584 Amendments of Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG
Amendment 5 #
2018/2104(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the number of petitions received was modest in relation to the total population of the EU; whereas this indicates that a portion of EU citizens make use of the right to petition; whereas however, more needs to be done to promote the right to petition the European Parliament;
Amendment 24 #
2018/2104(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas petitions often provide useful information in various EU policy areas to other parliamentary committees, also in relation to their legislative activities; whereas fulfilling the fundamental right to petition through an adequate treatment of petitions is a responsibility of the Parliament as a whole;
Amendment 26 #
2018/2104(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas each petition ishould be carefully assessed and dealt with; whereas the petitioner has the right to receive information on the decision on admissibility taken by the Committee that addresses their issue fully within a reasonable period of time;
Amendment 52 #
2018/2104(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Highlights the vital role that the Committee on Petitions plays as a contact point where EU citizens and residents can submit their grievances, and where the requests of citizens are examined and treated within a reasonable timeframe;
Amendment 81 #
2018/2104(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Reminds the Commission that petitions offer a unique means to identify situations in which EU law is not upheld and to investigate such situations by means of political scrutiny of the European Parliament;
Amendment 92 #
2018/2104(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recognises the work done by the Working Group on Child Welfare Issues, and takes note of its final report and recommendations adopted on 3 May 2017; calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to promote cross- border cooperation on family matters, by providing training for judges and professionals, information on legal aid and bilingual lawyers;
Amendment 96 #
2018/2104(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Urges the Commission to use properly its powers stemming from its role as Guardian of the Treaties as such a role is of utmost importance in the functioning of the EU with regards to the citizens and to the European legislators;
Amendment 109 #
2018/2104(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Calls for a more focused and active press and communication service and a more active social media presence, making the work of the Committee more responsive to public concerns;
Amendment 127 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
(5) 'online search engine' means a digital service that allows users to perform searches of, in princip, including inter alia digital interfaces and applications, including mobile, all websites or websites in a particular language on the basis of a querypplications with search functionality that allows users to perform searches on any subject in the form of a keyword, phrase or other input, and returns linkresults in which information related to the requested content can be found;
Amendment 182 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. A provider of online intermediation services shall not be obliged to provide a statement of reasons if such provider reasonably believes that it would: (a) breach the law; (b) compromise an investigation; (c) compromise the operation of the online intermediation service; or (d) cause harm to business users or consumers of the online intermediation service. A provider of online services shall also not be obliged to provide a statement of reasons to any business user who is a repeat infringer.
Amendment 185 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Providers of online intermediation services shall set out in their terms and conditions the main parameters determining ranking and the reasons for the relative importance of those main parameters as opposed to other parameters.
Amendment 198 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Providers of online search engines shall set out for corporate website users the main parameters determining ranking, by providing an easily and publicly available description, drafted in clear and unambiguous language on the online search engines of those providers. They shall keep that description up to date with regard to material and negative changes for corporate website users.
Amendment 204 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Providers of online intermediation services and providers of online search engines shall, when complying with the requirements of this Article, not be required to disclose any trade secrets as defined in Article 2(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/943. Providers of online intermediation services and providers of online search engines shall also not be required to disclose any information that would be likely to facilitate either the manipulation of results or the deception of consumers.
Amendment 206 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Providers of online intermediation services and providers of online search engines shall make sure that fulfilling transparency obligations under this Article does not lead to a consumer harm following manipulation of ranking by business users and corporate business websites.
Amendment 208 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of online intermediation services shall include in their terms and conditions a description of any differentiated treatment which they give, or may give with a view to preventing business users from harmful on-line practices, in relation to, on the one hand, goods or services offered to consumers through those online intermediation services by either that provider itself or any business users which that provider controls and, on the other hand, other business users.
Amendment 265 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Providers of online intermediation services 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 which could not be resolved by means of the internal complaint-handling system referred to in Article 9.
Amendment 272 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Providers of online intermediation services and business users 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.
Amendment 289 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Organisations or associations shall have the right referred to in paragraph 1 only where, at the time of bringing the action, they and for the duration of the action, they continue to meet all of the following requirements:
Amendment 294 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) they are properly constituted according to the law of a Member State; and hold a current qualified entity licence issued by the relevant public body of that Member State.
