BETA

Activities of Andreas SCHWAB

Plenary speeches (2)

Common charger for mobile radio equipment (debate) DE
2016/11/22
800 customer service number (debate) DE
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2019/2937(RSP)

Institutional motions (1)

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on a common charger for mobile radio equipment PDF (135 KB) DOC (44 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(135 KB) DOC(44 KB)

Oral questions (2)

Common charger for mobile radio equipment PDF (44 KB) DOC (10 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(44 KB) DOC(10 KB)
0800 customer service numbers PDF (44 KB) DOC (9 KB)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2019/2937(RSP)
Documents: PDF(44 KB) DOC(9 KB)

Written questions (1)

Cross-border recognition of lasting powers of attorney PDF (38 KB) DOC (9 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)

Amendments (3029)

Amendment 3 #

2024/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas although the Internal Market Scoreboard and the Consumer Market Scoreboard share thehave different methodologies with different scopes and different sets of indicators, they share the overall aim of improving the functioning of the internal market,
2009/11/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 18 #

2024/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Although it understands thatCalls for the Internal Market Scoreboard is published biannually and the Consumer Market Scoreboard only once a year, calls for those scoreboards, the Solvit Report, the Citizens Signpost Service and the Consumer Market Scoreboard to be published at the same time, thus allowing for a betterin order to provide an overall picture of the development of the internal market;
2009/11/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 29 #

2024/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that Member States should enhance the efficient cooperation among national, regional and local authorities involved in applying internal market rules by ensuring and strengthening thean internal market coordination function within their national administrations;
2009/11/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 30 #

2024/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the need for proper training and educCalls upon Member States to provide nation ofal civil servants and judicial authorities as regards internal market rulewith regular training on internal market rules in the framework of the existing Community programmes and networks;
2009/11/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 5 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
— having regard to the 2019 report by the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC) on ‘The Role of Competition Policy in Protecting Consumers’ Wellbeing in the Digital Era’,deleted
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 12 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas competition policy must benefit the consumer while defendpromoting European businesses, in particular SMEs, by encouragainst unfair competition outside Europeg innovation and competitiveness;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 23 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas competition policy must be tailored to tackle digital, ecological, geopolitical, industrial and social challenges, in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to develop tools to facilitate better monitoring of foreign direct investment and not to limit itself to the screening mechanism;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to ensure reciprocity with third countries in public procurement and in investment policy; furthermore, with a view to the need to open up public procurement markets in third countries to which access does not yet exist, urges the Commission to work towards the accession of key third countries, such as China, to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement with an acceptable initial offer; stresses that planned EU instruments to improve international market opening, such as the International Procurement Instrument, must be designed in such a way as to avoid adverse effects on EU companies, such as additional bureaucracy and new market distortions;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 76 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Highlights that in order to become more effective and to foster innovation, EU competition rules should provide a frame facilitating and encouraging the creation of European Projects;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 92 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Believes that to strengthen EU digital markets further cooperation and standardization with regard to data sharing should be enabled to ensure that full potential or the data economy in Europe;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 95 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Underlines the importance of cooperation for digital infrastructure, in particular 5G, one of the key drivers for the Digital Single Market strategy, and therefore calls on competition policy to facilitate infrastructure sharing which not only enhances consumer welfare such as faster roll-out and potential better quality but also could allow a more efficient use of resources and environmental benefits;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 96 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Calls on the Commission for more guidance and legal certainty for cooperation, in particular, the option to receive certainty regarding cooperation projects that have a certain magnitude and raise novel questions in a voluntary fast-track notification procedure;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 97 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for a review ofWelcomes the Commission’s commitment to review the 1997 Commission Notice 97/C 372/03 on the definition of the relevant market so as to move towardstake into consideration a longer-term vision encompassing the global dimension and potential future competition; in particular, calls the Commission to review the definition of relevant market by taking into account longer-term timing on the market in order to allow easier European companies to merge, and, finally, carefully and on case-by-case based, to widen the scope of the definition of "relevant market" itself so as to get broader market picture of a merger impact;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 106 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Calls on the Commission to review the notion of "abuse of dominance" and the "essential facilities" doctrine to ensure they are fit for the purpose in the digital age; in particular the concept of dominance should be examined with specific reference to online Platforms given that market power itself may present in a different manner compare to a more traditional market; recalls to the Commission indeed that an online platform may not be dominant in terms of value/turnover but may have access to data on an unprecedented scale, as well as large numbers of users; therefore, an online platform may not be dominant in accordance with the current dominance definition settled in the case law of the ECJ but it may lead to a significant asymmetry in contractual relations/negotiations, especially when dealing with SMEs;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 129 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to review merger rules and strengthen antitrust action, taking into account the effects of market and network power associated with both personal and financial data; proposes that every merger in the market for such data should be subject to prior monitoring, regardless of thresholds;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to review merger rules and strengthen antitrust action, taking into account the effects of market and network power associated with both personal and financial data; proposes that every merger in the market for such data should be subject to prior monitoring, regardless of thresholds; suggests a broader analysis of market power in connection to conglomerate and gatekeeper effects in digital markets, focusing on entry barriers and network effects of multi-sided platforms, to fight the abuse of dominance of a few large platform operators and create a competitive digital market in Europe;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Stresses that EU Competition rule should be reviewed in order to look into data concentration, aggregation and utilisation; when assessing digital antitrust and mergers, data utilisation1a by dominant platforms should also be looked at understanding potential negative affects on competition for new companies trying to enter and compete on a specific market; notes that the Commission should learn lessons from the past for example when they approved Facebook What’s- App2a acquisition and adapt their tools and criteria accordingly; _________________ 1ahttps://edps.europa.eu/press- publications/press-news/blog/sharing- caring-depends_en 2a https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/ cases/decisions/m7217_20141003_20310_ 3962132_EN.pdf
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 138 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recognises the limitations of current competition law when it comes to network effects and abuse of dominant positions by some multinational mega- platforms that give preferential treatment to their own services; calls, therefore, on the Commission to propose new sector- specific regulation for certain digital intermediaries with particularly powerful market positions in order to promote competition so as to prevent market abuse, which should include a ban on preferential treatment of an undertaking's own services;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 140 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Recognises the need to further develop a better understanding of different business models and dynamics within the digital economy in order to accelerate the identification of competition issues; calls on the Commission to carry out a stakeholder consultation to reflect the evolution of the digital economy, including the multi-sided nature of digital markets;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the buying-out of start- ups by dominant players dries up innovation and threatens sovereignty, and calls on the Commission to reverse the burden of proof with regard to such buy- outscan jeopardise innovation, and calls on the Commission to investigate systematic acquisitions and their effects on competition over a relatively long period of time in order to gather robust information;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 160 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that somCalls on the Commission to take ad hoc measures on companies which abuse their position to impose eantities,competitive terms on competitors by benefiting from dual status as both platforms and suppliers, abuse their position to impose unfair terms on competitors; calls on the Commission to penalise them; ; calls on the Commission to consider the effects of the unfair terms and practices on innovation, sustainability and competition overall and act in a timely manner;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 165 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Calls on the Commission to assess the long term effects of concentration especially in the case of platforms, intermediaries and retailers, online or offline; as stressed above, one of the key features of these markets is the dual status as both platforms, suppliers, and competitors to their users; increased concentration in these areas can lead to abuse and imposed unfair terms on competitors;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 170 #

2019/2131(INI)

11. Calls on the Commission to introduce a centralised exconsider a possible introduction of ex- ante regulatory measures anted market monitoring system, to provide national authorities with the necessary means to gather data anonymously, and to introduce targeted regulation when practices become systemiconly if competition law turns out to be too slow and ineffective to remedy systemic and far-reaching distortions of competition; in particular, an ex-ante regulatory regime might be targeted to digital markets when companies holding a dominant position exercise a fundamental gatekeeper role in closed ecosystems and large online marketplaces;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 191 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that, while intermediation platforms can play a major gatekeeper role in access to consumers for online services, some may abuse their privileged position by acting as gatekeepers; calls on the Commission to conclude its preliminary investigation into Spotify’s complaint about Apple’s anticompetitive practices and to launch a formal procedure as soon as possible; in these cases invites the Commission to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a platform has a gatekeeper role and whether prompt and proportionate actions would maintain competition on the market;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 200 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Encourages the Commission to increase freedom of choice for consumers and to set up a European consumer protection authoritytrengthen the role of the ECC Network;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 205 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that the heavy fines imposed are often discounted in advance by businesses and ultimately passed on to consumers;deleted
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 212 #

2019/2131(INI)

15 a. Notes also that in lengthy antitrust digital cases, fines have proven their limits in putting an end to certain discriminatory practices; underlines that fines are simply a calculated cost of doing business for dominant technology companies that see the European single market as a market worth paying for; urges the Commission to urgently look at alternative behavioural and structural remedies; in particular the cease-and- desist order should be much more prescriptive in upcoming remedies;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 217 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses the slowness of the application of antitrust rules; stresses the financial and structural risk to which some actors are exposed if they initiate lengthy and costly proceedings; calls on the Commission to consider setting deadlines which take into account the economic timeframe of businessesfind new incentives that can make companies more collaborative and proceedings faster as well it already did to track down cartels across Europe by introducing the Leniency Programme;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 224 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses the urgent need to adopt precautionary measures to adapt to the rapid development of new markets and to stop any practice which would seriously harm competition; calls on the Commission to relax the criteria for these measures in order to avoid any irreversible damagere- evaluate an use more frequently of specific measures such as interim measures as well as other structural and behavioural remedies, in addition to fines to prevent irreversible distortions of competition capable of irrevocably destroying the competition on the market, by harming competing European companies and in particular SMEs, and resulting in consumer detriment; calls on the Commission to relax the criteria for these measures in order to avoid any irreversible damage; calls on the Commission to revise the Notice on Remedies (2008/C 267/01) by taking into account the developments and evolution of the digital sector over the last years;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 236 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Deplores the fact that, despite repeated requests, the Commission has still not completed the investigation into Google Shopping which began in 2010achieved proper remedies in some case reported (Google Shopping case1a); stresses that, in the absence of targeted and effective behavioural remedies that have been tested in advance with the undertaking which is the victim, a complete structural separation of general and specialised research services may be necessary; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publicati ons/annual_report/2017/part1_en.pdf
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 240 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Calls on the Commission to inquire about this new checking account service that will be provided to consumers by some of the world’s biggest tech companies in forthcoming years; in particular their entry into this new digital financial market and the huge amount of data they will gather from their consumers and the potential use of it;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 242 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Calls on the European Commission to revise its policy when it comes to commitments and remedies in digital antitrust cases; calls for the cease- and-desist order to be revised, become much more prescriptive and include obligations and indications in order to change discriminatory conducts;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 245 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18 b. Reaffirms the need for the EC Directorate General for Competition to be fully equipped also with experts on artificial intelligence and tech engineer’s specialists in order to fully understand and evaluate the remedies that are presented by the dominant technology companies with the aim to ensure fair competition in the digital sector;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 253 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to make more systematic use of investigations in sectors that are essential to the everyday life of citizens, such as transport and, the media, and culture in the digital age;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 278 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to fully mobilise the state aid modernisation strategy,; in particular for the energy transitionsupports the Commission to review the state aid guidelines by taking into account the new European Green Deal in order to allow national governments to directly support investments in clean energy;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 307 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Calls, without Treaty change, for regular use of the ordinary legislative procedure in competition policy, by analogy with the procedure for the ‘non- life insurance’"Damages" and ‘ECN+’ directives;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 315 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses the desire for a greater role for Parliament in determining and developing competition policy, along the lines of that played by the US Congress, which even has the power to launch investigations;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 316 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses the desire for a greater role for Parliament in determining and developing competition policy, along the lines of that played by the US Congress, which even has the power to launch investigations;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 317 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses the desire for a greater role for Parliament in determining and developing competition policy, along the lines of that played by the US Congress, which even has the power to launch investigations;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 323 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Calls on the Commission to systematicallymore involve it in the work of working parties and expert groups, particularly when devising soft-law instruments;
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 330 #

2019/2131(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Recalls the importance of 28. coordination with national competition authorities and calls on the Commission to present to Parliament an assessment of the conditions for the implementation of the ‘ECN+ Directive’; reminds that in the annex of the ECN+ Directive the Commission identified "interim measures" as "a key tool for competition authorities to ensure that competition is not harmed while an investigation is on- going"1b; reminds to assess whether there are means to simplify the adoption of interim measures within the European Competition Network within two years from the date of transposition of this Directive in order to enabling competition authorities to deal more effectively with developments in fast-moving markets; _________________ 1bhttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:3201 9L0001&from=EN
2020/01/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 18 #

2018/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s activities and efforts to ensure the effective application of competition rules in the Union; welcomes again, in this context, the Commission's proposal for a Directive to empower the national competition authorities (ECN+ Directive) and the political agreement reached by European Parliament and Council; believes that the Directive will significantly improve the effective and consistent application of EU competition law across Union by ensuring that NCAs have the tools, adequate resources and safeguards for independence to impose dissuasive fines for competition infringements; appreciates the Commission's early assistance provided to the Member States in relation to implementation of this Directive;
2018/11/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 39 #

2018/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the treaty-based competition rules mustshould be interpreted in the light of the wider European values underpinning the Union’s social market economy, notably environmental and social protection, equality considerations, consumer protection and public health, as mandated by Article 7 TFEU; takes the view, therefore, that activities which cause negative social and environmental externalities create market distortions that need to be addressed by means of competition law while, conversely, activities which bring social or environmental benefits should be explicitly taken into account when assessing treaty-basedthese values need to be taken into account in the application of EU competition provisionslaw;
2018/11/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 47 #

2018/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that even when products or services are supplied for free, consumers may still have to endure unjust behaviour, such as a degradation in quality, choice and innovation or extortive practices; calls therefore, for the purposes of the cases undercompetition law enforcement to take into consideration, for the formulation of a 'theory of harm', which should transcend price-centric approaches and account for broader considerations such as the impact on citizens’ privacymore aspects going beyond price effects, which could negatively impact on the consumer;
2018/11/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2018/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. UnderlinesPoints out the enormous changes in markets resulting from continuing technological development, which brings both opportunities and challenges to competition; underlines, in particular, the urgent need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of the data-driven and algorithm economy; notes in particular that digital platforms, in accessing and controlling ever-increasing data flows, generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale, and ultimately, by dint ofthrough excessive market concentration, acquiring a gatekeeper function, rent extraction and abusive market power, can bring about market failures;
2018/11/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2018/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Welcomes in this context the appointment of special advisers to the Commissioner focusing on future challenges of digitalisation for competition policy and awaits with interest their findings and recommendations for action; calls on the Commission to follow closely the discussions and recommendations of expert groups established at national level as regards possible revisions of EU competition policy in light of the digital economy; underlines that ultimately a common EU-wide approach on these questions will be necessary;
2018/11/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 86 #

2018/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points in this context to the evolution of self-learning algorithms and artificial intelligence, in particular when provided to companies by third parties, and its impact on the nature of cartel activity; calls on the Commission to examine in how far the current competition law tools are adequate to detect and deal with more effective cartel behaviour through algorithms and artificial intelligence;
2018/11/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 101 #

2018/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the fact that barriers to entry in the digital economy are becoming increasingly insurmountable, as the more that unjust behaviour is perpetuated, the harder it gets to revert to anti-competitive effects; affirms, in this regard, that the Commission should make effective use of interim measures, while ensuring due process and the right of defence of undertakings under investigation; welcomes the commitment of the Commission to undertake an analysis of whether there are means to simplify the adoption of interim measures within the European Competition Network;
2018/11/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 172 #

2018/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Asks the Commission to come forward withexamine in how far a revision of the EU Merger Regulation, so that it may be vested with the powers, much as a number of Member States are at present, to adopt measures to protect the European public order and the rights and principles of the TFEU and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including environmental protection might be necessary in order to allow for public interest considerations beyond the economic aspects of competition law to be taken into account;
2018/11/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 205 #

2018/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses the importance of endowing competition authorities with sufficient resources to carry out their work; supports, in this connection, the proposed competition strand of the single market programme under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF); underlines in this context the importance of IT and of digital expertise necessary to address the challenges posed by data- driven and algorithm-based economy;
2018/11/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 41 #

2018/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the introduction of the mandatory publication of information in specific databases and registries concerning payment behaviour can discourage late payment and help businesses choose reliable commercial partners; considers that the ‘name and shame’ factor and public access to information can be an incentive for companies to improve their payment practices and uphold their monetary obligations;deleted
2018/10/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 62 #

2018/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Member States to enforce their national legislation and to encourage and improve stricter controls, in particular among large companies, and the use of administrative sanctions (reinforced through a ‘name and shame’ provision that generates peer pressure), thus contributing to the improvement of payment behaviour; maintains that direct intervention from the public authorities, since it is they who enforce administrative sanctions, could help to overcome the ‘fear factor’ and relieve creditors of the responsibility to take action against debtors, as the authorities would directly enforce the law and take discretionary action against enterprises engaged in bad payment practices; believes that the value of sanctions and their cumulative nature could deter companies from paying late, while public access to information (publication of sanctions) could directly harm the company’s image;
2018/10/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 37 #

2018/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Welcomes the approval by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess various aspects of disparities between products; stresses that the results of these investigations are not yet available;
2018/04/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 51 #

2018/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Takes note of the mandate given to the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to address the issue of dual qualityisparities between products; encourages Member States and their competent authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives, including the development of a common methodology and collection of further evidence;
2018/04/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 53 #

2018/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the adoption by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess different aspects of dual quality;deleted
2018/04/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 74 #

2018/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to dual quality productsproducts of different composition; points out that the Notice’s step-by-step approach for the identification by national authorities of whether producers are in breach of EU law currently seems inapplicable;
2018/04/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 121 #

2018/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises the value of public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes; highlights the role of industry in improving transparency with regard to product composition;
2018/04/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 144 #

2018/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level;deleted
2018/04/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 155 #

2018/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Draws attention to the fact that the issue of dual quality is directly related to the essence of the functioning of the single market and consumer trust and therefore requires a solution at Union level, preferably via directly enforceable measures; is convinced that given the possibility of action at national level, Union-level action would safeguard the integrity of the single market;deleted
2018/04/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 173 #

2018/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to amend Annex I to the UCPD by introducing another item onto the ‘blacklist’;deleted
2018/04/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 140 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) The procedure and obligations resulting from legal orders requesting hosting service providers to remove terrorist content or disable access to it, following an assessment by the competent authorities, should be harmonised. Member States should remain free as to the choice of the competent authorities allowing them to designate administrative, law enforcement or judicial authorities with that task. Given the speed at which terrorist content is disseminated across online services, this provision imposes obligations on hosting service providers to ensure that terrorist content identified in the removal order is removed or access to it is disabled within one hour from receiving the removal orderthe period specified by the competent authority. It is for the hosting service providers to decide whether to remove the content in question or disable access to the content for users in the Union.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 172 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
(33) Both hosting service providers and Member States should establish points of contact to facilitate the swift handling of removal orders and referrals. In contrast to the legal representative, the point of contact serves operational purposes. The hosting service provider’s point of contact should consist of any dedicated means allowing for the electronic submission of removal orders and referrals and of technical and personal means allowing for the swift processing thereof. The point of contact for the hosting service provider does not have to be located in the Union and the hosting service provider is free to nominate an existing point of contact, provided that this point of contact is able to fulfil the functions provided for in this Regulation. With a view to ensure that terrorist content is removed or access to it is disabled within one hour from theas soon as possible after receipt of a removal order, hosting service providers should ensure that the point of contact is reachable 24/7. The information on the point of contact should include information about the language in which the point of contact can be addressed. In order to facilitate the communication between the hosting service providers and the competent authorities, hosting service providers are encouraged to allow for communication in one of the official languages of the Union in which their terms and conditions are available.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 180 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
(38) Penalties are necessary to ensure the effective implementation by hosting service providers of the obligations pursuant to this Regulation. Member States should adopt rules on penalties, including, where appropriate, fining guidelines. Particularly severe penalties shall be ascertained in the event that the hosting service provider systematically fails to remove terrorist content or disable access to it within one hour from receipt of a removal orderthe period specified by the competent authority. Non-compliance in individual cases could be sanctioned while respecting the principles of ne bis in idem and of proportionality and ensuring that such sanctions take account of systematic failure. In order to ensure legal certainty, the regulation should set out to what extent the relevant obligations can be subject to penalties. Penalties for non-compliance with Article 6 should only be adopted in relation to obligations arising from a request to report pursuant to Article 6(2) or a decision imposing additional proactive measures pursuant to Article 6(4). When determining whether or not financial penalties should be imposed, due account should be taken of the financial resources of the provider. Member States shall ensure that penalties do not encourage the removal of content which is not terrorist content.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 244 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Hosting service providers shall take appropriate, reasonable and proportionate actions in accordance with this Regulation, against the dissemination of terrorist content and to protect users from terrorist content. In doing so, they shall act in a diligent, proportionate and non- discriminatory manner, and with due regard to the fundamental rights of the users and take into account in particular the fundamental importance of the freedom of expression and information in an open and democratic society.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 255 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The competent authority shall grant the hosting service a period of at least one hour in which to comply with the removal order. When setting the time limit, the competent authority shall take into account that SMEs may need a longer period to comply with the removal order.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 259 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Hosting service providers shall remove terrorist content or disable access to it within one hour from receipt of the removal orderthe time limit specified by the authority.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 265 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) date and time stamp of issuing and the deadline specified for the removal order;
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 272 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Upon request by the hosting service provider or by the content provider, the competent authority shall provide a detailed statement of reasons, without prejudice to the obligation of the hosting service provider to comply with the removal order within the deadline set out in paragraph 2pecified.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 275 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7
7. If the hosting service provider cannot comply with the removal order because of force majeure or of de facto impossibility not attributable to the hosting service provider, it shall inform, without undue delay, the competent authority, explaining the reasons, using the template set out in Annex III. The deadline set out in paragraph 2pecified in the removal order shall apply as soon as the reasons invoked are no longer present.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 277 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8
8. If the hosting service provider cannot comply with the removal order because the removal order contains manifest errors or does not contain sufficient information to execute the order, it shall inform the competent authority without undue delay, asking for the necessary clarification, using the template set out in Annex III. The deadline set out in paragraph 2pecified in the removal order shall apply as soon as the clarification is provided.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 293 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Hosting service providers shall, where appropriate, take proactive measures to protect their services against the dissemination of terrorist content. The measures shall be effective and proportionate, taking into account the risk and level of exposure to terrorist content, the fundamental rights of the users, and the fundamental importance of the freedom of expression and information in an open and democratic society. The competent authorities shall assist SMEs in taking proactive measures.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 338 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Where hosting service providers use automated tools pursuant to this Regulation in respect of content that they store, they shall provide effective and appropriate safeguards tohat respect the fundamental rights of users and ensure that decisions taken concerning that content, in particular decisions to remove or disable content considered to be terrorist content, are accurate and well-founded.
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 399 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1
Under Article 4 of Regulation (EU)….16 the addressee of the removal order shall remove terrorist content or disable access to it, within one hour from receipt of the removal order fromthe deadline specified by the competent authority. _________________ 16 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online (OJ L ...).
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 401 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section B – title
B A URL and any additional information enablContent to be removed or access to it disabled withing the identification and exact location ofadline specified by the conmpetent referredauthority:
2019/01/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 123 #

