15 Amendments of Inés AYALA SENDER related to 2017/2003(INI)
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Member States’ response to the development of collaborative business models has so far been very fragmented; welcomes in this regard the Commission communication on a European agenda for the collaborative economy, but regrets that it fails to establish an explicit harmonised legal framework for the collaborative economy; calls for use to be made of the interpretative criteria contained in the Commission communication to distinguish between simple intermediation through technological platforms and the provision of a service other than an information society service.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Member States’ response to the development of collaborative business models has so far been very fragmented; welcomes in this regard the Commission communication on a European agenda for the collaborative economy, but regrets that it fails to establish an explicit harmonised legal framework for the collaborative economy; calls for use to be made of the interpretative criteria contained in the Commission communication to distinguish between simple intermediation through technological platforms and the provision of a service other than an information society service.
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that, in the context of the collaborative economy, issues related to consumer protection, liability allocation, taxation, insurance schemes, social protection of workers (whether they are employed or self-employed), fair competition and data protection are the most urgent ones, and expects a regulatory intervention in that regard; emphasises that a regulatory framework should create a level playing field, foster innovations and contribute to the overall development and fulfilment of the EU transport policy goals, such as transport decarbonisation, territorial cohesion, affordability, accessibility and safety;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that, in the context of the collaborative economy, issues related to consumer protection, liability allocation, taxation, insurance schemes, social protection of workers (whether they are employed or self-employed), fair competition and data protection are the most urgent ones, and expects a regulatory intervention in that regard; emphasises that a regulatory framework should create a level playing field, foster innovations and contribute to the overall development and fulfilment of the EU transport policy goals, such as transport decarbonisation, territorial cohesion, affordability, accessibility and safety;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Condemns the use by certain transport operators of 'bogus self- employed workers' and other arrangements such as the use of 'bogus private individuals' with the intention of circumventing legislation so as, first and foremost, to offer services more cheaply, which equates to 'social dumping' vis-à- vis competitors complying with social, employment and tax rules.
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Stresses the importance for any transport or accommodation service provider to have compulsory insurance covering liability in respect of users and third parties. Draws attention to the legal vacuum concerning certain forms of the sharing economy in the transport and tourist accommodation sectors that provide services without any form of insurance, with the attendant risks for people, potentially leaving them defenceless in the event of accident or abuse. Believes that all collaborative service providers should therefore be obliged to take out a mandatory liability insurance policy so as to ensure they compete on a level playing against regulated transport services and the hotel sector. Points out how difficult it is to check compliance with this obligation, given that there is often no register of the private individuals offering such services; calls, therefore, on the relevant authorities to monitor both sectors more effectively.
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls the potential of collaborative economy models to improve the efficiency of the transport system and reduce undesired externalities of traffic such as congestion and emissions; emphasises the need to fullycalls on the relevant authorities to integrate true collaborative transport services into the conventional transport system and to avoid administrative systems or legislative measures which might lead to exclusion of collaborative transport services from transport planning and operations, with a view to enabling the creation of smooth complete travel chains and the provision of new forms of sustainable mobility;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls the potential of collaborative economy models to improve the efficiency of the transport system and reduce undesired externalities of traffic such as congestion and emissions; emphasises the need to fullycalls on the relevant authorities to integrate true collaborative transport services into the conventional transport system and to avoid administrative systems or legislative measures which might lead to exclusion of collaborative transport services from transport planning and operations, with a view to enabling the creation of smooth complete travel chains and the provision of new forms of sustainable mobility;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Warns that the unregulated growth of certain forms of the collaborative economy could be detrimental to collective public transport services and undermine their financial sustainability; adds, therefore, that complementarity rather than substitution should be encouraged, particularly in areas of low population density and rural areas in which public transport services are often the only alternative to travelling by private vehicle .
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls for the conditions governing independent service provision in regulated sectors such as urban and inter-urban passenger road transport to be overhauled to establish a single regulatory framework combining conditions of access to the profession in compliance with EU law with a regime that ensures continuous and stable provision of services so as to avoid situations of unfair competition.
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Takes the view, moreover, that certain collaborative transport services can lead to additional traffic congestion problems in large urban areas by fragmenting the range of services available, thereby increasing CO2 emissions and leading to other negative externalities.
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Calls for the conditions governing independent service provision in regulated sectors such as urban and inter-urban passenger road transport to be overhauled to establish a single regulatory framework combining conditions of access to the profession in compliance with EU law with a regime that ensures continuous and stable provision of services so as to avoid situations of unfair competition.
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the need to clearly distinguish between legitimate ride-sharing and the provision of commercial transporting services (i.e. ‘non- professional’ vs ‘professional’ service provision) in EU terminology, – with the understanding that similar obligations should apply to the provision of comparable services by transport companies – and urges the Commission to come up with proposals to adapt Union legislation accordingly; considers the monetary threshold tocould be one advisable way to make this distinction;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the need to clearly distinguish between legitimate ride-sharing and the provision of commercial transporting services (i.e. ‘non- professional’ vs ‘professional’ service provision) in EU terminology, – with the understanding that similar obligations should apply to the provision of comparable services by transport companies – and urges the Commission to come up with proposals to adapt Union legislation accordingly; considers the monetary threshold tocould be one advisable way to make this distinction;
Amendment 139 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Takes the view in this connection that certain operators and intermediaries in the collaborative economy are pursuing an aggressive pricing policy, often offering services at below cost price, in an attempt to seize market share and eliminate their competition before raising prices. Calls on the European Commission and the Member States' competition authorities to keep a close eye on these anti-competitive practices, to monitor developments in the price of transport and accommodation services, and to take action to address any monopolistic practices.