Amendment 297 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) they pursue objectives that are in the collective interest of the group of a majority of business users or corporate website users that they represent, which group must consist of at least 10 independent business users or corporate website users;
Amendment 301 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) they are of a non-profit making character. and are transparent about the source of funding for bringing and continuing the action and can demonstrate that they have sufficient financial resources to represent the best interests of their business or corporate website users and to meet any adverse costs should the action fail;
Amendment 306 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) they comply with all codes of ethics and conduct of the public body issuing their licence, and demonstrably act in accordance with the wider public interest;
Amendment 7 #
2017/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the European Parliament has long been at the forefront of the development of the petitions process internationally and it still has the most open and transparent system in Europe, which allows in particular, full participation of petitioners in its activities;
Amendment 8 #
2017/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas the role of the committee in empowering European citizens is one of the essential characteristics that contributes to a reinforcement of the image and authority of the Parliament in the eyes of the electorate, by allowing the institution to bring to account and better scrutinise the way in which EU law is implemented by the Member States and the other EU institutions;
Amendment 14 #
2017/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas it is noted that citizens often turn to the Petitions Committee as a last resort when other bodies and institutions at regional and national levels are unable to resolve their concerns;
Amendment 24 #
2017/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas each petition is carefully assessed and dealt with, and whereas each petitioner has the right to receive a reply from the Committee of Petitions that addresses their issue fully within a reasonable period of time;
Amendment 46 #
2017/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights the vital role that the Committee on Petitions has to play as a contact point where EU citizens and residents can submit their grievances, and where the requests of citizens are examined and resolved wherever possible and within a reasonable timefraperiod of time;
Amendment 58 #
2017/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that petitions allow Parliament and other EU institutions to reconnect with EU citizens who are affected by the application of EU law at different administrative levels; considerurges enhanced cooperation of EU institutions and other EU bodies with national, regional and local authorities on matters linked to the application of EU law to be a vital means of strengthening the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the Union’s decision-making process;
Amendment 74 #
2017/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls for enquiries to be made as to the possibility of the use of teleconferencing services to allow more petitioners to present their petition to the committee;
Amendment 83 #
2017/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes the anxiety of petitioners concerned about their future rights following the referendum in the United Kingdom on withdrawal from the European Union which was evident in a large number of petitions concerning the United Kingdom; supports the Commission’s commitment to fully guarantee the rights of European citizens residing in the United Kingdom during the Brexit negotiations and following its exit from the EU;
Amendment 115 #
2017/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Recognises that there has been an unacceptable delay in the expansion of the secretariat of the committee; calls for the recruitment of experienced officials to enhance the working capacity of the committee;
Amendment 116 #
2017/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Calls for a more focused and active press and communications service and a more active social media presence, making the work of the Committee more responsive to public concerns;
Amendment 8 #
2017/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that measures envisaged for the Digital Single Market strategy, such as improvements to the legal regime for e- commerce and associated consumer protections, tackl regimes, abolishing geo- blocking, fostering net-neutrality and improving cyber security, are relevant for both the EU’s external trade policy and the single market;
Amendment 16 #
2017/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes the efforts made by the WTO to advance its work programme on e- commerce; regrets that positive progress has been slow in this regard; calls on the Commission to be ambitious in framing issues to be addressed in the programme; considers that particular consideration should be given to the increasing number of consumers caught up in customs procedures and possible violations in relation to goods purchased over the internet; believes that a higher de minimis rate should be pursued in the context of trade negotiations;
Amendment 19 #
2017/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Notes that the increasingly interconnected market requires building and strengthening consumer trust in online services.The effective tools such as secure and reliable online payment systems and innovative dispute settlement mechanisms are crucial to reduce online fraud, tackle unfair practices and improve access to information about consumer rights to facilitate consumer redress;
Amendment 23 #
2017/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Furthermore, notes that the access to information indicating various measurements, such as clothes or shoes sizes, is necessary in order to facilitate the digital trade;
Amendment 27 #
2017/2065(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that digital trade should be further facilitated in procurement policies, including by taking advantage of possibilities to provide services remotely without prejudice to the EU's data protection and privacy rules;
Amendment 53 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Such obstacles to the free movement of data storage or other processing services and to the right of establishment of data storage or other processing providers originate from requirements in the national or federal laws of Member States to locate data in a specific geographical area or territory for the purpose of storage or other processing. Other rules or administrative practices have an equivalent effect by imposing specific requirements which make it more difficult to store or otherwise process data outside a specific geographical area or territory within the Union, such as requirements to use technological facilities that are certified or approved within a specific Member State. Legal uncertainty as to the extent of legitimate and illegitimate data localisation requirements further limits the choices available to market players and to the public sector regarding the location of data storage or other processing.
