BETA

38 Amendments of Andreas SCHWAB related to 2019/2131(INI)

Amendment 5 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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