than the structural remedy.
Amendment 1019 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. A gatekeeper shall be deemed to have engaged in a systematic non- compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6, where the Commission has issued at least three non-compliance or fining decisions pursuant to Articles 25 and 26 respectively against a gatekeeper in relation to any of its core platform services within a period of five years prior to the adoption of the decision opening a market investigation in view of the possible adoption of a decision pursuant to this Article.
Amendment 1029 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 5
Article 16 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall communicate its objections to the gatekeeper concerned within sixthree months from the opening of the investigation. In its objections, the Commission shall explain whether it preliminarily considers that the conditions of paragraph 1 are met and which remedy or remedies it preliminarily considers necessary and proportionate.
Amendment 1036 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
The Commission may conduct a market investigation with the High-Level Group with the purpose of examining whether one or more services within the digital sector should be added to the list of core platform services or to detect types of practices that may limit the contestability of core platform services or may be unfair and which are not effectively addressed by this Regulation. It shall issue a public report at the latest within 124 months from the opening of the market investigation.
Amendment 1038 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
A free advisory hub shall be set up within the Commission or the High-Level Group to respond informally and quickly to stakeholders’ questions on this legislation and provide guidance.
Amendment 1039 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Gatekeepers intending to introduce a new service or working method may make use of a fast-track procedure to receive, within three months, a preliminary opinion from the High-Level Group on whether the proposed new service or working method is likely to comply with the obligations set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 1040 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Administrative costs shall be invoiced. Depending on applications and administrative capacity, a schedule or a ceiling for applications per business may be laid down. This opinion shall not be binding on the courts.
Amendment 1045 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph -1 (new)
Article 18 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Each year, the European High- Level Group of Digital Regulators shall draw up the schedule of priority issues of great concern for investigations on the basis of complaints and available information on the development of European digital businesses.
Amendment 1047 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Where the Commission, the European High-Level Group of Digital Regulators or a Member State intends to carry out proceedings in view of the possible adoption of decisions pursuant to Articles 7, 25 and 26, it shall adopt a decision opening a proceeding shall be published.
Amendment 1049 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 a (new)
Article 18 a (new)
Article 18a The Commission shall set up a mechanism allowing whistleblowers or any stakeholder to provide information on the conduct of undertakings and associations of undertakings that may be relevant for the purposes of monitoring, implementing and enforcing the rules laid down in this Regulation. The Commission and national authorities shall safeguard the anonymity of whistleblowers, assess the information provided and, where appropriate, take account of it in their deliberations.
Amendment 1055 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 6
Article 19 – paragraph 6
6. At the request of the Commission, the governments and authorities of the Member States shall provide the Commission with all necessary information to carry out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation. Competent national authorities or any stakeholder may also on their own initiative provide the Commission or the European High-Level Group of Digital Regulators with information to be taken into account in their deliberations.
Amendment 1061 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Inspectors authorised by the Commission or the High-Level Group may conduct inspections in a third country if data relevant for the purpose of the inspection, including data relating to European citizens or businesses, are stored, transmitted, processed or analysed in that third country.
Amendment 1062 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. If an inspection cannot be conducted in a third country, the gatekeeper's European data shall be repatriated to the European Union within 12 months.
Amendment 1077 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission may take the necessary actions, in close cooperation with the competent national authorities, to monitor the effective implementation and compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 and the decisions taken pursuant to Articles 7, 16, 22 and 23.
Amendment 1092 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. An independent appeals board shall be set up so that administrative decisions can be challenged, with rulings on appeals to be issued within two months.
Amendment 1100 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In the decision pursuant to Article 25, the Commission may impose on a gatekeeper fines not exceeding 120% of its total turnover in the preceding financial year where it finds that the gatekeeper, intentionally or negligently, fails to comply with:
Amendment 1102 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Commission may by decision impose on undertakings and associations of undertakings fines not exceeding 15% of the total turnover in the preceding financial year where they intentionally or negligently:
Amendment 1108 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4 a (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4 a (new)
Access to the service concerned shall ultimately be suspended on European Union territory in the event of failure to pay.
Amendment 1109 #
Amendment 1111 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 a (new)
Article 27 a (new)
Article 27a Systematic non-compliance In the event of systematic non- compliance, the Commission may impose structural measures against a gatekeeper on a proposal from the High-Level Group.
Amendment 1112 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 b (new)
Article 27 b (new)
Article 27b Structural measures Where the Europe-based workforce accounts for less than 30% of the European share of worldwide turnover, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States and after hearing the gatekeeper, shall impose the necessary behavioural, functional or structural measures to remedy the situation within two years.
Amendment 1113 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 c (new)
Article 27 c (new)
Article 27c In the event of systematic and intentional non-compliance or gross negligence, personal sanctions may be imposed on directors or managers, including a ban on entering the territory of a Member State.
Amendment 1114 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 d (new)
Article 27 d (new)
Article 27d In the event of systematic and intentional non-compliance or gross negligence, a fine of up to 15% of their previous year's income may be imposed on directors or managers responsible for the failing or failings concerned.
Amendment 1122 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Before adopting a decision pursuant to Article 7, Article 8(1), Article 9(1), Articles 15, 16, 22, 23, 25 and 26 and Article 27(2), the Commission shall give the gatekeeper or undertaking or association of undertakings concerned, and third parties affected, the opportunity of being heard on:
Amendment 1139 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 a (new)
Article 31 a (new)
Article 31a European High-Level Group of Digital Regulators 1. The Commission and Member States shall establish a European High-Level Group of Digital Regulators in the form of an Expert Group consisting of the representatives of competent authorities of all the Member States, the Commission, relevant Union bodies and other representatives of competent authorities in specific sectors, including data protection and electronic communications. 2. The group shall be composed of the heads of the relevant competent authorities and shall be assisted by a secretariat provided by the Commission. 3. The work of the High-Level Group may be organised in working groups and supported by digital market technology experts. 4. Rapporteurs shall be chosen from among the experts appointed by the Member States opting to take part. 5. The group shall be chaired by a representative of a Member State for a period of three years.
Amendment 1142 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 b (new)
Article 31 b (new)
Amendment 1147 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shallmay be assisted by the Digital Markets Advisory Committee. That Committee shall be a Committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
Amendment 1158 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. When threre one or more Member States or the European High-Level Group of Digital Regulators request the Commission to open an investigation pursuant to Article 15 because they consider that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper, the Commission shall within four months examine, 16, 17 or 25, the Commission shall open a preliminary investigation and examine within three months, in close cooperation with the European High-Level Group of Digital Regulators and the Member State or States concerned, whether there are reasonable grounds to open such anan in- depth investigation.
Amendment 1169 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2
Article 33 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall submit evidence in support of their requestFor businesses, SMEs and consumers, Member States shall designate an ambassador who can relay their complaints to gatekeepers and bring about rapid resolution of disagreements or refer them to the High-Level Group and the Commission, in the case of irregular practices, for more in-depth investigation and possible damages equivalent to three times the loss concerned.
Amendment 1188 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
Article 38 – paragraph 1
1. By DD/MM/YYYY, and subsequently every threewo years, the Commission shall evaluate this Regulation and report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee.
Amendment 1190 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2
Article 38 – paragraph 2
2. The evaluations shall establish whether additional rules, including regarding the list of core platform services laid down in point 2 of Article 2, the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 and their enforcement, may be required to ensure that digital markets across the Union are contestable and fair and to what extent this Regulation is helping to develop the European digital market. Following the evaluations, the Commission shall take appropriate measures, which may include legislative proposals.
Amendment 189 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Responsible and diligent behaviour by providers of intermediary services is essential for a safe, accessible, predictable and trusted online environment and for allowing Union citizens and other persons to exercise their fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’), in particular the freedom of expression and information and the freedom to conduct a business, and the right to non- discrimination.
Amendment 196 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) This Regulation should apply to providers of certain information society services as defined in Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council26 , that is, any service normalfrequently provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient. Specifically, this Regulation should apply to providers of intermediary services, and in particular intermediary services consisting of services known as ‘mere conduit’, ‘caching’ and ‘hosting’ services, given that the exponential growth of the use made of those services, mainly for legitimate and socially beneficial purposes of all kinds, has also increased their role in the intermediation and spread of unlawful or otherwise harmful information and activitiesillegal content. __________________ 26Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1).
Amendment 203 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order to ensure the effectiveness of the rules laid down in this Regulation and a level playing field within the internal market, those rules should apply to providers of intermediary services irrespective of their place of establishment or residence, in so far as they provide services in the Union, as evidenced by a substantial connection to the Union.
Amendment 205 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 210 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Such a substantial connection to the Union should be considered to exist where the service provider has an establishment in the Union or, in its absence, on the basis of the existence of a significant number of users in one or more Member States, or the targeting of activities towards one or more Member States. The targeting of activities towards one or more Member States can be determined on the basis of all relevant circumstances, including factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in that Member State, or the possibility of ordering products or services, or using a national top level domain. The targeting of activities towards a Member State could also be derived from the availability of an application in the relevant national application store, from the provision of local advertising or advertising in the language used in that Member State, or from the handling of customer relations such as by providing customer service in the language generally used in that Member State. A substantial connection should also be assumed where a service provider directs its activities to one or more Member State as set out in Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council27 . On the other hand, mere technical accessibility of a website from the Union cannot, on that ground alone, be considered as establishing a substantial connection to the Union. __________________ 27 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L351, 20.12.2012, p.1).
Amendment 223 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to achieve the objective of ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, for the purpose of this Regulation the concept of “‘illegal content”’ should be defined broadly and also covers information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content, or that relates to activities that are illegal, such as the sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse, unlawful non- consensual sharing of private images, online stalking, the sale of non-compliant or counterfeit products, the non- authorised use of copyright protected material or activities involving infringements of consumer protection law. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the information or activity results from Union law or from national law that is consistent with Union law and what the precise nature or subject matter is of the law in questionstrictly defined, with the term covering any activity stipulated or punishable by the applicable law of the Member State concerned.
Amendment 256 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 279 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) In order to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting services, the provider should, upon obtaining actual knowledge or awareness of illegal content, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that content. The removal or disabling of access should be undertaken in the observance of the principle of freedom of expression. The provider can obtain such actual knowledge or awareness through, in particular, its own-initiative investigations or notices submitted to it by individuals or entities in accordance with this Regulation in so far as those notices are sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated to allow a diligent economic operator to reasonably identify, assess and where appropriate act against the allegedly illegal content.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 280 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) In order to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting services, the provider should, upon obtaining actual knowledge or awareness of illegal content, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that content act to remove or to disable access to the illegal content when such content is deemed to be illegal according to Union or Member State law. The removal or disabling of access should be undertaken in the observance of the principle of freedom of expression. The provider can obtain such actual knowledge or awareness throughf the illegal content, in particular, its own- initiative investigations or notices submitted to it by individuals or entities in accordance with this Regulation in so far as those notices are sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated to allow a diligentn economic operator to reasonably identify, assess and where appropriate act against the allegedly illegal content.
Amendment 283 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) In order to ensure the effective protection of consumers when engaging in intermediated commercial transactions online, certain providers of hosting services, namely, online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, should not be able to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting service providers established in this Regulation, in so far as those online platforms present the relevant information relating to the transactions at issue in such a way that it leads consumers to believe that the information was provided by those online platforms themselves or by recipients of the service acting under their authority or control, and that those online platforms thus have knowledge of or control over the information, even if that may in reality not be the case. In that regard, is should be determined objectively, on the basis of all relevant circumstances, whether the presentation could lead to such a belief on the side of an average and reasonably well-informed consumer. Providers of hosting services which will be liable in this way should ensure they have the possibility of redress against the trader actually responsible if this is not provided for in the conditions of use of their services.
Amendment 286 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) In order to ensure the effective protection of consumers when engaging in intermediated commercial transactions online, certain providers of hosting services, namely, online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, should not be able to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting service providers established in this Regulation, in so far as those online platforms present the relevant information relating to the transactions at issue in such a way that it leads consumers to believe that the information was provided by those online platforms themselves or by recipients of the service acting under their authority or control, and that those online platforms thus have knowledge of or control over the information, even if that may in reality not be the case. In that regard, is should be determined objectively, on the basis of all relevant circumstances, whether the presentation could lead to such a belief on the side of an average and reasonably well-informed consumer.
Amendment 290 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23 a (new)
Recital 23 a (new)
(23a) European consumers should be able to safely purchase products and services online, regardless of whether a product or service has been produced in the Union or not. Online platforms allowing distance contracts with third- country traders should establish, before approving that trader on their platform, that the third-country trader complies with the relevant Union or national law on product safety and product compliance. In addition, if the third- country trader does not provide an economic operator inside the Union liable for the product safety, online platforms should not be able to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting service providers established in this Regulation.
Amendment 292 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The exemptions from liability established in this Regulation should not affect the possibility of injunctions of different kinds against providers of intermediary services, even where they meet the conditions set out as part of those exemptions. Such injunctions could, in particular, consist of orders by courts or administrative authorities requiring the termination or prevention of any infringement, including the removal of illegal content specified in such orders, issued in compliance with Union law, or the disabling of access to it.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 303 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) In order to create legal certainty and not to discourage activities aimed at detecting, identifying and acting against illegal content that providers of intermediary services may undertake on a voluntary basis, it should be clarified that the mere fact that providers undertake such activities does not lead to the unavailability of the exemptions from liability set out in this Regulation, provided those activities are carried out in good faith and in a diligent manner. In addition, it is appropriate to clarify that the mere fact that those providers take measures, in good faith, to comply with the requirements of Union law, including those set out in this Regulation as regards the implementation of their terms and conditions, should not lead to the unavailability of those exemptions from liability. Therefore, any such activities and measures that a given provider may have taken should not be taken into account when determining whether the provider can rely on an exemption from liability, in particular as regards whether the provider provides its service neutrally and can therefore fall within the scope of the relevant provision, without this rule however implying that the provider can necessarily rely thereDoes not affect the English version.)
Amendment 306 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Whilst the rules in Chapter II of this Regulation concentrate on the exemption from liability of providers of intermediary services, it is important to recall that, despite the generally important role played by those providers, the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on their liability and responsibilities. Where possible, third parties affected by illegal content transmitted or stored online should attempt to resolve conflicts relating to such content without involving the providers of intermediary services in question. Recipients of the service should be held liable, where the applicable rules of Union and national law determining such liability so provide, for the illegal content that they provide and may disseminate through intermediary services. Where appropriate, other actors, such as group moderators in closed online environments, in particular in the case of large groups, should also help to avoid the spread of illegal content online, in accordance with the applicable law. Furthermore, where it is necessary to involve information society services providers, including providers of intermediary services, any requests or court orders for such involvement should, as a general rule, be directed to the actor that has the technical and operational ability to act against specific items of illegal content, so as to prevent and minimise any possible negative effects for the availability and accessibility of information that is not illegal content.
Amendment 318 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Providers of intermediary services should not be subject to a monitoring obligation with respect to obligations of a general nature. This does not concern monitoring obligations in a specific case and, in particular, does not affect orders by national authorities in accordance with national legislation, in accordance with the conditions established in this Regulation. Nothing in this Regulation should be construed as an imposition of a general monitoring obligation or active fact-finding obligation, or as a general obligation for providers to take proactive measures to relation to illegal content.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 326 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Depending on the legal system of each Member State and the field of law at issue, national judicial or administrative authorities may order providers of intermediary services to act against certain specific items of illegal content or to provide certain specific items of information. The national laws on the basis of which such orders are issued differ considerably and the orders are increasingly addressed in cross-border situations. In order to ensure that those orders can be complied with in an effective and efficient manner, so that the public authorities concerned can carry out their tasks and the providers are not subject to any disproportionate burdens, without unduly affecting the rights and legitimate interests of any third parties, it is necessary to set certain conditions that those orders should meet and certain complementary requirements relating to the processing of those orders.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 330 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Orders to act against illegal content or to provide information should be issued in compliance with Union law, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the prohibition of general obligations to monitor information or to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity laid down in this Regulation. The conditions and requirements laid down in this Regulation which apply to orders to act against illegal content are without prejudice to other Union acts providing for similar systems for acting against specific types of illegal content, such as Regulation (EU) …/…. [proposed Regulation addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online], or Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 that confers specific powers to order the provision of information on Member State consumer law enforcement authorities, whilst the conditions and requirements that apply to orders to provide information are without prejudice to other Union acts providing for similar relevant rules for specific sectors. Those conditions and requirements should be without prejudice to retention and preservation rules under applicable national law, in conformity with Union law and confidentiality requests by law enforcement authorities related to the non- disclosure of information.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 334 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) The territorial scope of such orders to act against illegal content should be clearly set out on the basis of the applicable Union or national law enabling the issuance of the order and should not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve its objectives. In that regard, the national judicial or administrative authority issuing the order should balance the objective that the order seeks to achieve, in accordance with the legal basis enabling its issuance, with the rights and legitimate interests of all third parties that may be affected by the order, in particular their fundamental rights under the Charter. In addition, where the court order referring to the specific information may have effects beyond the territory of the Member State of the authority concerned, the authority should assess whether the information at issue is likely to constitute illegal content in other Member States concerned and, where relevant, take account of the relevant rules of Union law or international law and the interests of international comity.
Amendment 340 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) Orders to act against illegal content and to provide information are subject to the rules safeguarding the competence of the Member State where the service provider addressed is established and laying down possible derogations from that competence in certain cases, set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC, only if the conditions of that Article are met. Given that the orders in question relate to specific items of illegal content and information, respectively, where they are addressed to providers of intermediary services established in another Member State, they do not in principle restrict those providers’ freedom to provide their services across borders. Therefore, the rules set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC, including those regarding the need to justify measures derogating from the competence of the Member State where the service provider is established on certain specified grounds and regarding the notification of such measures, do not apply in respect of those orders.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 348 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) In order to achieve the objectives of this Regulation, and in particular to improve the functioning of the internal market and ensure a safe and transparent online environment, it is necessary clearly to establish a clear and balanced set of harmonised due diligence obligations forthe legal obligations which will apply to providers of intermediary services. Those obligations should aim in particular to guarantee different public policy objectives such as the safety and trust of the recipients of the service, including minors and vulnerable users, protect the relevant fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, to ensure meaningful accountability of those providers and to empower recipients and other affected parties, whilst facilitating the necessary oversight by competent authorities.
Amendment 350 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 357 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) In order to facilitate smooth and efficient communications relating to matters covered by this Regulation, providers of intermediary services should be required to establish a single point of contact and to publish relevant information relating to their point of contact, including the languages to be used in such communications. The point of contact can also be used by trusted flaggers and by professional entities which are under a specific relationship with the provider of intermediary services. In contrast to the legal representative, the point of contact should serve operational purposes and should not necessarily have to have a physical location .
Amendment 364 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) Whilst the freedom of contract of providers of intermediary services should in principle be respected, it is appropriate to set certain rules on the content, application and enforcement of the terms and conditions of those providers in the interests of transparency, the protection of recipients of the service and the avoidance of unfair or arbitrary outcomes. To this end, the use of algorithmic decision- making processes should be disclosed to users whenever they are employed.
Amendment 371 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) To ensure an adequate level of transparency and accountability, providers of intermediary services should annually report, in accordance with the harmonised requirements contained in this Regulation, on the content moderation they engage in, including the measures taken as a result of the application and enforcement of their terms and conditions. However, so as to avoid disproportionate burdens, those transparency reporting obligations should not apply to providers that are micro- or small enterprises as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC40 . __________________ 40 Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium- sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).