Amendment 59 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order to create a framework for the free movement of non-personal data in the Union and the foundation for developing the data economy and enhancing the competitiveness of European industry in compliance with European data protection rules, it is necessary to lay down a clear, comprehensive and predictable legal framework for storage or other processing of data other than personal data in the internal market. A principle-based approach providing for cooperation among Member States as well as self-regulation should ensure that the framework is flexible so that it can take into account the evolving needs of users, providers and national authorities in the Union. In order to avoid the risk of overlaps with existing mechanisms and hence to avoid higher burdens both for Member States and businesses, detailed technical rules should not be established.
Amendment 65 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The legal framework on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/67930, and Directive (EU) 2016/68031 and Directive 2002/58/EC32s well as the legal framework on the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications, in particular Directive 2002/58/EC32 to be repealed by new regulation 2017/003 (COD)32a should not be affected by this Regulation. _________________ 30 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 31 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89). 32 Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37). 32aRegulation of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications and repealing Directive 2002/58/EC.
Amendment 68 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) This Regulation should not apply to the storage or other processing of electronic data in the case of any intermixture of non-personal data and personal data, or in the case of any combination of non-personal data that could lead to personal data or to identify a person.
Amendment 85 #
2017/0228(COD)
(11) This Regulation should apply to electronic data storage or other processing in the broadest sense, encompassing the usage of all types of IT systems, whether located on the premises of the user or outsourced to a data storage or other processing service provider. It should cover data processing of different levels of intensity, from data storage (Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)) to the processing of data on platforms (Platform- as-a-Service (PaaS)) or in applications (Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)). These different services should be within the scope of this Regulation, unless data storage or other processing is merely ancillary to a service of a different type, such as providing an online marketplace intermediating between service providers and consumers or business users.
Amendment 88 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Data localisation requirements represent a clear barrier to the free provision of data storage or other processing services across the Union and to the internal market. As such, they should be banned unless they are justified based on the grounds of public security, as defined by Union law, in particular Article 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and satisfy the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. Regardless of this data storage or other processing of authorities and political bodies of national or federal governments and parliaments should be always considered to be justified for grounds of public security. In order to give effect to the principle of free flow of non-personal data across borders, to ensure the swift removal of existing data localisation requirements and to enable for operational reasons storage or other processing of data in multiple locations across the EU, and since this Regulation provides for measures to ensure data availability for regulatory control purposes, Member States should not be able to invoke justifications other than public security.
Amendment 105 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Data localisation requirements are frequently underpinned by a lack of trust in cross-border data storage or other processing, deriving from the presumed unavailability of data for the purposes of the competent authorities of the Member States, such as for inspection and audit for regulatory or supervisory control. Therefore, this Regulation should clearly establish that it does not affect the powers of competent authorities to request and receive access to data in accordance with Union or national law, and that access to data by competent authorities may not be refused on the basis that the data is stored or otherwise processed in another Member State, neither by the provider according to Art. 3 No. 4, nor by the professional user according to Art. 3 No. 8, nor by any authority of the other Member State with the exception of Art. 7 of this regulation.
Amendment 116 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) In order to take full advantage of the competitive environment, professional users should be able to make informed choices and easily compare the individual components of various data storage or other processing services offered in the internal market, including as to the contractual conditions of porting data upon the termination of a contract. In order to align with the innovation potential of the market and to take into account the experience and expertise of the providers and professional users of data storage or other processing services, the detailed information and operational requirements for data porting should be defined by market players through self-regulation, encouraged and facilitated by the Commission, in the form of Union codes of conductimplementing acts which may entail model contract terms. Nonetheless, if such codes of conduct are not put in place and effectively implemented within a reasonable period of time, the Commission should review the situation.
Amendment 131 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28 a (new)
Recital 28 a (new)
(28 a) The legal framework of public procurement, especially with regard to environmental, social and labour aspects of public procurement, in particular Directive (EU) 2014/241a should not be affected by this Regulation. _________________ 1aDirective 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC.