2018/0168(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
Directive 2009/103/EC
Article 26 a (new)
5a. The following Article is inserted: “Article 26a Limitation period 1. Member States shall ensure that a limitation period of at least three years applies to actions under Articles 19 and 20(2) that relate to compensation for personal injury and damage to property resulting from a cross-border road traffic accident. The limitation period shall begin to run from the day on which the claimant became aware, or had reasonable grounds to become aware, of the extent of the injury, loss or damage, its cause and the identity of the person liable and the insurance undertaking covering this person against civil liability or the claim representative or compensation body responsible for providing compensation and against whom the claim is to be brought. 2. Member States shall ensure that where the proper law of the claim provides for a limitation period which is longer than three years, such longer limitation period shall apply. 3. Member States shall ensure that they provide the Commission with up-to- date information on national rules of limitation for damages caused by traffic accidents. The Commission shall make publicly available and accessible, in all Union languages, that general information communicated by Member States.”
2018/12/10
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 124 #

2018/0168(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 b (new)
Directive 2009/103/EC
Article 26 b (new)
5b. The following Article is inserted: “Article 26b Suspension of limits 1. Member States shall ensure that the limitation provided for in Article 26a is suspended during the period between submission by the claimant of his or her claim to: (a) the insurance undertaking of the person who caused the accident or its claims representative referred to in Articles 21 and 22; or (b) the compensation body referred to in Articles 24 and 25, and the defendant’s rejection of the claim. 2. Where the remaining part of the limitation period, once the period of suspension ends, is less than six months, Member States shall ensure that the claimant is granted a minimum period of six additional months to initiate court proceedings. 3. Member States shall ensure that, if a period expires on a Saturday or a Sunday or on one of their official holidays, it shall be extended until the end of the first following working day.”
2018/12/10
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 125 #

2018/0168(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 c (new)
Directive 2009/103/EC
Article 26 c (new)
5c. The following Article is inserted: “Article 26c Calculation of time limits Member States shall ensure that any period of time laid down by this Directive is calculated as follows: (a) calculation shall start on the day following the day on which the relevant event occurred; (b) when a period is expressed as one year or a number of years, it shall expire in the relevant subsequent year in the month having the same name and on the day having the same number as the month and the day on which the said event occurred. If the relevant subsequent month has no day with the same number, the period shall expire on the last day of that month; (c) periods shall not be suspended during court recesses.”
2018/12/10
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 125 #

2018/0145(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point 3
(3) ‘intelligent speed assistance’ means a system to aid the driver in observing the appropriate speed for the road environment by providing haptic feedback through the accelerator pedal with speed limit information obtained through observation of road signs and signals, based on infrastructure signals or electronic map data, or both, made available in-vehicle;
2018/12/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 196 #

2018/0145(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) it shall be possible for the driver to feel through the accelerator pedal thatthe system shall provide the driver with the applicable speed limit is reached or exceededat all times;
2018/12/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 200 #

2018/0145(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) it shall not bthe driver shall have the possibleility to switch off or supress the system;
2018/12/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 210 #

2018/0145(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) where a cruise control system is engaged, the intelligent speed assistance system must automatically adapt to any lower speed limit, unless the driver has switched off the intelligent speed assistance system.
2018/12/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 242 #

2018/0145(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) it shall be possible to switch off systems only one at a time, and only at standstill with the parking brake engaged, by a complex sequence of actions to be carried out by the driver;
2018/12/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 269 #

2018/0145(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) it shall be possible to switch off systems only one at a time, and only at standstill with the parking brake engaged, by a complex sequence of actions to be carried out by the driver;
2018/12/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 272 #

2018/0145(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 5
5. Vehicles of categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 shall be designed and constructed so as to enhance the direct visibility of vulnerable road users from the driver seat. This requirement shall be applicable only for new types of vehicles and shall take into account the existing conception of the vehicle as well as increased visibility through mirrors, cameras and detection systems among others.
2018/12/17
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 109 #

2018/0114(COD)

(7) The right to convert an existing company formed in a Member State into a company governed by another Member State may in certain circumstances be used for abusive purposes such as for the circumvention of labour standards, social security payments, tax obligations, creditors', minority shareholders' rights or rules on employees participation. In order to combat such possible abuses, a general principle of Union law, Member States are required to ensure that companies do not use the cross-border conversion procedure in order to create artificial arrangements aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or members. In so far as it constitutes a derogation from a fundamental freedom, the fight against abuses must be interpreted strictly and be based on With the aim of preventing the possibility of such abuses in the field of taxation, and taking into account ECJ case-law on freedom of establishment and the OECD BEPS recommendations, legislation has already been adopted at EU level to combat tax avoidance practices, such as Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 June 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market. In the event of cross- border conversion, Member States must ensure that a company individual assessment of all relevant circumstances. A procedural and substantive framework which describes the margin of discretion and allows for the diversity of approach by Member States whilst at the same time setting out the requirements to streamline the actions to be taken by national authorities to fight abuses in conformity with Union law should be laid downtending to undertake such a conversion complies with these rules. In addition, in order to ensure that the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or members are not undermined, further appropriate safeguards are necessary.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 118 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) In order to assess the planned cross-border conversion, the report of an independent expert should be required, reviewing the accuracy of the information contained in the draft terms of conversion and in the reports addressed to the members and employees and to provid. In order to assess the factual elements necessary to assess whether the proposed conversion constitutes an artificial arrangementcuracy of the information contained in the draft terms of conversion and in the report addressed to the members and employees, an independent expert report should be required to be prepared in order to assess the proposed cross-border conversion. In order to secure the independence of the expert, the expert should be appointed by the competent authority, following an application by the company. In this context, the expert report should present all relevant information to enable the competent authority in the departure Member State to take an informed decision as to whether or not to issue the pre- conversion certificate. To this end, the expert should be able to obtain all the relevant company information and documents and carry out all necessary investigations in order to gather all the evidence required. The expert should use information, in particular net turnover and profit or loss, number of employees and the composition of balance sheet collected by the company in view of the preparation of financial statements in accordance with Union law and the law of Member States. However, in order to protect any confidential information, including business secrets of the company, such information should not form part of the expert’s final report which itself would be publically available.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 124 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) It is appropriate that those members who held voting rights and who did not vohave explicitly objected to approve the draft terms of conversion and those members without voting rights, who could not present their position, should be afforded the right to exit the company. Those members should be able to leave the company and receive cash compensation for their shares equivalent to the value of their shares. Furthermore, theymembers who have refused the offer of cash compensation because they do not consider the compensation to be adequate should have a right to challenge the calculation and adequacy of that cash compensation offered before a court.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) In order to prevent the circumvention of employee participation rights by means of a cross-border conversion, the company carrying out a conversion which is registered in the Member State which provides for the employee participation rights, should not be able to perform a cross-border conversion without first entering into negotiations with its employees or their representatives when the average number of employees employed by that company is equivalent to four fifths of the national threshold for triggering such employee participationexceeds 500.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 133 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) The issue of the pre-conversion certificate by the departure Member State should be scrutinised to ensure the legality of the cross-border conversion of the company. The competent authority of the departure Member State should decide on the issue of the pre-conversion certificate within one month of the application by the company, unless it has serious concerns as to the existence of an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or members. In such a case, the competent authority should carry out an in-depth assessment. However, this in- depth assessment should not be carried out systematically, but it should be conducted on a case-by-case basis, where there are serious concerns as to the existence of an artificial arrangement. For their assessment, competent authorities should take into account at least a number of factors laid down in this Directive which however should be only considered as indicative factors in the overall assessment and not be considered in isolation. In order not to burden companies with an overly lengthy procedure, this in-depth assessment should in any event be concluded within two months of informing the company that the in-depth assessment will be carried out.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 140 #

2018/0114(COD)

(28) In order to further enhance the existing cross-border merger procedure, it is necessary to simplify those merger rules, where appropriate, whilst at the same time ensuring that stakeholders, and in particular employees, are adequately protected. Therefore, the existing cross- border merger rules should be modified in order to oblige the management or administrative organs of the merging companies to prepare a separate reports detailing the legal and economic aspects of the cross-border merger for both members and for employees. The obligation on the management or administrative organ of the company to prepare the report for the members may however be waived, where those members are already informed about legal and economic aspects of the proposed merger. In this case the report should be limited to the information relevant to the employees. However, the report prepared for employees may only be waived where the merging companies and their subsidiaries do not have any employees other than those who form part of the management or administrative organ.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 149 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) In order to ensure that members of the companies participating in the cross- border merger are treated equally, it is appropriate that members who held voting rights and who did not voy being acquired who have explicitly objected to approve the common draft terms of merger or those members without voting rights, who could not present their position, should bare afforded the right to exit the company (sic - translator's note). Those members should be able to leave the company and receive cash compensation for their shares equivalent to the value of their shares. Furthermore, theymembers who have refused the offer of cash compensation because they do not consider the compensation to be adequate should have a right to challenge the calculation and adequacy of that cash compensation offered before a court.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 158 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
(40) The right of companies to carry out a cross-border division maycould in certain circumstances be used for abusive purposes such as for the circumvention of labour standards, social security payments, tax obligations, creditors' or members' rights or rules on employees participation. In order to combat such abuses, as a general principle of Union law, Member States are required to ensure that companies do not use the cross-border division procedure in order to create artificial arrangements aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or members. In so far as it constitutes a derogation from a fundamental freedom, the fight against abuses must be interpreted strictly and must be based on an individual assessment of all relevant circumstances. A procedural and substantive framework which describes the margin of discretion and allows for the diversity of approaches by Member States whilst at the same time setting out the requirements to streamline the actions to be taken by national authorities to fight abuses in conformity with Union law should be laid downWith the aim of preventing the possibility of such abuses in the field of taxation, and taking into account ECJ case-law on freedom of establishment and the OECD BEPS recommendations, legislation has already been adopted at EU level to combat tax avoidance practices, such as Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 June 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market. In the event of cross- border divisions, Member States must ensure that a company intending to divide in this way complies with these rules. In addition, in order to ensure that the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or members are not undermined, further appropriate safeguards are necessary.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 169 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 45
(45) In order to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in the draft terms of division and in the reports addressed to the members and employees and to provide factual elements necessary to assess whether the proposed division constitutes an artificial arrangement which could not be authorised, an independent expert report to assess the division plan should be required to be prepared, it is appropriate to require the report of an independent expert to evaluate the draft terms of division. In order to secure the independence of the expert, the expert should be appointed by the competent authority, following an application by the company. In this context, the expert report should present all relevant information to enable the competent authority of the Member State of the company being divided to take an informed decision as to whether or not to issue the pre-division certificate. To this end, the expert should be able to obtain all the relevant company information and documents and carry out all necessary investigations in order to gather all the evidence required. The expert should use information, in particular net turnover and profit or loss, number of employees and the composition of balance sheet collected by the company in view of the preparation of financial statements in accordance with Union law and the law of Member States. However, in order to protect any confidential information, including business secrets of the company, such information should not form part of the expert’s final report which itself would be publically available.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 175 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 48
(48) It is appropriate that members who held voting rights and who did not vohave explicitly objected to approve the draft terms of the cross- border division and those members without voting rights, who could not present their position, should be afforded the right to exit the company. Those members should be able to leave the company and receive cash compensation for their shares equivalent to the value of their shares. Furthermore, they should have a right to challenge the calculation and adequacy of that cash compensation offered and also the share exchange ratio where they wish to remain members of any of the recipient companiesMoreover, members who have refused the offer of cash compensation because they do not consider the compensation to be adequate should have a right to challenge the calculation and adequacy of that cash compensation before a court. As part of those proceedings, the court should be able to order any company involved in the cross- border division either to pay additional cash compensation or to issue additional shares.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 181 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 52
(52) The issue of the pre-division certificate by the Member State of the company being divided should be scrutinised to ensure the legality of the cross-border division. The competent authority should decide whether to issue a pre-division certificate within one month of the application by the company has been submitted, unless it has serious concerns as to the existence of an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or members. In such a case, the competent authority should carry out an in-depth assessment. However, this in-depth assessment should not be carried out systematically but it should be conducted on a case-by-case basis where there are serious concerns as to the existence of an artificial arrangement. For their assessment, competent authorities should take into account at least a number of factors laid down in this Directive which however should be only considered as indicative factors in the overall assessment and not be considered in isolation. In order not to burden companies with an overly lengthy procedure, this in-depth assessment should in any event be concluded within two months informing the company that the in-depth assessment will be carried out.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 189 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 56
(56) In order to prevent the circumvention of the employee participation rights by means of a cross- border division, the company carrying out a division which is registered in the Member State which provides for the employee participation rights, should not be able to perform a cross-border division without first entering into negotiations with its employees or their representatives when the average number of employees employed by that company is equivalent to four fifths of the national threshold for triggering such employee participationexceeds 500.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 201 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 c
Article 86c Conditions relating to cross-border conversionsdeleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 202 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 c a (new)
Article 86ca Compliance with rules against tax avoidance practices Member States shall ensure that a company that intends to make a cross- border conversion complies with the national rules implementing Directive (EU) No 2016/1164.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 221 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 e – title
Article 86e Report of the management or administrative organ to the members and employees
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 224 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 e – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) the implications of the cross- border conversion on the safeguarding of employment relationships;
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 225 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 e – paragraph 2 – point c b (new)
(cb) any material changes in the conditions of employment and in the location of the company’s places of business;
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 226 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 e – paragraph 2 – point c (new)
(cc) how the factors set out in points (a), (d) and (e) relate to any subsidiaries of the company.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 228 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 e – paragraph 3
3. The report referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, shall be made available, at least electronically, to the members not less thand two months before the date of the general meeting referred to in Article 86i. That report shall also be made similarly availablhe representatives of the employees of the company or, where there are tno thesuch representatives of, to the employees of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion or, where there are no such representatives, to the employees themselvesthemselves, not less than one month before the date of the general meeting referred to in Article 86i.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 230 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 e – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Where the management or administrative organ of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion receives, in good time, an opinion from the representatives of their employees or, where there are no such representatives, from the employees themselves, as provided for under national law, the members shall be informed thereof and that opinion shall be appended to that report.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 234 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 e – paragraph 4
4. However, that report shall not be required where all the members of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion have agreed to waive this requirementWhere all the members of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion have agreed to waive the requirement for this report, it only needs to pertain to the factors listed in paragraph 2(a), (d), (e) and (f) and to be made available to the representatives of the employees of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion or, where there are no such representatives, to the employees themselves.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 235 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 e – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. However, where a company carrying out the cross-border conversion and its subsidiaries, if any, have no employees other than those who form part of the management or administrative organ, the report may be limited to the factors listed in paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c).
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 236 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 e – paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Paragraphs 1 to 6 are without prejudice to the applicable information and consultation rights and proceedings instituted at national level following the transposition of Directives 2002/14/EC or 2009/38/EC.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 237 #

2018/0114(COD)

Article 86f Report of the management or administrative organ to the employeesdeleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 246 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that the company carrying out the cross-border conversion applies not less than two months before the date of the general meeting referred to in Article 86i to the competent authority designated in accordance with Article 86m(1), to appoint an expert to examine and assess the draft terms of the cross-border conversion and the reports referred to in Articles 86e and 86f, subject to the proviso set out in paragraph 6 of this Article.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 249 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) the reports referred to in Articles 86e and 86f.,
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 251 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 2
2. The competent authority shall appoint an independent expert within five working days of the application referred to in paragraph 1 and the receipt of the draft terms and reports. The expert shall be independent from the company carrying out the cross-border conversion and may be a natural or a legal person depending upon the law of the departure Member State. Member States shall take into account, in assessing the independence of the expert, the framework established in Articles 22 and 22b of Directive 2006/43/EC.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 253 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The expert shall draw up a written report providing at least:which includes an examination of the report made available under Article 86e and the draft terms of conversion.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 255 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) a detailed assessment of the accuracy of the reports and information submitted by the company carrying out the cross-border conversion;deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 257 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) a description of all factual elements necessary for the competent authority, designated in accordance with Article 86m(1), to carry out an in-depth assessment to determine whether the intended cross-border conversion constitutes an artificial arrangement in accordance with Article 86n, including at a minimum the following: the characteristics of the establishment in the destination Member State, including the intent, the sector, the investment, the net turnover and profit or loss, number of employees, the composition of the balance sheet, the tax residence, the assets and their location, the habitual place of work of the employees and of specific groups of employees, the place where social contributions are due and the commercial risks assumed by the converted company in the destination Member State and the departure Member State.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 262 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that the independent expert shall be entitled to obtain, from the company carrying out the cross-border conversion, all relevant information and documents and to carry out all necessary investigations to verify all elements of the draft terms or management reports. The expert shall also be entitled to receive comments and opinions from the representatives of the employees of the company, or, where there are no such representatives, from the employees themselves and also from the creditors and members of the company.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 271 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 h – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that the requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 can be completed online in their entirety without the necessity to appear in person before any competent authority or any other person or authority entrusted with processing the application in the departure Member State.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 272 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 h – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
However, Member States may, in cases of genuine suspicion of fraud based on reasonable grounds, require a physical presence before a competent authority where the public interest provides a compelling reason to do so.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 275 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 h – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Member States shall ensure that confidential information, including business secrets, shall not be disclosed.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 278 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 i – paragraph 1
1. After taking note of the reports referred to in Articles 86e, 86f and 86g, where applicable, the general meeting of the company carrying out the conversion shall decide, by means of a resolution, whether to approve the draft terms of the cross- border conversion. The company shall inform the competent authority designated in accordance with Article 86m(1) of the decision of the general meeting.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 280 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 i – paragraph 4
4. The general meeting shall also decide whether the cross-border conversion would necessitate amendments to the instruments of constitution of the company carrying out the conversion.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 281 #

2018/0114(COD)

1. Member States shall ensure that the following members of a company carryingmembers opposing a cross-border conversion have the right to dispose of their shareholdings under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 6:
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 282 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 j – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the members holding shares with voting rights and who did not vote for the approval of the draft terms of the cross- border conversion;deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 283 #

2018/0114(COD)

(b) the members holding shares without voting rights.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 284 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 j – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that a company carrying out a cross-border conversion makes an offer of adequate compensation in the draft terms of the cross-border conversion as specified in the Article 86d(1)(i) to the members, referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, who wish to exercise their right to dispose of their shareholdings. Member States shall also establish the period for the acceptance of the offer which shall not in any event exceed one month after the general meeting referred to in Article 86i.day on which the registration of the new legal form is published in the register. Without prejudice to formal national requirements for the transfer of shares, Member States shall further ensure that the company is able to accept an offer communicated electronically to an address provided by the company for that purpose.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 285 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 j – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall provide that any member who has not accepted the offer of cash compensation referred to in paragraph 3, butand who considers that the compensation has not been adequately set, is entitled to demand the recalculation of the cash compensation offered before a national court within one month of the time limit set for the acceptance of the offer.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 287 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 k – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that creditors who are dissatisfied with the protection of their interests provided for in the draft terms of the cross-border conversion, as provided for in Article 86d(f), may apply to the appropriate administrative or judicial authority for adequate safeguards within one month of the disclosure referred to in Article 86h if they are of the opinion that they have been prejudiced despite the protection of their interests set down in Article 86d(f).
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 290 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 l – paragraph 2
2. However, the rules in force concerning employee participation, if any, in the destination Member State shall not apply, where the company carrying out the conversion has, in the six months prior to the publication of the draft terms of the cross-border conversion as referred to in Article 86d of this Directive, an average number of employees equivalent to four fifths of the applicable threshold, laid down in the law of the departure Member State, which triggersof over 500 employees and this company has a system for the participation of employees within the meaning of point (k) of Article 2 of Directive 2001/86/EC, or where the national law of the destination Member State does not:
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 295 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(a) shall confer on the special negotiating body the right to decide, by a majority of two thirds of its members representing at least two thirds of the employees, not to open negotiations or to terminate negotiations already opened and to rely on the rules on participation in force in the destination Member State;(Does not affect the English version.)
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 298 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 m – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall designate the court, notary or other authority competent to scrutinise the legality of the cross-border conversion as regards that part of the procedure which is governed by the law of the departure Member State and to issue a pre- conversion certificate attesting compliance with all the relevant conditions and the proper completion of all procedures and formalities in the departure Member State.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 299 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 m – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the reports referred to in Articles 86e, 86f and 86g, as appropriate;
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 302 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 m – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The draft terms and reports submitted under Article 86gh do not have to be re- submitted to the competent authority.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 303 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 m – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that the application referred to in paragraph 2, including submission of any information and documents may be completed online in its entirety without the necessity to appear in person before the competent authority referred to in paragraph 1or any other person or authority entrusted with processing the application.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 304 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 m – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
However, in cases of genuine suspicion of fraud based on reasonable grounds, Member States may require a physical presence before a competent authority where relevant information and documents are required to be submitted where the public interest provides a compelling reason to do so.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 307 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 m – paragraph 4
4. In respect of compliance with the rules concerning employee participation as laid down in Article 86l, the departure Member State shall verify that the draft terms of cross-border conversion, referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, include information on the procedures by which the relevant arrangements are determined and on the possible options for such arrangements.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 312 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 m – paragraph 7 – point c
(c) where the competent authority has serious concerns that the cross-border conversion constitutes an artificial arrangement referred to in Article 86c(3), it may decide to carry out an in-depth assessment in accordance with Article 86n and shall inform the company about its decision to conduct such an assessment and of the subsequent outcome.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 314 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 n
Article 86n In-depth assessmentdeleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 319 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 o – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, where the competent authority of the departure Member State is not a court, the decision of the competent authority to issue or to refuse to issue a pre-conversion certificate, is subject to judicial review in accordance with national law. In addition, Member States shall ensure that a pre- conversion certificate shall not be effective before the expiry of a certain period to allow partiesthe company to bring an action before the competent court and to obtain, if appropriate, interim measures.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 321 #

2018/0114(COD)