Amendment 382 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) Providers of hosting services play a particularly important role in tackling illegal content online, as they store information provided by and at the request of the recipients of the service and typically give other recipients access thereto, sometimes on a large scale. It is important that all providers of hosting services, regardless of their size, with the exception of those which play an architectural role, put in place user- friendly notice and action mechanisms that facilitate the notification of specific items of information that the notifying party considers to be illegal content to the provider of hosting services concerned ('notice'), pursuant to which that provider can decide whether or not it agrees with that assessment and wishes to remove or disable access to that content ('action'). Provided the requirements on notices are met, it should be possible for individuals or entities to notify multiple specific items of allegedly illegal content through a single notice. The obligation to put in place notice and action mechanisms should apply, for instance, to file storage and sharing services, web hosting services, advertising servers and paste bins, in as far as they qualify as providers of hosting services covered by this Regulation.
Amendment 386 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) The rules on such notice and action mechanisms should be harmonised at Union level, so as to provide for the timely, diligent and objective processing of notices on the basis of rules that are uniform, transparent and clear and that provide for robust safeguards to protect the right and legitimate interests of all affected parties, in particular their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, irrespective of the Member State in which those parties are established or reside and of the field of law at issue. The fundamental rights include, as the case may be, the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to protection of personal data, the right to non-discrimination and the right to an effective remedy of the recipients of the service; the freedom to conduct a business, including the freedom of contract, of service providers; as well as the right to human dignity, the rights of the child, the right to protection of property, including intellectual property, and the right to non- discrimination of parties affected by illegal content.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 393 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) Where a hosting service provider decides to remove or disable information provided by a recipient of the service, for instance following receipt of a notice or acting on its own initiative, including through the use of automated means, that provider should inform the recipient of its decision, the reasons for its decision and the available redress possibilities to contest the decision, in view of the negative consequences that such decisions may have for the recipient, including as regards the exercise of its fundamental right to freedom of expression. That obligation should apply irrespective of the reasons for the decision, in particular whether the action has been taken because the information notified is considered to be illegal content or incompatible with the applicable terms and conditions. Available recourses to challenge the decision of the hosting service provider should always include judicial redress.
Amendment 399 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) To avoid disproportionate burdens, the additional obligations imposed on online platforms under this Regulation should not apply to micro or small enterprises as defined in Recommendation 2003/361/EC of the Commission,41 with the exception of those which are owned or controlled by bodies established outside the European Union, unless their reach and impact is such that they meet the criteria to qualify as very large online platforms under this Regulation. The consolidation rules laid down in that Recommendation help ensure that any circumvention of those additional obligations is prevented. The exemption of micro- and small enterprises from those additional obligations should not be understood as affecting their ability to set up, on a voluntary basis, a system that complies with one or more of those obligations. __________________ 41 Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium- sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).
Amendment 407 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
Amendment 420 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) The misuse of services of online platforms by frequently providing manifestly illegal content or by frequently submitting manifestly unfounded notices or complaints under the mechanisms and systems, respectively, established under this Regulation undermines trust and harms the rights and legitimate interests of the parties concerned. Therefore, there is a need to put in place appropriate and proportionate safeguards against such misuse. Information should be considered to be manifestly illegal content and notices or complaints should be considered manifestly unfounded where it is evident to a layperson, without any substantive analysis, that the content is illegal respectively that the notices or complaints are unfounded. Under certain conditions, online platforms should temporarily suspend their relevant activities in respect of the person engaged in abusive behaviour. This is without prejudice to the freedom by online platforms to determine their terms and conditions and establish stricter measures in the case of manifestly illegal content related to serious crimes. For reasons of transparency, this possibility should be set out, clearly and in sufficiently detail, in the terms and conditions of the online platforms. Redress should always be open to the decisions taken in this regard by online platforms and they should be subject to oversight by the competent Digital Services Coordinator. The rules of this Regulation on misuse should not prevent online platforms from taking other measures to address the provision of illegal content by recipients of their service or other misuse of their services, in accordance with the applicable Union and national law. Those rules are without prejudice to any possibility to hold the persons engaged in misuse liable, including for damages, provided for in Union or national law.
Amendment 421 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) The misuse of services of online platforms by frequently providing manifestly illegal content or by frequently submitting manifestly unfoundedillegal notices or complaints under the mechanisms and systems, respectively, established under this Regulation undermines trust and harms the rights and legitimate interests of the parties concerned. Therefore, there is a need to put in place appropriate and proportionate safeguards against such misuse. Information should be considered to be manifestly illegal content whenever it contravenes the law and notices or complaints should be considered manifestly unfounded where it is evident to a layperson, without any substantive analysis, that the content is illegal respectively that the notices or complaints are unfounded. Under certain conditions, online platforms should temporarily suspend their relevant activities in respect of the person engaged in abusive behaviour. This is without prejudice to the freedom by online platforms to determine their terms and conditions and establish strictWhere the platform decides to suspend accounts which concern measures in the case of manifestly illegal content related to serious crimes. For reasons of transparency, this possibility should be set out, clearly and in sufficiently detail, in the terms and conditionsatters of public interest, such as those belonging to political figures or candidates for election, it can act only ofn the online platformsbasis of a preliminary court injunction. Redress should always be open to the decisions taken in this regard by online platforms and they should be subject to oversight by the competent Digital Services Coordinator. The rules of this Regulation on misuse should not prevent online platforms from taking other measures to address the provision of illegal content by recipients of their service or other misuse of their services, in accordance with the applicable Union and national law. Those rules are without prejudice to any possibility to hold the persons engaged in misuse liable, including for damages, provided for in Union or national law.
Amendment 431 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) An online platform may in some instances become aware, such as through a notice by a notifying party or through its own voluntary measures, of information relating to certain activity of a recipient of the service, such as the provision of certain types of illegal content, that reasonably justify, having regard to all relevant circumstances of which the online platform is aware, the suspicion that the recipient may have committed, may be committing or is likely to commit a serious criminal offence involving a threat to the life or safety of person, such as offences specified in Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council44 . In such instances, the online platform should inform without delay the competent law enforcement authorities of such suspicion, providing all relevant information available to it, including where relevant the content in question and an explanation of its suspicion. This Regulation does not provide the legal basis for profiling of recipients of the services with a view to the possible identification of criminal offences by online platforms. Online platforms should also respect other applicable rules of Union or national law for the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals when informing law enforcement authorities. __________________ 44Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 1).Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 432 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) An online platform may in some instances become aware, such as through a notice by a notifying party or through its own voluntary measures, of information relating to certain activity of a recipient of the service, such as the provision of certain types of illegal content, that reasonably justify, having regard to all relevant circumstances of which the online platform is aware, the suspicion that the recipient may have committed, may be committing or is likely to commit a serious criminal offence involving a threat to the life or safety of person, such as offences specified in Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council44 . In such instances, the online platform should inform without delaypromptly inform the competent law enforcement authorities of such suspicion, providing all relevant information available to it, including where relevant the content in question and an explanation of its suspicion. This Regulation does not provide the legal basis for profiling of recipients of the services with a view to the possible identification of criminal offences by online platforms. Online platforms should also respect other applicable rules of Union or national law for the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals when informing law enforcement authorities. __________________ 44Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 1).
Amendment 442 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
Recital 50
(50) To ensure an efficient and adequate application of that obligation, without imposing any disproportionate burdens, the online platforms covered should make reasonable efforts to verify the reliability of the information provided by the traders concerned, in particular by using freely available official online databases and online interfaces, such as national trade registers and the VAT Information Exchange System45 , or by requesting the traders concerned to provide trustworthy supporting documents, such as copies of identity documents, certified bank statements, company certificates and trade register certificates. They may also use other sources, available for use at a distance, which offer a similar degree of reliability for the purpose of complying with this obligation. However, the oOnline pPlatforms covered should not be required to engage in excessive or costly online fact-finding exercises or to carry out verifications on the spot. Nor should such online platforms, which have made the reasonable efforts required by this Regulation, be understood as guamay also ask for support from the Digital Services Coordinator in carrying out these specific obligations. If the trader is established outside the Union and does not cooperate or does not provide sufficient information for the verification of its compliance with the relevant Union or Member State law, this trader should not be admitted to operate and sell its products on the platform. If the trader is already on the platform and should not meet the above criteria, the platform should suspend that trader's account. The trader should be granteeingd the reliapossibility of the information towards consumer or other interested parties. Such oredress in the event of suspension of the business account. Online platforms should also design and organise their online interface in a way that enables traders to comply with their obligations under Union law, in particular the requirements set out in Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council46 , Article 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council47 and Article 3 of Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council48 . __________________ 45 https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/ vieshome.do?selectedLanguage=en 46Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 47Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to- consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) 48Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers
Amendment 451 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) In view of the particular responsibilities and obligations of online platforms, they should be made subject to transparency reporting obligations, which apply in addition to the transparency reporting obligations applicable to all providers of intermediary services under this Regulation. For the purposes of determining whether online platforms may be very large online platforms that are subject to certain additional obligations under this Regulation, the transparency reporting obligations for online platforms should include certain obligations relating to the publication and communication of information on the average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union under the supervision of the Commission.
Amendment 458 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
Recital 52
(52) Online advertisement plays an important role in the online environment, including in relation to the provision of the services of online platforms. However, online advertisement can contribute to significant risks, ranging from advertisement that is itself illegal content, to contributing to financial incentives for the publication or amplification of illegal or otherwise harmful content and activities online, or the discriminatory display of advertising with an impact on the equal treatment and opportunities of citizens. In addition to the requirements resulting from Article 6 of Directive 2000/31/EC, online platforms should therefore be required to ensure that the recipients of the service have certain individualised information necessary for them to understand when and on whose behalf the advertisement is displayed. In addition, recipients of the service should have information on the main parameters used for determining that specific advertising is to be displayed to them, providing meaningful explanations of the logic used to that end, including when this is based on profiling. The requirements of this Regulation on the provision of information relating to advertisement is without prejudice to the application of the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular those regarding the right to object, automated individual decision-making, including profiling and specifically the need to obtain consent of the data subject prior to the processing of personal data for targeted advertising. Similarly, it is without prejudice to the provisions laid down in Directive 2002/58/EC in particular those regarding the storage of information in terminal equipment and the access to information stored therein.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 472 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) Very large online platforms may cause societal risks, different in scope and impact from those caused by smaller platforms. Once the number of recipients of a platform reaches a significant share of the Union population, the systemic risks the platform poses have a disproportionately negative impact in the Union. Such significant reach should be considered to exist where the number of recipients exceeds an operational threshold set at 45 million, that is, a number equivalent to 10 % of the Union population and if the online platforms have an annual global turnover exceeding EUR 100 million. The operational threshold should be kept up to date through amendments enacted by delegated acts, where necessary. Such very large online platforms should therefore bear the highest standard of due diligence obligations, proportionate to their societal impact and means.
Amendment 473 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) Very large online platforms are used in a way that strongly influences safety online, the shaping of public opinion and discourse, as well as on online trade. The way they design their services is generally optimised to benefit their often advertising-driven business models and can cause societal concerns. In the absence of effective regulation and enforcement, they can set the rules of the game, without effectively identifying and mitigating the risks and the societal and economic harm they can cause. Under this Regulation, very large online platforms should therefore assess, under the supervision of the Commission and the European Board for Digital Services, the systemic risks stemming from the functioning and use of their service, as well as by potential misuses by the recipients of the service, and take appropriate mitigating measures.
Amendment 479 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) Three categories of systemic risks should be assessed in-depth. A first category concerns the risks associated with the misuse of their service through the dissemination of illegal content, such as the dissemination of child sexual abuse material or illegal hate speech, and the conduct of illegal activities, such as the sale of products or services prohibited by Union or national law, including counterfeit products. For example, and without prejudice to the personal responsibility of the recipient of the service of very large online platforms for possible illegality of his or her activity under the applicable law, such dissemination or activities may constitute a significant systematic risk where access to such content may be amplified through accounts with a particularly wide reach. A second category concerns the impact of the service on the exercise of fundamental rights, as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the freedom of expression and information, the right to private life, the right to non-discrimination and the rights of the child. Such risks may arise, for example, in relation to the design of the algorithmic systems used by the very large online platform or the misuse of their service through the submission of abusive notices or other methods for silencing speech or hampering competition. A third category of risks concerns the intentional and, oftentimes, coordinated manipulation of the platform’s service, with a foreseeable impact on health, civic discourse, electoral processes, public security and protection of minors, having regard to the need to safeguard public order, protect privacy and fight fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices. Such risks may arise, for example, through the creation of fake accounts, the use of bots, and other automated or partially automated behaviours, which may lead to the rapid and widespread dissemination of information that is illegal content or incompatible with an online platform’s terms and conditions.
Amendment 485 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) Very large online platforms should deploy the necessary means to diligently mitigate the systemic risks identified in the risk assessment. Very large online platforms should under such mitigating measures consider, for example, enhancing or otherwise adapting the design and functioning of their content moderation, algorithmic recommender systems and online interfaces, so that they discourage and limit the dissemination of illegal content, adapting their decision-making processes, or adapting their terms and conditions. They may also include corrective measures, such as discontinuing advertising revenue for specific content, or other actions, such as improving the visibility of authoritative information sources. Very large online platforms may reinforce their internal processes or supervision of any of their activities, in particular as regards the detection of systemic risks. They may also initiate or increase cooperation with trusted flaggers, organise training sessions and exchanges with trusted flagger organisations, and cooperate with other service providers, including by initiating or joining existing codes of conduct or other self-regulatory measures. Any measures adopted should respect the due diligence requirements of this Regulation and be effective and appropriate for mitigating the specific risks identified, in the interest of safeguarding public order, protecting privacy and fighting fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices, and should be proportionate in light of the very large online platform’s economic capacity and the need to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the use of their service, taking due account of potential negative effects on the fundamental rights of the recipients of the service.
Amendment 486 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) Very large online platforms should deploy the necessary means to diligently mitigate the systemic risks identified in the risk assessment. Very large online platforms should under such mitigating measures consider, for example, enhancing or otherwise adapting the design and functioning of their content moderation, algorithmic recommender systems and online interfaces, so that they discourage and limit the dissemination of illegal content, or adapting their decision-making processes, or adapting their terms and conditions. They may also include corrective measures, such as discontinuing advertising revenue for specific content, or other actions, such as improving the visibility of authoritative information sources. Very large online platforms may reinforce their internal processes or supervision of any of their activities, in particular as regards the detection of systemic risks. They may also initiate or increase cooperation with trusted flaggers, organise training sessions and exchanges with trusted flagger organisations, and cooperate with other service providers, including by initiating or joining existing codes of conduct or other self-regulatory measures. Any measures adopted should respect the due diligence requirements of this Regulation and be effective and appropriate for mitigating the specific risks identified, in the interest of safeguarding public order, protecting privacy and fighting fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices, and should be proportionate in light of the very large online platform’s economic capacity and the need to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the use of their service, taking due account of potential negative effects on the fundamental rights of the recipients of the service.
Amendment 492 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61
Recital 61
(61) The audit report should be substantiated, so as to give a meaningful account of the activities undertaken and the conclusions reached. It should help inform, and where appropriate suggest improvements to the measures taken by the very large online platform to comply with their obligations under this Regulation. The report should be transmitted to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment and the Boardcoordinators, the Board and the Commission without delay, together with the risk assessment and the mitigation measures, as well as the platform’s plans for addressing the audit’s recommendations. The report should include an audit opinion based on the conclusions drawn from the audit evidence obtained. A positive opinion should be given where all evidence shows that the very large online platform complies with the obligations laid down by this Regulation or, where applicable, any commitments it has undertaken pursuant to a code of conduct or crisis protocol, in particular by identifying, evaluating and mitigating the systemic risks posed by its system and services. A positive opinion should be accompanied by comments where the auditor wishes to include remarks that do not have a substantial effect on the outcome of the audit. A negative opinion should be given where the auditor considers that the very large online platform does not comply with this Regulation or the commitments undertaken.
Amendment 497 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) A core part of a very large online platform’s business is the manner in which information is prioritised and presented on its online interface to facilitate and optimise access to information for the recipients of the service. This is done, for example, by algorithmically suggesting, ranking and prioritising information, distinguishing through text or other visual representations, or otherwise curating information provided by recipients. Such recommender systems can have a significant impact on the ability of recipients to retrieve and interact with information online. They also play an important role in the amplification of certain messages, the viral dissemination of information and the stimulation of online behaviour. Consequently, very large online platforms should ensure that recipients are appropriately informed, and can influence the information presented to them. They should clearly present the main parameters for such recommender systems in an easily comprehensible manner to ensure that the recipients understand how information is prioritised for them. They should also ensure that the recipients enjoy alternative options for the main parameters, including options that are not based on profiling of the recipient. This option must be easily accessible and must correspond to a predefined parameter profile.
Amendment 505 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
Recital 64
(64) In order to appropriately supervise the compliance of very large online platforms with the obligations laid down by this Regulation, the Digital Services Coordinators of establishmentthe Member States, the Board or the Commission may require access to or reporting of specific data. Such a requirement may include, for example, the data necessary to assess the risks and possible harms brought about by the platform’s systems, data on the accuracy, functioning and testing of algorithmic systems for content moderation, recommender systems or advertising systems, or data on processes and outputs of content moderation or of internal complaint-handling systems within the meaning of this Regulation. Investigations by researchers on the evolution and severity of online systemic risks are particularly important for bridging information asymmetries and establishing a resilient system of risk mitigation, informing online platforms, Digital Services Coordinators, other competent authorities, the Commission and the public. This Regulation therefore provides a framework for compelling access to data from very large online platforms to vetted researchers. All requirements for access to data under that framework should be proportionate and appropriately protect the rights and legitimate interests, including trade secrets and other confidential information, of the platform and any other parties concerned, including the recipients of the service.
Amendment 512 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
(66) To facilitate the effective and consistent application of the obligations in this Regulation that may require implementation through technological means, it is important to promote voluntary industry standards covering certain technical procedures, where the industry can help develop standardised means to comply with this Regulation, such as allowing the submission of notices, including through application programming interfaces, or about the interoperability of advertisement repositories. Such standardsIn order to be properly distributed, such standards must be supported by a high quality level monitored by the public authority. They could in particular be useful for relatively small providers of intermediary services. The standards could distinguish between different types of illegal content or different types of intermediary services, as appropriate.
Amendment 515 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67
Recital 67
(67) The Commission and the Board should encourage the drawing-up of codes of conduct to contribute to the application of this Regulation. While the implementation of codes of conduct should be measurable and subject to public oversight, this should not impair the voluntary nature of such codes and the freedom of interested parties to decide whether to participate. In certain circumstances, it is important that very large online platforms cooperate in the drawing-up and adhere to specific codes of conduct. Nothing in this Regulation prevents other service providers from adhering to the same standards of due diligence, adopting best practices and benefitting from the guidance provided by the Commission and the Board, by participating in the same codes of conduct.
Amendment 518 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68
Recital 68
Amendment 521 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68
Recital 68
(68) It is appropriate that this Regulation identify certain areas of consideration for such codes of conduct. In particular, risk mitigation measures concerning specific types of illegal content, for example sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse or terrorist content, should be explored via self- and co-regulatory agreements. Another area for consideration is the possible negative impacts of systemic risks on society and democracy, such as disinformation or manipulative and abusive activities. This includes coordinated operations aimed at amplifying information, including disinformation, such as the use of bots or fake accounts for the creation of fake or misleading information, sometimes with a purpose of obtaining economic gain, which are particularly harmful for vulnerable recipients of the service, such as children. In relation to such areas, adherence to and compliance with a given code of conduct by a very large online platform may be considered as an appropriate risk mitigating measure. The refusal without proper explanations by an online platform of the Commission’s invitation to participate in the application of such a code of conduct could be taken into account, where relevant, when determining whether the online platform has infringed the obligations laid down by this Regulation.