Amendment 141 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. This Regulation shall not apply to the storage or other processing of electronic data in the case of any intermixture of non-personal data and personal data, or in the case of any combination of non-personal data that can lead to personal data or to identify a person.
Amendment 192 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission shall encourage and facilitate the development of self- regulatory codes of conduct at Union level, in order to define guidelines on best practices inmay adopt implementing acts in order to specify requirements to facilitatinge the switching of providers and to ensure that they provide professional users with sufficiently detailed, clear and transparent information before a contract for data storage and processing is concluded, as regards the following issues:
Amendment 216 #
2017/0228(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Amendment 91 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AI a (new)
Recital AI a (new)
AIa. whereas each petition is carefully assessed and dealt with and each petitioner must receive a reply within a reasonable period of time indicating the grounds for closing the petition in question;
Amendment 92 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AI b (new)
Recital AI b (new)
AIb. whereas all petitioners should have a possibility to directly present the cases to the Committee on Petitions;
Amendment 104 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the fact that the Committee on Petitions has an opportunity and the huge challenge of maintaining a dialogue with citizens as it has the possibility to bring the EU’s institutions and citizens together once again;
Amendment 120 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the fact that in 2015 the time taken to process petitions fell, maintains nonetheless that the Secretariat of the Committee on Petitions is in need of greater technical resources and personnel in order to guarantee a diligent examination and reduction in the time taken to process petitions;
Amendment 128 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that, as mentioned by Vice- President Timmermans at his meeting with the Committee on Petitions on 5 May 2015, the Commission is involved with and committed to the petition process and responds as quickly as possible to new petitions forwarded to it by Parliament; points out that Commission replies are usually detailed and pertain to the petitions for which it has jurisdiction; recalls however that on many occasions the Commission does not bring any new information in its replies to petitions for which a review has been requested owing to a change in their status and context; notes that the written responses are monitored, as are explanations given during oral debates held by the Committee on Petitions; notes that when the Commission cannot provide a detailed response to a request from the Committee on Petitions, it is because it has no jurisdiction in the matter; notes the Commission’s commitment in sending generally competent officials to meetings of the Committee on Petitions; regrets that during public debates with petitioners and Members of Parliament the officials sent by the Commission do not provide any new or relevant information that might enable a solution to the issues raised;
Amendment 133 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Confirmsiders that, in the interests of transparency and in a spirit of faithful cooperation between the EU institutions, and pursuant to the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, upon request and where required the Commission willshould provide the European Parliament with a synthesis of the individual cases related to the EU Pilot procedures; nrecalls previous requests made by the Committee on Petitions to ensure access to EU Pilot and infringement procedure documents, as petitions frequently lead to the initiation of such procedures. Notes that, according to confirmation from the Court of Justice, confidentiality requirements apply to dialogue between the Commission and Member States concerning open EU Pilot cases, and also notes that such information is confidential;
Amendment 147 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Regrets that petitioners are still not sufficiently informed about the grounds for declaring the petition inadmissible;
Amendment 151 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Deplores the strict way in which the Commission has interpreted Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with its stipulation that ‘the provisions of the [...] Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law; rRecalls that, owing to the existence of Article 51 of the Charter, the expectations of citizens often go beyond what the Charter’s legal provisions strictly allow for; calls on the European Commission to adopt a new approach that is more consistent with those expectations;
Amendment 155 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Regrets that citizens of Poland and United Kingdom are still not protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 159 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Points to the important ongoing work carried out by the Committee on Petitions in the context of the application of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; duly notes that 2015 was a very significant year in that for the first time a United Nations agency reviewed the fulfilment of human rights obligations in the EU; is pleased to note that a United Nations committee had the opportunity to hear all the details regarding the protection provided by the Committee on Petitions; underscores that the Commission has begun to incorporate the concluding observations by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into the petition treatment process1 ; is pleased to note that the public hearing ‘Protecting the rights of people with disabilities, from the perspective of petitions received’ organised by the Committee on Petitions on 15 October 2015, was highly accessible; draws attention to the importance of the findings of the study commissioned by Policy Department C entitled ‘The protection role of the Committee on Petitions in the context of the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’; considers it important