2. Member States shall ensure that the decision to issue the pre-conversion certificate is sent to the competent authorities referred to in Article 86m(1)of the destination Member State and that the decisions to issue or refuse to issue a pre-conversion certificate are available through the system of interconnection of registers set up in accordance with Article 22.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 322 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 p – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall designate anthe court, notary or other authority competent to scrutinise the legality of the cross-border conversion as regards that part of the procedure which is governed by the law of the destination Member State and to approve the cross-border conversion where the conversion complies with all the relevant conditions and the proper completion of all procedures and formalities in the destination Member State.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 324 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 p – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State shall ensure that the application referred to in paragraph 1, by the company carrying out the cross-border conversion, which includes the submission of any information and documents, may be completed online in its entirety without the necessity to appear in person before the competent authority referred to in paragraph 1or any other person or authority entrusted with processing the application.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 325 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 p – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
However, in cases of genuine suspicion of fraud based on reasonable grounds, Member States may require a physical presence before a competent authority of a Member State where relevant information and documents are required to be submitted where the public interest provides a compelling reason to do so.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 329 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 s – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) all the assets and liabilities of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion including all contracts, credits, rights and obligations shall be transferred to and shall continue with the converted companypersist in the legal form stipulated in the draft terms for the cross-border conversion.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 330 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 s – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the members of the company which carried out the conversion shall becomeremain members of the converted companylegal form stipulated in the draft terms for the cross-border conversion pursuant to Article 86d, unless they exercise the exit right referred to in Article 86j(2);
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 331 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 s – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the rights and obligations of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion arising from contracts of employment or from employment relationships and existing at the date on which the cross-border conversion takes effect shall, by reason of that cross-border conversion taking effect, bshall persist in the legal form stipulated in the tdransferred to the company resulting fromft terms for the cross- border conversion oin the date on which the cross-border conversion takes effectaccordance with Article 86d.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 332 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 s – paragraph 3
3. The converted company shall be liable for any losses arising from any differences in national legal systems of the Member States of departure and destination, where any contracting party or counterparty of the company carrying out the conversion had not been informed of the cross-border conversion by that company prior to concluding that contract.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 335 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 86 t
Member States shall lay down rules governing at least the civil liability, towards the shareholders and creditors, of the independent experts responsible for drawing up the reports referred to in Articles 86g and 86k(2)(a), including in respect of any misconduct on their part in the performance of their duties.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 340 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 120 – paragraph 4
(5) in Article 120, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: "4. Member States shall ensure that this Chapter does not apply to the company or companies where: (a) proceedings have been instituted for the winding-up, liquidation, or insolvency of that company or companies; (b) the company is subject to preventive restructuring proceedings initiated because of the likelihood of insolvency; (c) the suspension of payments is on- going; (d) the company is subject to resolution tools, powers and mechanisms provided for in Title IV of Directive 2014/59/EU; (e) preventive measures have been taken by the national authorities to avoid the initiation of proceedings referred to in points (a), (b) or (d)."deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 344 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 121 a (new)
(6 a) the following Article 121a is inserted: "Article 121a Compliance with rules against tax avoidance practices Member States shall ensure that a company that intends to make a cross- border merger complies with the national rules implementing Directive (EU) 2016/1164."
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 347 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 122 a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, the accounting date provided in the common draft terms of the cross-border merger, shall be the date on which the cross-border merger takes effect, as referred to in Article 129ompany which is changing form makes its final financial report, unless the merging companies determine another date in order to facilitate the merger process. In that case each accounting date shall comply with the following requirements:
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 349 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Member States shall ensure that the requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 can be completed online in their entirety without the necessity to appear in person before any competent authority or any other person or authority entrusted with processing the application in any of the Member States concerned.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 350 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 123 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
However, Member States may, in cases of genuine suspicion of fraud based on reasonable grounds, require a physical presence before a competent authority require a physical presence before a competent authority where the public interest provides a compelling reason to do so.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 353 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 124 – title
Article 124 Report of the management or administrative organ to the members and employees
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 354 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 124 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
(e a) the implications of the cross- border merger on the safeguarding of the employment relationships;
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 355 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 124 – paragraph 2 – point e b (new)
(e b) any material change in the conditions of employment and the locations of the companies’ places of business;
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 356 #

2018/0114(COD)

(e c) how the factors set out in points (a), (f) and (g) also relate to any subsidiaries of the merging companies.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 357 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 124 – paragraph 3
3. The report shall be made available, at least electronically, to the members of each of the merging companies not less than one month before the date of the general meeting referred to in Article 126. The report shall also be made similarly available toand the representatives of the employees of each of the merging companies, or where there are no such representatives, to the employees themselves, not less than one month before the date of the general meeting referred to in Article 126. However, where the approval of the merger is not required by general meeting of the acquiring company in accordance with Article 126(3), the report shall be made available, at least one month before the date of the general meeting of the other merging company or companies.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 359 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 124 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Where the management or administrative organ of one or more of the merging companies receives, in good time, an opinion from the representatives of their employees, or, where there are no such representatives, from the employees themselves, as provided for under national law, the members shall be informed thereof and that opinion shall be appended to the report.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 362 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 124 – paragraph 4
4. However, the report referrWhere all the members of the merging companies have agreed to waive the requirement for this report, it only needs to in paragraph 1, shall not be required wpertain to the factors listed in paragraph 2(a), (d), (e) and (f) and to be made available to the re all the memberpresentatives of the employees of the merging companies havor, where there agreed to waive this requirement no such representatives, to the employees themselves.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 363 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 124 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. However, where the merging companies and their subsidiaries, if any, have no employees, other than those who form part of the management or administrative organ, the report may be limited to the factors listed in paragraph 2(a), (f) and (g).
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 364 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 124 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. The submission of the report is without prejudice to the applicable information and consultation rights and proceedings instituted at national level following the implementation of Directives 2001/23/EC, 2002/14/EC or 2009/38/EC.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 366 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 124 a
[...]deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 374 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point a
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 126 – paragraph 1
1. After taking note of the reports referred to in Articles 124, 124a and 125, as appropriate, the general meeting of each of the merging companies shall decide, by means of a resolution, on the approval of the common draft terms of the cross-border merger.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 375 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 126 a – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that the following members of the mergabsorbing companiesy who oppose the cross-border merger have the right to dispose of their shareholding under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 6;.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 376 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 126 a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the members holding shares with voting rights and who did not vote for the approval of the common draft terms of the cross-border merger;deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 377 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 126 a – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the members holding shares without voting rights.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 378 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 126 a – paragraph 3
Member States shall ensure that each of the merging companies makes an offer of adequate cash compensation in the common draft terms of the cross-border merger, as specified in Article 122(1)(m), to those members referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article who wish to exercise their right to dispose of their shareholdings. Member States shall also establish the period for the acceptance of the offer, which shall not in any event exceed one month after the general meeting referred to in Article 126 or, in cases where the approval of the general meeting is not required, within two months after the disclosure of the common draft terms of merger referred to in Article 123.day on which the registration of the resulting company is published in the register. Without prejudice to formal national requirements for the transfer of shares, Member States shall further ensure that the merging companies arecompany is able to accept an offer communicated electronically to an address provided by those companiesy for that purpose.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 379 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 126 a – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall ensure that any member who has not accepted the offer of cash compensation referred to in paragraph 3, butand who considers that the cash compensation has not been adequately set, is entitled to demand the recalculation of the cash compensation offered before a national court within one month of the time limit set for the acceptance of the offer.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 381 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 126 b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that creditors of the merging companies who are dissatisfied with the protection of their interests as provided for in the common draft terms of the cross-border merger, as provided for in Article 122(1)(n), may apply to the appropriate administrative or judicial authority for adequate safeguards within one month of the disclosure referred to in Article 123 if they are of the opinion that they have been prejudiced despite the protection of their interests set down in Article 122(1)(n).
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 383 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 127 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall ensure that the application for obtaining a pre-merger certificate by the merging companies including submission of any information and documents may be completed online in its entirety without the necessity to appear in person before the competent authority or any other person or authority entrusted with processing the application referred to in paragraph 1.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 384 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a
However, in cases of genuine suspicion of fraud based on reasonable grounds, Member States may require a physical presence before a competent authority where relevant information and documents are required to be submitted where the public interest provides a compelling reason to do so.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 386 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point b
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 128 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State shall ensure that the application for the completion of the procedure, referred to in paragraph 1, by any of the merging companies, which includes the submission of any information and documents may be completed online in its entirety without the necessity to appear in person before any competent authority, or any other person or authority entrusted with processing the application.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 387 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point b
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 128 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
However, Member States may take measures in cases of genuine suspicion of fraud based on reasonable grounds which could require a physical presence before a competent authority of a Member State in which thwhere relevant information and documents are required to be submitted where the public interest provides a compelling reason to do so.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 389 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point b
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 132 – paragraph 3
3. Where the laws of Member States of all of the merging companies provide for the exemption from the approval by general meeting in accordance with Article 126(3) and paragraph 1 of this Article, the common draft terms of cross-border merger or the information referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 123 respectively and the reports referred to in Articles 124 and 124a, shall be made available at least one month before the decision on the merger is taken by the company in accordance with the national law.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 395 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 133 a (new)
Member States shall lay down rules governing the civil liability, towards the shareholders and creditors, of the independent experts responsible for drawing up the report referred to in Articles 125 and 126b(2)(a), including in respect of misconduct on their part in the performance of their duties.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 399 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 d
Article 160d Conditions relating to cross-border divisionsdeleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 400 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 d a (new)
Article 160da Compliance with rules against tax avoidance practices Member States shall ensure that a company that intends to make a cross- border division complies with the national rules implementing Directive (EU) 2016/1164.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 412 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 f – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The accounting date provided in the draft terms of the cross-border division shall be the date on which the cross-border division takes effect, as referred to in Article 160ompany being divided makes its final financial report unless the company determines other dates in order to facilitate the division process.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 414 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 g – title
Article 160g Report of the management or administrative organ to the members and employees
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 417 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 g – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
(e a) the implications of the cross- border division on the safeguarding of the employment relationships;
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 418 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 g – paragraph 2 – point e b (new)
(e b) any material change in the conditions of employment and the locations of the companies’ places of business;
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 419 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 g – paragraph 2 – point e c (new)
(e c) how the factors set out in points (a), (f) and (g) also relate to any subsidiaries of the company being divided.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 421 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 g – paragraph 3
3. The report referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, shall be made available, at least electronically, to the members of the company being divided not less than two months before the date of the general meeting referred to in Article 160k. That report shall also be made similarly available toand the representatives of the employees of the company being divided or, where there are no such representatives, to the employees themselves, not less than one month before the date of the general meeting referred to in Article 160k.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 422 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 g – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Where the management or administrative organ of the company being divided receives, in good time, an opinion from the representatives of their employees, or, where there are no such representatives, from the employees themselves, as provided for under national law, the members shall be informed thereof and that opinion shall be appended to that report.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 425 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 g – paragraph 4
4. However, the report referred to in paragraph 1, shall not be required wWhere all the members of the company undergoing the cross-border division have agreed to waive the requirement for this report, it only needs to pertain to the factors listed in paragraph 2(a), (f), (g) and (h) and to be made available to the re all the members of the company being divided havpresentatives of the employees of the company or, where there agreed to waive this document no such representatives, to the employees themselves.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 426 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 g – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. However, where a company being divided and all of its subsidiaries, if any, have no employees other than those who form part of the management or administrative organ, the report may be limited to the factors listed in paragraph 2(a), (f), (g) and (h).
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 427 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 g – paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Paragraphs 1 to 5 are without prejudice to the applicable information and consultation rights and proceedings instituted at national level following the implementation of Directives 2001/23/EC, 2002/14/EC or 2009/38/EC.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 428 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 h
Article 160h Report of the management or administrative organ to the employeesdeleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 432 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 i – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that the company being divided applies to the competent authority, designated in accordance with Article 160o(1), not less than two months before the date of the general meeting referred to in Article 160k, to appoint an expert to examine and assess the draft terms of cross-border division and the reports referred to in Articles 160g and 160h, subject to the proviso set out in paragraph 6 of this Article.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 435 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 i – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) the reports referred to in Articles 160g and 160h.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 437 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 i – paragraph 2
2. The competent authority shall appoint an independent expert within five working days of the application referred to in paragraph 1 and the receipt of the draft terms and reports. The expert shall be independent from the company being divided and may be a natural or a legal person depending upon the law of the Member State concerned. Member States shall take into account, in assessing the independence of the expert, the framework established in Articles 22 and 22b of Directive 2006/43/EC.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 439 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 i – paragraph 3 – point f
(f) a description of all factual elements necessary for the competent authority designated in accordance with Article 160o(1), to carry out an in-depth assessment to determine whether the intended cross-border division constitutes an artificial arrangement in accordance with Article 160p, at a minimum the following: the characteristics of the establishments in the Member States concerned of the recipient companies, including the intent, the sector, the investment, the net turnover and profit or loss, number of employees, the composition of the balance sheet, the tax residence, the assets and their location, the habitual place of work of the employees and of specific groups of employees, the place where social contributions are due and the commercial risks assumed by the company being divided in the Member States of the recipient companies.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 443 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 i – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that the independent expert shall be entitled to obtain from the company being divided all relevant information and documents and to carry out all necessary investigations to verify all elements of the draft terms or management reports. The independent expert shall also be entitled to receive comments and opinions from the representatives of the employees of the company, or, where there are no such representatives, employees themselves and also from the creditors and members of the company.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 447 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 j – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that the requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 can be completed online in their entirety without the necessity to appear in person before any competent authority or any other person or authority entrusted with processing the application in the Member State concerned.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 448 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 j – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
However, Member States may in cases of genuine suspicion of fraud based on reasonable grounds, require a physical presence before a competent authorityrequire a physical presence before a competent authority where the public interest provides a compelling reason to do so.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 450 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 j – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Member States shall ensure that confidential information, including business secrets, shall not be disclosed.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 453 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 k – paragraph 1
1. After taking note of the reports referred to in Articles 160g, 160h and 160i, where applicable, the general meeting of the company being divided shall decide by means of a resolution, whether to approve the draft terms of cross-border division. The company shall inform the competent authority designated in accordance with Article 160o(1) of the decision of the general meeting.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 455 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 k – paragraph 4
4. The general meeting shall also decide whether the cross-border division would necessitate amendments to the instruments of constitution of the company being divided.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 457 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 l – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the following members of a company beingmembers who oppose the dividedsion have the right to dispose of their shareholdings under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 6:
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 458 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 l – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the members holding shares with voting rights and, who did not vote for the approval of the draft terms of the cross- border division;deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 459 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 l – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the members holding shares without voting rights.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 460 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 l – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that a company being divided makes an offer of adequate cash compensation in the draft terms of the cross-border division as specified in Article 160e(1)(q) to the members, referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, who wish to exercise their right to dispose of their shareholdings. Member States shall also establish the period for the acceptance of the offer which shall not in any event exceed one month after the general meeting referred to in Article 160k.day on which the registration of the new legal form is published in the register. Without prejudice to formal national requirements for the transfer of shares, Member States shall further ensure that athe company is able to accept an offer communicated electronically to an address provided by the company for that purpose.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 461 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 l – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall provide that any member who has not accepted the offer of cash compensation referred to in paragraph 3, butand who considers that the compensation has not been adequately set, is entitled to demand the recalculation of the cash compensation offered before a national court within one month of the time limit set for the acceptance of the offer.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 462 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 m – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that creditors, who are dissatisfied with the protection of their interests provided for in the draft terms of the cross-border division, as provided for in Article 160e, may apply to the appropriate administrative or judicial authority for adequate safeguards within one month of the disclosure referred to in Article 160j if they are of the opinion that they have been prejudiced despite the protection of their interests set down in Article 160e.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 464 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 n – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. However, the rules in force 2. concerning employee participation, if any, in the Member State where the company resulting from the cross-border division has its registered office shall not apply, where the company being divided, in the six months prior to the publication of the draft terms of the cross-border division as referred to in Article 160e of this Directive, has an average number of employees equivalent to four fifof over 500 employees and this of the applicable threshold, laid down in the law of the Member State of the company being divided, which triggerscompany has a system for the participation of employees within the meaning of point (k) of Article 2 of Directive 2001/86/EC, or where the national law applicable to each of the recipient companies does not:
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 466 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 o – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall designate the nationalcourt, notary or other authority competent to scrutinise the legality of the cross-border divisions as regards the part of the procedure which is governed by the law of the Member State of the company being divided, and to issue a pre-division certificate attesting compliance with all relevant conditions, and the proper completion of all procedures and formalities in that Member State.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 467 #

2018/0114(COD)

(b) the reports referred to in Articles 160g, 160h and 160i, as appropriate;
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 470 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 o – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The draft terms and reports submitted under Article 160ij do not have to be re- submitted to the competent authority.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 471 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 o – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that the application referred to in paragraph 2, including submission of any company information and documents, may be completed online in its entirety without the necessity to appear in person before the competent authority referred to in paragraph 1or any other person or authority entrusted with processing the application.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 472 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 o – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
However, in cases of genuine suspicion of fraud based on reasonable grounds, Member States may require a physical presence before a competent authority where relevant information and documents are required to be submitted where the public interest provides a compelling reason to do so.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 473 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 o – paragraph 4
4. In respect of compliance with the rules concerning employee participation as laid down in Article 160n, the Member State of the company being divided shall verify that the draft terms of cross-border division referred to in Article 160e include information on the procedures by which the relevant arrangements are determined and on the possible options for such arrangements.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 476 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 o – paragraph 7 – point c
(c) where the competent authority has serious concerns that the cross-border division constitutes an artificial arrangement referred to in Article 160d(3), it may decide to carry out an in- depth assessment in accordance with Article 160p and shall inform the company about its decision to conduct such an assessment and the subsequent outcome.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 477 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Article 160p In-depth assessmentdeleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 479 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 q – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, where the competent authority is not a court, the decision of the competent authority to issue or to refuse to issue a pre-division certificate, is subject to judicial review in accordance with national law. In addition, Member States shall ensure that a pre- division certificate shall not be effective before the expiry of a certain period to allow partiesthe company to bring an action before the competent court and to obtain, if appropriate, interim measures.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 480 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 r – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall designate anthe court, notary or other authority competent to scrutinise the legality of the cross-border divisions as regards that part of the procedure which concerns the completion of the cross-border division governed by the law of the Member States of the recipient companies and to approve the cross-border division where it complies with all the relevant conditions and all the procedures and formalities in that Member State have been properly completed.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 482 #

2018/0114(COD)

Each Member State shall ensure that the application referred to in paragraph 1, by any of the recipient companies which includes submission of any information and documents may be completed online in its entirety without the necessity to appear in person before the competent authority referred to in paragraph 1or any other person or authority entrusted with processing the application.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 483 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 r – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
However, in cases of genuine suspicion of fraud based on reasonable grounds, Member States may require a physical presence before a competent authority of a Member State where relevant information and documents are required to be submitted where the public interest provides a compelling reason to do so.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 486 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 u – paragraph 2 – subparagaph 2
The company being divided shall be liable for any losses arising from any differences in national legal systems of the Member States of the company being divided and of the recipient companies, where any contracting party or counterparty of the company carrying out the division had not been informed of the cross-border division by that company prior to concluding that contract.deleted
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 491 #