Amendment 523 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 69
Recital 69
Amendment 526 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 69
Recital 69
(69) The rules on codes of conduct under this Regulation could serve as a basis for already established self-regulatory efforts at Union level, including the Product Safety Pledge, the Memorandum of Understanding against counterfeit goods, the Code of Conduct against illegal hate speech as well as the Code of practice on disinformation. In particular for the latter, the Commission will issue guidance for strengthening the Code of practice on disinformation as announced in the European Democracy Action Plan.
Amendment 531 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 71
Recital 71
Amendment 537 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 74
Recital 74
(74) The Digital Services Coordinator, as well as other competent authorities designated under this Regulation, play a crucial role in ensuring the effectiveness of the rights and obligations laid down in this Regulation and the achievement of its objectives. Accordingly, it is necessary to ensure that those authorities act in complete independence from private and public bodies, without the obligation or possibility to seek or receive instructions, including from the government, and without prejudice to the specific duties to cooperate with other competent authorities, the Digital Services Coordinators, the Board, the Member States and the Commission. On the other hand, the independence of these authorities should not mean that they cannot be subject, in accordance with national constitutions and without endangering the achievement of the objectives of this Regulation, to national control or monitoring mechanisms regarding their financial expenditure or to judicial review, or that they should not have the possibility to consult other national authorities, including law enforcement authorities or crisis management authorities, where appropriate.
Amendment 540 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 76
Recital 76
(76) In the absence of a general requirement for providers of intermediary services to ensure a physical presence within the territory of one of the Member States, there is a need to ensure clarity under which Member State's jurisdiction those providers fall for the purposes of enforcing the rules laid down in Chapters III and IV by the national competent authorities. A provider should be under the jurisdiction of the Member State where its main establishment is located, that is, where the provider has its head office or registered office within which the principal financial functions and operational control are exercised, without this identification serving as a presumption of recognition of establishment for tax purposes. In respect of providers that do not have an establishment in the Union but that offer services in the Union and therefore fall within the scope of this Regulation, the Member State where those providers appointed their legal representative should have jurisdiction, considering the function of legal representatives under this Regulation. In the interest of the effective application of this Regulation, all Member States should, however, have jurisdiction in respect of providers that failed to designate a legal representative, provided that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected. To that aim, each Member State that exercises jurisdiction in respect of such providers should, without undue delay, inform all other Member States of the measures they have taken in the exercise of that jurisdiction.
Amendment 547 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 84
Recital 84
(84) The Digital Services Coordinator should regularly publish a report on the activities carried out under this Regulation. Given that the Digital Services Coordinator is also made aware of orders to take action against illegal content or to provide information regulated by this Regulation through the common information sharing system, the Digital Services Coordinator should include in its annual report the number and categories of these orders addressed to providers of intermediary services issued by judicial and administrative authorities in its Member State.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 550 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 85
Recital 85
(85) Where a Digital Services Coordinator requests another Digital Services Coordinator to take action, the requesting Digital Services Coordinator, or the Board in case it issued a recommendation to assess issues involving more than three Member States, should be able to refer the matter to the Commission in case of any disagreement as to the assessments or the measures taken or proposed or a failure to adopt any measures. The Commission, on the basis of the information made available by the concerned authorities, should accordingly be able to request the competent Digital Services Coordinator to re-assess the matter and take the necessary measures to ensure compliance within a defined and reasonable time period. This possibility is without prejudice to the Commission’s general duty to oversee the application of, and where necessary enforce, Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the Treaties. A failure by the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment to take any measures pursuant to such a request may also lead to the Board’s or the Commission’s intervention under Section 3 of Chapter IV of this Regulation, where the suspected infringer is a very large online platform.
Amendment 558 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 89
Recital 89
Amendment 563 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 90
Recital 90
(90) For that purpose, tThe Board should be able to adopt opinions, requests and recommendations addressed to Digital Services Coordinators or other competent national authorities. While not legally binding, the decision to deviate therefrom should be properly explained and could be taken into account by the Commission in assessing the compliance of the Member State concerned with this Regulation.
Amendment 568 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 91
Recital 91
(91) The Board should bring together the representatives of the Digital Services Coordinators and possible other competent authorities under the chairmanship of the Commission, with a view to ensuring an careful assessment of matters submitted to it in a fully European dimension. In view of possible cross-cutting elements that may be of relevance for other regulatory frameworks at Union level, the Board should be allowed to cooperate with other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups with responsibilities in fields such as equality, including equality between women and men, and non- discrimination, data protection, electronic communications, audiovisual services, detection and investigation of frauds against the EU budget as regards custom duties, or consumer protection, as necessary for the performance of its tasks.
Amendment 576 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 97
Recital 97
(97) The Commission should reBoard should have full decision-makin free to decide whether or not it wishes to intervene in any of the situations where it is empowered to do so under this Regulatg powers in the investigation and enforcement procedures set out in this Regulation. The Commission, which shall provide the Board with all the technical assistance at its disposal, should have full powers of enforcement concerning the Board’s decisions. Once the Commission, on the instructions of the Board, initiated the proceedings, the Digital Services Coordinators of establishment concerned should be precluded from exercising their investigatory and enforcement powers in respect of the relevant conduct of the very large online platform concerned, so as to avoid duplication, inconsistencies and risks from the viewpoint of the principle of ne bis in idem. However, in the interest of effectiveness, those Digital Services Coordinators should not be precluded from exercising their powers either to assist the Commission, at its request or that of the Board, in the performance of its supervisory tasks, or in respect of other conduct, including conduct by the same very large online platform that is suspected to constitute a new infringement. Those Digital Services Coordinators, as well as the Board and other Digital Services Coordinators where relevant, should provide the Commission with all necessary information and assistance to allow it to perform its tasks effectively, whilst conversely the Commission should keep them informed on the exercise of its powers, including, as appropriate. In that regard, the Commission should, where appropriate, take account of any relevant assessments carried out by the Board or by the Digital Services Coordinators concerned and of any relevant evidence and information gathered by them, without prejudice to the Commission’s powers and responsibility to carry out additional investigations as necess, those occasions when it exercises them autonomously in order to submit proposals to the Boaryd.
Amendment 580 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 98
Recital 98
(98) In view of both the particular challenges that may arise in seeking to ensure compliance by very large online platforms and the importance of doing so effectively, considering their size and impact and the harms that they may cause, the Commission should, on the initiation of the relevant procedure at the decision of the Board, have strong investigative and enforcement powers to allow it to investigate, enforce and monitor certain of the rules laid down in this Regulation, in full respect of the principle of proportionality and the rights and interests of the affected parties.
Amendment 583 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 98
Recital 98
(98) In view of both the particular challenges that may arise in seeking to ensure compliance by very large online platforms and the importance of doing so effectively, considering their size and impact and the harms that they may cause, the Commission should have strong investigative and enforcement powers to allow it to investigate, enforce and monitor certain of the rules laid down in this Regulation, in full respect of the principle of proportionality and the rights and interests of the affected parties.
Amendment 584 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 99
Recital 99
(99) In particular, the Commission should have access to any relevant documents, data and information necessaryThe Commission, to open and conduct investigations and to monitor the compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in this Rregulation, irrespective of who possesses the documents, data or information in question, and regardless of their form or format, their storage medium, or the precise place where they are stored. The Commission should be able to directly require that the very large online platform concerned or relevant third parties, or than individuals, provide any relevant evidence, data and information. In addition, the Commission should be able to request any relevant information from any public authority, body or agency within the Member State, or from any natural person or legal person for the purpose of this Regulation. The Commission should be empowered to require access to, and explanations relating to, data-bases and algorithms of relevant persons, and to interview, with their consent, any persons who may be in possession of useful information and to record the statements made. The Commission should also be empowered to undertake such inspections as are necessary to enforce the relevant provisions of this Regulation. Those investigatory powers aim to complement the Commission’s possibility to ask Digital Services Coordinators and other Member States’ authorities for assistance, for instance by providing information or in the exercise of those powers
Amendment 600 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a framework for the possible conditional exemption from liability of providers of intermediary services;
Amendment 602 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point b
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) rules on specific due diligence obligations tailored to certain specific categories of providers of intermediary services;
Amendment 611 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) set out uniform rules for a safe, accessible, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected.
Amendment 629 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5 – point b a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 5 – point b a (new)
(ba) Directive (EU) 2019/882
Amendment 653 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
(d) ‘to offer services in the Union’ means enabling legal or natural persons in one or more Member States to use the services of the provider of information society services which has a substantial connection to the Union; such a substantial connection is deemed to exist where the provider has an establishment in the Union; in the absence of such an establishment, the assessment of a substantial connection is based on specific factual criteria, such as:.
Amendment 655 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
(d) ‘to offer services in the Union’ means enabling legal or natural persons in one or more Member States to use the services of the provider of information society services which has a substantial connection to the Union; such a substantial connection is deemed to exist where the provider has an establishment in the Union; in the absence of such an establishment, the assessment of a substantial connection is based on specific factual criteria, such as:
Amendment 656 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – indent 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – indent 1
Amendment 658 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – indent 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – indent 1
Amendment 663 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – indent 2
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d – indent 2
Amendment 685 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) ‘illegal content’ means any information,, which, in itself or by its reference to an or activity, including the sale of products or provision of services which is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State, irrespective of the precise subject matter or nature of that law;criminal, administrative or civil legal framework of a Member State.
Amendment 687 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) ‘illegal content’ means any information,which, in itself or by its reference to an activity, including the sale of products or provision of services is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State, irrespective of the precise subject matter or nature of that law;Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 727 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p
(p) ‘content moderation’ means the activities undertaken by providers of intermediary services aimed at detecting, identifying and addressing illegal content or information incompatible with their terms and conditions, provided by recipients of the service, including measures taken that affect the availability, visibility and accessibility of that illegal content or that information, such as demotion, disabling of access to, or removal thereof, or the recipients’ ability to provide that information, such as the termination or suspension of a recipient’s account;
Amendment 732 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q
(q) ‘terms and conditions’ means all terms and conditions or specifications, irrespective of their name or form, which govern the contractual relationship between the provider of intermediary services and the recipients of the services. Providers of online services must not impose requirements in their online conditions which exceed what is stipulated in the national regulations of the country where the service is provided.
Amendment 739 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q a (new)
(qa) "persons with disabilities" means person within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive(EU) 2019/882;
Amendment 749 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, the service provider shall not in principle be liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:
Amendment 751 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, the service provider shall not in principle be liable for the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of that information, performed for the sole purpose of making more efficient the information's onward transmission to other recipients of the service upon their request, on condition that:
Amendment 755 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service the service provider shall not in principle be liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service on condition that the provider:
Amendment 757 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) dDoes not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or illegal content and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or illegal content is apparent; oraffect the English version.)
Amendment 759 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously, acts to remove or to disable access to the illegal content if the content or activity is to be deemed illegal under Article 2 (g).
Amendment 762 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the illegal content.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 767 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply with respect to liability under consumer protection law of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, where such an online platform presents the specific item of information or otherwise enables the specific transaction at issue in a way that would lead an average and reasonably well-informed consumer to believe that the information, or the product or service that is the object of the transaction, is provided either by the online platform itself or by a recipient of the service who is acting under its authority or control. In addition, the liability exemption in paragraph 1 shall not apply in case an online platform allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with third-country traders when there is no economic operator inside the Union liable for the product safety on behalf of that trader.
Amendment 768 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply with respect to liability under consumer protection law of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, where such an online platform presents the specific item of information or otherwise enables the specific transaction at issue in a way that would lead an average and reasonably well-informed consumer to believe that the information, or the product or service that is the object of the transaction, is provided either by the online platform itself or by a recipient of the service who is acting under its authority or control. A procedure for redress shall be provided for the online platform against the trader who is actually responsible.
Amendment 788 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 796 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Amendment 799 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – title
Article 8 – title
Amendment 807 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Amendment 817 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 1
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 1
Amendment 822 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 2
Amendment 826 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 3 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 3 a (new)
— precise details concerning the identity or identification of the recipients specifically concerned by the order;
Amendment 899 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of intermediary services shall establish a single point of contact allowing for direct communication, by electronic means and by telephone, with Member States’ authorities, the Commission and the Board referred to in Article 47 for the application of this Regulation.
Amendment 904 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Providers of intermediary services shall make public, in a clear and user- friendly manner, the information necessary to easily identify and communicate with their single points of contact.
Amendment 923 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of intermediary services shall include information on any restrictions that they impose in relation to the use of their service in respect of information provided by the recipients of the service, in their terms and conditions. That information shall include information on any policies, procedures, measures and tools used for the purpose of content moderation, including algorithmic decision-making and human review. It shall be set out in clear and unambiguous language and shall be publicly available in an easily accessible formatThe use of algorithmic decision-making processes shall be notified to users whenever they are applied. The users shall be able, where appropriate, to switch easily from interaction with the algorithmic system to human interaction. The information shall be set out in clear and unambiguous language and shall be publicly available in an easily accessible format. Providers of intermediary services shall list the restrictions in relation to the use of their service for the dissemination of content deemed illegal under Union or Member State law in a clear and user- friendly manner, and differentiate the list from the general conditions for the use of their service so as to make the user aware of what is deemed illegal under the law and what is subject to the terms and conditions for the use of the service.
Amendment 930 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of intermediary services shall include information on any restrictions that they impose in relation to the use of their service in respect of information provided by the recipients of the service, in their terms and conditions. That information shall include information on any policies, procedures, measures and tools used for the purpose of content moderation, including algorithmic decision-making and human review. It shall be specifically presented to users when they subscribe to the service, set out in clear and unambiguous language and shall be publicly available in an easily accessible format.
Amendment 953 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The online conditions of online service providers may not require more than what is required by the regulations of the country in which the service is provided.
Amendment 982 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the number of orders received from Member States’ authorities, categorised by the type of illegal content concerned, including orders issued in accordance with Articles 8 and 9, and the average time needed for taking the action specified in those orders;Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 984 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the number of notices submitted in accordance with Article 14, categorised by the type of alleged illegal content concerned, any action taken pursuant to the notices by differentiating whether the action was taken on the basis of the law or the terms and conditions of the provider, and the average time needed for taking the action;
Amendment 991 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the number of complaints received through the internal complaint-handling system referred to in Article 17, the basis for those complaints, decisions taken in respect of those complaints, measures and tools used for the purpose of content moderation, including the impact of algorithmic decision-making compared to human review, the average time needed for taking those decisions and the number of instances where those decisions were reversed.
Amendment 1031 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Amendment 1032 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 shall be such as to facilitate the submission of sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated notices, on the basis of which a diligentn economic operator can identify the illegality of the content in quesestablish, in a diligent manner and without discrimination, whether the notice concerns illegal content as defined in Article 2(g) of these Regulations. To that end, the providers shall take the necessary measures to enable and facilitate the submission of notices containing all of the following elements:
Amendment 1037 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) an explanation of the reasons why the individual or entity considers the information in question to be illegal content. The possibility of identifying, on the basis of a list drawn up in agreement with the Digital Service Coordinator, the type of illegal content to which the individual or entity presumes the reported content below, to should also be foreseen;
Amendment 1040 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) an explanation of the reasons why the individual or entity considers the information in question to be illegal content;Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 1048 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) a clear indication of the electronic location of that information, in particular the exact URL or URLs, and, where necessary, additional information enabling the identification of the illegal content;Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 1053 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1106 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) whether the decision entails either the removal of, or the disabling of access to, the information and, where relevant, the territorial scope of the disabling of access and the duration;
Amendment 1110 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) where applicable, information on the use made of automated means in taking the decision, including where the decision was taken in respect of content detected or identified using automated means;
Amendment 1113 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) where the decision concerns allegedly illegal contentcontent deemed to be illegal, a reference to the legal ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be illegal content on that ground;
Amendment 1114 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point e
Amendment 1117 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1140 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
This Section shall not apply to online platforms that qualify as micro or small enterprises within the meaning of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC, with the exception of those owned or controlled by bodies outside the Union.
Amendment 1147 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Online platforms shall provide recipients of the service, for a period of at least six months following the decision referred to in this paragraph, the access to an effective internal complaint-handling system, which enables the complaints to be lodged electronically and free of charge, against the following decisions taken by the online platform on the ground that the information provided by the recipients is illegal content or incompatible with its terms and conditions:
Amendment 1148 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Online platforms shall provide recipients of the service, for a period of at least six months following the decision referred to in this paragraph, the access to an effective and user-friendly internal complaint-handling system, which enables the complaints to be lodged electronically and free of charge, against the following decisions taken by the online platform on the ground that the information provided by the recipients is illegal content or incompatible with its terms and conditions:
Amendment 1174 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Internal complaint-handling services concerning recipients established in the European Union shall be established in the European Union.
Amendment 1176 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Online platforms shall ensure that their internal complaint-handling systems are easy to access, user-friendly and enable and facilitate the submission of sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated complaints. The complainant shall be able to enter free written explanations in addition to the pre-established complaint options.
Amendment 1184 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
3. Online platforms shall handle complaints submitted through their internal complaint-handling system in a timely, diligent and objective manner. Where a complaint contains sufficient grounds for the online platform to consider that the information to which the complaint relates is not illegal and is not incompatible with its terms and conditions, or contains information indicating that the complainant’s conduct does not warrant the suspension or termination of the service or the account, it shall reverse its decision referred to in paragraph 1 without undue delay.
Amendment 1185 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
3. Online platforms shall handle complaints submitted through their internal complaint-handling system in a timely, diligent and objectiveobjective and transparent manner. Where a complaint contains sufficient grounds for the online platform to consider that the information to which the complaint relates is not illegal and is not incompatible with its terms and conditions, or contains information indicating that the complainant’s conduct does not warrant the suspension or termination of the service or the account, it shall reverse its decision referred to in paragraph 1 without undue delay.
Amendment 1187 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. Online platforms shall promptly inform complainants without undue delay of the decision they have taken in respect of the information to which the complaint relates and shall inform complainants of the possibility of out-of-court dispute settlement provided for in Article 18 and other available redress possibilities.
Amendment 1196 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5
Article 17 – paragraph 5
5. Online platforms shall ensure that the decisions, referred to in paragraph 4, are not solely taken on the basis of automated means.
Amendment 1198 #
Amendment 1217 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) it has the necessary expertise in relation to the issues arising in one or more particular areas of illegal content, or in relation to the application and enforcement of terms and conditions of one or more types of online platforms, allowing the body to contribute effectively to the settlement of a dispute;Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 1224 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) the dispute settlement is easily accessible, including for persons with disabilities, through electronic communication technology;
Amendment 1229 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) it is capable of settling dispute in a swift, efficient, accessible for persons with disabilities, and cost-effective manner and in at least one official language of the Union and at least in the language of the recipient to whom the decision referred to in Article 17 is addressed;
Amendment 1238 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
(e) the dispute settlement takes place in accordance with clear and fairtransparent rules of procedure.
Amendment 1258 #
Amendment 1281 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices in a timely, diligent and objective manner.;
Amendment 1283 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) it neither expresses nor relays a political or partisan position, nor represents an economic interest, with the exception of consumer protection and defence organisations and environmental organisations.
Amendment 1319 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. Online platforms shall suspend, for a reasonablespecified period of time and after having issued a prior warning, the provision of their services to recipients of the service that frequently provide manifestly illegal content that has been duly declared illegal as defined in Article 2(g). The online platform may request support from the Digital Service Coordinator to establish the frequency for which account suspension is deemed necessary and to set the duration of the suspension.