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive (EU) No 2017/1132
Article 160 v
Member States shall lay down rules governing at least the civil liability, towards the shareholders and creditors, of the independent experts responsible for drawing up the report referred to in Articles 160i and 160m(2)(a), including in respect of any misconduct on their part in the performance of their duties.
2018/09/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 69 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) Operating system providers play also a crucial role as an intermediary between content providers and consumers. The main purpose of an operating system is to control the basic functions of a device and enable the user to make use of such a device and run application software on it. However, operating systems are usually proposed with a set of accessory by-default application software in order to offer the consumer a turnkey device. This can shape deeply the choice of applications used by consumers later on. Moreover, operating systems also handle the way those applications can be run on the device and act as a key platform between application developers and consumers. As operating system providers are often vertically integrated with application developers, issues can arise notably regarding the possibility of a differentiated treatment between native and third-party applications; Increasing transparency would help prevent unfair commercial behaviours.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 78 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) Online intermediation services, operating systems and online search engines, as well as the commercial transactions facilitated by those services, have an intrinsic cross- border potential and are of particular importance for the proper functioning of the Union’s internal market in today’s economy. The potentially unfair and harmful trading practices of certain providers of those services in respect of business users and corporate website users hamper the full realisation of that potential and negatively affect the proper functioning of the internal market. In addition, the full realisation of that potential is hampered, and the proper functioning of the internal market is negatively affected, by diverging laws of certain Member States which, with a varying degree of effectiveness, regulate those services, while other Member States are considering adopting such laws.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 90 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) Since online intermediation services, operating systems and online search engines typically have a global dimension, this Regulation should apply to providers of those services regardless of whether they are established in a Member State or outside the Union, provided that two cumulative conditions are met. Firstly, the business users or corporate website users should be established in the Union. Secondly, the business users or corporate website users should, through the provision of those services, offer their goods or services to consumers located in the Union at least for part of the transaction. Such consumers should be located in the Union, but do not need to have their place of residence in the Union nor have the nationality of any Member State. Accordingly, this Regulation should not apply where the business users or corporate websites users are not established in the Union or where they are established in the Union but where they use online intermediation services or online search engines to offer goods or services exclusively to consumers located outside the Union or to persons who are not consumers.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 136 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) Ensuring transparency in the general terms and conditions can be essential to promoting sustainable business relationships and to preventing unfair behaviour to the detriment of business users. Providers of online intermediation services should therefore also ensure that the terms and conditions are easily available at all stages of the contractual relationship, including to prospective business users at the pre-contractual phase, and that any modifications to those terms are notified to business users within a set notice period which is reasonable and proportionate in light of the specific circumstances and which is at least 15 days. That notice period should not apply where, and to the extent that, it is waived in an unambiguous manner by the business user concerned or where, and to the extent that, the need to implement the modification without respecting the notice period stems from a legal obligation incumbent on the service provider under Union or national law. Business users should be entitled to terminate their agreement without payment of any fee within 30 days from the receipt of a notice of a modification which they consider being detrimental to them.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 160 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) The ranking of goods and services by the providers of online intermediation services has an important impact on consumer choice and, consequently, on the commercial success of the business users offering those goods and services to consumers. Providers of online intermediation services should therefore outline the main parameters determining ranking beforehand, in order to improve predictability for business users, to allow them to better understand the functioning of the ranking mechanism and to enable them to compare the ranking practices of various providers. The notion of main parameter should be understood to refer to any general criteria, processes, specific signals incorporated into algorithms or other adjustment or demotion mechanisms used in connection with the ranking. The description of the main parameters determining ranking should also include an explanation of any possibility for business users to actively influence ranking against remuneration, as well as of the relative effects thereof. This description should provide business users with an adequate understanding of how the ranking mechanism takes account of the characteristics of the actual goods or services offered by the business user, and their relevance to the consumers of the specific online intermediation services.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 167 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) Similarly, the ranking of websites by the providers of online search engines, notably of those websites through which undertakings offer goods and services to consumers, has an important impact on consumer choice and the commercial success of corporate website users. Providers of online search engines should therefore provide a description of the main parameters determining the ranking of all indexed websites, including those of corporate website users as well as other websites. In addition to the characteristics of the goods and services and their relevance for consumers, this description should in the case of online search engines also allow corporate website users to obtain an adequate understanding of whether, and if so how and to what extent, certain design characteristics of the website used, such as their optimisation for display on mobile telecommunications devices, is taken into account. In the absence of a contractual relationship between providers of online search engines and corporate website users, that description should be available to the public in an obvious and easily accessible location on the relevant online search engine. To ensure predictability for corporate website users, the description should also be kept up to date, including the possibility that any changes to the main parameters should be made easily identifiable. Whilst the providers are under no circumstances required to disclose any trade secrets as defined in Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 when complying with this requirement to disclose the main ranking parameters, the description given should at least be based on actual data on the relevance of the ranking parameters used. _________________ 23 Directive (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).
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 172 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) Considering the critical importance of the ranking in the search results pages, and in particular on the first one, for corporate website users to be visible to the consumers, it is important to ensure fairness in the ranking of the organic search results. Consequently, providers of online search engines should treat equally in terms of positioning and display all corporate website users, including corporate website users that a provider controls directly or indirectly.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 175 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) Where a provider of online intermediation services itself offers certain goods or services to consumers through its own online intermediation services, or does so through a business user which it controls, that provider may compete directly with other business users of its online intermediation services which are not controlled by the provider. Such a provider may have an economic incentive and the ability to use its control over the online intermediation service to provide technical or economic advantages to its own offerings, or those offered through a business user which it controls, that it could deny to competing business users. If a provider of online intermediation services exercises this ability, its conduct may deprive such competing business users of equality of opportunity and can lead to consumer harm by reducing their choices, or withholding critical information from them. In such situations, in particular, it is important that the provider of online intermediation services acts in a transparent manner and provides a description of any differentiated treatment, whether through legal, commercial or technical means, that it might give in respect of goods or services it offers itself compared to those offered by business users. For purposes of this Regulation, a provider’s service competes with those of its other business users if it is regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by consumers of the online intermediation service, including by reason of the characteristics, prices, or intended uses of the services. To ensure proportionality, this obligation should apply at the level of the overall online intermediation services, rather than at the level of individual goods or services offered through those services.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 183 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) In certain cases, the asymmetry in bargaining power between online intermediation services and other business users results in a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the applicable contract, causing harm to the business user. In such cases, the provider of online intermediation service must apply fair treatment to the business user, including treating the business users’ services and its own services substantially similarly. Treatment shall not qualify as fair if it materially impairs the business users’ ability and freedom to do business, thereby causing appreciable harm to the business user.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 186 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 b (new)
(19b) When a provider of online intermediation services competes with other business users, he may harm consumers by reducing the consumers’ choices, or withholding critical information from them. The obligation to provide fair treatment should include ensuring that consumers who access services through the online intermediation service have the right and ability to select and use the services of their choice, without facing any undue burdens, such as where the provider ignores or overrides consumers’ choices of default settings. A provider of online intermediation services fails to provide fair treatment where it does not afford competing business users with all information necessary for them to achieve a comparable level and quality of interoperability with the online intermediation service, and any ancillary services, as are available to the provider itself. A provider of online intermediation services also fails to provide fair treatment where it implements practices that directly or indirectly provide technical or economic advantages to its own offerings that it denies to competing business users. Fair treatment requires the provider to refrain from interfering in the commercial relationship between competing business users and consumers of their services.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 198 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 a (new)
(21a) It is important that service providers of online intermediation services, search engines and operating systems, do not engage in unfair commercial practices (including commercial behaviour or the inclusion of unfair contractual terms) which have a detrimental impact on competition or on choice for consumers.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 201 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 b (new)
(21b) Certain practices, such as the ones mentioned in the Annex, can be conclusively treated as unfair in all circumstances. The Platform Observatory should continuously review this list of practices and recommend updates to the Commission. As the market for online intermediation services evolves, the Commission should issue non-binding guidance on practices that may comprise unfair commercial practices.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 223 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 a (new)
(29a) A close monitoring of the compliant application of this regulation is necessary. Member States shall designate national authorities to require the relevant information from providers of online intermediation services, online search engines and operating systems providers. The information gathered by those authorities should be provided to the Commission and to the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy upon request.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 226 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation lays down rules to ensure that business users of online intermediation services, device operating systems and corporate website users in relation to online search engines are granted appropriate transparency and effective redress possibilities.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 235 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation shall apply to online intermediation services, device operating systems and online search engines provided, or offered to be provided, to business users and corporate website users, respectively, that have their place of establishment or residence in the Union and that, through online intermediation services or online search engines, offer goods or services to consumers located in the Union, irrespective of the place of establishment or residence of the providers of those services.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 238 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. This Regulation shall be without prejudice to national rules which, in conformity with Union law, prohibit or sanction unilateral conduct or unfair commercial practices.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 260 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
(3a) ‘device operating system’ means system software products that control the basic functions of a device and enable the user to make use of such a device and run application software on it.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 261 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
(3b) ‘operating systems providers’ means any natural or legal person which provides, or which offers to provide, device operating systems.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 268 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
(5) ‘online search engine’ means a digital service that allows users to perform searches of, in principle, all websites or websites in a particular language on the basis of a query on any subject in the form of a keyword, vocal request, phrase or other input, and returns linksresults in any format in which information related to the requested content can be found;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 285 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Providers of online intermediation services and providers of operating systems shall ensure that their terms and conditions:
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 297 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) are easily available for business users at all stages of their commercial relationship with the provider of online intermediation services or the providers of operating systems, including in the pre- contractual stage;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 308 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) set out the objective grounds for decisions to suspend or terminate, in whole or in part, the provision of their online intermediation services to business useror of providers of operating systems to business users, or any other restrictions.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 321 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Providers of online intermediation services shalland providers of operating system shall actively notify to the business users concerned any envisaged modification of their terms and conditions.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 326 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The envisaged modifications shall not be implemented before the expiry of a notice period which is reasonable and proportionate to the nature and extent of the envisaged modifications and to their consequences for the business user concerned. That notice period shall be at least 1530 days from the date on which the provider of online intermediation services notifies the business users concerned about the envisaged modifications. The business user shall be allowed to terminate their agreement free of any charges within 30 days from the receipt of the notice, where such modifications are detrimental to the business user.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 339 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Modifications to terms and conditions implemented by a provider of online intermediation services or by providers of operating systems contrary to the provisions of paragraph 3 shall be null and void.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 345 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. Paragraph 3 shall not apply where a provider of online intermediation services or a provider of operating systems is subject to a legal obligation which requires it to modify its terms and conditions in a manner which does not allow it to respect the notice period referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 350 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
5a. Without prejudice to EU and national rules concerning illegal content, if the terms and conditions have been modified in order to protect the legitimate interest of the consumers or of the provider of online intermediation services, in response to practices that can cause immediate harm to consumers, intermediary service providers or providers of operating systems shall apply a 15 days’ notice period for application of the new terms and conditions.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 379 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4a Article 4.1 shall not apply where a provider of online intermediation services is subject to a legal obligation to sanction, suspend, or terminate, in whole or in part, the provision of its online intermediation services to a given business, or does so in order to fight against illicit content. In such cases, the business user shall be notified without undue delay.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 423 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. (a) Providers of online search engines shall notify to corporate website users, in a reasonable notice period, any changes to ranking mechanism referred to in article 5.2. (b) Providers of online search engines shall set out for corporate website users a description of any differentiated treatment which they give, or may give, in relation to, on the one hand, good and services offered to consumers through those online search engines services by either that provider itself or any business users which that provider controls and, on the other hand, other websites users. It shall be clearly indicated, with a specific symbol or any other tool, where provider of online search engines itself, or any business users, which that provider controls partially or entirely, offer goods and services to consumers through online search engines services. (c) Providers of online search engines shall set out for corporate website users an easily accessible internal system allowing websites users to enter into contact with them.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 441 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a Providers of online search engines shall apply fair treatment and ranking criteria on a non-discriminatory basis to all corporate website users, including to corporate website users that a provider controls directly or indirectly. In particular, the same underlying processes and methods for the positioning and display in the general search results pages shall be applied. Those include all elements that have an impact on the visibility, triggering, ranking or graphical format of a search result in the providers’ general search results pages.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 445 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of online intermediation services and providers of operating systems shall include in their terms and conditions a description of any differentiated treatment which they give, or may give, in relation to, on the one hand, goods or services offered to consumers through those online intermediation services or operating systems by either that provider itself or any business users which that provider controls and, on the other hand, other business users.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 457 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The description referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover at least, where applicable, any differentiated treatment through specific measures taken by, or the behaviour of, the provider of the online intermediation services or of the operating system relating to any of the following:
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 459 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) access that the provider, or that the business users which that provider controls, may have to any personal data or other data, or both, which business users or consumers provide for the use of the online intermediation services or of the operating system concerned or which are generated through the provision of those services;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 464 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) any direct or indirect remuneration charged for the use of the online intermediation services concernedor the use of the operating systems concerned, at an ancillary services, and any technical or economic benefit it does not extend to all business users;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 473 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
3. To the extent a provider of online intermediation services, or of operating systems or any business user which that provider controls, offers goods or services that compete with those offered by other business users, the provider shall apply fair treatment to those other business users in such a way that it does not materially impair those business users’ ability to do business.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 475 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Unfair Trading Practices 1. The provider of an online intermediation service, an operating system or a search engine service, shall not engage in an unfair commercial practices. 2. A practice shall constitute an unfair commercial practice if the practice leads to situations where there is a materially detrimental impact on competition and consumer choice. 3. The Annex contains a list of those commercial practices which shall in all circumstances be regarded as unfair. The same single list shall apply in all Member States. 4. Article 6.4 does not apply where provider of an online intermediation service, operating system or a search engine service, are required by law to undertake such practices. 5. The same single list shall be reviewed by the Platform Observatory who shall provide recommendations on further commercial practices which are unfair under this Article to the European Commission. In order to provide such recommendations, the Platform Observatory should analyse the situation on the ground and the jurisprudence from national and European Courts. 6. The European Commission shall, by [set date], after consulting stakeholders, issue non-binding Guidance on unfair commercial practices.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 481 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of online intermediation services and providers of online search engines shall include in their terms and conditions a description of the technical and contractual access, or absence thereof, of business users or corporate website users to any personal data or other data, or both, which business users or corporate website users or consumers provide for the use of the online intermediation services or online search engines concerned or which are generated through the provision of those services.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 494 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Through the description referred to in paragraph 1, providers of online intermediation services or online search engines shall adequately inform business users at least of the following:
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 497 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) whether the provider of online intermediation services and the provider of online search engines has access to personal data or other data, or both, which business users or corporate website users or consumers provide for the use of those services or which are generated through the provision of those services, and if so, to which categories of such data and under what conditions;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 503 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) whether a business user has access to personal data or other data, or both, provided by that business user in connection to his or her use of the online intermediation services or online search engines concerned or generated through the provision of those services to that business user and the consumers of his or her goods or services, and if so, to which categories of such data and under what conditions;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 511 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) whether, in addition to point (b), a business user has access to personal data or other data, or both, including in aggregated form, provided by or generated through the provision of the online intermediation services or online search engines to all of the business users and consumers thereof, and if so, to which categories of such data and under what conditions.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 536 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Where, in the provision of their services, providers of online intermediation services or providers of operating systems restrict the ability of business users to offer the same goods and services to consumers under different conditions through other means than through those services, they shall include grounds for that restriction in their terms and conditions and make those grounds easily available to the public. Those grounds shall include the main economic, commercial or legal considerations for those restrictions.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 548 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Providers of online intermediation services shall provide for anproviders of online search engines, and providers of operating systems shall provide for a transparent and non- discriminatory internal system for handling the complaints of business users.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 562 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. As part of their internal complaint- handling system, providers of online intermediation services, providers of online search engines, and providers of operating systems shall:
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 573 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Providers of online intermediation services, providers of online search engines, and providers of operating systems shall include in their terms and conditions all relevant information relating to the access to and functioning of their internal complaint-handling system.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 581 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Providers of online intermediation services, providers of online search engines, and providers of operating systems shall annually establish and make easily available to the public information on the functioning and effectiveness of their internal complaint-handling system.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 591 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 5
5. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to providers of online intermediation services that are small enterprises within th, providers of online mseaning of Article 2 (2) of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC29 . _________________ 29 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)rch engines, and providers of operating systems that reach less than 5 million unique visitors a month.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 595 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Any attempt to reach an agreement through the internal complaint-handling system in accordance with this article shall not affect the rights of the providers of the online intermediation services and of the business users concerned to initiate judicial proceedings at any time during or after the process.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 606 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Providers of online intermediation services, providers of online search engines, and providers of operating systems shall identify in their terms and conditions one or more mediators with which they are willing to engage to attempt to reach an agreement with business users on the settlement, out of court, of any disputes between the provider and the business user arising in relation to the provision of the online intermediation services concerned, including complaints that could not be resolved by means of the internal complaint-handling system referred to in Article 9.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 614 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) their mediation services are affordable for an average business user of the online intermediation services, the online search engines, and the operating systems concerned;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 615 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) they are capable of providing their mediation services in the language of the terms and conditions which govern the contractual relationship between the provider of online intermediation services, the provider of online search engines, or the provider of operating systems and the business user concerned;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 617 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Providers of online intermediation services, providers of online search engines, and providers of operating systems shall engage in good faith in any attempt to reach an agreement through the mediation of any of the mediators which they identified in accordance with paragraph 1, with a view to reaching an agreement on the settlement of the dispute.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 633 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Providers of online intermediation services , providers of online search engines, and providers of operating systems shall bear a reasonable proportion of the total costs of mediation in each individual case. A reasonable proportion of those total costs shall be determined, on the basis of a suggestion by the mediator, by taking into account all relevant elements of the case at hand, in particular the relative merits of the claims of the parties to the dispute, the conduct of the parties, as well as the size and financial strength of the parties relative to one another. However, providers of online intermediation services, providers of online search engines, and providers of operating systems shall in any case bear at least half of the total cost.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 640 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. Any attempt to reach an agreement through mediation on the settlement of a dispute in accordance with this Article shall not affect the rights of the providers of the online intermediation services, online search engine, or operating systems and of the business users concerned to initiate judicial proceedings at any time during or after the mediation process.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 651 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall encourage providers of online intermediation services, providers of online search engines, and providers of operating systems as well as organisations and associations representing them to individually or jointly set up one or more organisations providing mediation services which meet the requirements specified in Article 10(2), for the specific purpose of facilitating the out-of-court settlement of disputes with business users arising in relation to the provision of those services, taking particular account of the cross- border nature of online intermediation services, online search engines, and operating systems.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 657 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Organisations and associations that have a legitimate interest in representing business users or in representing corporate website users, as well as public bodies set up in Member States, shall have the right to take action before national courts in the Union, in accordance with the rules of the law of the Member State where the action is brought, to stop or prohibit any non- compliance by providers of online intermediation services or by providers of online search engines or by providers of operating systems with the relevant requirements laid down in this Regulation.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 693 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the rights of business users and corporate website users to individually take action before competent national courts, in accordance with the rules of the law of the Member State where the action is brought, to address any non-compliance by providers of online intermediation services by providers of online search engines, or by providers of operating systems with the relevant requirements laid down in this Regulation.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 701 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall encourage the drawing up of codes of conduct by providers of online intermediation services and by organisations and associations representing them, together with business users and their representative organisations, intended to contribute to the proper application of this Regulation, taking account of the specific features of the various sectors in which online intermediation services are provided, as well as of the specific characteristics of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 703 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
The Commission shall encourage the drawing up of codes of conduct by providers of operating systems and by organisations and associations representing them, intended to contribute to the proper application of this Regulation.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 706 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a Remedies 1. Member States shall designate a body or bodies responsible for adequate and effective enforcement of this regulation. 2. Member States shall determine the sanctions applicable to infringements of the provisions contained in this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are enforced. These sanctions shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. 3. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be communicated to the Commission and made publicly available on the Commission’s website.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 713 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. By [date: threewo years after the date of entry into force], and subsequently every three years, the Commission shall evaluate this Regulation and report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 729 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – Title (new)
Annex Commercial practices to be regarded as unfair in all circumstances
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 730 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point a (new)
(a) Requiring the business user to use the online intermediation service provider's ancillary services, including payment services, without the option to use any alternative methods;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 731 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point b (new)
(b) Burdening the business user with a unilateral liability clause which causes an unfair transfer of risk;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 732 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point c (new)
(c) Proposing retroactive contract clauses;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 733 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point d (new)
(d) Impeding consumers access to, or discovery of, products, services, or applications offered by other business users on the online service for reasons that are not objectively justifiable;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 734 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point e (new)
(e) Modifying terms and conditions without informing business users concerned;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 735 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point f (new)
(f) Maintaining the legal right to use the business user's confidential information after the contract between the online intermediary service provider and the business user has expired;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 736 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point g (new)
(g) Any clause or practices which make it unduly difficult for a business user to terminate its relationship with an online intermediation service provider and/or use another online intermediation service.;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 737 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point h (new)
(h) Impeding that consumers who access services through the online intermediation service have the right and ability to select and use the services of their choice, without facing any undue burdens;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 738 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point i (new)
(i) Not providing all information necessary to enable business users to achieve a comparable level and quality of interoperability with services or functionality accessed through the service as are available to services offered by the provider itself, where a provider of online intermediation services itself offers goods or services to consumers through its own online intermediation services, or does so through a business user which it controls;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 739 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point j (new)
(j) Providing any technical or economic advantage to its own services, or to services that it controls, and denying it to competing business users, where a provider of online intermediation services itself offers goods or services to consumers through its own online intermediation services, or does so through a business user which it controls;
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 740 #

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – point k (new)
(k) Interfering in the commercial relationship between competing business users and consumers of their services.
2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 46 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) The Directive lays down an obligation for Member States to make all documents re-usable unless access is restricted or excluded under national rules on access to documents and subjectwithout prejudice to the other exceptions laid down in this Directive. The Directive builds on the existing access regimes in the Member States and does not change the national rules for access to documents. Neither does it establish access rights or obligations to publish information. This decision remains at the discretion of the Member States. It does not apply in cases in which citizens or companies can, under the relevant access regime, only obtain a document if they can prove a particular interest. At Union level, Articles 41 (right to good administration) and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union recognise the right of any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State to have access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Public sector bodies should be encouraged to make available for re-use any documents held by them. Public sector bodies should promote and encourage re- use of documents, including official texts of a legislative and administrative nature in those cases where the public sector body has the right to authorise their re-use.
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 49 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) Documents held by public undertakings should be excluded if produced outside the scope of the provision of services in the general interest as defined by law or other binding rules in the Member State or, in the absence of such rules, in accordance with standard administrative practice; this should apply equally to the documents of public undertakings which are in direct economic competition with private companies in order to promote the basic objective of fair competition.
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 56 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
(31) A document should be considered to be in a machine-readable format if it is in a file format that is structured in such a way that software applications can easily identify, recognise and, in a technology neutral manner, extract specific data from it. Data encoded in files that are structured in a machine-readable format should be considered to be machine- readable data. Machine-readable formats can be open or proprietary; they can be formal standards or not. Documents encoded in a file format that limits automatic processing, because the data cannot, or cannot easily, be extracted from them, should not be considered to be in a machine-readable format. Member States should where possible and appropriate encourage the use of open, machine- readable formats.
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 58 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) Charges for the re-use of documents constitute an important market entry barrier for start-ups and SMEs. Documents should therefore be made available for re-use without charges and, where charges are necessary, they should in principle be limited to the marginal costs. Marginal costs are the extra costs for the digitisation, storage and management of documents, as well as the costs for digital mass storage, the additional effort to render data machine readable and the extra burden for infrastructure measures. In exceptional cases, the necessity of not hindering the normal running of public sector bodies that are required to generate revenue to cover a substantial part of their costs relating to the performance of their public tasks should be taken into consideration. The role of public undertakings in a competitive economic environment should also be acknowledged. In such cases, public sector bodies and public undertakings should therefore be able to charge above marginal costs. Those charges should be set according to objective, transparent and verifiable criteria and the total income from supplying and allowing re-use of documents should not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination, together with a reasonable return on investment. Where applicable, tThe costs of anonymisation of personal data or of commercially sensitive information should also be included in the eligible cost. The requirement to generate revenue to cover a substantial part of the public sector bodies’ costs relating to the performance of their public tasks or the scope of the services of general interest entrusted with public undertakings does not have to be a legal requirement and may stem, for example, from administrative practices in Member States. Such a requirement should be regularly reviewed by the Member States.
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 67 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 58
(58) In order to set in place conditions supporting the re-use of documents which is associated with important socio- economic benefits having a particular high value for economy and society, 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 the adoption of a list of high- value datasets among the documents to which this Directive applies, along with the modalities of their publication and re- use. 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-Making. 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.deleted
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 72 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 59
(59) An EU-wideThe Member States should establish a list of datasets with a particular potential to generate socio- economic benefits together with harmonised re-use conditions. This list constitutes an important enabler of cross-border data applications and services. The list should take into account sectoral legislation that already regulates the publication of datasets, as well as the categories indicated in the Technical Annex of the G8 Open Data Charter and in the Commission's Notice 2014 /C 240/01. The list should take into account sectoral legislation that already regulates the publication of datasets, as well as the categories indicated in the Technical Annex of the G8 Open Data Charter and in the Commission's Notice 2014 /C 240/01.
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 78 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) existingpublicly accessible documents held by public sector bodies of the Member States;
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 80 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) existingpublicly accessible documents held by public undertakings active in the areas defined in Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council42 and by public undertakings acting as public service operators pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council43, public undertakings acting as air carriers fulfilling public service obligations pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council44, and public undertakings acting as Community shipowners fulfilling public service obligations pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/9245. _________________ 42 Directive 2014/25/EU of the European 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). 43 Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70. 44 Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3– 20). 45 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7–10).
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 81 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
This Directive leaves intact and in no way affects the level of protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data under the provisions of EU and national law, and in particular does not alter the obligations and rights set out in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation).
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 83 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) documents held by public undertakings, produced outside the scope of the provision of services in the general interest as defined by law or other binding rules in the Member State or, in the absence of such rules, in accordance with standard administrative practice;
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 84 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) Documents held by public undertakings with an industrial or commercial nature within the meaning of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 85 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) critical infrastructure within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2008/114/EC
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 90 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14 a (new)
14a. ‘personal data’ means data as defined in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation).
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 111 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) By way of exception, documents for which the public sector body concerned is required to generate sufficient revenue to cover a substantial part of the costs relating to their collection, production, reproduction and dissemination. Those requirements shall be defined by law or by other binding rules in the Member State. In the absence of such rules, the requirements shall be defined in accordance with common administrative practice in the Member State;
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 114 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 5
(5) The re-use of high value datasets, the list of which shall be defined in accordance with Article 13by the Member States, and of research data referred to in point (c) of Article 1(1) shall be free of charge or at a reduced cost for the user.
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 118 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
In the case of public undertakings, where the re-use of documents is permitted under Article 3(2), and takes place without any corresponding conditions, where appropriate through a license, the public undertakings shall be excluded from all liability as regards the documents made available for re-use insofar as such an exclusion of liability does not run counter to any binding Member State rules.
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 121 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
(1) The re-use of documents shall be open to all potential actors in the market, even if one or more market actors already exploit added-value products based on these documents. Contracts or other arrangements between the public sector bodies or public undertakings holding the documents and third parties shall where possible not grant exclusive rights. Any existing exemptions from procurement legislation under Article 11 of Directive 2014/24/EU and innovation partnerships as defined in Article 31 of Directive 2014/24/EU shall be taken into account.
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 124 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13
(1) objectives of this Directive, the Commission shall adopt the list of high value datasets among the documents to which this Directive applies, together with the modalities of their publication and re- use. (2) for free, machine-readable and accessible via APIs. The conditions for re-use shall be compatible with open standard licences. (3) availability referred to in paragraph 2 shall not apply to high-value datasets of public undertakings if the impact assessment referred to in Article 13(7) shows that making the datasets available for free will lead to a considerable distortion of competition in the respective markets. (4) out in paragraph 2, the Commission may define other applicable modalities, in particular (a) (b) technical modalities of their publication and dissemination. (5) list referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the assessment of their potential to generate socio-economic benefits, the number of users and the revenues they may help generate, and their potential for being combined with other datasets. (6) Article shall be adopted by the Commission by means of a delegated act in accordance with Article 290 of the TFEU and subject to the procedure laid down in Article 14. (7) impact assessment including a cost- benefit analysis prior to the adoption of the delegated act and ensure that the act is complementary to the existing sector based legal instruments with respect to the re-use of documents that belong to the scope of application of this Directive. Where high value datasets held by public undertakings are concerned, the impact assessment shall give special consideration to the role of public undertakings in a competitive economic environment.Article 13 deleted List of high value datasets With a view to achieving the These datasets shall be available By way of exception, the free In addition to the conditions set any conditions for re-use; formats of data and metadata and The selection of datasets for the The measures referred to in this The Commission shall conduct an
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 133 #

2018/0111(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14
(1) is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. (2) referred to in Article 13 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from [date of entry into force of the Directive]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. (3) to in Article 13 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to tArticle 14 deleted Exercise of the delegation The power to adopt delegated acts The power to adopt delegated acts The delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. (4) the Commission shall consult experts designated by each Member State in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. (5) act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. (6) to Article 13 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.referred Before adopting a delegated act, As soon as it adopts a delegated A delegated act adopted pursuant
2018/07/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 136 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32 a (new)
(32a) Contracts for individual deliveries of non-network energy should be exempted from the right of withdrawal. Due to the fluctuations in market prices, the entrepreneur would otherwise incur an incalculable resale risk.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 142 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
(33) Directive 2011/83/EU provides fully harmonised rules regarding the right of withdrawal from distance and off- premises contracts. In this context, two concrete obligations have been shown to constitute disproportionate burdens on traders and should be deleted.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 150 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
(34) The first relates to the consumer right to withdraw from sales contracts concluded at a distance or off-premises even after using goods more than necessary to establish their nature, characteristics and functioning. According to Article 14(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU, a consumer is still able to withdraw from the online/off-premises purchase even if he or she has used the good more than allowed; however, in such a case, the consumer can be held liable for any diminished value of the good.deleted
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 158 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
(35) The obligation to accept the return of such goods creates difficulties for traders who are required to assess the ‘diminished value’ of the returned goods and to resell them as second-hand goods or to discard them. It distorts the balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises pursued by Directive 2011/83/EU. The right for consumers to return goods in such situations should therefore be deleted. Annex I of Directive 2011/83/EU 'Information concerning the exercise of the right of withdrawal' should also be adjusted in accordance with this amendment.deleted
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 166 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
(36) The second obligation concerns Article 13 of Directive 2011/83/EU, according to which traders can withhold the reimbursement until they have received the goods back, or until the consumer has supplied evidence of having sent them back, whichever is the earliest. The latter option may, in some circumstances, effectively require traders to reimburse consumers before having received back the returned goods and having had the possibility to inspect them. It distorts the balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises pursued by Directive 2011/83/EU. Therefore, the obligation for traders to reimburse the consumer on the mere basis of the proof that the goods have been sent back to the trader should be deleted. Annex I of Directive 2011/83/EU 'Information concerning the exercise of the right of withdrawal' should also be adjusted in accordance with this amendment.deleted
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 188 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
(44) While off-premises sales constitute a legitimate and well-established sales channel, like sales at a trader's business premises and distance–selling, some particularly aggressive or misleading marketing practices in the context of visits to the consumer's home without the consumer's prior agreement or during commercial excursions can put consumers under pressure to make purchases of goods they would not otherwise buy and/or purchases at excessive prices, often involving immediate payment. Such practices often target elderly or other vulnerable consumers. Some Member States consider those practices undesirable and deem it necessary to restrict certain forms and aspects of off-premises sales within the meaning of Directive 2011/83/EU, such as aggressive and misleading marketing or selling of a product in the context of unsolicited visits to a consumer's home or commercial excursions, on grounds of public policy or the respect for consumers’ private life protected by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and in order to facilitate enforcement, it should therefore be clarified that Directive 2005/29/EC is without prejudice to Member States' freedom to make arrangements without the need for a case-by-case assessment of the specific practice, to protect the legitimate interests of consumers with regard to unsolicited visits at their private home by a trader in order to offer or sell products or in relation to commercial excursions organised by a trader with the aim or effect of promoting or selling products to consumers where such arrangements are justified on grounds of public policy or the protection of private life. Any such provisions should be proportionate and not discriminatory. Member States should be required to notify any national provisions adopted in this regard to the Commission so that the Commission can make this information available to all interested parties and monitor the proportionate nature and legality of those measures.deleted
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 199 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 2005/29/EC
Article 3
(1) Article 3 is amended as follows: (a) following: “This Directive does not prevent Member States from adopting provisions to protect the legitimate interests of consumers with regard to aggressive or misleading marketing or selling practices in the context of unsolicited visits by a trader to a consumer's home, or with regard to commercial excursions organised by a trader with the aim or effect of promoting or selling products to consumers, provided that such provisions are justified on grounds of public policy or the protection of the respect for private life.” (b) following: “Member States shall notify the Commission without delay of any national provisions applied on the basis of paragraph 5 as well as of any subsequent changes. The Commission shall make this information easily accessible to consumers and traders on a dedicated website.”deleted Paragraph 5 is replaced by the Paragraph 6 is replaced by the
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 232 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2005/29/EC
Article 11 a – paragraph 1
1. In addition to the requirement to ensure adequate and effective means to enforce compliance in Article 11, Member States shall ensure that contractual and non-contractual remedies are also available for consumers harmed by unfair commercial practices in order to eliminate all the effects of those unfair commercial practices in accordance with their national law.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 234 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2005/29/EC
Article 11 a – paragraph 2
2. Contractual remedies shall include, as a minimum, the possibility for the consumer to unilaterally terminate the contract.deleted
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 241 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2005/29/EC
Article 11 a – paragraph 3
3. Non-contractual remedies shall include, as a minimum, the possibility of compensation for damages suffered by the consumer.deleted
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 245 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2005/29/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. If Member States impose a fine, they shall ensure that, when deciding on whether to impose a penaltyfine and on its level, the administrative authorities or courts shall give due regard to the following criteria where relevant:
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 256 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2005/29/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Where the penalty to be imposed is a fine, tThe infringing trader’s annual turnover and net profits as well as any fines imposed for the same or other infringements of this Directive in other Member States shall also be taken into account in the determination of its amountthe level of penalty.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 334 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the main parameters determining ranking of offers presented to the consumer as result of his search query on the online marketplace and the existence of a possible remuneration link between the online market place and the third party;
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 345 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 a – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) where applicable, the existence of a control of the customer reviews’ reliability, and its main characteristics;
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 357 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 a – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the calculation basis for any price reduction for the product or service shown in the search query on the online marketplace;
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 361 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 a – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
(db) the official classification, categorisation or quality grade of a product, where applicable.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 378 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 b (new)
(4a) The following Article is inserted: “Article 4b Information requirements on illegal offers When a product or service is removed by the online marketplace because it is proven illegal, the online marketplace shall inform the customers who have purchased this product or who have accepted an illegal offer.”
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 388 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 13 – paragraph 3
(a) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: “3. collect the goods himself, with regard to sales contracts, the trader may withhold the reimbursement until he has received the goods back.”deleted Unless the trader has offered to
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 412 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point 1 a (new)
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
(1a) point b of Article 16(1) is amended as follows: ‘(b) the supply of goods or, services or non-network energy for which the price is dependent on fluctuations in the financial market, commodity market or energy market which cannot be controlled by the trader and which may occur within the withdrawal period; ’ Or. de (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083&qid=1537955310239&from=FR)
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 420 #

2018/0090(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point 3
Directive 2011/83/EC
Article 16 – paragraph 1– point n
(3) the following point is added: “(n) the supply of goods that the consumer has handled, during the right of withdrawal period, other than what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods.”deleted
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 38 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) The purpose of this Directive is to enable qualified entities, which represent the collective interest of consumers, to seek remedy through representative actions against infringements of provisions of Union law. The qualified entities should be able to ask for stopping or prohibiting an infringement, and for confirming that an infringement took place and to seek redress, such as compensation, repair or price reduction as available under national laws.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 57 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) As only qualified entities can bring the representative actions, to ensure that the collective interests of consumers are adequately represented the qualified entities should comply with the criteria established by this Directive. In particular, they would need to be properly constituted according to the law of a Member State, which could include for example requirements regarding the number of members, the degree of permanence, or transparency requirements on relevant aspects of their structure such as their constitutive statutes, management structure, objectives and working methods. They should also be not for profit and have a legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with the relevant Union law. These criteria should apply to both qualified entities designated in advance and to ad hoc qualified entities that are constituted for the purpose of a specific action.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 62 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
(11) Independent public bodies and consumer organisations in particular should play an active role in ensuring compliance with relevant provisions of Union law and are all well placed to act as qualified entities. Since these entities have access to different sources of information regarding traders' practices towards consumers and hold different priorities for their activities, Member States should be free to decide on the types of measures that may be sought by each of these qualified entities in representative actions.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 68 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) To increase the procedural effectiveness of representative actions, qualified entities should have the possibility to seek different measures within a single representative action or within separate representative actions. These measures should include interim measures for stopping an ongoing practice or prohibiting a practice in case the practice has not been carried out but there is a risk that it would cause serious or irreversible harm to consumers, measures establishing that a given practice constitutes an infringement of law and, if necessary, stopping or prohibiting the practice for the future, as well as measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement, including redress. If sought within a single action, qualified entities should be able to seek all relevant measures at the moment of bringing the action or first seek relevant injunctions order and subsequently and if appropriate redressdeclaratory order.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 72 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) Qualified entities should be able to seek measures aimed at eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement. These measures should take the form of a redress order obligating the trader to provide for, inter alia, compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination or reimbursement of the price paid, as appropriate and as available under national laws.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 76 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) Member States may require qualified entities to provide sufficient information to support a representative action for redress, including a description of the group of consumers concerned by an infringement and the questions of fact and law to be resolved within the representative action. The qualified entity should not be required to individually identify all consumers concerned by an infringement in order to initiate the action. In representative actions for redress the court or administrative authority should verify at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings whether the case is suitable for being brought as a representative action, given the nature of the infringement and characteristics of the damages suffered by consumers concerned.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 80 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) Member States should be allowed to decide whether their court or national authority seized of a representative action for redress may exceptionally issue, instead of a redress order, a declaratory decision regarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement which could be directly relied upon in subsequent redress actions by individual consumers. This possibility should be reserved to duly justified cases where the quantification of the individual redress to be attributed to each of the consumer concerned by the representative action is complex and it would be inefficient to carry it out within the representative action. Declaratory decisions should not be issued in situations which are not complex and in particular where consumers concerned are identifiable and where the consumers have suffered a comparable harm in relation to a period of time or a purchase. Similarly, declaratory decisions should not be issued where the amount of loss suffered by each of the individual consumers is so small that individual consumers are unlikely to claim for individual redress. The court or the national authority should duly motivate its recourse to a declaratory decision instead of a redress order in a particular case.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 84 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) Where consumers concerned by the same practice are identifiable and they suffered comparable harm in relation to a period of time or a purchase, such as in the case of long-term consumer contracts, the court or administrative authority may clearly define the group of consumers concerned by the infringement in the course of the representative action. In particular, the court or administrative authority could ask the infringing trader to provide relevant information, such as the identity of the consumers concerned and the duration of the practice. For expediency and efficiency reasons, in these cases Member States in accordance with their national laws could consider to provide consumers with the possibility to directly benefit from a redress order after it was issued without being required to give their individual mandate before the redress order is issued.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 87 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) In low-value cases most consumers are unlikely to take action in order to enforce their rights because the efforts would outweigh the individual benefits. However, if the same practice concerns a number of consumers, the aggregated loss may be significant. In such cases, a court or authority may consider that it is disproportionate to distribute the funds back to the consumers concerned, for example because it is too onerous or impracticable. Therefore the funds received as redress through representative actions would better serve the purposes of the protection of collective interests of consumers and should be directed to a relevant public purpose, such as a consumer legal aid fund, awareness campaigns or consumer movements.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 102 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) Member States may provide that a qualified entity and a trader who have reached a settlement regarding redress for consumers affected by an allegedly illegal practice of that trader can jointly request a court or administrative authority to approve it. Such request should be admitted by the court or administrative authority only if there is no other ongoing representative action regarding the same practice. A competent court or administrative authority approving such collective settlement must take into consideration the interests and rights of all parties concerned, including individual consumers. Individual consumers concerned shall be given the possibility to accept or to refuse to be bound by such a settlement.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 107 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
(30) Any out-of-court settlement reached within the context of a representative action or based on a final declaratory decision should be approved by the relevant court or the administrative authority to ensure its legality and fairness, taking into consideration the interests and rights of all parties concerned. Individual consumers concerned shall be given the possibility to accept or to refuse to be bound by such a settlement.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 111 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
(31) Ensuring that consumers are informed about a representative action is crucial for its success. Consumers should be informed of ongoing representative action, the fact that a trader's practice has been considered as a breach of law, their rights following the establishment of an infringement and any subsequent steps to be taken by consumers concerned, particularly for obtaining redress. The reputational risks associated with spreading information about the infringement are also important for deterring traders infringing consumer rights.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 116 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
(33) To enhance legal certainty, avoid inconsistency in the application of Union law and to increase the effectiveness and procedural efficiency of representative actions and of possible follow-on actions for redress, the finding of an infringement established in a final decision, including a final injunction order under this Directive, issued by an administrative authority or a court should not be relitigated in subsequent legal actions related to the same infringement by the same trader as regards the nature of the infringement and its material, personal, temporal and territorial scope as determined by that final decision. Where an action seeking measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement, including for redress, is brought in a Member State other than the Member State where a final decision establishing this infringement was issued, the decision should constitute a rebuttable presumption that the infringement has occurred.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 120 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
(37) Evidence is an important element for establishing whether a given practice constitutes an infringement of law, whether there is a risk of its repetition, for determining the consumers concerned by an infringement, deciding on redress and adequately informing consumers concerned by a representative action about the ongoing proceedings and its final outcomes. However, business-to-consumer relationships are characterised by information asymmetry and the necessary information may be held exclusively by the trader, making it inaccessible to the qualified entity. Qualified entities should therefore be afforded the right to request to the competent court or administrative authority the disclosure by the trader of evidence relevant to their claim or needed for adequately informing consumers concerned about the representative action, without it being necessary for them to specify individual items of evidence. The need, scope and proportionality of such disclosure should be carefully assessed by the court or administrative authority overseeing the representative action having regard to the protection of legitimate interests of third parties and subject to the applicable Union and national rules on confidentiality.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 130 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive sets out rules enabling qualified entities to seek representative actions aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers, while ensuring appropriate safeguards at EU and Member State level and their consistent EU-wide application to avoid abusive litigation.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 140 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) ‘collective interests of consumers’ means the interestsgeneral interest of consumers independent of athe number of consumers concerned by the case in question;
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 145 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
(6 a) 'CPC entity' shall refer to the 'competent authority' as defined by Regulaiton (EU) 2917/2394 of the European Parliament and Council on Cooperation between national authorities responsbile for the enforcement of consumer protection laws.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 146 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
4 Qualified entitiEntities qualified for Article 5 measures and entities qualified for Article 6 measures
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 148 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that representative actions canreferred to in Article 5 and in Article 6 of this Directive can only be brought by qualified entities designated, at their request, by the Member States in advance for this purpose and placed in a publicly available list. These entities shall be certified and supervised by the CPC entity.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 151 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Member States shallCPC entities may designate an entity as a qualified entity for Article 5 measures if it complies with the following criteria:
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 158 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) it has a legitimate interest ins statutes, governance and track record demonstrate its legitimate interest in protecting consumers and ensuring that provisions of Union law covered by this Directive are complied with;
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 160 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) it has a non-profit making character. and a governance structure providing complete independence from third parties and ensuring that no excessive salaries or office costs or other expenses are paid just to fulfill the non-profit criterion, nor is it a vehicle for pursuing litigation for profit controlled by others;
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 163 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c a (new)
(c a) it has sufficient capacity in terms of human resources, and legal expertise to represent multiple claimants acting in their best interest;
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 165 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c b (new)
(c b) it has in place due procedures to identify, prevent and deal with conflicts of interests;
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 166 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c c (new)
(c c) it has existed for at least 2 years before initiating a representative action.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 167 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
CPC entities may designate an entity as a qualified entity for Article 6 measures if it complies with the following criteria: a) the entity is an independent body, appointed by and accountable to the CPC authority and tasked with protecting the interests of consumers; b) in addition to being a not-for-profit entity, the actions taken by entities for Article 6 measures must be funded exclusively from the entity's own resources without a third party funder or legal representative having a financial interest in the specific outcome of the action; c) the entity's governance structure makes clear that it serves the interests of consumers, rather than any third party, and that it has demonstrated the capacity, knowledge, experience, and ability to serve the interests of the consumers in question over a period of at least two years; d) the entity has the know-how, human and financial resources and ability to conduct the litigation in question efficiently and in the interests of consumers; e) the entity has clearly communicated any costs and risks to those consumers before acting on their behalf; f) the entity has existed for at least 4 years before initiating a declaratory action.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 170 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Member States' CPC entities shall assess on a regular basis whether a qualified entity continues to comply with these criteria. Member States shall ensure that the qualified entity loses its status under this Directive if it no longer complies with one or more of the criteria listed in the first subparagraph.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 172 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may designate a qualified entity on an ad hoc basis for a particular representative action, at its request, if it complies with the criteria referred to in paragraph 1.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 177 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that in particular consumer organisations and independent public bodies are eligible for the status of qualified entity. Member States may designate as qualified entities consumer organisations that represent members from more than one Member State.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 181 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may set out rules specifying which qualified entities may seek all of the measures referred to in Articles 5 and 6, and which qualified entities may seek only one or more of these measures.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 182 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 5
5. TWithout predjudice to the compliance by a qualified entity with the criteria referred to in paragraph 1 is without prejudlaid down in Article to the right of4, the court or administrative authority toshall examine whether the purpose of the qualified entity justifies its taking action in a specific case in accordance with Article 5(1) or Article 6(1) of this Directive.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 183 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Member States shall ensure that representative actions can be brought before national courts or administrative authorities by qualified entities provided that there is a direct relationship between the main objectives of the entity and the rights granted under Union law that are claimed to have been violated in respect of which the action is brought.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 185 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that representative actions can be brought before national courts or administrative authorities by qualified entities provided that there is a direct relationship between the main objectives of the entity and the rights granted under Union law that are claimed to have been violated in respect of which the action is brought.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 192 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
In order to seek injunction orders, qualified entities shall not have to obtaindemonstrate that they have the mandate of at least 10 of the individual consumers concerned or, but shall not be required to provide proof of actual loss or damage on the part of the consumers concerned or of intention or negligence on the part of the trader.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 196 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that qualified entitionly entities qualified for Article 6 measures are entitled to bring representative actions seeking measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement. These measures shall be sought on the basis of any final decision establishing that a practice constitutes an infringement of Union law listed in Annex I harming collective interests of consumers, including a final injunction order referred to in paragraph (2)(b)a declaratory decision regarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement of Union law listed in Annex I.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 204 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to Article 4(4), Member States shall ensure that qualified entities are able to seek the measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringementwhich are eligible to bring actions under Article 6 are able to seek a declaratory decision regarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement of Union law listed in Annex I together with measures referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article within a single representative action, provided the identity of all individuals seeking redress is known to the court before its judgment.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 207 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Member States shall ensure that the 'loser pays' principle applies for all types of representative actions.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 208 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – title
RedressDeclaratory measures
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 212 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
For the purposes of Article 5(3), Member States shall ensure that qualified entities are entitled to bring representative actions seeking a redress order, which obligates the trader to provide for, inter alia, compensatMember States shall ensure that entities designated by the CPC authorities to be qualified to bring measures under Article 6 are entitled to bring representative actions seeking a declaratory decision, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination or reimbursement of the price paid, as appropriate. A Member State may require the mandate of the individual consumers concerned before a declaratory decision is made or a redress order is issuedgarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement of Union law listed in Annex I.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 222 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Member States shall ensure that the 'loser pays' principle applies for all types of representative actions.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 224 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. By derogation to paragraph 1, Member States may empower a court or administrative authority to issue, instead of a redress order, a declaratory decision regarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement of Union law listed in Annex I, in duly justified cases where, due to the characteristics of the individual harm to the consumers concerned the quantification of individual redress is complex.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 228 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply in the cases where: (a) consumers concerned by the infringement are identifiable and suffered comparable harm caused by the same practice in relation to a period of time or a purchase. In such cases the requirement of the mandate of the individual consumers concerned shall not constitute a condition to initiate the action. The redress shall be directed to the consumers concerned; (b) consumers have suffered a small amount of loss and it would be disproportionate to distribute the redress to them. In such cases, Member States shall ensure that the mandate of the individual consumers concerned is not required. The redress shall be directed to a public purpose serving the collective interests of consumers.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 239 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. The redress obtained through a final decision in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be without prejudice to any additional rights to redress that the consumers concerned may have under Union or national law.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 243 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The qualified entity seeking a redress order as referred in Article 6(1)entity qualified for Article 5 actions shall declare at an earlythe stage of the action the source of the funds used for its activity in general and the funds that it uses to support thadmissibility of the action if it uses any funds to support the representative action. It shall demonstrate that it has sufficient financial resources to represent the best interests of the consumers concerned and to meet any adverse costs should the action fail.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 252 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(a a) to receive any direct or indirect financial benefit through the litigation process or decision;
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 260 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6
6. Individual consumers concerned shall be given the possibility to accept or to refuse to be bound by settlements referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. The redress obtained through an approved settlement in accordance with paragraph 4 shall be without prejudice to any additional rights to redress that the consumers concerned may have under Union or national lawThe redress obtained through an approved settlement in accordance with paragraph 4 must be definitive and applicable to all cases involving the same practice, the same consumers and the same company.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 266 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the court or administrative authority shall require the infringing trader to inform affected consumers at its expense about the final decisions providing for measures referred to in Articles 5 and 6, and the approved settlements referred to in Article 8, by means appropriate to the circumstance of the case and within specified time limits, including, where appropriate, through notifying all consumers concerned individually.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 269 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. All costs the trader incurs due to the information obligation shall be at the trader's charge only to the extent that the outcome is favourable for the claimant group. Otherwise, the claimant group shall reimburse the trader for the costs.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 272 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that an infringement harming collective interests of consumers established in a final decision of an administrative authority or a court, including a final injunction order referred to in Article 5(2)(b), is deemed as irrefutably establishing the existence of that infringement for the purposes of any other actions seeking redress before their national courts against the same trader for the same infringement.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 275 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that a final decision referred to in paragraph 1, taken in another Member State is considered by their national courts or administrative authorities as a rebuttable presumption that an infringement has occurrdeleted.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 280 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that a final declaratory decision referred to in Article 6(2) is deemed as irrefutably establishing the liability of the trader towards the harmed consumers by an infringement for the purposes of any actions seeking redress before their national courts against the same trader for that infringement. Member States shall ensure that such actions for redress brought individually by consumers are available through expedient and simplified procedures.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 281 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
In accordance with national law, Member States shall ensure that the submission of a representative action as referred to in Articles 5 and 6 shall have the effect of suspending or interrupting limitation periods applicable to any redress actions for the consumers concerned, if the relevant rights are subject to a limitation period under Union or national law.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 284 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that, at the request of a qualified entity that has presented reasonably available facts and evidence sufficient to support the representative action, and has indicated further evidence which lies in the control of the defendant, provided such information is precisely described and narrowly limited to what is proportionate, the court or administrative authority may order, in accordance with national procedural rules, that such evidence be presented by the defendant, subject to the applicable Union and national rules on confidentiality.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 289 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that procedural costs related to representative actions do not constitute financial obstacles for qualified entities to effectively exercise the right to seek the measures referred to in Articles 5 and 6, such as limiting applicable court or administrative fees, granting them access to legal aid where necessary, or by providing them with public funding for this purpose.deleted
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 291 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that ithe party that loses a collective redress action reimburses necessary legal costs borne by the winning party, subject to the conditions provided for in the relevant national law. In cases where the qualified entities are required to inform consumers concerned about the ongoing representative action the related cost may be recovered from the trader if the action is successful.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 293 #