Amendment 1326 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 20 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Online platforms shall not activate the notice and action mechanism described in Article 14 if the intended recipients are elected officials or candidates for election during electoral campaigns.
Amendment 1327 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. Online platforms shall suspend, for a reasonable period of time and after having issued a prior warning, the processing of notices and complaints submitted through the notice and action mechanisms and internal complaints- handling systems referred to in Articles 14 and 17, respectively, by individuals or entities or by complainants, including trusted flaggers, that frequently submit notices or complaints that are manifestly unfounded. If individuals, entities or complainants, including trusted flaggers, continue to submit notices or complaints which are manifestly unfounded or prove to be unfounded following the imposition of a measure suspending the processing of notices and complaints, online platforms shall suspend the provision of their services to those recipients for a reasonable period of time, after having issued a prior warning.
Amendment 1335 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the absolute numbers of items of manifestly illegal content or manifestly unfounded notices or complaints, submitted in the past year;
Amendment 1341 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The assessment must be carried out by qualified staff provided with dedicated training on the applicable legal framework.
Amendment 1357 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Where an online trading platform has information which might suggest that a criminal offence of the nature of counterfeiting or fraud has taken place, is taking place or is likely to take place, it shall inform the law enforcement and judiciary services of the Member State concerned of its suspicion without delay and shall provide all the relevant information which is available. It shall also be able to expedite internal enquiries and, depending on their outcome, to withdraw the notice(s) in question. It shall transmit the details and the outcome of such an enquiry to the above-mentioned services of the Member State concerned.
Amendment 1359 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where the online platform cannot identify with reasonable certainty the Member State concerned, it shall inform without undue delay the law enforcement authorities of the Member State in which it is established or has its legal representative or inform Europol.
Amendment 1360 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where the online platform cannot identify with reasonable certainty the Member State concerned, it shall inform the law enforcement authorities of the Member State in which it is established or has its legal representative and may alsor inform Europol.
Amendment 1374 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where an online platform allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, it shall ensure that traders can only use its services to promote messages on or to offer products or services to consumers located in the Union if, prior to the use of its services, the online platform has obtained the following information:
Amendment 1384 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the bank account details of the trader, where the trader is a natural person;
Amendment 1394 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) a self-certification by the trader committing to only offerthat products or services thatprovided comply with the applicable rules of Union lawrelevant Union or national law on product safety and product compliance.
Amendment 1401 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. The online platform shall, upon receiving that information, make reasonable efforts to assessassess, with the support of the Digital Service Coordinator if needed, whether the information referred to in points (a), (d) and (e) of paragraph 1 is reliable through the use of any freely accessible official online database or online interface made available by a Member States or the Union or through requests to the trader to provide supporting documents from reliable sourcesand official sources. Online platforms allowing distance contracts with third-country traders shall establish that the third-country trader complies with the relevant Union or national law on product safety and product compliance before giving them access its services offered in the Union and, where appropriate, with the support of the Digital service Coordinator. The Digital Service Coordinator may request support from market surveillance or customs authorities to assess the information provided by the trader.
Amendment 1430 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4
Article 22 – paragraph 4
4. The online platform shall store the information obtained pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 in a secure manner for the duration of their contractual relationship with the trader concerned. They shall subsequently, asking the trader to notify any changes and confirm the information held by the online platform once a year. After the contractual relationship has ended, the online platform shall delete the information.
Amendment 1433 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4
Article 22 – paragraph 4
4. The online platform shall store the information obtained pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 in a secure manner for the duration of their contractual relationship with the trader concerned. They shall subsequently delete the information, where necessary following the expiry of its legal retention period.
Amendment 1469 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the number of suspensions imposed pursuant to Article 20, distinguishing between suspensions enacted for the provision of manifestly illegal content, the submission of manifestly unfounded notices and the submission of manifestly unfounded complaints;
Amendment 1474 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 2
2. Online platforms shall publish, at least once every sixtwelve months, information on the average monthly active recipients of the service in each Member State, calculated as an average over the period of the past sixtwelve months, in accordance with the methodology laid down in the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 25(2).
Amendment 1477 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3
Article 23 – paragraph 3
3. Online platforms shall communicate to the Digital Services Coordinators of establishmentthe Member States, upon itstheir request, the information referred to in paragraph 2, updated to the moment of such request. Thate Digital Services Coordinators may require the online platform to provide additional information as regards the calculation referred to in that paragraph, including explanations and substantiation in respect of the data used. That information shall not include personal data.
Amendment 1491 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the natural or legal person on whose behalf the advertisement is displayed, as well as their nationality;
Amendment 1499 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Special attention shall be given to recipients of the service who are minors. When advertising is addressed to minors, online platforms shall indicate in a clear, easy and unambiguous manner that such advertising targets this group of recipients.
Amendment 1530 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. This Section shall apply to online platforms which provide their services to a number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union equal to or higher than 45 million, calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in the delegated acts referred to in paragraph 3. , and whose annual global turnover is equal to or greater than EUR 100 million.
Amendment 1536 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3
Article 25 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 69, after consulting the Board, to lay down a specific methodology for calculating the number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union, for the purposes of paragraph 1. The methodology shall specify, in particular, how to determine the Union’s population and criteria to determine the average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union, taking into account different accessibility features.
Amendment 1546 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Very large online platforms shall identify, analyse and assess, from the date of application referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 25(4), at least once a year thereafter, any significant systemic risks stemming from the functioning and use made of their services in the Union. This risk assessment shall be specific to their services and shall include the following systemic risks, including where they result from a voluntary action taken by the platform on the basis of its technological, social or economic model:
Amendment 1559 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the dissemination of illegal content through their services;Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 1583 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The Board shall approve the report.
Amendment 1589 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. When conducting risk assessments, very large online platforms shall take into account, in particular, how their content moderation systems, recommender systems and systems for selecting and displaying advertisement influence any of the systemic risks referred to in paragraph 1, including the potentially rapid and wide dissemination of illegal content and of information that is incompatible with their terms and conditions.
Amendment 1592 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. When conducting risk assessments, very large online platforms shall also take into account, in particular, how their content moderation systems, recommender systems and systems for selecting and displaying advertisement influence any of the systemic risks referred to in paragraph 1, including the potentially rapid and wide dissemination of illegal content and of information that is incompatible with their terms and conditions.
Amendment 1603 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Very large online platforms shall, in collaboration with the Commission, put in place reasonable, proportionate and effective mitigation measures, tailored to the specific systemic risks identified pursuant to Article 26. Such measures may include, where applicable:
Amendment 1610 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) adapting content moderation or recommender systems, their decision- making processes, the features or functioning of their services, or their terms and conditions;
Amendment 1611 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) adaptchecking content moderation or recommender systems, their decision- making processes, the features or functioning of their services, or their terms and conditions;
Amendment 1617 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 1620 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 1633 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Board, in cooperation with the Commission, shall publish comprehensive reports, once a year, which shall include the following:
Amendment 1662 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) any commitments undertaken pursuant to the codes of conduct referred to in Articles 35 and 36 and the crisis protocolsfor online advertising referred to in Article 376.
Amendment 1668 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) have proven expertise in the area of risk management, technical competence and capabilities certified by qualified and accredited certification body;
Amendment 1670 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) have proven objectivity and professional ethics, based in particular on adherence to codes of practice or appropriate standards.
Amendment 1723 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 30 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the identity and nationality of the natural or legal person on whose behalf the advertisement is displayed;
Amendment 1751 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. Very large online platforms shall provide the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, the Digital Services Coordinator of destination or the Commission, upon their reasoned request and within a reasonable period, specified in the request, access to data that are necessary to monitor and assess compliance with this Regulation. That Digital Services Coordinator and the Commission shall only use that data for those purposes.
Amendment 1756 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 2
2. Upon a reasoned request from the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, the Digital Services Coordinator of destination or the Commission, very large online platforms shall, within a reasonable period, as specified in the request, provide access to data to vetted researchers who meet the requirements in paragraphs 4 of this Article, for the sole purpose of conducting research that contributes to the identification and understanding of systemic risks as set out in Article 26(1).
Amendment 1766 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 4
Article 31 – paragraph 4
4. In order to be vetted by the Digital Services Coordinators, researchers shall be affiliated with European academic institutions, be independent from commercial interests, have proven records of expertise in the fields related to the risks investigated or related research methodologies, and shall commit and be in a capacity to preserve the specific data security and confidentiality requirements corresponding to each request.
Amendment 1772 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 5
Article 31 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall, after consulting the Board, adopt delegated acts laying down the technical conditions under which very large online platforms are to share data pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 and the purposes for which the data may be used. Those delegated acts shall lay down the specific conditions under which such sharing of data with vetted researchers can take place in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, taking into account the rights and interests of the very large online platforms and the recipients of the service concerned, including the protection of confidential information, in particular trade secrets, and maintaining the security of their service.
Amendment 1776 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
Article 31 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Within 15 days following receipt of a request as referred to in paragraph 1 and 2, a very large online platform may request the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, the Digital Services Coordinator of destination or the Commission, as applicable, to amend the request, where it considers that it is unable to give access to the data requested because one of following two reasons:
Amendment 1782 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 6 – point b
Article 31 – paragraph 6 – point b
(b) giving access to the data will lead to significant vulnerabilities for the security of its service or the protection of recipients’ confidential information, in particularcluding trade secrets.
Amendment 1785 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
The Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, the Digital Services Coordinator of destination or the Commission shall decide upon the request for amendment within 15 days and communicate to the very large online platform its decision and, where relevant, the amended request and the new time period to comply with the request.
Amendment 1792 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 32 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) cooperating with the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, the Digital Services Coordinator of destination and the Commission for the purpose of this Regulation;
Amendment 1794 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 5
Article 32 – paragraph 5
5. Very large online platforms shall communicate the name and contact details of the compliance officer to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishments and the Commission.
Amendment 1814 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Board, in cooperation with the Commission, shall support and promote the development and implementation of voluntary industry standards set by relevant European and international standardisation bodies at least for the following:
Amendment 1818 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 1836 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 1837 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2
Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. The Board, in cooperation with the Commission, shall support the update of the standards in the light of technological developments and the behaviour of the recipients of the services in question.
Amendment 1843 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35
Article 35
Amendment 1852 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. Where significant systemic risk within the meaning of Article 26(1) emerge and concern several very large online platforms, the Commission may inv, in agreement witeh the very largBoard, may invite online platforms concerned, other very large online platforms, other online platforms and other providers of intermediary services, as appropriate, as well as civil society organisations and other interested parties, to participate in the drawing up of codes of conduct, including by setting out commitments to take specific risk mitigation measures, as well as a regular reporting framework on any measures taken and their outcomes.
Amendment 1895 #
Amendment 1916 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 38 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall ensure that their Digital Services Coordinators are informed by the relevant national, local and regional authorities on the diversity of platform sectors and issues covered by this Regulation;
Amendment 1922 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 2
Article 39 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1923 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 3
Article 39 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1925 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 3
Article 39 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 2 is without prejudice to the tasks of Digital Services Coordinators within the system of supervision and enforcement provided for in this Regulation and the cooperation with other competent authorities in accordance with Article 38(2). Paragraph 2 shall not prevent supervision of the authorities concerned in accordance with national constitutional law.
Amendment 1929 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The Member State in which an event which calls into question the service provider takes place or in which the natural or legal person who is the recipient of the service resides, shall also have jurisdiction for the purposes of Chapters III and IV of this Regulation.
Amendment 1932 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3
Article 40 – paragraph 3
3. Where a provider of intermediary services fails to appoint a legal representative in accordance with Article 11, all Member States shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of Chapters III and IV. Where a Member State decides to exercise jurisdiction under this paragraph, it shall inform all other Member States and ensure. Where a number of Member States decide to exercise jurisdiction with regard to the same service provider, they shall coordinate their actions, where necessary via the Board, ensuring that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected.
Amendment 1934 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3
Article 40 – paragraph 3
3. Where a provider of intermediary services fails to appoint a legal representative in accordance with Article 11, all Member States shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of Chapters III and IV. Where a Member State decides to exercise jurisdiction under this paragraph, it shall inform all other Member States andto ensure that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected.
Amendment 1937 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 4
Article 40 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1950 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 41 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) require the management body of the providers, within a reasonable time period, to examine the situation, adopt and submit an action plan setting out the necessary measures to terminate the infringement, ensure that the provider takes those measures, and report on the measures taken within a specific period;
Amendment 1952 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) where the Digital Services Coordinator considers that the provider has not sufficiently complied with the requirements of the first indent, that the infringement persists and causes serious harm, and that the infringement entails a serious criminal offence involving a threat to the life or safety of persons, request the competent judicial authority of that Member State to order the temporary restriction of access of recipients of the service concerned by the infringement or, only where that is not technically feasible, to the online interface of the provider of intermediary services on which the infringement takes place.
Amendment 1956 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 2
Article 42 – paragraph 2
2. Penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify the Commission and the Board of those rules and of those measures and shall notify ithem, without delay, of any subsequent amendments affecting them.
Amendment 1958 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3
Article 42 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that the maximum amount of penalties imposed for a failure to comply with the obligations laid down in this Regulation shall not exceed 6 % of the annual income or the global annual turnover of the provider of intermediary services concerned. Penalties for the supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, failure to reply or rectify incorrect, incomplete or misleading information and to submit to an on-site inspection shall not exceed 1 % of the annual income or the global annual turnover of the provider concerned.
Amendment 1961 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 4
Article 42 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that the maximum amount of a periodic penalty payment shall not exceed 5 % of the average daily global turnover of the provider of intermediary services concerned in the preceding financial year per day, calculated from the date specified in the decision concerned.
Amendment 1966 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1
Article 43 – paragraph 1
Recipients of the service shall have the right to lodge a complaint against providers of intermediary services alleging an infringement of this Regulation with the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient resides or is established. The Digital Services Coordinator shall assess the complaint and, where appropriate, transmit it to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment. Where the complaint falls under the responsibility of another competent authority in its Member State, the Digital Service Coordinator receiving the complaint shall transmit it to that authority, pursuant to Article 40(2).
Amendment 1977 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the number and subject matter of orders to act against illegal content and orders to provide information issued in accordance with Articles 8 and 9 by any national judicial or administrative authority of the Member State of the Digital Services Coordinator concerned;Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 2001 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 5
Article 45 – paragraph 5
5. Where the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or, where appropriate, the Board, did not receive a reply within the time period laid down in paragraph 4 or where it does not agree with the assessment of the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, it may refer the matter to the CommissionBoard, providing all relevant information. That information shall include at least the request or recommendation sent to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, any additional information provided pursuant to paragraph 3 and the communication referred to in paragraph 4. The Board shall resend the request set out in paragraph 1 to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment. The Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall assess the request and transmit its reply in accordance with the conditions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4. If the Board, having drawn up a request involving at least three Member States or a request pursuant to the first subparagraph, has not received a reply by the deadline set out in paragraph 4, or if it does not agree with the assessment of the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, it shall adopt a decision and shall transmit instructions to the Commission concerning the measures to be taken on the basis of that decision.
Amendment 2005 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 6
Article 45 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission shall assess the matter within three months following the referral of the matter pursuant to paragraph 5, after having consulted the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment and, unless it referred the matter itself, the Boardcarry out the instructions received pursuant to paragraph 5 without delay.
Amendment 2009 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 7
Article 45 – paragraph 7
Amendment 2024 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2
Article 46 – paragraph 2
2. Where a Digital Services Coordinator of establishment has reasons to suspect that a very large online platform infringed this Regulation, it may request the CommissionBoard to take the necessary investigatory and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation in accordance with Section 3. Such a request shall contain all information listed in Article 45(2) and set out the reasons for requesting the Commisan intervention, on which the Board shall act by vote, transmitting the conclusions to intervenethe Commission.
Amendment 2029 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1
Article 47 – paragraph 1
1. An independent advisory group of Digital Services Coordinators on the supervision of providers of intermediary service body comprising the Digital Services Coordinators named ‘European Board for Digital Services’ (the ‘Board’) is established.
Amendment 2033 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Board shall advise the Digital Services Coordinators and the Commission in accordance with this Regulation to achieve the following objectives:work together with the Commission to ensure the monitoring of providers of intermediary services and the application of this Regulation.
Amendment 2036 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 2040 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 2043 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 2046 #
Amendment 2051 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 1
Article 48 – paragraph 1
1. The Board shall be composed of the Digital Services Coordinators, who shall be represented by high-level officials. Where provided for by national law, other competent authorities entrusted with specific operational responsibilities for the application and enforcement of this Regulation alongside the Digital Services Coordinator shall participate in the Board. Other national authorities may be invited to the meetings, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. The meeting is deemed valid when at least two third of the eligible members are present.
Amendment 2052 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 1
Article 48 – paragraph 1
1. The Board shall be composed of the Digital Services Coordinators, who shall be represented by high-level officials. Where provided for by national law, other competent authorities entrusted with specific operational responsibilities for the application and enforcement of this Regulation alongside the Digital Services Coordinator shall participate in the Board. Other national authorities may be invited to the meetings, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them.
Amendment 2057 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 48 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The Board shall adopt all its acts by simplequalified majority.
Amendment 2060 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 3
Article 48 – paragraph 3
3. The Board shall be chaired by the Commission. The Commission shall convene the meetings and prepare the agenda in accordance the tasks of the Board pursuant to this Regulation and with its rules of procedure, which shall provide the secretariat and administrative and analytical support for the Board’s activities under this Regulation. The Board member representing the Member State which holds the Council Presidency shall convene the meetings and prepare the agenda in coordination with the Commission.
Amendment 2061 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 48 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure.
Amendment 2063 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 4
Article 48 – paragraph 4
Amendment 2068 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 6
Article 48 – paragraph 6
Amendment 2085 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) advise the Commission to take the measures referred to indecide on the measures to be taken under Articles 51 and, where requested by the Commission, adopt opinions on draft Commission measures concerning very large online platforms in accordance with, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 of this Regulation;.
Amendment 2091 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 2
Article 49 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2097 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State concerned acting on its own initiative, the Commission acting on its own initiative, or the Board acting on its own initiative or upon request of at least three Digital Services Coordinators of destination, may, where it has reasons to suspect that a very large online platform infringed any of those provisions, recommend the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment to investigate the suspected infringement with a view to that Digital Services Coordinator adopting such a decision within a reasonable time period.
Amendment 2101 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 2
Article 50 – paragraph 2
2. When communicating the decision referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 to the very large online platform concerned, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall request it to draw up and communicate to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State concerned, the Commission and the Board, within one month from that decision, an action plan, specifying how that platform intends to terminate or remedy the infringement. The measures set out in the action plan may include, where appropriate, participation in a code of conduct as provided for in Article 35.
Amendment 2103 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 2
Article 50 – paragraph 2
2. When communicating the decision referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 to the very large online platform concerned, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall request it to draw up and communicate to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, the Commission and the Board, within one month from that decision, an action plan, specifying how that platform intends to terminate or remedy the infringement. The measures set out in the action plan may includerecommend, where appropriate, participation in a code of conduct as provided for in Article 35.
Amendment 2106 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Where the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment has concerns on the ability of the measures to terminate or remedy the infringement, it may request the very large online platform concerned to subject itself to an additional, independent audit to assess the effectiveness ofat the Board reconsider those measures in terminating or remedying the infringement. In that case, that platform shall send the audit report to that Digital Services Coordinator, the Commission and the Board within four months from the decision referred to in the first subparagraph. When requesting such an additional audit, the Digital Services Coordinator may specify a particular audit organisation that is to carry out the audit, at the expense of the platform concerned, selected on the basis of criteria set out in Article 28(2)atter. The Board shall adopt a decision, in the light of which it may or may not exercise the powers set out in Articles 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60.
Amendment 2108 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 4
Article 50 – paragraph 4
Amendment 2116 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission, acting either upon the Board’s recommendainstructions or on its own initiative after consulting the Board, may initiate proceedings in view of the possible adoption of decisions pursuant to Articles 58 and 59 in respect of the relevant conduct by the very large online platform that: is suspected of infringing one of the provisions of this Regulation.
Amendment 2121 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 2122 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 2125 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 2127 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 51 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where the Commission decides to initiate proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1, it shall notify all Digital Services Coordinators, the Board and the very large online platform concerned. If the Commission decides not to initiate proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1, it shall inform the Board in writing of its reasons.
Amendment 2129 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 51 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where the Commission initiates or decides to initiate proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1, it shall notify all Digital Services Coordinators, the Board and the very large online platform concerned.
Amendment 2133 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 51 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 2136 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The Digital Services Coordinator referred to in Articles 45(7), 46(2) and 50(1), as applicable, shall, without undue delay upon being informed, transmit to the Commission:
Amendment 2143 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. In order to carry out the tasks assigned to it under this Section, the Commission may by simple request or by decision require the very large online platforms concerned, as well as any other persons acting for purposes related to their trade, business, craft or profession that may be reasonably be aware of information relating to the suspected infringement or the infringement, as applicable, including organisations performing the audits referred to in Articles 28 and 50(3), to provide such information within a reasonable time period.
Amendment 2147 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3
Article 52 – paragraph 3
3. Where the Commission requires the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1) to supply information by decision, it shall state the legal basis and the purpose of the request, specify what information is required and set the time period within which it is to be provided. It shall also indicate the penalties provided for in Article 59 and indicate or impose the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 60. It shall further indicate the right to have the decision adversely affecting it which was taken under this Article reviewed by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Amendment 2165 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1
Article 55 – paragraph 1
1. In the context of proceedings which may lead to the adoption of a decision of non-compliance pursuant to Article 58(1), where there is an urgency due to the risk of serious damage for the recipients of the service, the Commission may, by decision, and after consulting the Board, order interim measures against the very large online platform concerned on the basis of a prima facie finding of an infringement.
Amendment 2166 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1
Article 55 – paragraph 1
1. In the context of proceedings which may lead to the adoption of a decision of non-compliance pursuant to Article 58(1), where there is an urgency due to the risk of serious damage for the recipients of the service, the Commission and the Board may, by decision, order interim measures against the very large online platform concerned on the basis of a prima facie finding of an infringement.
Amendment 2171 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1
Article 56 – paragraph 1
1. If, during proceedings under this Section, the very large online platform concerned offers commitments to ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of this Regulation, the Commission may, by decision and after consulting the Board, make those commitments binding on the very large online platform concerned and declare that there are no further grounds for action.
Amendment 2172 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1
Article 56 – paragraph 1
1. If, during proceedings under this Section, the very large online platform concerned offers commitments to ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of this Regulation, the Commission may bysubmit to the Board a decision makeing those commitments binding on the very large online platform concerned and declareing that there are no further grounds for action.
Amendment 2174 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 56 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Commission may, upon requestinstruction by the Board or on its own initiative, reopen the proceedings:
Amendment 2176 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 3
Article 56 – paragraph 3
3. Where the Commission considers that the commitments offered by the very large online platform concerned are unable to ensure effective compliance with the relevant provisions of this Regulation, it shall reject those commitments in a reasoned decision, in agreement with the Board, when concluding the proceedings.
Amendment 2177 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 3
Article 56 – paragraph 3
3. Where the Commission considers that the commitments offered by the very large online platform concerned are unable to ensure effective compliance with the relevant provisions of this Regulation, it shall submit to the Board a decision to reject those commitments in a reasoned decision when concluding the proceedings.
Amendment 2181 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1
Article 57 – paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of carrying out the tasks assigned to it under this Section, the Commission may take the necessary actions to monitor the effective implementation and compliance with this Regulation by the very large online platform concerned. The Commission and the Board may also order that platform to provide access to, and explanations relating to, its databases and algorithms.
Amendment 2187 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission shall adopt a non- compliance decision, after consulting the Board, where it finds that the very large online platform concerned does not comply with one or more of the following:
Amendment 2190 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The CommissionBoard shall adopt a non- compliance decision where it finds that the very large online platform concerned does not comply with one or more of the following:
Amendment 2194 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 2
Article 58 – paragraph 2
2. Before adopting the decision pursuant to paragraph 1, the CommissionBoard shall communicate its preliminary findings to the very large online platform concerned. In the preliminary findings, the CommissionBoard shall explain the measures that it considers taking, or that it considers that the very large online platform concerned should take, in order to effectively address the preliminary findings.
Amendment 2197 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 3
Article 58 – paragraph 3
3. In the decision adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 the CommissionBoard shall order the very large online platform concerned to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the decision pursuant to paragraph 1 within a reasonable time period and to provide information on the measures that that platform intends to take to comply with the decision.
Amendment 2199 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 4
Article 58 – paragraph 4
4. The very large online platform concerned shall provide the Board and the Commission with a description of the measures it has taken to ensure compliance with the decision pursuant to paragraph 1 upon their implementation.
Amendment 2202 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 5
Article 58 – paragraph 5
5. Where the Board, on its own initiative or on a proposal by the Commission find, deems that the conditions of paragraph 1 are not met, it shall close the investigation by a decision.
Amendment 2203 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 5
Article 58 – paragraph 5
5. Where the Commission finds that the conditions of paragraph 1 are not met, it shall close the investigation by a decision approved by the Board.
Amendment 2210 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 59 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In the decision pursuant to Article 58, the CommissionBoard may impose on the very large online platform concerned fines not exceeding 6 % of its totglobal turnover in the preceding financial year where it finds that that platform, intentionally or negligently:
Amendment 2215 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 59 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The CommissionBoard may by decision impose on the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1) fines not exceeding 1 % of the totglobal turnover in the preceding financial year, where they intentionally or negligently:
Amendment 2219 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 3
Article 59 – paragraph 3
3. Before adopting the decision pursuant to paragraph 2, the Commission shall communicate its preliminary findings to the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1) and to the Board.
Amendment 2222 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 3
Article 59 – paragraph 3
3. Before adopting the decision pursuant to paragraph 2, the CommissionBoard shall communicate its preliminary findings to the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1).
Amendment 2224 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 4
Article 59 – paragraph 4
4. In fixing the amount of the fine, the CommissionBoard shall have regard to the nature, gravity, duration and recurrence of the infringement and, for fines imposed pursuant to paragraph 2, the delay caused to the proceedings.
Amendment 2227 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The CommissionBoard may, by decision, impose on the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1), as applicable, periodic penalty payments not exceeding 5 % of the average daily global turnover in the preceding financial year per day, calculated from the date appointed by the decision, in order to compel them to:
Amendment 2229 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 2
Article 60 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2233 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 61 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) requests for information by the Commission, the Board or by a Digital Services Coordinator;
Amendment 2237 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 4
Article 61 – paragraph 4
4. Each interruption shall start time running afresh. However, the limitation period for the imposition of fines or periodic penalty payments shall expire at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period has elapsed without the Commission having imposed a fine or a periodic penalty payment. That period shall be extended by the time during which the limitation period is suspended pursuant to paragraph 5.
Amendment 2240 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 5
Article 61 – paragraph 5
5. The limitation period for the imposition of fines or periodic penalty payments shall be suspended for as long as the decision of the CommissionBoard is the subject of proceedings pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Amendment 2241 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62
Article 62
Amendment 2242 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – title
Article 62 – title
Amendment 2243 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 1
Article 62 – paragraph 1
1. The power of the Commission to enforce decisions taken pursuant to Articles 59enalties decided upon shall be enforceable immediately and 60 shall be subject to a limitation period of five yearsenforced without delay by the Commission.
Amendment 2246 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Before adopting a decision pursuant to Articles 58(1), 59 or 60, the CommissionBoard shall give the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1) the opportunity of being heard on:
Amendment 2249 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) preliminary findings of the CommissionBoard, including any matter to which the CommissionBoard has taken objections; and
Amendment 2251 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) measures that the CommissionBoard may intend to take in view of the preliminary findings referred to point (a).
Amendment 2253 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 2
Article 63 – paragraph 2
2. The very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1) may submit their observations on the CommissionBoard’s preliminary findings within a reasonable time period set by the CommissionBoard in its preliminary findings, which may not be less than 14 days.
Amendment 2255 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 3
Article 63 – paragraph 3
3. The CommissionBoard shall base its decisions only on objections on which the parties concerned have been able to comment.
Amendment 2256 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 4
Article 63 – paragraph 4
4. The rights of defence of the parties concerned shall be fully respected in the proceedings. They shall be entitled to have access to the Board’s and the Commission's file under the terms of a negotiated disclosure, subject to the legitimate interest of the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1) in the protection of their business secrets. The right of access to the file shall not extend to confidential information and internal documents of the Commission, the Board or Member States’ authorities. In particular, the right of access shall not extend to correspondence between the Commission, the Board and those authorities. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the Commission or the Board from disclosing and using information necessary to prove an infringement.
Amendment 2260 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 1
Article 64 – paragraph 1
1. The CommissionBoard shall publish the decisions it adopts pursuant to Articles 55(1), 56(1), 58, 59 and 60. Such publication shall state the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed.
Amendment 2262 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 65 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where all powers pursuant to this Article to bring about the cessation of an infringement of this Regulation have been exhausted, the infringement persists and causes serious harm which cannot be avoided through the exercise of other powers available under Union or national law, the Commission or the Board may request the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment of the very large online platform concerned to act pursuant to Article 41(3).
Amendment 2263 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 65 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Prior to making such request to the Digital Services Coordinator, the Commission or the Board shall invite interested parties to submit written observations within a time period that shall not be less than two weeks, describing the measures ithey intends to request and identifying the intended addressee or addressees thereof.
Amendment 2265 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 65 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Prior to making such request to the Digital Services Coordinator, the Commission shall invite interested parties to submit written observations within a time period that shall not be less than two weeks, describing14 days, the measures it intends to request and identifying the intended addressee or addressees thereof.
Amendment 2266 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where the coherent application of this Regulation so requires, the Commission or the Board, acting on its own initiative, may submit written observations to the competent judicial authority referred to Article 41(3). With the permission of the judicial authority in question, ithey may also make oral observations.
Amendment 2268 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
For the purpose of the preparation of itstheir observations only, the Commission or the Board may request that judicial authority to transmit or ensure the transmission to ithem of any documents necessary for the assessment of the case.
Amendment 2280 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Without prejudice to Directive 2020/XX/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, recipients of intermediary services shall have the right to mandate a body, organisation or association to exercise the rights referred to in Articles 17, 18 and 19 on their behalf, provided the body, organisation or association meets all of the following conditions: __________________ 52 [Reference] 52
Amendment 2285 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 4
Article 69 – paragraph 4
4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council, the Council, the Board and the Digital Services Coordinators.
Amendment 2287 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 1
Article 70 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Digital Services Committee. That Committee shall be a Committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011Digital Services Committee shall be assisted by the Commission in all its work and prerogatives.
Amendment 2288 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 2
Article 70 – paragraph 2
Amendment 109 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The European Green Deal24 is Europe’s growth strategy that aims to transform the Union into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use. A shift from the use of fossil fuels in vehicles to electromobility is one of the prerequisites for reaching the climate neutrality goal in 2050. In order for the Union’'s product policies to contribute to lowering carbon emissions on a global level, it needs to be ensured that products marketed and sold in the Union are sourced and manufactured in a sustainable manner and if possible in the Union. _________________ 24Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, The European Green Deal (COM (2019) 640 final).
Amendment 119 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) Substituting scarce raw materials with cheaper and more widely available materials is crucial to reducing the Union’s dependence on third countries in the long term, to decreasing the impact of battery production on the environment, to creating more jobs in the Union and to reducing costs. It is therefore vital that the Union and the Member States step up support for European companies' research and development initiatives concerning the substitution of such materials.
Amendment 120 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Batteries placed on the Union market should be durable and highly performant. It is therefore necessary to set out performance and durability parameters for portable batteries of general use as well as for rechargeable industrial batteries and electric vehicle batteries. For electric vehicle batteries, the informal UNECE Working Group on Electric Vehicles and the Environment is developing in-vehicle durability requirements, so this Regulation is refraining from setting additional durability requirements. On the other hand, in the area of batteries for energy storage, existing measurement methods to test battery performance and durability are not considered sufficiently precise and representative to enable introducing minimum requirements. The introduction of minimum requirements related to performance and durability of these batteries should be accompanied by available adequate harmonised standards or common specifications.
Amendment 126 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Some non-rechargeable batteries of general use may imply an inefficient use of resources and energy. Other non- rechargeable batteries are the most practical option for certain devices (such as smoke detectors). Whether rechargeable or not, batteries of general use should meet the minimum performance standards. Objective requirements regarding the performance and durability of such batteries of general use should be established in order to ensure that fewer low performing non- rechargeable portable batteries of general use are placed or kept on the market, in particular, where, based on a life cycle assessment, the alternative use of rechargeable batteries would result in overall environmental benefits.
Amendment 130 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26 a (new)
Recital 26 a (new)
(26a) Interoperability of chargers within specific categories of products could reduce unnecessary waste and costs for the benefit of consumers and other end- users. It should therefore be possible to recharge batteries for products such as electric vehicles and light means of transport, as well as batteries for IT and telecommunications equipment, such as mobile phones, and electric or electronic tools, such as gardening tools, by making use of common chargers that allow interoperability within each category of products. This Regulation should therefore include provisions concerning that area.
Amendment 135 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) In order to provide end users with transparent, reliable and clear information about batteries and their main characteristics, and waste batteries, to enable the end users to make informed decisions when buying and discarding batteries and to enable waste operators to appropriately treat waste batteries, batteries should be labelled. Batteries should be labelled with all the necessary information concerning their main characteristics, including their capacity and content of certain hazardous substances and the main recyclable substances. To ensure the availability of information over time, that information should also be made available by means of QR codes.
Amendment 138 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Information about the performance of batteries is essential to ensure that end- users as consumers are well and timely informed and in particular that they have a common basis to compare different batteries before making their purchase. Therefore, portable batteries of general use and automotive batteries should be marked with a label containing the information on their minimum average durguaranteed minimum performance, guaranteed minimum duration, average lifespan and the standard deviation when used in specific applications. Additionally, it is important to guide the end-user to discard waste batteries in an appropriate way.
Amendment 141 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 a (new)
Recital 29 a (new)
(29a) The sell-by date, after which batteries of general use should no longer be sold, shall be clearly indicated.
Amendment 156 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) Since the services offered by notified bodies in a Member State might relate to batteries made available on the market throughout the Union, it is appropriate to give the other Member States and the Commission the opportunity to audit and raise objections concerning a notified body. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in order to request the notifying authority to take corrective action in case a notified body does not meet or no longer meets the requirements of this Regulation.
Amendment 159 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) Prior to taking a final decision on whether the battery can be granted a conformity certificate, the economic operator that wishes to place a battery on the market should be allowed to complement once the documentation on the battery.Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 174 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61 a (new)
Recital 61 a (new)
(61a) Fair competition must be established and only those who comply with EU rules shall have access to the market. The Commission shall limit access to the European market for companies known to have undignified working conditions, use child labour or release large quantities of waste in deep water.
Amendment 194 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 99
Recital 99
(99) Public procurement constitutes an important sector with regard to reducing the impacts on the environment of human activities and to stimulate market transformation towards more sustainable products. Contracting authorities, as defined in Directive 2014/24/EU63 of the European Parliament and of the Council63 and Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council64, and contracting entities as defined in Directive 2014/25/EU should take account of the environmental impacts when procuring batteries or products containing batteries, in order to promote and stimulateencourage more local and European stakeholders to join the market for clean and energy-efficient mobility and energy-storage and thus contribute to the environment, climate and energy policy objectives of the Union. _________________ 63Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65). 64 Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Amendment 196 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 105
Recital 105
Amendment 198 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 105 a (new)
Recital 105 a (new)
(105a) If a Member State identifies a compliant battery that poses a serious and urgent risk to human health, the safety of goods or the environment, the Commission should inform the other Member States and adopt immediately applicable implementing acts.
Amendment 202 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 2
Article premier – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation shall apply to all batteries, namely portable batteries, in particular batteries for light means of transport, automotive batteries, electric vehicle batteries and industrial batteries, regardless of their shape, volume, weight, design, material composition, use or purpose. It shall also apply to batteries incorporated in or added to other products.
Amendment 215 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 36
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 36
(36) ‘supply chain due diligence’ means the obligations, with regard to social and environmental risks, of the economic operator which places a rechargeable industrial battery or an electric-vehicle battery on the market, in relation to its management system, risk management, third party verifications by notified bodies and disclosure of information with a view to identifying and addressing actual and potential risks linked to the sourcing, processing and trading of the raw materials required for battery manufacturing;
Amendment 225 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall not, for reasons relating to sustainability, safety, labelling and information requirements of batteries or management of waste batteries covered by this Regulation, prohibit, restrict or impede the making available on the market or the putting into service of batteries that comply with this Regulation if they pose no risk.
Amendment 226 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. If an authority of a Member State identifies a battery that is labelled 'compliant' but actually poses a serious and urgent risk to human health, the safety of goods or the environment, it shall take the requisite measures to eliminate the risk and shall immediately inform the Commission. The Commission shall inform the other Member States and adopt immediately applicable implementing acts.
Amendment 245 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. From [12 months after entry into force of the Regulation], rechargeable industrial batteries and, electric vehicle batteries with internal storage and a capacity above 2 kWh and batteries for light means of transport shall be accompanied by a technical documentation containing values for the electrochemical performance and durability parameters laid down in Part A of Annex IV.
Amendment 278 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(b a) Batteries made for mass consumption must be easily replaceable. The exemption laid down in 2(b) shall only be applicable as of 1 January 2026.
Amendment 303 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Portable batteries of general use (for bicycles, for example) and automotive batteries shall be marked with a label containing the information on their guaranteed minimum performance, guaranteed minimum durability, average lifespan and the standard deviation when used in specific applications. The label must indicate if the battery is produced or recycled in the Union. It must also instruct end-users on how to dispose of batteries.
Amendment 347 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Article 20 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall build upon existing mechanisms to ensure correct application of the regime governing the CE marking and shall take appropriate action, carrying out audits and imposing sanctions, in the event of improper use of that marking.
Amendment 485 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 3
Article 65 – paragraph 3
3. The battery passport shall be linked to the information about the basic characteristics of each battery type and model stored in the data sources of the System established pursuant to Article 64. The economic operator that places an industrial battery or an electric vehicle battery on the market shall ensure that the data included in the battery passport is accurate, complete and up-to-date. It shall specify whether the battery is recycled in the EU.