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that any qualified entity designated in advance in one Member State in accordance with Article 4(1) may apply to the courts or administrative authorities of another Member State upon the presentation of the publicly available list referred to in that Article. The courts or administrative authorities shall accept this list as proof of the legal standing of the qualified entity without prejudice to their right to examine whether the purpose of the qualified entity justifies its taking action in a specific case.
2018/09/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 55 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) The number and size of operators vary across the different stages of the food supply chain. Differences in bargaining power relate to the different levels of concentration of operators and can enable the unfair exercise of bargaining power by using unfair trading practices. Unfair trading practices are in particular harmful for small and medium-sized and mid-cap operators in the food supply chain. Agricultural producers, who supply primary agricultural products, are largely small and medium- sized or mid-cap, considering that they employ seasonal workers.
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 58 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) Agricultural producers, who supply primary agricultural products, are largely small and medium-sized. But the limited criteria of small and medium-sized enterprises in agricultural production are often exceeded e.g. when employing seasonal workers. Therefore, it is adequate to enlarge the scope to mid-caps. Mid-cap companies are enterprises or Producer Organisation, cooperatives or Associations of Producer Organisations with a medium-sized structure and with a high capital ratio with a staff headcount of up to 3000 employees. Furthermore, mid-caps can be family-run enterprises. Small and medium-sized enterprises and mid-caps have little market power in comparison to the big players in the agricultural or food supply chain.
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 65 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) A minimum Union standard of protection against certain manifestly unfair trading practices should be introduced to reduce the occurrence of such practices and to contribute to ensuring a fair standard of living for agricultural producers. It should benefit all agricultural producers or any natural or legal person that supplies food products, including producer organisations and associations of producer organisations, provided that all those persons meet the definition of micro, small and medium- sized enterprises set out in the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC12 or are mid-cap enterprises. Those micro, small or, medium or mid-cap suppliers are particularly vulnerable to unfair trading practices and least able to weather them without negative effects on their economic viability. As the financial pressure on small and medium- sized and mid-cap enterprises caused by unfair trading practices often passes through the chain and reaches agricultural producers, rules on unfair trading practices should also protect small and medium-sized and mid-cap intermediary suppliers at the stages downstream of primary production. Protection of intermediary suppliers should also avoid unintended consequences (notably in terms of unduly raising prices) of trade diversion away from agricultural producers and their associations, who produce processed products, to non- protected suppliers. __________________ 12 OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36.
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 104 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive applies to certain unfair trading practices which occur in relation to the sales of food products by a supplier that is a small and medium-sized or mid-cap enterprise to a buyer that is not a small and medium-sized enterprise.
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 115 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) “buyer” means any natural or legal person established in the Union who buys food productswhich not a small, medium-sized or cap-sized enterprise, irrespective of where they are established, who buys food products for processing or distribution in the Union by way of trade. The term "buyer" may include a group of such natural and legal persons;
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 128 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) "mid-cap enterprise" means an enterprise or a Producer Organisation, cooperative or Association of Producer Organisations with a medium-sized structure, a high capital ratio and a staff headcount of up to 3000 employees;
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 142 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) "mid-cap enterprise" means an enterprise with a medium-sized structure and a staff headcount of no more than 3000 employees;
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 157 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a buyer cancels unilaterally orders of perishable food products at such short notice that a supplier cannot reasonably be expected to find an alternative to commercialise or use these products;
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 201 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall ensure that the following trading practices are prohibited, if they are not agreed in clear and unambiguous terms by the contracting parties at the conclusion of the supply agreement:
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 218 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) a buyer shares with third parties confidential information related to the supply contract, including trade secrets shared by the supplier with the buyer.
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 228 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3a Contracts between suppliers and buyers A supplier may require that any supply of goods or services is subject to a written contract with clear and unambiguous language and which specifies at least the following terms: the parties to the contract; the object of the contract; the volume, price and quality of the products or services provided; payment; penalties in case of non-execution of the contract; duration and, if applicable, renewal of the contract; termination causes, including a reasonable notice period; the applicable law.
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 244 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Producer or supplier organisations or associations of producer or supplier organisations whose member(s) or member(s) of their members consider(s) that they are affected by a prohibited trading practice shall have the right to submit a complaint and to be a party to the proceedings.
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 263 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) to initiate and conduct investigations on its own initiative or based on a complaintbased on an initial suspicion;
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 270 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) to impose a pecuniary finepenalties on the author of the infringement. The finepenalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive taking into account the nature, duration and gravity of the infringement; pecuniary fines shall be issued only in cases of intentional non-compliance or repeated non-compliance;
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 279 #

2018/0082(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6a Mediation or alternative dispute resolution mechanism 1. Without prejudice to the powers and obligations of the enforcement authority laid down in Article 6, Member States may encourage the use of mediation or of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in case of a dispute between a supplier and a buyer due to an unfair trading practices as defined in Article 2. 2. The use of mediation or of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism shall be without prejudice to the right of the supplier to submit a complaint, as set out in Article 5.
2018/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 6 #

2018/0040(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.
2018/09/11
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 12 #

2018/0040(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) The simplifications provided for in the Union’s Customs Code will only take effect for European companies with the completion of the technical systems. These include the possibility of centralised customs clearance, which would considerably reduce red tape and thus the costs for companies. The technical systems should therefore be completed as soon as possible.
2018/09/11
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 14 #

2018/0040(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) There are many challenges in setting up all the necessarySetting up electronic systems by 2020 both forrequires the Commission and for the Member States. First, in some cases, to harmonisinge the data elements on the basis of internationally accepted data models, as required by the Code demands a, in some cases to fully reprogramming ofe existing electronic systems and to make investments both in financial terms and in terms of time that are greater than foreseen at. Adaptation is prioritised differently by Member States, which has led to differences in the timeing of adoption of the Code. Second, aimplementation of systems in Member States. As the electronic systems are closely interlinked, introducing them in the right order is important. Delays in the development of one system will therefore unavoidably lead to delays in the development of others. Third, the Code (including the end date for transitional measures on 31 December 2020) was adopted in 2013 while the rules supplementing and implementing it, namely Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/244610, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/244711 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/34112, were only adopted in 2015 and 2016. The discussions on those rules took much longer than expected and this has caused a delay in setting out the functional and technical specifications necessary for the development of the electronic systems. _________________ 10 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 1). 11 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558). 12 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/341 of 17 December 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards transitional rules for certain provisions of the Union Customs Code where the relevant electronic systems are not yet operational and amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (OJ L 69, 15.3.2016, p. 1).
2018/09/11
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 27 #

2018/0040(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) 952/2013
Article 278 – Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In order to avoid further delays in setting up the electronic systems referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, the Commission shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament and the Council on progress in the development of the electronic systems.
2018/09/11
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 80 #

2018/0018(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 8 – point d
(d) ensure appropriate and regular involvement of stakeholders in its work;
2018/06/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 107 #

2018/0018(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. When receiving the joint clinical assessment report and the summary report, the health technology developer may hand in a detailed objection in writing to the Coordination Group within seven working days. The Coordination Group shall evaluate the objections within 30 working days and may revise the report if necessary. It shall approve and submit the final joint clinical assessment report, the summary report and an explanatory document setting out how the objections were addressed.
2018/06/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 53 #

2017/2278(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points out the importance of tendering conditions which are not overly burdensome, so that access to public contracts remains possible for all companies, including SMEs;
2018/04/06
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 3 #

2017/2191(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that fair tax competition policy is closely interlinked with taxation policy; encourages the Commission to strengthen its effortsis essential for the integrity of the internal market and a level playing field; welcomes the efforts by the Commission to tackle illegal state aid and taxation rulein the form of tax decisions that distort competition in the internal market;
2017/10/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 15 #

2017/2191(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Encourages the Commission to strengthen the supervision of nationalStresses that more effective and more uniform implementation of EU competition policy; is concerned that uneven enforcement of EU competition law by national authorities can result in varying outcomes, thus distorting competition in the internal marketlaw by national competition authorities would make competition much fairer and improve the functioning of the internal market; considers that further common minimum standards in EU competition law are required, not only to dismantle barriers in the internal market but also to create greater legal certainty for undertakings; welcomes in this regard the Commission’s proposal on the ECN+;
2017/10/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 18 #

2017/2191(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Strongly supports the independence of the Commission in its mission of shaping and effectively enforcing the EU competition rules for the benefit of EU consumers and undertakings operating in the EU;
2017/11/28
Committee: ECON
Amendment 24 #

2017/2191(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates the possible option of setting up a travelling unit within the Commission which, independently of Member States’ efforts, would need be able toat an effective toolbox within the Commission for the investigateion of suspected cases of unfair competition and suspected breaches of competition law is essential;
2017/10/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 26 #

2017/2191(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to ensure regular information and exchanges with Parliament on the preparation and implementation of EU legislation, international agreements and other soft law concerning competition policy; would welcome equally regular exchanges with the national competition authorities, which enact the vast majority of decisions involving the application of EU competition rules;
2017/11/28
Committee: ECON
Amendment 30 #

2017/2191(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the importance of access to justice for consumers and ofStresses that access to justice, which may also include the availability ofor collective redress, in order to ensure fairs essential for the attainment of the objectives of EU competition policy; underlines that the absence of such opportunities weakens competition at the expense of the internal market and consumer rights;
2017/10/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 40 #

2017/2191(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Welcomes the continuous review and evaluation of EU competition law by the Commission;considers, for example, the consultation carried out by the Commission on the possible improvement of EU merger control to be very important;believes that steps must be taken to ensure, in particular in the digital sphere, that mergers do not restrict competition in the EU internal market;calls again on the Commission to therefore examine carefully whether current assessment procedures take sufficient account of circumstances on digital markets and of the internationalisation of markets;considers in this connection that, for example, the merger assessment criteria should be adapted;
2017/10/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 90 #

2017/2191(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Takes the view that a study on the awareness and understanding among undertakings, particularly SMEs, of EU competition law and state aid rules, could be useful in order to step up the enforcement of EU competition law and could also be helpful for guidance purposes;
2017/11/28
Committee: ECON
Amendment 93 #

2017/2191(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Takes the view that interim measures can be an important tool, particularly in the digital economy, to ensure that contraventions in the course of an investigation do not severely and irreparably damage competition; calls on the Commission to examine the available options either to speed up proceedings before the competition authorities for the application of Articles 101 and 102, or to simplify the adoption of interim measures; in this connection, calls on the Commission to carry out a study and submit its conclusions, and where appropriate a legislative proposal, to the European Parliament and the Council;
2017/11/28
Committee: ECON
Amendment 95 #

2017/2191(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13c. Calls on the Commission, in connection with a possible reform of the Merger Regulation, to examine carefully whether current assessment procedures take sufficient account of circumstances on digital markets; takes the view that an adjustment of the assessment criteria for mergers in the digital economy might be necessary; further emphasises that the independence of the national competition authorities should be guaranteed not only in the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, but also in the enforcement of the European merger rules; therefore stresses the need for equivalent EU-level rules in this area;
2017/11/28
Committee: ECON
Amendment 2 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas services account for 71% of the GDP and 68% of total employment, the full potential of the Single Market in services still remains unfulfilled;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 8 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas smart regulation can have positive effects on the European market and deregulation should therefore not be the overall aim;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 9 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas in many cases, regulation of professional services can be justified, for example when it aims at protecting a number of general interest objectives, it nevertheless needs to be adjusted regularly to take into consideration technological, societal or market developments;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 10 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas Directive 2005/36/EC was amended in 2013, with the objective to achieve a proportionate regulatory framework, justified by general interests objectives, introducing in Article 59 a transparency and mutual evaluation exercise for all regulated professions in the Member States, whether they are regulated on the basis of national rules or on the basis of rules harmonised at EU level;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 13 #

2017/2073(INI)

Da. whereas Member States were required to submit national action plans (NAPs) to the Commission by 18 January 2016 with information on decisions on maintaining or amending professional regulations; whereas there are still 6 Member States that have not submitted their NAPs;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 25 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the Commission initiative providing guidance for Member States in the context of the mutual evaluation exercise, including the organisation of in-depth discussions with national authorities;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 29 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that it will help Member States to exchange on best practices and better understand their regulatory choices taking into consideration the fact that some Member States foresee a higher level of state intervention in regulated professions than others;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 36 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that Member States have faced significant challenges in notifying information about the professions they regulate and the requirements for accessing those professions; calls on Member States and the Commission to significantly improve notification procedures;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 45 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that not all Member States have submitted a National Action Plan (NAP) as required by Directive 2005/36/EC and that the levels of depth and detail of the NAPs submitted differ; calls on those Member States that have not submitted their NAP yet to proceed without any due delay, as only with complete information from all Member States, the Commission can present a full picture on regulated professions at the EU level;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 63 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Believes that making regulation on professional services more proportionate and adapted to market reality may result in improved market dynamics, lower prices to consumers and improved performance of sector efficiency;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 88 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. States that reform recommendations cannot replace enforcement action by the Commission and calls on the Commission to make use of instruments such as infringement procedures for enforcement;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 100 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Notes that the restrictiveness indicator only takes into account quantitative data and not qualitative data; states that the restrictiveness indicator can therefore only be seen as an indicative tool and does not permit to draw conclusions on the overall regulatory intensity in the Member States;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 103 #

2017/2073(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls that the overall analysis of the impact of the regulations in Member States should be subject not only to a quantitative but also to a qualitative assessment encompassing the general interest objectives and the quality of the service provided;
2017/09/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 11 #

2017/2066(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the fact that the Action Plan aims to tackle a number of important issues and that in some of the areas it sets out specific actions to be taken by the Commission, with a clear timetable; regrets, however, that in some of the identified areas, the proposals on how to solve the identified problems remain rather vague; points out that the EU legislative authority has already taken important steps to establish a more competitive and more secure EU market for retail financial services; stresses that some items of EU legislation have still to be properly transposed and applied across the EU; accordingly welcomes the fact that the Action Plan focuses first of all on non-legislative action intended to ensure that existing legislation gives EU consumers maximum benefits;
2017/06/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 27 #

2017/2066(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the review and cutback of national trade barriers but cautions that this should not result in lower consumer protection standards; stresses that a high standard of consumer protection and consumer confidence are essential for a genuine internal market in retail financial services, in particular as regards loans by new digital actors whose lending practices these days are possibly not always adequately covered by existing EU legislation; therefore welcomes the Commission's aim of checking that existing EU legislation is appropriate;
2017/06/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 48 #

2017/2066(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6a (new)
6a. Points out that Parliament has already called on the Commission to take account of cybersecurity issues during the planning phase for all finance technology initiatives; regrets the fact that the Commission does not address that in its Action Plan, especially since suitable safeguards against cyber-risks are conducive to consumer confidence; calls therefore on the Commission to do so as part of the work of its task force;
2017/06/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 29 #

2017/2003(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the communication on a European Agenda for the collaborative economy, and underlines that it should represent a first step towards a more comprehensive and ambitious EU strategy on it the objective of which should be a European legal framework;
2017/02/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 83 #

2017/2003(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Considers the development of a dynamic and clear legal environment establishing a level playing field to be of paramount importance for the collaborative economy to flourish in the EU;
2017/02/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 117 #

2017/2003(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to encourage non-profit, user-governed, collaborative practices aimed at building sharing and cooperation, and a commons- oriented approach to the collaborative economy, so as to foster the scalability of a social economy and access to open knowledge;deleted
2017/02/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 165 #

2017/2003(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Draws attention, at to the same time, to the riskfact that establishing thresholds may create a disparity between micro and small businesses on the one side, and peers on the other; calls therefore for the legislation applicable to professional service providers to be revised in order to level the playing field among comparable categories of service providers and to remove unnecessary regulatory burdenscan provide an appropriate dividing line between peers and businesses; stresses at the same time that unnecessary regulatory burdens, in particular for micro and small businesses, must be removed;
2017/02/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 188 #

2017/2003(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
11a. Points out that much of what is offered in the collaborative economy is based on customer evaluations and that a good many suppliers gain a competitive advantage as a result of false evaluations; stresses therefore that there should be guaranteed checks by independent accredited bodies that evaluations are genuine;
2017/02/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 214 #

2017/2003(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Believes that any new regulation should leverage platforms’ self-governing capacities; is convinced that collaborative platforms themselves could take an active role in such a new regulatory environment by correcting many asymmetric information and other market failures which have been traditionally addressed through regulation, especially by digital trust-building mechanisms;deleted
2017/02/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 229 #

2017/2003(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Strongly believes, at the same time, that this self-regulating capacity does not undercut the need for regulation, especially for market failures that platforms cannot address and for other normative goals (e.g. reversing inequalities, boosting fairness, inclusiveness, and openness, etc.);deleted
2017/02/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 289 #

2017/2003(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Agrees that functionally similar tax obligations should be applied to businesses providing comparable services, and is convinced that taxes should be paid where profits are generated and where more is involved than simply contributions to costs;
2017/02/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 353 #

2017/2003(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Points out the importance of adequate competences and skills, in order to enable as many individuals as possible to play an active role in the collaborative economy; is of the opinion that the potential of the collaborative economy will be fully unleashed only through effective policies of social inclusion at EU level, starting with confident and critical use of ICT as a key competence for lifelong learning strategies;
2017/02/13
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 1 #

2017/2002(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission proposals for actions to reduce disparity in education and disadvantages throughout the lifetime of a person, but draws attention to a number of administrative ‘bottlenecks’ which are slowing progress in attaining those objectives in relation to mobility, recognition of qualifications and the social dimension;
2017/03/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 11 #

2017/2002(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that there are still administrative obstacles to the cross- border mobility of professionals;
2017/03/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 16 #

2017/2002(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Calls, to that end, for the systematic use ofMember States to ensure that the Internal Market Information System (IMI) functions properly in order to ensure better administrative cooperation and simpler and faster procedures for the recognition of professional qualifications and continuous professional development requirements of qualified professionals planning to work in another Member State, and to prevent discrimination of all kinds;
2017/03/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 34 #

2017/2002(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to provide significant support for the development of digital abilities in all age groups, irrespective of employment status, as a first step towards the better alignment of labour market shortages and demand; to that end, encourages the Commission to increase the funding under Horizon 2020, fostering inclusive, innovative and reflective European societies to get the elderly, the unemployed and poorly educated, migrants, people in need of care, people living in remote or poorer areas, and persons with disabilities, and the homeless to fully participate in society and the labour market;
2017/03/28
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 217 #

2017/0354(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall, within three months offollowing receipt of the requestry referred to in paragraph 1, enter into communication with the relevant economic operator or operators and the competent authorities who took the administrative decision in order to assess the compatibility of the administrative decision with the principle of mutual recognition and this Regulation.
2018/05/22
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 224 #

2017/0354(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. If the Commission needs further information, it shall request the SOLVIT centres involved to gather the information from the competent national SOLVIT centres.
2018/05/22
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 185 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation applies to all products that are subject to the Union harmonisation legislation set out in the Annex to this Regulation (‘Union harmonisation legislation’).
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 233 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a Responsibility of the distributor A distributor who becomes aware of the non-conformity or a product shall inform the manufacturer or importer, as well as the market surveillance authority of the non-conformity.
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 253 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
A market surveillance authority may enter into a partnership arrangement with an economic operator established in its territory under which the authority agrees to provide the economic operator with advice and guidance in relation to the Union harmonisation legislation applicable to the products for which the economic operator is responsible. These arrangements shall not preclude an independent and unbiased assessment through market surveillance authorities and shall not result in unfair competition between economic operators within the European Union and within the European Union and third countries.
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 264 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8
1. Market surveillance authorities may enter into memoranda of understanding with businesses or organisations representing businesses or end-users for the carrying out, or financing, of joint activities aimed at identifying non-compliance or promoting compliance in specific geographical areas or with respect to specific categories of product. The market surveillance authority in question shall make the memorandum available to the general public and shall enter it in the system referred to in Article 34. 2. A market surveillance authority may use any information resulting from activities carried out or financed by other parties to a memorandum of understanding entered into by it under paragraph 1 as part of any investigation undertaken by it into non-compliance, but only if the activity in question was carried out independently, impartially and without bias. 3. Any exchange of information between market surveillance authorities and businesses or organisations referred to in paragraph 1 for the purposes of preparing or implementing a memorandum of understanding entered into by them under that paragraph shall be deemed not to infringe the requirements of professional secrecy.Article 8 deleted Memoranda of understanding with stakeholders
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 304 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Market surveillance authorities shall perform controls as part of their activities set out in paragraph 1, on a risk- based approach, takingprioritise actions for the largest risk-reduction and take into account, as a minimum, the following factors:
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 310 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) market surveillance authorities shall work together in order to harmonise the methodology and criteria for assessing risks in all Member States in order to ensure a level playing field for all economic operators.
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 329 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Market surveillance authorities shall perform their activities with a high level of transparency while taking into account the principles of confidentiality and of professional and commercial secrecy, and shall make available to the general public any information that they deem relevant for the general public. They shall also ensure that the following information is entered in the system referred to in Article 34:
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 357 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The powers conferred on market surveillance authorities under paragraph 1 shall include the following powers as a minimum, to the extent that these relate to the subject- matter and the purpose of the inspection:
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 359 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the power to perform system audits of economic operators’ organisations, including audits of any procedures that they have in place to ensure compliance with this Regulation and with applicable Union harmonisation legislation;deleted
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 362 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) the power to have access to any relevant documents, data or information related to an instance of non-compliance, in any form or format and irrespective of its storage medium or the place where it is stored;
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 368 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point e – point 3
(3) to request any representative or member of staff ofdesignated to represent the economic operator to give explanations of facts, information or documents relating to the subject-matter of the inspection and to record their answers;
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 380 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point h
(h) the power to take temporary measures, where there are no other effective means available to prevent a serious risk, including in particular temporary measures requiring hosting service providers to remove, disable or restrict access to content or to suspend or restrict access to a website, service or account or requiring domain registries or registrars to put a fully qualified domain name on hold for a specific period of time until the operator has made the necessary corrections according to the comments given by the authority;
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 388 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. Market surveillance authorities shall publish any commitments given to them by economic operators, details of any corrective action taken by economic operators in their territory, and details of any temporary measures taken by the relevant market surveillance authority pursuant to this Regulation. Market surveillance authorities shall ensure that this information is regularly updated and that the economic operator shall be given the opportunity to comment on the information that the competent authority intends to publish or make otherwise available to the public, prior to its publication or release.
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 442 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2
2. Market surveillance authorities may charge economic operators administrative fees in relation to instances of non- compliance by that economic operator in order to enable the authorities to recover the costs of their activities with respect to these instances of non-compliance. Those costs shall be proportionate in relation to the non-compliance. The costs may include the costs of carrying out testing for the purposes of a risk assessment, the costs of taking measures in accordance with Article 30(1) and (2) and the costs of their activities relating to products that are found to be non- compliant and subject to corrective action prior to their release for free circulation.
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 480 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 8
8. Where the Commission becomes aware of a serious risk posed in a Member State by products subject to Union harmonisation legislation that are imported from a third country, it shall recommend toquest the Member State concerned that it takes appropriate market surveillance measures.
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 544 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – title
Applicability of Regulation (EC) 765/2008 and amendments to Union harmonisation legislation
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 546 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
Articles 15 to 29 of Regulation (EC) 765/2008 shall not apply to Union harmonisation legislation set out in the Annexare deleted.
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 557 #

2017/0353(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Member States have the possibility not to apply any penalties in cases of minor formal infringements and where the non-compliance is corrected by the operator in a timely manner.
2018/05/24
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 81 #