Amendment 598 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X – point 2 – point d
Annex X – point 2 – point d
(d) biodiversity; including waste released in deep water;
Amendment 600 #
2020/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X – point 2 – point g
Annex X – point 2 – point g
(g) labour rights, including child labour and labour in undignified conditions;
Amendment 162 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) It is necessary to improve the conditions for data sharing in the internal market, by creating a harmonised framework for data exchanges. Sector- specific legislation can develop, adapt and propose new and complementary elements, depending on the specificities of the sector, such as the envisaged legislation on the European health data space25 and on access to vehicle data. Moreover, certain sectors of the economy are already regulated by sector-specific Union law that include rules relating to cross-border or Union wide sharing or access to data26 . This Regulation is therefore without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council27, and in particular the implementation of this Regulation shall not prevent cross border transfers of data in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 from taking place, Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council28, Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council29, Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 of the European Parliament and of the Council30, Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council31, Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council32, Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council33, Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council34, Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council35, Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council36, as well as Regulation 2018/858/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council37, Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council38 and Delegated Regulations adopted on its basis, and any other sector-specific Union legislation that organises the access to and re-use of data. This Regulation should be without prejudice to the access and use of data for the purpose of international cooperation in the context of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties. A horizontal regime for the re-use of certain categories of protected data held by public sector bodies, the provision of data sharing services and of services based on data altruism in the Union should be established. Specific characteristics of different sectors may require the design of sectoral data-based systems, while building on the requirements of this Regulation. Where a sector-specific Union legal act requires public sector bodies, providers of data sharing services or registered entities providing data altruism services to comply with specific additional technical, administrative or organisational requirements, including through an authorisation or certification regime, those provisions of that sector-specific Union legal act should also apply. __________________ 25 See: Annexes to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Commission Work Programme 2021 (COM(2020) 690 final). 26For example, Directive 2011/24/EU in the context of the European Health Data Space, and relevant transport legislation such as Directive 2010/40/EU, Regulation 2019/1239 and Regulation (EU) 2020/1056, in the context of the European Mobility Data Space. 27Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p.1) 28 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p.89) 29Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. (OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p.1) 30 Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the European Union. (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 59) 31Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics and repealing Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1101/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transmission of data subject to statistical confidentiality to the Statistical Office of the European Communities, Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 on Community Statistics, and Council Decision 89/382/EEC, Euratom establishing a Committee on the Statistical Programmes of the European Communities. (OJ L 87, 31.03.2009, p. 164) 32Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000, on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce). (OJ L 178, 17.07.2000, p. 1) 33Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. (OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10) 34 Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC. (OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 92) 35Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. (OJ L 157, 30.4.2004). 36Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information. (OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 56). 37 Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46/EC (OJ L 151, 14.6.2018). 38 Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport. (OJ L 207, 6.8.2010, p. 1)
Amendment 170 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) It highlights the importance of processing the personal data of EU citizens in the European Union if at all possible.
Amendment 171 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 b (new)
Recital 7 b (new)
(7b) The development of a European industrial and technological base calls for the introduction of a European preference for local or European production in public procurement of digital data in the European Union.
Amendment 172 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) Some personal data, such as health or children’s data, are by their very nature unique. The anonymisation of such data should be guaranteed and storage or analysis thereof outside the European Union should not be authorised.
Amendment 184 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) Protected data of EU citizens or companies held by a public-sector body of a Member State may not be shared for transmission to third countries or processed outside the European Union by another Member State.
Amendment 185 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 b (new)
Recital 14 b (new)
(14b) A public-sector body in a Member State may not be required to share protected data of EU citizens or companies that it holds.
Amendment 188 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15 a (new)
Recital 15 a (new)
(15a) Companies which are located in third countries and which have experienced significant security breaches involving protected or personal data of European origin for which they were responsible in the 10 years prior to their request will be deemed not to offer appropriate safeguards to obtain data of European origin.
Amendment 189 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15 b (new)
Recital 15 b (new)
(15b) A third country which has not penalised a significant security lapse on the part of a firm processing personal or protected data of European origin will be deemed not to offer appropriate safeguards.
Amendment 190 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15 c (new)
Recital 15 c (new)
(15c) Third countries engaging in economic espionage against EU companies cannot be deemed to offer appropriate safeguards regarding the processing by their companies of protected data of European origin.
Amendment 191 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) To ensure the proper enforcement of such obligations, the re-user located in a third country or another Member State should also authorise any inspection deemed necessary by the public-sector body which authorised re-use.
Amendment 192 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 b (new)
Recital 16 b (new)
(16b) A Member State should be able to require cloud providers and digital undertakings operating in the European Union, whether located in the European Union or in a third country, to grant access to any relevant personal data linked to terrorism, even if they are stored in a third country.
Amendment 193 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 234 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
(3) Such exclusive right shall be granted in the context of a relevant service or concession contract in compliance with applicable Union and national public procurement and concession award rules, or, in the case of a contract of a value for which neither Union nor national public procurement and concession award rules are applicable, in compliance with the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. vis-à-vis any European Union company. A company which does not process public data in the European Union and takes advantage of tax havens may not request access to the public data of a Member State.
Amendment 235 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
(4) In all cases not covered by paragraph 3 and where the general interest purpose cannot be fulfilled without granting an exclusive right, the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non- discrimination on grounds of nationality shall apply vis-à-vis any European Union company. A company which does not process public data in the European Union and takes advantage of tax havens may not request access to the public data of a Member State.
Amendment 236 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(4a) A company which does not process public data in the European Union and takes advantage of tax havens may not require a Member State or a European Union body to grant it access to public data.
Amendment 237 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 b (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 4 b (new)
(4b) The contracting authority may, in particular, invite the domestic operators who submit the highest bids to fall into line with the price offered by the foreign tenderer (and, if the first domestic operator refuses, it may turn to the second and then the third domestic operator in the ranking of tenderers), thereby creating an incentive for the operator wishing to win the contract to adjust its price.
Amendment 270 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(4a) Public-sector bodies may set thresholds in the calculation in order to foster re-use of data and innovation while securing a greater contribution from global digital actors.
Amendment 271 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
(5) Fees shall be derived from the costs related to the production of the data, to the processing of requests for re- use of the categories of data referred to in Article 3 (1) and a percentage of the profits generated through the commercial re-use of the data. The methodology for calculating fees shall be published in advance.
Amendment 272 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 5 a (new)
(5a) The Member State may use the cost of producing the data to establish a fair fee to offset the initial or recurrent public investment. The European Union shall use the fees to cover the sums it has invested to produce these data.
Amendment 273 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5 b (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 5 b (new)
(5b) In making the calculation, the Member State may take account of the way the data are used and the company’s tax contribution in order to reduce the fee.
Amendment 296 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – point h a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – point h a (new)
(ha) the place of data processing and the number of jobs to be created in the European Union;
Amendment 297 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – point h b (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – point h b (new)
(hb) the turnover and taxes paid in the Member State in the previous year, except in the case of an SME.
Amendment 318 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point a a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point a a (new)
(aa) impose a state compensation obligation on the entity re-using the data in the event of a breach of data anonymity.
Amendment 319 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point b a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point b a (new)
(ba) exclude the provider from access to new public data in that Member State for a specified period of time.
Amendment 320 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 a (new)
Article 14 a (new)
Amendment 380 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) report annually the percentage of data shared in accordance with this Regulation which are processed inside and outside the European Union; report on job creation in the data-processing sector by Member State.
Amendment 385 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2
Article 30 – paragraph 2
(2) AnyNo judgment of a court or tribunal and anyno decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a public sector body, a natural or legal person to which the right to re-use data was granted under Chapter 2, a data sharing provider or entity entered in the register of recognised data altruism organisations to transfer from or give access to non- personal data subject to this Regulation in the Union may only be recognised or enforceable in any manner if based on an international agreement, such as a mutual legal assistance treaty, in force between the requesting third country and the Union or any such agreement between the requesting third country and a Member State concluded before [the entry into force of this Regulation].
Amendment 386 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 30 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) Deplores the fact that the Commission does not provide for any specific protection of Europeans with critical economic responsibilities against third-country laws such as the US Cloud Act; that legislation enables third-country law enforcement authorities to access data in the context of criminal investigations which may be prompted by economic competition considerations; as in the Alstom case, the strategic impact of such cases may be significant for European companies;
Amendment 387 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3
Article 30 – paragraph 3
Amendment 388 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 30 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) where the third-country system requires the reasons and proportionality of the decision to be set out, and it requires the court order or the decision, as the case may be, to be specific in character, for instance by establishing a sufficient link to certain suspected persons, or and their criminal infringements;
Amendment 389 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 30 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the reasoned objection of the addressee is subject to a review by a competent court in the third-countrya Member State; and
Amendment 390 #
2020/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
By [four years after the data of application of this Regulation], the Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Regulation, and submit a report on its main findings to the European Parliament and to the Council as well as to the European Economic and Social Committee. Member States shall provide the Commission with the information necessary for the preparation of that report. Reciprocity of access to data located in third countries vis-à-vis Member States shall be assessed. Third countries which do not offer effective reciprocity shall be excluded from all access to data hosted in the European Union.
Amendment 8 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Public health falls, as a matter of principle under the responsibility of the Member States, which are free to organise and deliver their health-care services in whatever manner they wish, as well as to procure medical devices, medicines, vaccines and health products, and to devise policies for cooperation and sharing of best practice, information and medical equipment, however they see fit.
Amendment 9 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) In light of the lessons learnt during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, such as systemic weaknesses in the supply chain of certain medical devices and medicines in Europe, in particular dependence on China and India, and in order to facilitate adequate Union-wide preparedness and response to all cross- border threats to health, the legal framework for epidemiological surveillance, monitoring, early warning of, and combating serious cross-border threats to health, as set out in Decision No 1082/2013/EU, needs to be broadened with regard to additional reporting requirements and analysis on health systems indicators, and cooperation by Member States with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Moreover, in order to ensure effective Union response to novel cross- border threats to health, the legal framework to combat serious cross-border threats to health should enable to immediately adopt case definitions for the surveillance of novel threats and should provide for the establishment of a network of EU reference laboratories and a network to support monitoring of disease outbreaks that are relevant to substances of human origin. The capacity for contact tracing should be strengthened via the creation of an automated system, using modern technologies.
Amendment 17 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The protection of human health is a matter which has a cross-cutting dimension and is relevant to numerous Union policies and activities. In order to achieve a high level of human health protection, and to avoid any overlap of activities, duplication or conflicting actions, the Commission, in liaison with the Member States and in full compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, should ensure coordination and exchange of information between the mechanisms and structures established under this Regulation, and other mechanisms and structures established at Union level and under the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (the Euratom Treaty), the activities of which are relevant to the preparedness and response planning, monitoring, early warning of, and combating serious cross-border threats to health. In particular, the Commission should ensure that relevant information from the various rapid alert and information systems at Union level and under the Euratom Treaty is gathered and communicated to the Member States through the Early Warning and Response System (‘EWRS’) set up by Decision No 2119/98/EC.
Amendment 18 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Preparedness and response planning are essential elements for effective monitoring, early warning of and combatting serious cross-border threats to health. As such, a Union health crisis and pandemic preparedness plan needs to be established by the Commission and approved by the HSC. This should be coupled with updates to Member States’ preparedness and response plans so as to ensure they are compatible within the regional level structures. To support Member States in this endeavour, targeted training and knowledge exchange activities for healthcare staff and public health staff should be provided knowledge and necessary skills should be provided by the Commission and Union Agencies. To ensure the putting into operation and the running of these plans, the Commission should be able to ask Member States to conduct stress tests, exercises and in-action and after-action reviews with Member States. These plans should be coordinated, be functional and updated, and have sufficient resources for their operationalisation. Following stress tests and reviews of the plans, corrective actions should be implemented and the Commission should be kept informed of all updates.
Amendment 21 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) To this end, Member States should provide the Commission with an update on the latest situation with regard to their preparedness and response planning and implementation at national level. Information provided by the Member States should include the elements that Member States are obliged to report to the World Health Organization (WHO) in the context of the International Health Regulations (IHR)15. In turn, the Commission should report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the state of play and progress with preparedness, response planning and implementation at Union level, including on corrective actions, every 2 years to ensure that there is consistency between national preparedness and response plans are adequate. In order to support the assessment of these plans, EU audits in Member States should be conducted, in coordination with the ECDC and Union agencies. Such planning should include in particular adequate preparedness of critical sectors of society, such as energy, transport, communication or civil protection, which rely, in a crisis situation, on well-prepared gender-sensitive public health systems that are also in turn dependent on the functioning of those sectors and on maintenance of essential services at an adequate level. In the event of a serious cross-border threat to health originating from a zoonotic infection, it is important to ensure the interoperability between health and veterinary sectors for preparedness and response planning. __________________ International Health Regulation (IHR, 2005), https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/9789 241596664/en/
Amendment 24 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) This regulation should draw on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to assess whether an EU coordination mandate is needed, particularly in view of the difficulties encountered in the European Commission’s negotiation of contracts for centralised procurement of vaccines as when as during their delivery. Such lessons should lead to the incorporation into negotiating mandates of provisions on negotiators’ qualifications, terms and conditions and deadlines for delivery, as well as the benefits or sanctions applicable in the event of diligence or default.
Amendment 31 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) As serious cross-border threats to health are not limited to Union borders, joint procurement of medical countermeasures should be extended to include European Free Trade Association States and Union candidate countries, in accordance with the applicable Union legislation. The Joint Procurement Agreement, determining the practical arrangements governing the joint procurement procedure established under Article 5 of Decision No 1082/2013/EU, should also be adapted to include an exclusivity clause regarding negotiation and procurement for participating countries in a joint procurement procedure, to allow for better coordination within the EU. This exclusivity clause should nevertheless ensure that Member States who wish to be able to negotiate other contracts with different suppliers are free to do, so to be insulated from the eventuality of lateness or other failure affecting the joint procedure. The Commission should ensure coordination and information exchange between the entities organizing any action under different mechanisms established under this Regulation and other relevant Union structures related to procurement and stockpiling of medical countermeasures, such as the strategic rescEU reserve under Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council16. __________________ 16Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924).
Amendment 35 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) As the purpose of joint procurement was to ensure the swift provision of medical countermeasures to EU Member States in a highly competitive market, participation in this mechanism should be restricted to EU Member States only, as otherwise demand would outstrip supply and place too great a strain on suppliers’ capacity to cover orders.
Amendment 43 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 b (new)
Recital 9 b (new)
(9b) For the same reason, the joint ordering of medical countermeasures by the European Union should be reserved for the priority use of the Member States participating in this mechanism, in preference over those not taking part, and should rule out any redistribution outside the European Union.
Amendment 65 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The recognition of public health emergency situations and the legal effects of this recognition provided by Decision No 1082/2013/EU should be broadened. To this end, this Regulation should allow for the Commission to formally recognise a public health emergency at Union level. In order to recognise such an emergency situation, the Commission should establish an independent advisory committee that will provide expertise on whether a threat constitutes a public health emergency at Union level, and advise on public health response measures and on the termination of this emergency recognition. The advisory committee should consist of independent experts, selected by the Commission from the fields of expertise and experience most relevant to the specific threat that is occurring, representatives of the ECDC, of the EMA, and of other Union bodies or agencies as observers. Recognition of a public health emergency at Union level will provide the basis for introducing operational public health measures for medical products and medical devices, flexible mechanisms to develop, procure, manage and deploy medical countermeasures as well as the activation of support from the ECDC to mobilise and deploy outbreak assistance teams, known as ‘EU Health Task Force’. In accordance with the limits set by the Treaties, none of these mechanisms should be binding on Member States, but they should make it easier for the Union and the Member States to coordinate and adopt measures at the European level.
Amendment 67 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) The occurrence of an event that corresponds to serious cross-border threats to health and is likely to have Union-wide consequences should requireallow the Member States concerned to take particular control or contact-tracing measures in a coordinated manner in order to identify people already contaminated and those persons exposed to risk. Such cooperation could require the exchange of personal data through the system, including sensitive information related to health and information about confirmed or suspected human cases of the disease, between those Member States directly involved in the contact-tracing measures. The exchange of personal data concerning health by the Member States has to comply with Article 9(2)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18. __________________ 18Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 68 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Since the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States due to the cross-border dimension of serious threats to health but can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, itext apply only to voluntary cooperation by the Member States and to organisation at the level of the Union institutions, bodies and offices and agencies alone, issuing a regulation is not the right way to achieve them in a meaningful manner. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Artic, it is preferable, since the repeale,d this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objext is a decision, to replace it with another decision or a directives.
Amendment 70 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing acts in relation totext, the Commission should be able to propose decisions or recommendations establishing: templates to be used when providing the information on preparedness and response planning; organisation of the training activities for health care and public health staff; the establishment and update of a list of communicable diseases and related special health issues subject to the network of epidemiological surveillance and the procedures for the operation of such a network; the adoption of case definitions for those communicable diseases and special health issues covered by the epidemiological surveillance network and, where necessary, for other serious cross- border threats to health subject to ad hoc monitoring; the procedures for the operation of the EWRS; the functioning of the surveillance platform; the designation of EU reference laboratories to provide support to national reference laboratories; the procedures for the information exchange on and the coordination of the responses of the Member States; the recognition of situations of public health emergency at Union level and the termination of such a recognition and procedures necessary to ensure that the operation of the EWRS and the processing of data are in accordance with the data protection legislation. These definitions apply only within the above- mentioned European-level framework and shall not replace the national-level definitions used by the Member States.
Amendment 71 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
Amendment 74 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
Amendment 75 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) In order to ascertain the state of implementation of the national preparedness plans and their coherence with the Union plan, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the CommissCommission should also be able to propose decisions or recommendations in respect of procedures, standards and criteria for the audits aimed at the assessment of preparedness and response planning at national level. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 201621. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegatedthese acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegatedthese acts. __________________ 21 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
Amendment 77 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 78 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 79 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 6
Article 2 – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall retain the right to maintain or introduce additional arrangements, procedures and measures for their national systems in the fields covered by this Regulation, including arrangements provided for in existing or future bilateral or multilateral agreements or conventions, on condition that such additional arrangements, procedures and measures do not impair the application of this Regulation. They shall also have the right not to comply with the Commission’s decisions, recommendations and guidelines.
Amendment 85 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. As far as possible, the group shall adopt its guidance or opinions by consensus. These decisions shall not be binding.
Amendment 88 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point e
Amendment 89 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point f
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point f
Amendment 90 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point g
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point g
Amendment 96 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. When preparing national preparedness and response plans each Member State shall coordinate withinform the Commission in order to reach consistency withand the HSC in order to ensure that the Union preparedness and response plan, also inform without delay the Commission and the HSC of any substantial revision of the national plan is kept suitably up to date.
Amendment 98 #
Amendment 102 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – point iii
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – point iii
(iii) resources: including financial resources for emergency preparedness and contingency funding for response; logistics mechanisms, means of national production and essential supplies for health; and dedicated, trained and equipped human resources for emergencies; and
Amendment 105 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Amendment 107 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission and the Member States shallthat wish to do so may, in complement to HSC’s monitoring role, work together within ithe HSC to coordinate their efforts to develop, strengthen and maintain their capacities for the monitoring, early warning and assessment of, and response to serious cross-border threats to health.
Amendment 112 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission and any Member States which so desire may engage in a joint procurement procedure conducted pursuant to Article 165(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council29 with a view to the advance purchase of medical countermeasures for serious cross-border threats to health. In this context, the Commission shall make use of the services of negotiators who can demonstrate practical expertise in contract logistics and public procurement, both public and private, in similar volumes and conditions. These negotiators shall be approved by the representatives of the participating Member States. __________________ 29Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1).
Amendment 116 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) participation in the joint procurement procedure ishall be open to all Members States, European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States and Union candidate countries in accordance with Article 165(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046;
Amendment 118 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the rights and obligations of Members States, EFTA States and Union candidate countri States not participating in the joint procedurement shall b are respected, in particular those relating to the protection and improvement of human health;
Amendment 121 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) Member States, EFTA States and Union candidate countries participating in a specific joint procurement shall procure the medical countermeasure in question through that procedure and not through other channels, and shall not run parallel negotiation processes for that product;
Amendment 128 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) the joint procurement shall not affect the internal market, shall not constitute discrimination or a restriction of trade and shall not cause distortion of competition. It shall enable, among other things, the negotiation and procurement by Member States of medical countermeasures from suppliers other than the specific supplier chosen for the joint procedure in which they are participants;
Amendment 136 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) the joint procurement shall not have any direct financial impact on the budget of Member States, EFTA States and Union candidate countries not participating in the joint procurement.