2017/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) In cases where personal and non- personal data are inextricably linked, this Regulation does not impose an obligation to unbundle the mixed data sets. In such cases, this Regulation shall apply to the mixed data set in its entirety, without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2018/04/09
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 95 #

2017/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) The only justification to for data localisation requirements is public security. In compliance with the principle of proportionality, data localisation requirements that are justified for public security reasons should be suitable for attaining the objective pursued, and should not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.
2018/04/09
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 140 #

2017/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In cases of mixed data sets, where personal and non-data are inextricably linked, this Regulation does not impose an obligation to unbundle the mixed data sets. In such cases, this Regulation shall apply to the mixed data set in its entirety, without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2018/04/09
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 147 #

2017/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. This regulation shall apply without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2018/04/09
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 151 #

2017/0228(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
1a. ‘mixed data sets’ refers to a data set that is composed of both personal and non-personal data.
2018/04/09
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 93 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52 a (new)
(52a) The European cybersecurity certification framework should be established in a uniform manner in all Member States in order to prevent ‘certification shopping’ based on differences in costs or levels of stringency between Member States.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 106 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
(56) The Commission should be empowered to request ENISA to prepare candidate schemes for specific ICT products or services. The Commission, based on the candidate scheme proposed by ENISA, should then be empowered to adopt the European cybersecurity certification scheme by means of implementing acts. Taking account of the general purpose and security objectives identified in this Regulation, European cybersecurity certification schemes adopted by the Commission should specify a minimum set of elements concerning the subject-matter, the scope and functioning of the individual scheme. These should include among others the scope and object of the cybersecurity certification, including the categories of ICT products and services covered, the detailed specification of the cybersecurity requirements, for example by reference to standards or technical specifications, the specific evaluation criteria and evaluation methods, as well as the intended level of assurance: basic, substantial and/or high. The security requirements should depend on the risk resulting from the ICT product or service.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 116 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
(57) Recourse to European cybersecurity certification should remain voluntary, except for ICT products and services with high security requirements and unless otherwise provided in Union or national legislation. However, with a view to achieving the objectives of this Regulation and avoiding the fragmentation of the internal market, national cybersecurity certification schemes or procedures for the ICT products and services covered by a European cybersecurity certification scheme should cease to produce effects from the date established by the Commission by means of the implementing act. Moreover, Member States should not introduce new national certification schemes providing cybersecurity certification schemes for ICT products and services already covered by an existing European cybersecurity certification scheme.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 121 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
(58) Once a European cybersecurity certification scheme is adopted, manufacturers of ICT products or providers of ICT services should be able to submit an application for certification of their products or services to a conformity assessment body of their choice. Products and services with high security requirements shall be subject to mandatory third-party certification. For all other ICT products and services, third- party certification shall be voluntary, unless otherwise specified in Union law. Conformity assessment bodies should be accredited by an accreditation body if they comply with certain specified requirements set out in this Regulation. Accreditation should be issued for a maximum of five years and may be renewed on the same conditions provided that the conformity assessment body meets the requirements. Accreditation bodies should revoke an accreditation of a conformity assessment body where the conditions for the accreditation are not, or are no longer, met or where actions taken by a conformity assessment body infringe this Regulation.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 144 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 16 a (new)
(16a) ‘self-declaration of conformity’ means the statement by which the manufacturer demonstrates that specified requirements relating to a product or service, have been fulfilled;
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 222 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1
A European cybersecurity certification scheme shall be established in order to boost the level of security within the digital single market and adopt a harmonised approach, at EU level, to European certification, with a view to ensuring that ICT products, services and systems are resistant to cyber-attacks. It shall attest that the ICT products and services that have been certified in accordance with such scheme comply with specified common requirements as regards their ability to resist at a given level of assurance, actions that aim to compromise the availability, authenticity, integrity or confidentiality of stored or transmitted or processed data or the functions or services offered by, or accessible via, those products, processes, services and systems.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 240 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2
2. When preparing candidate schemes referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, ENISA shall take into account already existing national and international standards. ENISA shall consult all relevant stakeholders and closely cooperate with the Group. The Group shall provide ENISA with the assistance and expert advice required by ENISA in relation to the preparation of the candidate scheme, including by providing opinions where necessary.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 243 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. ENISA shall coordinate the compilation of a checklist of risks associated with the hardware or software of the ICT product or service. The risks shall be matched with corresponding cybersecurity features to be included in the candidate European cybersecurity certification scheme.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 247 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. The checklist prepared shall draw from Member States’ experience in designing and implementing cybersecurity certificates within their jurisdictions. A list of expected risks will be drawn up, analysed and depending on an assessment of the risk environment that the ICT software or hardware product or ICT service will eventually operate in as well as the expected end user.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 256 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. ENISA requires a branch office in Brussels, to monitor the work on EU certification closely and to work in close contact with Commission and Parliament to establish European common standards on cybersecurity.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 270 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) ensure that ICT products and services are provided with up to date software thatdates, upgrades and patches, which does not contain known vulnerabilities, and are provided mechanisms for secure software updateswhich must be offered during a reasonable lifecycle of the product or service to enable continuous protection.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 277 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – title
Assurance levelSecurity requirements of European cybersecurity certification schemes
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 281 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 1
1. A European cybersecurity certification scheme may specify one or more of the following assurance levelsecurity requirements: basic, substantial and/or high, for ICT products and services issued under that scheme. The security requirements shall be defined following a risk-based approach and taking into account the intended use of the ICT product or service.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 287 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. A European cybersecurity certification scheme shall specify whether self-declaration of conformity is permissible or third party assessment strictly required.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 292 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The assurance levelsecurity requirements basic, substantial and high shall meet the following criteria respectively:
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 298 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) assurance levelsecurity requirement basic shall refer to a certificate issued in the context of a European cybersecurity certification scheme, which provides a limited degree of confidence in the claimed or asserted cybersecurity qualities of an ICT product or service, and is characterised with reference to technical specifications, standards and procedures related thereto, including technical controls, the purpose of which is to decrease the risk of cybersecurity incidents;
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 303 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) assurance levelsecurity requirement substantial shall refer to a certificate issued in the context of a European cybersecurity certification scheme, which provides a substantial degree of confidence in the claimed or asserted cybersecurity qualities of an ICT product or service, and is characterised with reference to technical specifications, standards and procedures related thereto, including technical controls, the purpose of which is to decrease substantially the risk of cybersecurity incidents;
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 308 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) assurance levelsecurity requirement high shall refer to a certificate issued in the context of a European cybersecurity certification scheme, which provides a higher degree of confidence in the claimed or asserted cybersecurity qualities of an ICT product or service than certificates with the assurance levelsecurity requirement substantial, and is characterised with reference to technical specifications, standards and procedures related thereto, including technical controls, the purpose of which is to prevent cybersecurity incidents. This shall especially apply to critical infrastructure products and services.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 312 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. As regards assurance levels substantial and high, the ethical hacking method may be used by national conformity control bodies.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 328 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) where applicable, one or more assurance levelsecurity requirements;
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 335 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) where surveillance is part of the scheme, the rules for monitoring compliance with the requirements of the certificates, including mechanisms to demonstrate the continued compliance with the specified cybersecurity requirements, where relevant and possible also through obligatory updates, upgrades or patches of the concerned ICT product or service. For all ICT products and services with substantial and high security requirements, surveillance shall be mandatory on a regular basis;
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 367 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 1
1. ICT products and services that have been certified under a European cybersecurity certification scheme adopted pursuant to Article 44 shall be presumed to be compliant with the requirements of such scheme. This might include obligatory updates, upgrades or patches where relevant and possible.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 370 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 2
2. The certification shall be mandatory for those products and services that fall under a high security requirement. For all other ICT products and services, certification shall be voluntary, unless otherwise specified in Union law.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 375 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 3
3. A European cybersecurity certificate pursuant to this Article shall be issued either by self-declaration of conformity, or by the conformity assessment bodies referred to in Article 51 on the basis of criteria included in the European cybersecurity certification scheme, adopted pursuant to Article 44. For ICT products and services with high security requirements, the European cybersecurity certificate shall be issued by the conformity assessment bodies referred to in Article 51, without the possibility of self-declaration of conformity.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 383 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 6
6. Certificates shall be issued and shall remain valid for a maximum period defined in each cybersecurity certification scheme according to Article 47(1)(n) and depending on the risk environment, the hardware and/or software product or services’ expected uses for a maximum period of three years and may be renewed, under the same conditions, provided that the relevant requirements continue to be met.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 386 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. A European cybersecurity certification scheme shall remain valid for all new versions, patches, fixes, updates, etc. issued by the ICT hardware or software product or service trader and/or manufacturer to address security vulnerabilities that have been addressed through the trader and/or manufacturer’s procedures as defined under Article 47(1)(j).
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 398 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall not introduce new national cybersecurity certification schemes for ICT products and services covered by a European cybersecurity certification scheme in force. Existing cybersecurity certification schemes shall be entitled to be recognized at the EU level, following an assessment by ENISA.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 402 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 3
3. Existing certificates issued under national cybersecurity certification schemes covered by a European cybersecurity certification scheme shall remain valid until their expiry date.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 416 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 6 – point c
(c) handle complaints lodged by natural or legal persons in relation to certificates issued by self-declaration and by conformity assessment bodies established in their territories, investigate, to the extent appropriate, the subject matter of the complaint, and inform the complainant of the progress and the outcome of the investigation within a reasonable time period;
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 431 #

2017/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. For each European cybersecurity certification scheme adopted pursuant Article 44, national certification supervisory authorities shall notify the Commission of the accredited conformity assessment bodies accredited to issue certificates at specified assurance levelsecurity requirements as referred to in Article 46 and, without undue delay, of any subsequent changes thereto.
2018/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 251 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) In order to allow for a smooth transition for PEPP providers, the obligation of providing PEPPs comprising compartments for each Member State will apply threfive years after the entry into force of this Regulation. Where necessary, PEPP providers should have the possibility to enter into compartment partnerships in order to fulfil this obligation. However, upon launching a PEPP, the provider should provide information on which national compartments are immediately available, in order to avoid a possible misleading of consumers.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 258 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) Before joining a PEPP scheme, potential PEPP savers should be given all the necessary information to make an informed choice. For this purpose, PEPP savers should, in the case of the default option, consult a decision tree that helps them make an informed choice.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 266 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) The PEPP key information document should consist of two parts. While the first part should give general information about the PEPP, the second part should describe the information which varies between Member States, such as the retirement age or tax benefits and incentives. The PEPP key information document should be clearly distinguishable and separate from any marketing communications.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 268 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) PEPP providers should inform PEPP savers sufficiently in advance before retirement about their pay-out options. The default option should allow for a lump sum payment of up to 30%, provided that the remainder is paid as a lifetime annuity. Where the retirement benefit is not paid out as a lifetime annuity, members approaching retirement should receive information about the benefit payment products available, in order to facilitate financial planning for retirement.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 343 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) “pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP)” means a long-term savings personal pension product, which is provided under an agreed PEPP scheme by a regulated financial undertaking authorised under Union law to manage collective or individual investments or savings, and subscribed to voluntarily by an individual PEPP saver in view of retirement, with no or strictly limited redeemability and which is certified in accordance with this Regulation;
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 384 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 28 a (new)
(28a) “compartment partnership” means a collaboration between PEPP providers with the aim of providing compartments in all Member States;
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 392 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – title
4 AuthorisationCertification procedure
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 396 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. A PEPP may only be manufactured and distributed in the Union where it has been authoriscertified by EIOPA in accordance with this Regulation.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 397 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. AuthorisThe certification of a PEPP shall be valid in all Member States without prejudice to additional requirements set out in national law. It entitles the authoriscertification holder to manufacture and distribute the PEPP as authoriscertified by EIOPA.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 400 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – title
5 Application for authoriscertification of a PEPP
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 401 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Only the following financial undertakings may apply for authoriscertification of a PEPP:
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 419 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Financial undertakings listed in paragraph 1 shall submit their applications for authoriscertification of a PEPP to EIOPA. The application shall include the following:
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 420 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) information on the identity of the applicant and its current and previous financial experience and history;
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 422 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the identity of the persons who effectively conduct the business of manufacturing and/or distributing the PEPP;deleted
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 423 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) information on arrangements regarding portfolio and risk management and administration with regard to the PEPP;deleted
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 436 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. EIOPA may request from financial undertakings listed in paragraph 1 clarification and additional information as regards the documentation and information provided under paragraph 1.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 438 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. In exceptional circumstances and on the basis of objective reasons EIOPA may ask the competent authority of the financial undertaking applying for the authoriscertification for clarification and information as regards the documentinformation referred to in paragraph 2. The competent authority shall reply to the request within 10 working days from the date on which it has received the request submitted by EIOPAb.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 441 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5
5. Any subsequent modifications to the documentation and information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be immediately notified by the financial undertakings referred to in paragraph 1 to EIOPA.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 443 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – title
6 Conditions for granting authoriscertification of PEPPs
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 446 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Within two months from the date of submission of a complete application, EIOPA shall grant authoriscertification of the PEPP only where EIOPA is fully satisfied that the following conditions are met:
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 459 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. EIOPA shall communicate to the applicant the reasons for any refusal to grant authoriscertification of a PEPP.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 462 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. EIOPA shall withdraw the authoriscertification of a PEPP in the event that the conditions for granting this authoriscertification are no longer fulfilled.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 467 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. EIOPA shall, on a quarterly basis, inform the competent authorities of the financial undertakings listed in Article 5(1) of decisions to grant, refuse or withdraw authoriscertifications pursuant to this Regulation in due time.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 474 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The designation “PEPP” or “pan- European Personal Pension Product” in relation to a personal pension product may only be used where the personal pension product has been authoriscertified by EIOPA to be distributed under the designation “PEPP” in accordance with this Regulation.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 477 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Existing personal pension products may be converted into “PEPPs” following authoriscertification by EIOPA.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 478 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Financial undertakings referred to in Article 5(1) may distribute PEPPs which they have not manufactured upon receiving authorisation for distributionprovided that this activity is covered by the scompetent of authorities of their home Member Statesation according to the relevant sectoral legislation.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 480 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
EIOPA shall keep a central public register identifying each PEPP authoriscertified under this Regulation, the provider of this PEPP and the competent authority of the PEPP provider. The register shall be made publicly available in electronic format.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 502 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. ThreFive years at the latest after the entry into application of this Regulation, each PEPP shall offer national compartments for all Member States upon request addressed to the PEPP provider.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 659 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 a (new)
Article 25a Decision tree 1. Where no advice is provided before the conclusion of a PEPP contract, the PEPP provider or distributor shall provide the PEPP customer with a standardised decision tree. The decision tree shall cover the essential characteristics of a PEPP and the main differences between the default options offered by the various PEPP providers. 2. The decision tree shall be made available on paper or on another durable medium. 3. Before conclusion of a PEPP contract, the PEPP provider or distributor shall ensure that the PEPP customer has gone through the decision tree. 4. The decision tree shall not constitute a personal recommendation. 5. In order to ensure a uniform use of the standardised decision tree referred to in paragraph 1, EIOPA shall after carrying out consumer tests draw up draft regulatory technical standards: (a) specifying the content and presentation of the standard decision tree; (b) establishing the conditions under which the standardised decision tree shall be provided on a durable medium or on paper. EIOPA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission after their publication. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in this paragraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 670 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 a (new)
Article 26a Mandatory information included in the contract The PEPP contract shall consist of the PEPP Key Information Document and of the following information: (a) the type of PEPP; (b) the personal details of the PEPP saver, his name and address; (c) the details concerning the benefits offered by the selected investment option; (d) the benefits in the event of death before retirement under the default investment option; (e) the level and due dates for contributions and information on whether and how one can suspend the payment of contributions and on whether it is possible to make additional payments; (f) the procedure to be followed in exercising the right to terminate the contract; (g) information on the right to terminate the contract; (h) information on switching investment options; (i) an indication regarding the language in which the PEPP provider shall provide the PEPP Benefit Statement; (j) information about alternative dispute resolution procedures; (k) specific information which differs according to the Member State, such as information regarding the retirement age and tax benefits and incentives.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 706 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Upon request PEPP providers shall submit to the competent authorities the information which is necessary for the purposes of supervision. That information shall include at least the information necessary to carry out the following activities when performing a supervisory review process:
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 710 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 7
7. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 62 specifying the information referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4, with a view to ensuring to the appropriate extent convergence of supervisory reporting. EIOPA, after consulting national authorities and after consumer testing, shall develop draft implementing technical standards regarding the format of supervisory reporting. EIOPA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by … [within 9 months after the entry into force of the Regulation]. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 734 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. PEPP providers shall offer up to fiveat least one default option. They may also offer additional investment options to PEPP savers.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 745 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The PEPP saver may modify the investment option per compartment.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 769 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. TIn the default investment option shall ensure capital protection for the PEPP saver,, the PEPP provider shall guarantee the PEPP saver that the capital accumulated by the start onf the basis of a risk-mitigation technique that results in a safe investment strategydecumulation phase will at least equal the contributions paid, including all costs and charges incurred.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 816 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
1. In accordance with Article 3(b), the PEPP conditions related to the accumulation phase of the national compartments shall be determined by Member States unless they are specified in this Regulation.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 825 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1
PEPP providers may offer PEPPs with an option ensuring the coverage of the risk of biometric risks. The coverage of biometric risks may vary from compartment to compartment. For the purpose of this Regulation, “biometric risks” mean risks linked to longevity, disability and death.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 869 #

2017/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Under the default option, the out- payment may only take the form of a pension. By way of exception, a one-off payment of up to 30 % of the capital shall be possible at the start of the accumulation phase.
2018/04/30
Committee: ECON
Amendment 244 #

2017/0125(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall not own the products or technologies resulting from the action nor shall it have any IPR claim pertaining to the action. Technological products developed or manufactured with the help of this European fund may not be the subject of a transfer of technology or any intellectual property right for the benefit of a third State outside the European Union, or for the benefit of any economic actor that is not controlled by a Member State.
2017/12/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 149 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) In order to allow citizens and business to directly enjoy the benefits of the internal market without unnecessary additional administrative burden, this Regulation should require full digitalisation of the user interface of certain key procedures for cross-border users, which are listed in Annex II to this Regulation and provide the criteria for defining how the procedure qualifies as fully online. The "registration of business activity" is one of such procedures of particular relevance for businesses. It is Regulation should not, however, cover the procedures leading to the constitution of companies or firms as legal entities as such procedures necessitate a comprehensive approach aimed at facilitating digital solutions throughout a company’s lifecycleor the registration of a business activity, including registration as a sole trader, a partnership or any other form that it is not a separate legal entity. When businesses establish themselves in another Member State, they are required to register with a social security scheme and an insurance scheme in order to register their employees and pay contributions to both schemes. Those procedures are common for all businesses operating in any sector of the economy, and it is therefore appropriate to require that those two registration procedures are made available online.
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 153 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) In some instances, given the current state of technical development it may still be necessary for users of a procedure to appear in person before a competent authority as part of the online procedure, in particular in the case of requesting or renewing passports or identity cards containing biometric data. Any such exception should be limited to situations where no digital technology exists to achieve the purpose of the procedure. Where technologies exist that could replace a personal appearance before an authority, for instance secure online communication such as live chats or video-conferencing, these should be used, unless that is contrary to the formal prerequisites of the law of the State in which the procedure is being conducted.
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 156 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) This Regulation should not interfere with therestrict Member States in their choice of procedure or in the granting of competencies tof national authorities in different steps of any procedure, includingand should not interfere with the procedural workflows within and between their competent authorities whether digitalised or not.
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 198 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) ‘competent authority’ means any Member State body or authority established at either national, regional or local level with specific responsibilities relating to the information, procedures, assistance and problem solving services covered by this Regulation or any other person or body in which the Member State has invested such competence;
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 214 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The procedures, referred to in paragraph 2, shall be considered as fully online where identification, provision of information, supporting evidence, signature and final submission can be done electronically at a distance and via a single communication channel and if the output of the procedure is also delivered electronically. Member States must also have the power to establish direct contact with citizens and businesses.
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 215 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The submission of documentary evidence by citizens must not affect any formal requirements under the law of the State in which the procedure is being conducted.
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 219 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Where the objective pursued by a given procedure, referred to in paragraph 2, cannot be achieved without requiring the user to appear in person before the competent authority at some stage of the procedure, Member States shall limit such physical presence to what is strictly necessary and objectively justified and shall ensure that other steps of the procedure can be completed fully online. They shall notify such exceptions to the Commission. When considering the digitalisation of individual administrative procedures, objections of overriding public interest must be taken into account.
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 225 #

2017/0086(COD)

(b) the service is offered free of charge or at a price which is affordable for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises or for citizens;
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 287 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The exchange of documentary evidence by Member States must comply with any formal requirements under the law of the State in which the procedure is being conducted.
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 305 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The Commission and the national coordinators shall ensure that defective links are replaced immediately.
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 329 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. In order to gather direct information from users about their satisfaction with the services provided within the gateway, the Commission shall provide users through the gateway with a user-friendly tool containing a text box allowing them to comment anonymously, immediately after using any of the services referred to in Article 2(2), on the quality and availability of the services provided through the gateway and of the common user interface.
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 330 #

2017/0086(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) provide users of the gateway with a user-friendly tool containing a text box to signal anonymously obstacles encountered by them in exercising their internal market rights;
2017/11/30
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 91 #

2017/0063(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
(28) Where in the course of proceedings which may lead to an agreement or a practice being prohibited, undertakings or associations of undertakings offer NCAs commitments which meet their concerns, these authorities should be able to adopt decisions which make these commitments binding on, and enforceable against, the undertakings concerned. Such cIn principle, such commitment decisions are not appropriate in cases of secret cartels, in respect of which NCAs should impose a fine. Commitment decisions should find that there are no longer grounds for action by the NCAs without concluding as to whether or not there has been an infringement of Article 101 TFEU or Article 102 TFEU. Commitment decisions are without prejudice to the powers of competition authorities and courts of the Member States to make such a finding of an infringement and decide upon a case.
2017/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 116 #

2017/0063(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)
(10a) 'independent lawyer' means an external lawyer who is not bound to the client by a relationship of employment;
2017/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 156 #

2017/0063(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that national administrative competition authorities can conduct all necessary unannounced inspections of undertakings and associations of undertakings for the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. This Directive does not prevent Member States from requiring prior authorisation by a judicial authority for such inspections. Member States shall ensure that the officials and other accompanying persons authorised by national competition authorities to conduct an inspection are at minimum empowered:
2017/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 164 #

2017/0063(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Such inspections canshall not be carried out without the prior authorisation of a national judicial authority.
2017/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 183 #

2017/0063(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that in proceedings initiated with a view to a decision requiring that an infringement of Article 101 or Article 102 TFEU be brought to an end, national competition authorities may after seeking the views of market participants by decision make binding commitments offered by undertakings to meet the concerns expressed by these authorities. Such a decision may be adopted for a specified period and shall conclude that there are no longer grounds for action by the national competition authority concerned.
2017/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 191 #

2017/0063(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) they fail to comply with a decision referred to in Articles 9, 10 and 11.
2017/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 99 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) The processing of electronic communications data can be useful for businesses, consumers and society as a whole. Vis-à-vis Directive 2002/58/EC, this Regulation broadens the possibilities for providers of electronic communications services to process electronic communications metadata, based on end- users consent in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679. However, end-users attach great importance to the confidentiality of their communications, including their online activities, and that they want to control the use of electronic communications data for purposes other than conveying the communication. Therefore, this Regulation should require providers of electronic communications services to obtain end-users' consent tocomply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 when processing electronic communications metadata, which should include data on the location of the device generated for the purposes of granting and maintaining access and connection to the service. Location data that is generated other than in the context of providing electronic communications services should not be considered as metadata. Examples of commercial usages of electronic communications metadata by providers of electronic communications services may include the provision of heatmaps; a graphical representation of data using colours to indicate the presence of individuals. To display the traffic movements in certain directions during a certain period of time, an identifier is necessary to link the positions of individuals at certain time intervals. This identifier would be missing if anonymous data were to be used and such movement could not be displayed. Such usage of electronic communications metadata could, for example, benefit public authorities and public transport operators to define where to develop new infrastructure, based on the usage of and pressure on the existing structure. Where a type of processing of electronic communications metadata, in particular using new technologies, and taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing, is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, a data protection impact assessment and, as the case may be, a consultation of the supervisory authority should take place prior to the processing, in accordance with Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2017/07/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 124 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) The methods used for providing information and obtaining end-user's consent should be as user-friendly as possible. Given the ubiquitous use of tracking cookies and other tracking techniques, end-users are increasingly requested to provide consent to store such tracking cookies in their terminal equipment. As a result, end-users are overloaded with requests to provide consent. The use of technical means to provide consent, for example, through transparent and user-friendly settings, may address this problem. Therefore, this Regulation should provide for the possibility to express consent by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application. The choices made by end- users when establishing its general privacy settings of a browser or other application should be binding on, and enforceable against, any third parties. Web browsers are a type of software application that permits the retrieval and presentation of information on the internet. Other types of applications, such as the ones that permit calling and messaging or provide route guidance, have also the same capabilities. Web browsers mediate much of what occurs between the end-user and the website. From this perspective, they are in a privileged position to play an active role to help the end-user to control the flow of information to and from the terminal equipment. More particularly web browsers may be used as gatekeepers, thus helping end-users to prevent information from their terminal equipment (for example smart phone, tablet or computer) from being accessed or stored. Steps should be taken, however, to ensure that this gatekeeper function is not misused.
2017/07/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 245 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Electronic communications data shall be confidential. Any interference with electronic communications data, such as by listening, tapping, storing, monitoring, scanning or other kinds of interception, surveillance or processing of electronic communications data, by persons other than the end-users, shall be prohibited, except when permitted by this Regulation. The processing of electronic communications data after transmission to the intended recipient or to the provider shall be governed by Regulation (EU) No 2016/679.
2017/07/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 294 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) for the sole purpose of the provision of a specific service to an end- user, if the end-user or end-users concerned have given theihas given his or her consent to the processing of his or her electronic communications content and the provision of that service cannot be fulfilled without the processing of such content; or
2017/07/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 298 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) if allthe end-users concerned have given their has consented to the processing of theihis or her electronic communications content for one or more specified purposes that cannot be fulfilled by processing information that is made anonymous, and the provider has consulted the supervisory authority. Points (2) and (3) of Article 36 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 shall apply to the consultation of the supervisory authorityin accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2017/07/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 328 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) it is necessary for providing an information society service requested by the end-user, including strictly and effectively anonymised or pseudonymised data as the basis for intelligent recommendations, provided that they are intended for internal use only and are not passed on to third parties; or
2017/07/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 341 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) if it is necessary for web audience measuring, provided that such measurement is carried out by the provider of the information society service requested by the end-user or is carried out on his or her behalf in accordance with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation on processing on behalf of a third party (Article 28 et seq.).
2017/07/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 423 #

2017/0003(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
(2) Upon installation, the software shall inform the end-user about the privacy settings options and, to continue with the installation, require the. It shall ensure that any end-user to consent to a settingakes precedence over privacy settings selected at installation.
2017/07/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 6 #

2016/2305(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Reminds that the digital divide represented by the connectivity gap between rural and metropolitan areas needs to be closed since the EU cannot afford to miss opportunities to connect rural areas, that are largely behind in the light of the results of the EC's Digital Economy & Society Index (DESI) - broadband is available to 71% of European homes but only to 28% in rural areas, mobile broadband (4G and others) is available to 86% of European homes but only to 36% in rural areas;
2017/02/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 10 #

2016/2305(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Welcomes EC's intention to work with the MS's and industry towards the voluntary establishment of a common timetable for the launch of early 5G networks by the end of 2018, followed by the launch of fully commercial 5G services in Europe by the end of 2020;
2017/02/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 20 #

2016/2305(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the utmost importance of responding effectively in the early stages of 5G in order to placromote the EU ahead of the gamecompetitiveness of European companies, especially European SMEs, since the benefits of being the world leader in setting the stage for this technology are potentially very high, and; believes that for this to happen, a comprehensive European strategy is needed and policies and rules need to be future-oriented, pro-investment and pro- innovation, with a market-based and light- touch approach that fosters competition, coupled with wise tax policies,; acknowledginges that investment is necessary to create competition that will in turn induce innovation, new services and ultimately more investment that benefits the consumer;
2017/02/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 28 #

2016/2305(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses the need for a European approach in the development of 5G technologies and for the adoption of a multi-stakeholder approach, as taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the 5G mobile standard will require the extensive, coordinated introduction of 5G networks in Europe;
2017/02/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 54 #

2016/2305(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Is concerned that in the absence of modern digital networks and infrastructure providing high-quality and speedy connectivity, the EU is in danger of lagging behind other regions in terms of attracting investments and retaining knowledge, resulting in the loss of a competitive advantage, and calls for the development of digital networks and infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, to be stepped up;
2017/02/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 51 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
F b. whereas some online platforms serve as gateways, serious concerns arise when they become gatekeepers restricting access to consumers and to business opportunities, in particular where they also compete directly in downstream markets, for which they control access to ;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 73 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Acknowledges that online platforms benefit today’s digital economy and society by increasing the choices available to consumers and creating and shaping new markets; points out, however, that online platforms present new policy and regulatory challenges, such as dealing with fake news, fake accounts, fake followers or social bots;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 80 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that, although many pieces of EU legislation apply to online platforms, it is frequently the case that they are not enforced properly or have not been adapted to the online world; believes, therefore, that a consideration should be given to the question of whether there is a need to complement the current legal framework in order to remedy this situation;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 87 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Encourages the Commission to assess the current legal framework with regard to online platforms, and take into account the analysis in the academic paper with the title 'Discussion Draft of a Directive on Online Intermediary Platforms' presented at the Eleventh Meeting of the IMCO Working Group on the Digital Single Market;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 101 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the Commission's ongoing work on online platforms, including consultations of stakeholders and carrying out an impact assessment, and considers that Online Platforms shall be defined at the European level taking into account their characteristics and differences, such as their sector of activities and the level of interaction to avoid any fragmentation in the EU;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 201 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Emphasises, in that connection, that phemomena such as fake news, fake accounts, fake followers or social bots have the potential to influence opinion on a massive scale; points out, at the same time, that the free exchange of opinions is central and fundamental to democracy;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 202 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Emphasises that the following methods of countering fake news should be considered: 1) cooperation between platforms and an independent research body whose role is to safeguard the legal framework and which takes a neutral approach to content; 2) a requirement to inform users who have encountered fake news that the items in question have been identified as such and, if necessary, corrected; 3) introduction of a right of reply similar to that provided for in the law governing the press;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 235 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that the liability rules for online platforms should allow the tackling of issues related to illegal goods and harmful content in an efficient manner, for instance by respecting the duty of care, while maintaining a balanced and business- friendly approach;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 247 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses the need for online platforms to prevent illegal goods and inappropriate content and unfair practices through regulatory, measures, complemented by effective self- regulatory or hybrid measures; stresses the importance of online platforms playing a proactive role in tackling illegal goods and inappropriate content and taking immediate action to remove illegal references to illegal goods or inappropriate content if such contenit slips through preventive monitoring;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 256 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Emphasises that the criteria drawn on in striking a balance between freedom of the press and opinion, on the one hand, and the protection of the right to privacy, on the other, also apply in the social media sphere; points out that a European approach to enforcing the right to privacy is needed; calls, in that connection: (1) for the criteria on which platform providers base their deletion procedures to be made public; (2) for deletion requests to be taken seriously and dealt with quickly; (3) for requests for information from law-enforcement authorities to be answered more quickly and comprehensively; makes clear its view that financial penalties should be imposed on platform providers who fail to meet these requirements;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 261 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that online platforms should develop more effective voluntary measures and technical means tof identifying and eliminatinge illegal and harmful content in particular in areas such as incitement to terrorism, hate speech and child sexual abuse;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 268 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that online platforms should develop more effective voluntary measures and technical means of identifying and eliminating access to illegal goods and harmful content;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 280 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Urges the Commission to ensure a level playing field for online platforms and a level playing field between online platforms and competing services; stresses that regulatory certainty is essential to creating a thriving digital economy; notes that competitive pressures vary between different sectors and therefore ‘one-size- fits-all’ solutions are rarely appropriate;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 322 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Underlines that the Iinternet of the future cannot succeed without users’ trust in online platforms, greater transparency, a level-playing field, better control of ranking systems and advertising, and online platforms respecting all applicable legislation;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 365 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Calls on the Commission to evaluate platforms’ review systems and to put an end to certain practices, such as fake reviews and the deletion of negative reviews in order to make platforms comply with existing obligations; in this respect, as part of the REFIT check of EU consumer and marketing law in 2017, calls on the Commission to ensure that online platforms' review systems are covered by the requirements of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive relative to false or misleading information;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 370 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Welcomes the Guidance on the implementation/application of directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices which recalls that platform should avoid creating the impression that reviews posted through it originate from real users, when it cannot adequately ensure this; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to encourage the voluntary adoption of certification schemes provided by independent accredited certifiers to guarantee that platforms' review systems are reliable;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 375 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Calls on the Commission to assess the need for and the principles in relation to criteria, which could set the conditions under which online platforms may be made subject to further monitoring and assisted in order for them toof the complyiance with existing obligations and guidelines in a timely manner, in particular in the realm of consumer protectEuropean competition rules by the Commission,;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 427 #

2016/2276(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40 a. Calls on the Commission to propose a pro-growth, pro-consumer, targeted legislative framework for B2B relations based on principles to prevent abuse of market power and ensure that platforms that serve as a gateway to a downstream market do not become gatekeepers; resolves that such a framework should prevent detriment to consumer welfare, promote competition and innovation; further recommends that this framework be technology neutral and capable of addressing existing risks, for example in relations to market for mobile operating system but also future risks with new internet-driven technologies like IoT or artificial intelligence, which will place platforms even more squarely between online businesses and consumers;
2017/03/27
Committee: ITREIMCO
Amendment 31 #

2016/2274(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that harmonised standards are a voluntary, market-driven tool providing technical requirements and guidance, that can help implemente use of which can facilitate compliance with European legislation and policies when they are developed in a transparent and inclusive way, but stresses that; stresses, however, that standards cannot be part of EU law or otherwise seen as a necessary implementing measure of EU law, since the political decisions regarding the level of protection of health, safety and environment should be left to the legislator;
2017/02/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 121 #

2016/2274(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Is of the opinion that the increased complexity resulting from a proliferation of standardsthe marked increase in platforms for processing specifications which do not belong to the recognised standardisation bodies under Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, and the diversity of technical communities, creates barriers and costs that affect access rights to standards for SMEs and microenterprises; stresses the importance of supporting measures to improve SMEs’ access to means of developing and using standards;
2017/02/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 146 #

2016/2274(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Invites the Commission to work together with European and national standardisation bodies to adopt an easy -to- use single points of access to standards that can provide assistance and information to the standards’ users on the available standards and their specifications, and that can help them find the standards that best match their needs;
2017/02/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 69 #

2016/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Points out that, in considering the digitalisation of individual administrative procedures, account must be taken of objections based on overriding public interest;
2017/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 85 #

2016/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Emphasises that citizens’ trust in the protection of personal data is fundamental to securing the success of the eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020, and underlines that public administrations should handle personal data securely in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the EU Rules on Privacy, thereby boosting trust in digital services;
2017/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 97 #

2016/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Emphasises that measures to protect public authorities from cyber- attacks and to enable them to withstand such attacks are extremely important and need to be developed; stresses the need for a European-level approach in this regard, particularly given that the once-only principle, which is a component of the eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020, depends on the exchange of citizens’ data between European administrative bodies;
2017/03/02
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 48 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to establish minimum resistance criteria for each product category from the design stage, by working in the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC) to lay down standards which coverwhich guarantee product robustness, reparability, upgradeability, etc.;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 55 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for a European programme to support the work of companies developing modular designs which are easy to dismantle and interchange;deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 60 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Calls on the Commission to develop the right topromote product reparability:;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 75 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – indent 3
- by insisturging that parts which are essential to the functioning of the product arshould be replaceable, and by including the product’s reparability among its ‘key features’,
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 79 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – indent 5
- by standardising the spare parts andencouraging the standardisation of the tools necessary for repair, in order to improve the performance of repair services,
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 84 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – indent 6
- by poolroviding information on the availability of parts, repair guides, etc., where appropriate through the establishment of a digital platform;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 102 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – indent 3
- by developing a clear and harmonised labelling system which provides information as to whether spare parts for goods are available or not, and for how long;deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 109 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Encourages the Member States to take fiscal measures to promostimulate repairs and second-hand sales, and to develop repairs training;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 113 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that the option of going to an independent repairer should always be safeguarded, for example by banning technical or software-related schemes which prevent repairs from being performed other than by approved firms or bodiesbe encouraged;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 118 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for efforts to encourage the re-use of spare parts for the second-hand market, and stresses the importance of investing in 3D printing, in order to provide parts for professionals and consumers who wish to repair their own goods, and of encouraging the free dissemination of the catalogues for these parts;deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 124 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Urges the Commission to focus on developing the functional economy and to conduct a study into the ways in which individual product families are fostering or holding back the development of this economic model;deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 130 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – indent 1
- to consult with the relevant stakeholders in order to develop a usage- based sales model which benefits everyone,and analyse how product usability periods can be maximised;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 132 #

2016/2272(INI)

- to step up their efforts at regulatory simplification and implement a fiscal policy which promotes the development of the functional economy, via reduced VAT rates, tax credits or endowments which encourage the rental, exchange and borrowing of goods;deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 138 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Urges the Member States to use their public policies to promote the functional economy, to ensure that the durability of products is taken into account in public procurement and to increase the re-use rate of equipment purchased by public authorities;deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 145 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission, when promoting the circular economy, to stress the importance of product durability and to provide financial incentives for social and economic innovations supporting re-use, the usage economy and repairs;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 149 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Encourages the Commission to view re-usable and reconditionable electrical and electronic devices not as waste, but as resources, in order to make it easier for them to be passed on to social enterprises and associations that can make usso that use can be made of such goods and their components;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 156 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 1
- the promotion of a voluntary European label covering, in particular, the product’s durability, ecodesign features, upgradeability in line with technical progress and repairability,
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 158 #

2016/2272(INI)

- mandatory labelling to indicate a product’s expected useful life, on the basis of standardised criteria set by selected stakeholders,deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 164 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 3
- the creation of a usage meter for the most relevant consumer products, in particular large electrical appliances,deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 165 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 4
- an assessment of the impact of aligning lifespan labelling with the duration of the legal guarantee;deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 187 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 – indent 1
- by maintaining the 24-month legal guarantee as a minimum threshold, whilst leaving Member States free to lay down more protective national provisions,deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 193 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 – indent 2
- by extending the legal guarantee of conformity beyond the current two-year minimum for families of energy-using products on the basis of the product life cycle study carried out as part of the ecodesign process, and introducing a minimum period of five years for large household appliances and movable fixed assets gradually, so that companies can comply,deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 202 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 – indent 4
- by simplifying proof of purchase for the consumer by linking the guarantee to the goods rather than the purchaser, through the introduction of digital proof of guarantee across the board;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 205 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Calls for the implementation of a complaints mechanism at European level for cases in which the right to a guarantee is not implemented, in order to facilitate the monitoring of the application of European standards by the relevant authorities;deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 213 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Expects standards to be laid down for a minimum lifespan for software, and cCalls for greater transparency regarding the upgradeability of equipment;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 219 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for the introduction of an eco-contribution penalty in cases where software updates essential to the operation of a device are not provided, and calls for these updates to be reversible and accompanied by information on the consequences for the operation of the device;deleted
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 225 #

2016/2272(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the replaceability of parts, including the processor, to be encouraged by means of standardisation, so that products can be kept up to date;
2017/02/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 7 #

2016/2271(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that the European Cloud Initiative, together with the upcoming Free Flow of Data Initiative and the legislative proposal with an aim to remove unjustified data location restrictions, have the potential to further incentivise the process of digitisation of European industry, especially SMEs and Start-ups and to avoid and counteract the fragmentation of the EU Single Market; calls on the Commission to monitor their adoption and coherent implementation in order to enable swift, trustworthy and seamless data sharing, storage and use across sectors while avoiding disproportionate burden for SMEs and Start-ups;
2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 9 #

2016/2271(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Urges the Commission and the Member States to maintain and further develop the openness of the EU single market, removing regulatory barriers, cutting red-tape and modernising regulation, which is key for fostering the business sector, especially for SMEs and start-ups, and ensuring the implementation process of digital services and tools;
2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 19 #

2016/2271(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recalls that currently 30 parallel national and regional initiatives exist; highlights the importance of building synergies and transnational collaboration among existing national initiatives in order to ensure their better visibility, added value and the efficient use of resources;
2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 24 #

2016/2271(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Urges the Commission to introduce more clarity on the financing of the undertaken and upcoming initiatives facilitating the digitisation process, in particular with regard to the role of the EFSI, ESFI, H2020 and potential synergies between them, as well as on the estimated contribution from the Member States national budget;
2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 26 #

2016/2271(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Welcomes the Commission's intention to create Digital Innovation Hubs around Europe; stresses that these hubs should offer coaching, consultancy, and provide for the exchange of best practices, to encourage cross-border cooperation, and to ensure balanced inclusion of all EU regions;
2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 34 #

2016/2271(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that citizens’ and businesses’ trust in the digital environment is necessary for unlocking the full potential of industry digitalisationTakes the view that data and IT infrastructure security and the trust in the digital environment which goes with it are prerequisites if citizens and businesses, in particular SMEs and start-ups, are to take advantage of the full potential of industry digitalisation; emphasises, in that connection, the importance of uniform security standards, which should be guaranteed by means of the consistent implementation of the Directive on Network and Information Security;
2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 35 #

2016/2271(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that today's supply chains across Europe and digitalisation raise challenges related to standardisation, regulatory measures and volume investment that can only be addressed at European level. Stresses that citizens’ and businesses’ trust in the digital environment is necessaryessential for unlocking the full potential of industry digitalisation; calls on the Commission to put in place a transparency communication model and to develop new instruments that foster trust;
2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 58 #

2016/2271(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Considers it necessary to ensure high-quality education, lifelong learning and vocational training, including in the field of basic and advanced digital qualifications and skillNotes that digital skills are a prerequisite for nowadays labour market and can foster the inclusiveness and competitiveness of European regions, especially in the framework of the EU New Skills Agenda; urges the Commission to promote and coordinate high-quality education, lifelong learning and vocational training, including in the field of basic and advanced digital qualifications and skills, among other computing, coding, programming, cryptography; in this context calls for the encouragement of larger regional participation in order to diminish the innovation gap and to attract professionals for the development of the European regions.
2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 63 #

2016/2271(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Emphasises that areas of legal uncertainty still remain, in particular as regards data access and ownership and liability issues; takes the view that the forthcoming 'free-flow-of-data' initiative can do much to clear up unresolved issues; calls on the Commission, further, to consider whether the legal framework needs to be updated in order to do away with remaining areas of legal uncertainty.
2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 1 #

2016/2244(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the lack of homogeneity in its application across the Member States undermined the effectivenessRegrets that, to date, there has been scarcely any information about the application of Commission Regulation No 330/2010 in the area of franchising;
2017/02/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 2 #

2016/2244(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas there is no common European definition of franchising, but it normally involveecause of the differences between franchising agreements, but one key feature of such agreements is a partnership between natural or legal persons that are legally and financially independent of each other, whereby one party (the franchisor) grants to the other party (the franchisee) the right to operate his franchising formula to sell goods and/or services, and shares know- how, the intention of both the franchisor and the franchisee being to generate business revenue;
2017/02/08
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 6 #

2016/2244(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the regulation’s clauses on vertical restraints do not allow balanced representation of the two parties to the franchising and are notCommission should check whether the effectiveness of that regulation is not being undermined as a result of inconsistent application in the Member States and whether it is in line with recent market developments, in particular the exempted post-contractual clauses and purchasing conditions;
2017/02/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 9 #

2016/2244(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the Commission should check to what extent implementation of the regulation could be improved through a mechanism of assessment at European level should be improved, and; stresses that the unsatisfactory follow-up action by the Commission prevents cross-border retail activity and fails to create a level playing field within the single market;
2017/02/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 16 #

2016/2244(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that the Commission should start public consultations with a view to correctingand, in that context, check whether it is necessary to adapt the model on which the future block exemption regulation is based and, in order to establishing the concept of a franchising contract to be used in any future EU legislation, as well as for possible action in the area of private law;
2017/02/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 20 #

2016/2244(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to also ensure the recovery of any illegal state aid by means of tax advantages in the area of franchises and to show firmness in the conduct and result of ongoing inquiries, such as the McDonald’s case; stresses, moreover, that the EU needs to have more stringent legislation on tax rulings, providing also for an effective system and a debt recovery procedure in favour of EU budget own resources; calls on the Commission to rectify any infringement in the area of franchising with the view to ensuring fair competition across the single market;
2017/02/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 23 #

2016/2244(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to check whether it is necessary to revisew the regulation before 2018 and to (1)and, in that connection, to verify (1) the impact of the horizontal approach on the functioning of franchising; (2) test whether the model of franchising adopted in the regulation reflects the market reality, and correct it if necessary; (3) assess the negative effects and proportionality of the permitted vertical restraints, taking into account also their impact on the functioning of franchising by establishing market standards, for example a revision of the definition of know-how and a reconsideration of the context of territorial exclusivity clauses and permitted options; (4) collect market information in terms of new trends, market development regarding network organisation and technological advances; (5) considering that the subject is not covered at the national level, further assess the; (3) to what extent permitted vertical restraints are proportionate and have negative effects; (4) and what new challenges franchisors and franchisees have to face in the context of e- commerce; (6) adapt the regulation in order to achieve a general improvement and align it with digitalisation of the economy and digitisation in general;
2017/02/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 28 #

2016/2244(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that a reporting or complaint model should be set up by the Member States for reporting, for making complaints and for submitting other relevant information they receive via a contact point or in any othe Commissionr way, with a view to simplifying the information- gathering process as regards the market situation; calls on the Commission to draw up, on the basis of that information, a non-exhaustive schedule of unfair contractual terms and practices;
2017/02/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #

2016/2244(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
12. CallsAcknowledges that, on a national level, legislation has been enacted to protect franchisees, but the focus is on the pre-contractual stage, to impose disclosure obligations on the franchisor; calls therefore on the Commission to revise the rules on the enforcement of the regulation by Member States, while its application should be proportionally adjusted to fulfil its aim;
2017/02/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 33 #

2016/2244(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Stresses that regulation should maintain and increase market confidence in franchising as a way of doing business as it encourages entrepreneurism not only in SMEs that become franchisors, but also in individuals who become franchisees;
2017/02/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 43