Amendment 143 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States’ ability to hold strategic reserves shall be guaranteed, as well as their capacity to direct the use of these reserves solely for the benefit of their nationals and nationals of other Member States residing on their territory. Member States shall remain free to decide whether or not to share the use of these reserves.
Amendment 155 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 10
Article 13 – paragraph 10
10. On duly justified imperative grounds of urgency related to the severity or novelty of a serious cross-border threat to health or to the rapidity of its spread among the Member States, the Commission may adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 27(3)propose decisions or recommendations for the adoption of case definitions, procedures and indicators for surveillance in Member States in the case of a threat referred to in points (i) and (ii) of point (a) of Article 2(1). The indicators mentioned above shall also support the assessment of capacity for diagnosis, prevention and treatment.
Amendment 157 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) enable the automated collection of surveillance and laboratory data, make use of information from electronic health records, with the consent of the patients concerned and in strict compliance with personal data protection rules, as well as media monitoring, media monitoring, and apply artificial intelligence for data validation, analysis and automated reporting;
Amendment 160 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point d
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – point d
Amendment 161 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. A network of Member States’ services supportenabling transfusion, transplantation and medically assisted reproduction, when authorised in national law, is established to allow for the continuous and rapid access to sero- epidemiological data, including assessment of donor population exposure and immunity, and to monitor, assess and help address disease outbreaks that are relevant to substances of human origin.
Amendment 162 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. The EWRS shall enable the Commission and the competent authorities responsible at national level to be in permanent communication for the purposes of preparedness, early warning and response, alerting, assessing public health risks and determinsuggesting the measures that may be required to protect public health.
Amendment 163 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Following an alert notification pursuant to Article 19, on a request from the Commission or a Member State and on the basis of the available information, including the information referred to in Article 19 and the risk assessments referred to in Article 20, Member States shall coordinate within the HSC and in liaison with the Commission:
Amendment 168 #
2020/0322(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. It shall have no effect on the activation and functioning of health emergency arrangements under Member States’ legislation, where they exist.
Amendment 49 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The exchanges of digital information through EU CSW-CERTEX should cover Union non-customs formalities laid down in Union legislation that customs authorities are entrusted to enforce. Those formalities impose different obligations for the import, export or transit of certain goods, and their verification through customs controls is fundamentally important to the effective functioning of the EU Single Window Environment for Customs. EU CSW-CERTEX should cover digitalised regulatory formalities laid down in Union legislation and managed by partner competent authorities in electronic Union non-customs systems, storing the relevant information from all Member States required for goods clearance. It is therefore appropriate to identify the Union non-customs formalities which should be subject to digital cooperation through EU CSW-CERTEX. In particular, EU CSW- CERTEX should initially cover sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, rules regulating the import of organic products, environmental requirements in relation to fluorinated greenhouse gases and ozone depleting substances, and formalities related to the import of cultural goods. EU CSW-CERTEX should integrate other non-customs formalities as soon as the appropriate technical and functional specifications are in place.
Amendment 56 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Any processing of personal data in EU CSW-CERTEX shall be conducted in an appropriately safe and secure environment with a view to preventing unauthorised disclosure and alteration. To that end, suitable organisational and technical cybersecurity measures should be adopted, including and deploying in particular encryption measures. Furthermore, any processing of personal data should facilitate information sharing between the national environments for customs and Union non- customs systems without any storing of data. It should also transform data, where necessary and taking into account the need to respect confidentiality, to enable information exchange between both digital domains. The information technology facilities used for data transformation should be located in the Union.
Amendment 62 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The increased digitalisation of customs and Union non-customs regulatory formalities applicable to international trade has opened up new opportunities for Member States to improve the digital cooperation between customs and partner competent authorities. In pursuit of those priorities, several Member States have started to develop frameworks for national single window environments for customs. Those initiatives differ substantially depending on the level of existing customs information technology architecture, priorities and cost structures. It is therefore necessary to require Member States to establish and operate national single window environments for customs for Union non-customs formalities covered by EU CSW-CERTEX. Those environments should constitute the national components of the EU Single Window Environment for Customs, enabling safe and secure electronic information sharing and collaboration between customs, partner competent authorities and economic operators to ensure compliance with and efficient enforcement of customs legislation and Union non-customs formalities covered by EU CSW-CERTEX. In lineorder to realise an effective and uniform application of this Regulation, the Commission shall provide guidance concerning common technical and functional specifications for the integration of the relevant non-customs formalities within thise national single window environments for customs. As a result, national single windows should also be interoperable between each other in order to cater for the validation of formalities which, although issued by national administrations, are valid throughout the Union. . In line with these objectives, the national single window environments for customs should enable the automated verification by customs authorities of formalities in respect of which data is transmitted from the respective Union non-customs system through EU CSW-CERTEX. The national single window environments for customs should also allow partner competent authorities to monitor and control the quantities of authorised goods (‘quantity management’) that have been released by customs through the Union. This should be ensured by providing the necessary clearance information to the Union non- customs systems through EU CSW- CERTEX. In practical terms, quantity management at Union level is necessary to enable a better enforcement of non- customs regulatory formalities by automatically and consistently monitoring the consumption of authorised quantities for the release of goods, avoiding their overuse or mishandling.
Amendment 66 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) To further simplify goods clearance processes for economic operators and to reduce administrative burdens, the national single window environments for customs should become a single channel to communicate with customs and partner competent authorities. Adequate support and information on the processes and technical requirements related to the use of such single channel should be provided to economic operators via easily accessible and user-friendly national websites. The Union non- customs formalities subject to this additional facilitation measure are a subset of the overarching formalities covered by EU CSW-CERTEX. The Commission should identify those formalities progressively by assessing the fulfilment of a set of criteria relevant to trade facilitation, taking into account their legal and technical feasibility. In order to further enhance trade facilitation, it should be possible to use the national single window environments for customs as a platform for coordinating controls between customs authorities and partner competent authorities in line with Article 47(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013.
Amendment 80 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) The Commission should regularly monitor the functioning of the EU Single Window Environment for Customs to evaluate the performance of EU CSW- CERTEX and to ensure the efficient enforcement of Union non-customs formalities covered by EU CSW-CERTEX, in particular with the view to integrate other non-customs formalities. The Commission should submit regular assessment reports on the functioning of the EU Single Window Environment for Customs to the European Parliament and to the Council. Those reports should take stock of progress, identify areas for improvement and propose recommendations for the future in light of progress made towards an improved digital collaboration between customs and partner competent authorities involved in goods clearance to ensure simplified processes for economic operators and the efficient enforcement of Union non-customs formalities.
Amendment 99 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Processing of personal data shall be conducted in a safe and secure environment by means of appropriate organizational and technical cybersecurity measures. Processing of personal data may take place in EU CSW- CERTEX only for the following purposes:
Amendment 103 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The Member States shall establish national single window environments for customs. Each Member State shall be responsible for the development, integration and operation of its single window environment for customs, including the safeguard of security and integrity of network and information systems in place. Member States shall ensure interoperability with EU CSW- CERTEX as well as with other national single window environments.
Amendment 106 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 109 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The national single window environments for customs shall enable the interoperable and secure exchange of information and cooperation by electronic means between customs authorities, partner competent authorities and economic operators for the purposes of compliance with and efficient enforcement of customs legislation and the Union non- customs formalities listed in the Annex.
Amendment 110 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) provide a single communication channel for economic operators to lodge standardized information to fulfil the relevant customs formalities and Union non-customs formalities subject to additional digital cooperation in accordance with Article 12.
Amendment 114 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The processing of personal data within the national single window environments for customs shall take place in a safe and secure manner by means of appropriate organizational and technical cybersecurity measures, as well as in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 separately from the processing operations referred to in Article 6 of this Regulation.
Amendment 118 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For each of the Union non-customs formalities listed in the Annex, EU CSW- CERTEX shall enable information to be exchanged in a secure and interoperable manner between the national single window environments for customs and the relevant Union non-customs systems for the following purposes:
Amendment 122 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) allowing economic operators to submit the relevantrough a single point of entry the relevant standardized information required for the fulfilment of the applicable customs formalities and Union non-customs formalities;
Amendment 142 #
2020/0306(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 8(3), point (c), Article 11, Article 13(1), (2) and (3), Article 14 and Article 15(1) and (2) shall apply from 1 January 203129.
Amendment 5 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the 2016 Commission evaluation concluded that the objectives of the Defence Procurement Directive had only been achieved partially, since it allowed for an initial increase in competition, transparency and non- discrimination in the EU’s defence procurement market, but much more progress in Member States’ consistent use of the directive was needed to fully achieve those objectives fullyshowing a preference for local or European manufacturing in defence procurement;
Amendment 6 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas following the military stances adopted by Erdoğan recently, Turkey is no longer a reliable ally in the fields of defence and security like other NATO members;
Amendment 8 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the EPRS report (p. 111) states that: ‘American FMS sales (foreign military sales) for the period 2016-2018 accounted for USD 55 billion or 32 % of the total defence procurement expenditure for all EU countries’; whereas Greece purchased 30 F-16 (FMS) in the midst of the Greek euro crisis of 2009-2010;
Amendment 11 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas there is a need to protect and strengthen European subcontractors and manufacturers of critical components or systems in light of the predatory approach of third country undertakings;
Amendment 21 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls in particular that the development of a European defence technological and industrial base requires the establishment of a European preference for local or European production in defence procurement in Europe;
Amendment 23 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Considers that too many Member States source mainly from third countries to meet their defence needs;
Amendment 27 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes, in this regard, that the Commission should take a more proactive role in monitoring the G2G exclusions used by the Member States in their awarding of contracts outside the scope of the Defence Procurement Directive, and should not be mainly reliant on received complaints filed by the industry;
Amendment 29 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers that when a contracting authority authorises economic operators from countries outside the European Union or the European Economic Area to participate in a procedure for the award of defence or security contracts, this authorisation must take into account, inter alia, the requirements of security of information and supply, the safeguarding of defence and state security interests, the interest in developing the European defence technological and industrial base and the requirements of reciprocity;
Amendment 30 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Deplores the use of G2G exclusions to allow for FMS acquisitions on a very large scale from third country partners and the distortions of competition suffered by European actors;
Amendment 33 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that there is still a strong need to focus on the effective implementation of the Defence Procurement Directive, considers that, for that to happen, the Member States should focus on ensuring equal treatment of suppliers of hardware manufactured in Europe, transparency and competition and that the Commission should focus on providing the Member States with further guidelines on the application of the provisions laid down in the directive;
Amendment 34 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses the need for coherence between the implementation of Directive 2009/81 and the European Defence Fund; as such, calls for tenders financed by ‘European’ funds should be reserved for European solutions;
Amendment 39 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Wishes, on the other hand, for the exclusion be made more flexible for defence and security cooperation so as to allow for the participation of an additional Member State in a project, even after the R&D phase, and for it to be expanded to cover other forms of cooperation, such as cross-purchases between two Member States and government-to-government markets between Member States, and for user clubs to be created for solutions developed and conceived under the leadership of European industry;
Amendment 40 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Considers that the Commission should clarify the conditions for the application of the government-to- government exclusion in order to avoid anti-competitive practices organised by third countries, such as foreign military sales (FMS), which lead to unfair competition and seriously hamper the capabilities of Member States’ companies; calls also for the guidance note on ‘government-to-government’ exclusion to cover new forms of procurement such as the Global-FMS concept;
Amendment 41 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Calls for greater transparency on the advantages offered by the direct and indirect compensation negotiated by third countries in the European Union;
Amendment 49 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recalls that the export of defence- related products, both within the Union and to non-EU countries, must remain at the sole discretion of the Member States.
Amendment 58 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to introduce a quicker simplified preliminary procedure in the first phase of the infringement procedure (administrative letter requesting explanations) in the event of a clear distortion of competition detrimental to a European company, and to be bold in enforcing the directives, including, where necessary, by making use of infringement procedures;
Amendment 66 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Recalls the strategic nature of supply chain security and reaffirms the importance of provisions concerning subcontracting aimed at dramatically limiting the risks associated with supply chains being open or interrupted;
Amendment 71 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Considers that better implementation of the directives is critical in order to attain the overarching objective of improving the functioning of the internal market for defence products and of contributing to the establishment of an open EDEM; prioritising European or locally produced hardware;
Amendment 72 #
2019/2204(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Recalls the need to strengthen Member States’ strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty by reducing technological and industrial dependencies and by better controlling foreign subsidies and foreign direct investment in Europe, in order to protect critical European companies against attempts by third countries to control them;
Amendment 41 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that due to the COVID-19 crisis, it is of paramount importance for the protection of EU citizens that the safety of all products needed to tackle the emergency is the highest, especially for medical and protective equipment, including and in particular products from outside the EU; calls, therefore, on the Commission and Member States to strengthen their coordinated actions within the product safety framework;
Amendment 56 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out the need to adapt product safety rules to the digital world; asks the Commission to address the challenges of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), the internet of things (IoT) and robotics in its revision of the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD), and to identify and close gaps within existing legislation such as the Machinery Directive and Radio Equipment Directive, whileensuring coherence among all the different initiatives and avoiding duplicating legislation;
Amendment 62 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to redefine the term ‘product’ as part of the revision of the GPSD so that it reflects the complexity of emerging technologies, including stand-alone software and software or updates which entail substantial modification to the productsoftware or to how the device on which it operates is used, leading to a de facto new product;
Amendment 68 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Proposes that the issue of changing the certification period for evolutionary products be resolved by considering compliance reviews, with certification and warranty, which would be renewed over time during the lifetime of the product; suggests that the proper conduct of these reviews should be duly notified to consumers when purchasing the product, for example by means of a form to be signed, without prejudice to the legal liability applicable in the event of a refusal to sign; stresses that these reviews must enable monitoring of how the evolving system is developing and of the safeguarding of its security over time; considers that the issue of certification standards should be considered in the Commission text; calls for the decision about whether the reviews should be entrusted to the manufacturer, the national regulatory authority, third-party certifiers, or more than one of these together should be left to the Member States; also calls for clarity on what the consequences of a lack of monitoring would be;
Amendment 91 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Encourages the Commission to develop measures, such as risk-based assessment schemes and conformity assessment mechanisms, where they do not yet exist, to ensure the safety and security of products with embedded emerging technologies, and to provide support to micro and SMEs to reduce the burden such measures can create;
Amendment 107 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Asks the Commission and the Member States to take account of the autonomous self-learning behaviour of AI throughout a product’s lifetime; calls for human oversight and effective checks on high-risk AI products to ensure trust and product safety;
Amendment 113 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Encourages economic operatomerging technologies' providers to integrate safety mechanisms in emerging technologies, including self-repair mechanisms, to prevent the upload of unsafe software, raise awareness of safety problems of their products, and ensure safety throughout their lifecycle;
Amendment 119 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to enhance connectivity infrastructure, including 5G, in order to improve the safety of connected products while keeping citizens' health as the greater good;
Amendment 122 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Stresses that these infrastructures must themselves be subject to thorough, renewed security controls, as they form the framework in which connected products would be likely to exercise their capabilities even as these evolve; calls for particular vigilance with regard to possible back doors in the networks deployed; recommends that the Commission and the Member States give priority to European operators in matters of deployment;
Amendment 135 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to speed up its efforts to develop a European cybersecurity certification schemes for AI, IoT and robotics products, and to assess whether to create mandatory certification schemes for specific consumer products that can be quickly updated to adapt to current risks without hindering innovation;
Amendment 153 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Encourages Member States to increase the resources and expertise of their market surveillance authorities, to enhance cooperation among them, including particular at cross-border level, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of checks, especially where freight traffic is high such as in ports, and properly staff custom authorities so as to be able to identify unsafe products, in particular from third countries, track their origin and prevent and stop their circulation in the internal market;
Amendment 178 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that products directly purchased by consumers from non-EU economic operators must be subject to effective controls on their quality, origin and compliance to the EU regulatory framework; calls on market surveillance authorities to undertake adequate checks on these products and to keep the ICSMS system updated;
Amendment 184 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. European consumers have noticed that dangerous products more often come from non-European countries. Products from certain non-EU countries should therefore be subject to controls by the national authorities and the Commission as a matter of priority.
Amendment 199 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Urges the Commission to improve and increase, at European and international level, cooperation between consumer protection, market surveillance and customs authorities so as to enable the swift transfer of information on unsafe products;
Amendment 244 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Asks the Commission to evaluate the necessity of requiring online platforms to put in place effective and appropriate safeguards to tackle the appearance of advertisements for unsafe products and to block misleading advertisements of these products;
Amendment 261 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Emphasises that traceability along the supply chain is key to improving the safety and quality of products, since clear and reliable information on products empowers consumers, including persons with disabilities, to make informed choices, and allows market surveillance authorities to carry out their activities; asks the Commission to update the rules for the traceability requirements of non- harmonised products accordingly;
Amendment 264 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Stresses that the lack of EU mandatory rules on origin labelling of products and their main components generates uncertainty to consumers who are often misled by the packaging itself; points out that an EU effective and binding traceability system would ensure a higher level of consumer safety for all products placed on the EU market;
Amendment 266 #
2019/2190(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Stresses that product traceability throughout the supply chain is essential for informing consumers about the social and environmental safety and the impact of products and their production;
Amendment 43 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital -1 (new)
Recital -1 (new)
(-1) Whereas foreign companies have nearly tripled their public procurement contracts in Europe in 5 years, and whereas, according to the Commission's figures, non-European companies were awarded public contracts in the European Union worth 32 billion in 2017 compared with 10-17 billion in 2021; whereas the Commission admits that it has no information on the biggest procurement contracts awarded to European companies in the US and China.
Amendment 45 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In accordance with Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, the Union is to define and pursue common policies and actions, and improve cooperation in all fields in international relations in order, inter alia, to encourage the integration of all countries into the world economy, including through the progressive abolition of restrictions on internationallimiting unnecessary barriers to European trade.
Amendment 46 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) In accordance with Article 18 of the Treaty establishing the EEC in 1957, the Member States shall declare their willingness to contribute to the development of international trade and the reduction of barriers to trade by entering into reciprocal and mutually- advantageous arrangements.
Amendment 47 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Pursuant to Article 206 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union, by establishing a customs union, is to contribute, in the common interest, to the harmonious development of world trade, the progressive abolition of by limiting unnecessary restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers.
Amendment 48 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) Cooperation in Europe will bear fruit for all countries only if it is based on Community preference.
Amendment 50 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Many third countries are reluctant or refuse to open their public procurement and their concessions markets to international competition, or to open those markets further than what they have already done. As a result, Union economic operators face restrictive procurement practices in many of the trading partner of the Union. Those restrictive procurement practices result in the loss of substantial trading opportunities. In this context, the introduction of measures aimed at encouraging the opening of third countries' public procurement markets and at achieving mutual reciprocity is a necessary stage in defending the commercial interests of the Member States and the Union. However, if the measures were to prove insufficient and European companies continued to encounter problems accessing the public procurement and concessions markets of third countries, the Commission and the Member States should investigate introducing more effective trade defence instruments without delay.
Amendment 53 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) While many third countries persist in limiting access to their public procurement markets, large sections of the Union's public procurement markets remain open to international competition. Union companies operating in the internal market are thus confronted by unfair competition from economic operators based outside the Union, particularly where the latter receive government subsidies.
Amendment 54 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 b (new)
Recital 8 b (new)
Amendment 64 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In view of the fact that the access of third country goods and services to the public procurement market of the Union falls within the scope of the common commercial policy, Member States and their contracting authorities and contracting entities should not be able tomay, in keeping with the spirit of this Regulation, restrict the access of third country goods or services to their tendering procedures by any other measure than those provided for in this Regulationin order to ensure that foreign economic operators respect environmental, social and labour laws and all applicable national laws.
Amendment 71 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) If the existence of a restrictive and/or discriminatory procurement measure or practice in a third country is confirmed, the Commission should invite the country concerned to enter into consultations with a view to improving the tendering opportunities for Union economic operators, goods and services in respect of public procurement in that country. In order to encourage the country concerned promptly to take an active part in this dialogue, the Commission should decide, when the consultation procedure starts, to introduce on a temporary basis some measures set out in this Regulation, namely exclusion from participation in tendering procedures in EU public procurement markets or from price adjustment measures. The measures would apply to tenders from economic operators originating in that country and/or which deal with products and services originating in that country.
Amendment 75 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) If the consultations with the country concerned do not lead to sufficient improvements to the tendering opportunities for Union economic operators, goods and services within a reasonable timeframe, the Commission should be able to adopt, where appropriate, price adjustment measure applying to tenders submitted by economic operators originating in that country and/or including goods and services originating in that countryprolong the measures introduced at the start of the consultation procedure and where necessary to adopt additional measures contained in this Regulation.
Amendment 79 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
Amendment 84 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) It is imperative that contracting authorities and contracting entities have access to a range of high-quality products meeting their purchasing requirements at a competitive price while remaining aware of the need to guarantee the long-term economic and social interests of the Member States and European citizens and consumers. Therefore contracting authorities and contracting entities should be able not to apply price adjustment measures limiting access of non-covered goods and services in case there are no Union and/or covered goods or services available which meet the requirements of the contracting authority or contracting entity to safeguard essential public needs, for example in the fields of health and public safety, or where the application of the measure would lead to a disproportionate increase in the price or costs of the contract.
Amendment 91 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
This Regulation establishes measures intended to improve the access of Union economic operators, goods and services to the public procurement and concessions markets of third countries and to guarantee equal conditions of competition in the internal market. It lays down procedures for the Commission to undertake investigations into alleged restrictive and discriminatory procurement measures or practices adopted or maintained by third countries against Union economic operators, goods and services, and to enter into consultations with the third countries concerned.
Amendment 92 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
It provides for the possibility of applying price adjustment measures to certain tenders for contracts for the execution of works or a work, for the supply of goods and/or the provision of services and for concessions, and measures aimed at excluding access to EU public procurement markets, on the basis of the origin of the economic operators, goods or services concerned. .
Amendment 98 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
Article 1 – paragraph 5
5. Member States and their contracting authorities and contracting entities shall notmay, in keeping with the spirit of this Regulation, apply restrictive measures in respect ofto third country economic operators, goods and services beyond those provided for in this Regulation in order to ensure that foreign economic operators comply with environmental, social and labour laws and all applicable national laws.
Amendment 107 #
2012/0060(COD)
Where an Islamist terrorist act takes place in the EU which is supported by demonstrators in a third country without their facing action by the government, the country concerned shall not be granted trade preferences or exemptions for access to the European internal market.
Amendment 108 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Local elected representatives may promote local employment and use of the official language in local calls for tenders by means of environmental, social or linguistic clauses which are mandatory even for subcontractors.
Amendment 109 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Within the context of the WTO and through its bilateral relations, the Union advocates an ambitious opening of international public procurement markets of the Union and its trading partners, in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit. It is important to strengthen the concept of consistent economic activity, which has already been identified and legitimised by the WTO as a criterion for selecting companies eligible for public tender. This concept may and should be supplemented by criteria relating to the date of establishment, place of recruitment, percentage of local turnover and contribution to local and national society, in particular through taxes and contributions paid; It is also crucial to develop an indicator based on the national, territorial and environmental responsibility of the company, or to outline a new and more relevant method of assessment than an indicator based on social and environmental responsibility;
Amendment 111 #
2012/0060(COD)
2. The assessment by the Commission of whether the alleged restrictive and/or discriminatory procurement measures or practices have been adopted or are maintained by the third country concerned shall be made on the basis of the information supplied by interested parties and Member States, of facts collected by the Commission during its investigation, or both. The assessmentinvestigation shall be concluded within a period of eightsix months after theits initiation of the investigation. In duly justified cases, this period may be extended by fourthree months.
Amendment 113 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) To achieve greater strategic autonomy, when third countries are neither Party to the WTO Agreement on Public Procurement nor part of a bilateral agreement with the European Union in this area of competence, the European Union may prevent companies from those countries from submitting tenders for any EU public procurement contract.
Amendment 115 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where it is found as a result of an investigation that restrictive and/or discriminatory procurement measures or practices have been adopted or maintained by a third country and the Commission considers it to be in the Union interest, the Commission shall invite the country in question to enter into consultations. Those consultations shall aim at ensuring that Union economic operators, goods and services can participate in tendering procedures for the award of public procurement or concession contracts in that country on conditions no less favourable than those accorded to national economic operators, goods and services of that country and also with a view to ensuring the application of the principles of transparency and equal treatment. In order to encourage the country concerned promptly to take an active part in this dialogue, the Commission should decide, when the consultation procedure starts, to introduce on a temporary basis some measures set out in this Regulation, namely exclusion from participation in tendering procedures in EU public procurement markets or from price adjustment measures. The measures would apply to tenders from economic operators which originate in that country and/or which deal with products and services originating in that country.
Amendment 119 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point i
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point i
(i) resume consultations with the third country concerned, and/orprolong the measure(s) introduced at the start of the consultation procedure;
Amendment 121 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point ii – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point ii – paragraph 1
decide, by implementing act, to impose a price adjustment measure pursuant to Article 8dditional measures under this Regulation.
Amendment 126 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 6
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. In the event that consultations with a third country do not lead to satisfactory results within 15 months from the day those consultations started, the Commission shall terminate the consultations and shall take appropriate action. In particular, the Commission may decide, by means of an implementing act, to impose or extend the exclusion of companies from the country concerned that are participating in tendering procedures for the award of EU public procurement contracts or to impose a price adjustment measure, pursuant to Article 8. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 14(2).
Amendment 129 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – title
Article 8 – title
Amendment 130 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where it emerges, in the course of an investigation under Article 6 and after following the procedure specified in Article 7, that restrictive public procurement measures adopted or maintained by that third country are resulting in a substantial lack of reciprocity regarding market access between the Union and that third country, the Commission may adopt implementing acts in order to extend the exclusion of undertakings from the country concerned that are participating in tendering procedures for the award of EU public procurement contracts and/or adopt price adjustment measures. Tenders more than 50 % of the total value of which is made of goods and/or services originating in a third country, may be subject to a price adjustmentsuch measures where the third country concerned adopts or maintains restrictive and/or discriminatory procurement measures or practices.
Amendment 131 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In the interest of legal certainty for Union and third-country economic operators, contracting authorities and contracting entities, the international market access commitments undertaken by the Union towards third countries in the field of public procurement and concessions should be reflected in the legal order of the EU, thereby ensuring effective application thereof. In accordance with the principle of reciprocity in international matters, when third countries deny access to our companies, their companies should be denied access to our European public procurement market.
Amendment 132 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) In cases where foreign operations are deemed to be aggressive, or at the request of a Member State where the case in question affects a national strategic sector, a review clause based on the legitimacy of EU citizens and the Member States should be provided by the European Parliament to enable it, when a two-thirds majority is in favour of such a move, to urgently introduce a clause.
Amendment 133 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 133 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 b (new)
Recital 11 b (new)
(11b) Given that, under EU law, the EU’s international commitments place actors from third countries which are signatories on an equal footing, the European Parliament should be able to call on the Council to decide by a two- thirds majority to suspend or limit the award of public procurement contracts to countries that disregard the principle of reciprocity. The European Commission may call for coercive measures and, at the same time, offer an effective monitoring and surveillance tool.
Amendment 134 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The price adjustment measure shall specify the penalty of up to 20% to be calculated on the price of the tenders concerned. It shalMeasures adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 may take one of the following forms: (a) the exclusion of tenders of which over 50% of the total valso specify any restrictions toue is made up of goods or services originating in the scope of application of the measure, such as those related to:untry adopting or maintaining restrictive procurement practices and/or (b) a price adjustment measure.
Amendment 134 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) It is important to step up the EU’s objectives, stop being naive and be more realistic. It is also vital to steer away from free trade towards ‘proper’ trade, which will, by means of clear priorities and sustained reasoning, reduce unfair competition . Major economic powers waging a war on EU companies competing with their own, including through the application of their extraterritorial law, must be kept away from our single market. The objectives of improving the access of Union economic operators to the public procurement and concessions markets of certain third countries protected by restrictive and discriminatory procurement measures or practices and of preserving equal conditions of competition within the internal market require to refer to the non- preferential rules of origin established in the EU customs legislation, so that contracting authorities and contracting entities know whether goods and services are covered by the international commitments of the Union.
Amendment 135 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 136 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) public procurement of specific categories of contracting authorities or contracting entities; The price adjustment measure shall specify a penalty of 25-40% to be calculated on the tender prices in question, taking into account any state aid or other subsidies granted to the economic operator. It shall also specify any restrictions to the scope of the measure in practice, such as those related to : (a) public procurement by specific categories of contracting authorities or contracting entities; (b) public procurement for specific categories of goods or services or tenders submitted by specific categories of economic operator; (c) public procurement contracts above or below certain thresholds; (d) tenders submitted for specific categories of concession; (e) the territories of certain subcentral levels of government.
Amendment 137 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 138 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 139 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point d
Amendment 140 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e
Amendment 149 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – title
Article 10 – title
Withdrawal or suspension of procurement market exclusion or price adjustment measures
Amendment 149 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In the light of the overall policy objective of the Union to support small and medium-sized enterprises, this Regulation should also not apply to tenders submitted by SMEs established in the Union and in engaged in substantive business operations entailing a direct and effective link with the economy of at least one Member State. National public authorities have the right to include criteria that give preference to independent businesses run by craftsmen or small traders, or family-run SMEs or ETIs in their calls for tender.
Amendment 151 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The Commission may decide, by implementing act, to withdraw the procurement market exclusion or price adjustment measure or suspend its application for a period of time if the country concerned takes satisfactory remedial or corrective actions.
Amendment 152 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Where the remedial or corrective actions taken by the third country concerned are rescinded, suspended or improperly implemented, the Commission may reinstate the application of the procurement market exclusion and/or price adjustment measure, at any time, by means of an implementing act.
Amendment 152 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) It is important to encourage each Member State to take measures restricting access to its markets that are not covered. In this regard, they should be called upon to develop a legitimate criterion for public tenders to better defend the integrity of a local area and local commercial networks. The local supply should determine whether and to what extent access to a market may be opened or restricted. Companies from third countries that do not meet the same level of social and environmental standards should not be granted access to the internal market of the European Union or its Member States.
Amendment 153 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Where the remedial or corrective actions taken by the third country concerned are rescinded, suspended or improperly implemented, the Commission may reinstate the application of the price adjustment or procurement market exclusion measure, at any time, by means of an implementing act.
Amendment 155 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – title
Article 11 – title
Application of procurement market exclusion or price adjustment measures
Amendment 155 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 b (new)
Recital 16 b (new)
(16b) National public authorities have the right, in their calls for tender, to include criteria that give preference to companies that prioritise quality over quantity by applying, for example, the highest health, gastronomic, local and social standards.
Amendment 156 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Contracting authorities and contracting entities on the list adopted pursuant to Article 9 shall apply price adjustmentrestrictive measures to the following:
Amendment 157 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b – paragraph 1
tenders offering goods and services originating in the third country concerned, where the value of those goods, jobs and services accounts for more than 50 % of the total value of the tender.
Amendment 159 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Where a price adjustment measure is applied, contracting authorities and contracting entities shall require tenderers to provide information on the origin of the goods and/or services contained in the tender, and on the value of the goods and services originating in the third country concerned as a percentage of the total value of the tender. They shall accept self- declarations from tenderers.
Amendment 160 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Contracting authorities and contracting entities may decide not to apply the procurement market exclusion or price adjustment measure with respect to a procurement or a concession procedure if:
Amendment 164 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In view of theis fact that the access of th, theird country goods and services to the public procurement market of the Union falls within the scope of the common commercial policy, Member Statacting authorities and their contracting authorentities cand contracting entities should not be able to, in the spirit of this Regulation, restrict the access of third country goods or services to their tendering procedures by any other measure than those provided for in this Regulationto ensure that foreign economic operators comply with environmental, social and labour law or any applicable national law.
Amendment 166 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The Commission should ensure that a general monitoring tool is set up to look out for unusually low prices in responses to tenders and, where necessary, a one-off or general exclusion tool at the request of the contracting entities. These instruments could be seen as tools for EU economic diplomacy services. The Commission should be able, on its own initiative or at the application of interested parties or a Member State, to initiate at any time an investigation into restrictive procurement measures or practices allegedly adopted or maintained by a third country. Such investigative procedures should be without prejudice to Regulation (EU) No 654/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Amendment 167 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 171 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b – indent 1 (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b – indent 1 (new)
- this is justified for overriding reasons of public interest.
Amendment 175 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Where a contracting authority or contracting entity intends not to apply a price adjustmentrestrictive measure , it shall indicate its intention in the contract notice that it publishes pursuant to Article 49 of Directive 2014/24/EU or Article 69 of Directive 2014/25/EU or in the concession notice pursuant to Article 31 of Directive 2014/23/EU. It shall notify the Commission no later than ten calendar days after the publication of the contract notice.
Amendment 178 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
In the event that a contracting authority or contracting entity conducts a negotiated procedure without prior publication, under Article 2 of Directive 2014/24/EU or under Article 50 of Directive 2014/25/EU and decides not to apply a price adjustmentrestrictive measure , it shall indicate this in the contract award notice it publishes pursuant to Article 50 of Directive 2014/24/EU or Article 70 of Directive 2014/25/EU or in the concession award notice it publishes pursuant to Article 32 of Directive 2014/23/EU and notify the Commission no later than ten calendar days after the publication of the contract award notice.
Amendment 179 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) If the existence of a restrictive and/or discriminatory procurement measure or practice in a third country is confirmed, the Commission should invite the country concerned to enter into consultations with a view to improving the tendering opportunities for Union economic operators, goods and services in respect of public procurement in that country. To encourage the country concerned to engage promptly and actively in this dialogue, the Commission should decide, when the consultation procedure starts, to introduce some measures set out in this Regulation on a temporary basis, namely exclusion from participation in tendering procedures in EU public procurement markets or from price adjustment measures. The measures would apply to tenders from economic operators originating in that country and/or which deal with goods and services originating in that country.
Amendment 185 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The Commission shall collect and publish annually information on the 10 largest contracts awarded to European companies in third countries; The Commission shall collect and publish annually information on the 10 largest public procurement contracts awarded to third-country companies in the internal market.
Amendment 192 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) If the consultations with the country concerned do not lead to sufficient improvements to the tendering opportunities for Union economic operators, goods and services within a reasonable timeframe, the Commission should be able to adopt, where appropriate, price adjustment measure applying to tenders submitted by economic operators originating in that country and/or including goods and services originating in that country and prolong the measures introduced at the start of the consultation procedure and, where necessary, to adopt additional measures contained in this Regulation.
Amendment 204 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
Amendment 219 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Member States are best placed to identify the contracting authorities or contracting entities, or categories of contracting authorities or contracting entities, which should apply the price adjustment measure. To ensure that an appropriate level of action is taken and that a fair distribution of the burden among Member States is achieved, the Commission should take the final decision, based on a list submitted by each Member State. Where necessary, the Commission may establish a list on its own initiativcan and should offer a monitoring and surveillance tool based on the proposals submitted by each Member State.
Amendment 224 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) It is imperative that contracting authorities and contracting entities have access to a range of high-quality products meeting their purchasing requirements at a competitive price and, at the same time, remain aware of the need to protect the long-term economic and social interests of the Member States and European people and consumers. Therefore contracting authorities and contracting entities should be able not to apply price adjustment measures limiting access of non-covered goods and services in case there are no Union and/or covered goods or services available which meet the requirements of the contracting authority or contracting entity to safeguard essential public needs, for example in the fields of health and public safety, or where the application of the measure would lead to a disproportionate increase in the price or costs of the contract.
Amendment 245 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
It provides for the possibility of applying price adjustment measures to certain tenders for contracts for the execution of works or a work, for the supply of goods and/or the provision of services and for concessions, and measures to exclude access to EU public procurement markets, on the basis of the origin of the economic operators, goods or services concerned. .
Amendment 362 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The assessment by the Commission of whether the alleged restrictive and/or discriminatory procurement measures or practices have been adopted or are maintained by the third country concerned shall be made on the basis of the information supplied by interested parties and Member States, of facts collected by the Commission during its investigation, or both. The assessment shall be concluded within a period of eightsix months after the initiation of the investigation. In duly justified cases, this period may be extended by fourthree months.
Amendment 384 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 6
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. In the event that consultations with a third country do not lead to satisfactory results within 15 months from the day those consultations started, the Commission shall terminate the consultations and shall take appropriate action. In particular, the Commission may decide, by means of an implementing act, to impose or extend the exclusion of companies from the country concerned that are participating in tendering procedures for the award of EU public procurement contracts or to impose a price adjustment measure, pursuant to Article 8. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 14(2).
Amendment 389 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – title
Article 8 – title
Amendment 394 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where it emerges, in the course of an investigation under Article 6 and after following the procedure set out in Article 7, that restrictive public procurement measures adopted or maintained by that third country lead to a substantial lack of reciprocity regarding market access between the Union and that third country, the Commission may adopt implementing acts in order to extend the exclusion of companies from the country concerned that are participating in tendering procedures for the award of EU public procurement contracts and/or adopt price adjustment measures. Tenders more than 50 % of the total value of which is made of goods and/or services originating in a third country, may be subject to a price adjustment measure where the third country concerned adopts or maintains restrictive and/or discriminatory procurement measures or practices.
Amendment 401 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 407 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The price adjustment measure shall specify the penalty of up to 225-40% to be calculated on the price of the tenders concerned, taking into account any State aid or other subsidies granted to the economic operator. It shall also specify any restrictions to the scope of application of the measure, such as those related to: (a) public procurement of specific categories of contracting authorities or contracting entities; (b) public procurement of specific categories of goods or services or tenders submitted by specific categories of economic operators; (c) public procurement contracts above or withinbelow certain thresholds; (d) tenders submitted for specific categories of concessions; (e) the territories of certain subcentral levels of government.
Amendment 461 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Where a price adjustment measure is applied, contracting authorities and contracting entities shall require tenderers to provide information on the origin of the goods and/or services contained in the tender, and on the value of the goods and services originating in the third country concerned as a percentage of the total value of the tender. They shall accept self- declarations from tenderers. Should the European Union open 60% of its public procurement market to a third country, it may impose legal measures to close the remaining 40% of its market to companies from that country without interfering with international rules.
Amendment 463 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Blackmailing with the threat of technology transfer in strategic national sectors to enable third countries to gain access to the market should be banned outright.
Amendment 464 #
2012/0060(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 b (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 b (new)
Access to public procurement shall be blocked when a sector is under strain, when necessary for the creation of local jobs in the EU or at the request of a Member State for itself.