that the Committee on Petitions continues to organise events focusing on petitions in the field of disability; calls for the capacity of the Committee on Petitions and its Secretariat to be enhanced to enable it to properly fulfil its protection role; calls for the establishment of a designated officer responsible for the processing of disabilities-related issues; notes the Committee’s significant follow-up action in 2015 with regard to disability with respect to more specific topics such as the ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty (petition No 0924/2011), the unblocking of the anti-discrimination Directive (petition No 0360/2009), exemption from customs duties for certain products designed to promote the cultural, educational or scientific advancement of persons with disabilities (petition No 0240/2015) or family caregivers (petition No 0098/2015); __________________ 1 Adopted by the UN Committee at its 14nth session (17 August to 4 September 2015); see: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatyb odyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=C RPD%2fC%2fEU%2fCO%2f1&Lang=en
Amendment 170 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that the organisation of public hearings is an important way of examining problems raised by petitioners; draws attention to the public hearings organised on 26 February 2015 with the AFCO Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in response to the ECI on ‘Water is a Human Right’, and with the Committee on Legal Affairs for the ECI entitled ‘One of Us’uropean Citizens' Initiative and the hearing about the Right to Petition on 23 June 2015;
Amendment 186 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. DeploRegrets the fact that the Commission considers that it is too early to revise Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of 1 April 2012 which entered into force three years ago; considers that it is necessary to thoroughly evaluate its implementation to identify possible deficiencies and propose workable solutions with a view to revising it soon; welcomes the Commission’s report of 31 March 2015 on the ECI, and the European Ombudsman’s Decision OI/9/2013/TN, and calls on the Commission to ensure, in its revision of this instrument, that all the appropriate legal measures are taken with a view to providing proper follow-up when an ECI is deemed to have been completed successfully; calls on the Commission, in view of the various weaknesses identified, to present a proposal for reform of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 as soon as possible;
Amendment 197 #
2016/2146(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Urges the competent administrative bodies to expedite the steps still needed to conclude the introduction of the remaining project phases whereby petitioners will be able to receive information on the status of their petition, be notified of changes in the processing procedure through automated e- mail messages and directly contact officials of the Committee on Petitions for clear, direct information on the evolution of the issue concerning them;
Amendment 59 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Council Directive 93/83/EEC17 facilitates cross-border satellite broadcasting and retransmission by cable of television and radio programmes from other Member States of the Union. However, the provisions of that Directive on transmissions of broadcasting organisations are limited to satellite transmissions and therefore do not apply to online services ancillary to broadcast while the provisions concerning retransmissions of television and radio programmes from other Member States are limited to simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged retransmission by cable or microwave systems and do not extend to such retransmissions by means of other technologies. _________________ 17 Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission OJ L 248, 6.10.1993, p. 15– 21.
Amendment 80 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The ancillary online services covered by this Regulation are those services offered by broadcasting organisations which have a clear and subordinate relationship to the broadcastgiving access to television and radio content offered by broadcasting organisations. They include services giving access to television and radio programmes in a linear manner simultaneously to the broadcast and services giving access, within a defined time period after the broadcast, to television and radio programmes which have been previously broadcast by the broadcasting organisation (so-called catch- up services). In addition, ancillary online services include services which give access to material which enriches or otherwise expands television and radio programmes broadcast by the broadcasting organisation, including by way of previewing, extending, supplementing or reviewing the relevant programme's content. The provision of access to individual works or other protected subject matter that have been incorporated in a television or radio programme should not be regarded as an ancillary online service. Similarly, the provision of access to works or other protected subject matter independently of broadcast, such as services giving access to individual musical or audiovisual works, music albums or videos, do not fall under the definition of ancillary , as well as material genuinely produced for the digital environment. Such access is particularly important to reach younger audiences. Younger audiences are the main users of the internet as a means of watching television and listening to radio programmes. Therefore it is essential to enable broadcasters to disseminate also such kinds of programmes online across national borders. In particular broadcasters with a public service mission, which are financed by public funds, paid by citizens' contributions, need to adapt to this changing consumer behaviour. Otherwise their right to exist might be put into questionl ine servic the future.
Amendment 81 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The ancillary online services covered by this Regulation are those services offered by broadcasting organisations which have a clear and subordinate relationship to the broadcast. They include services giving access to television and radio programmes in a linear manner simultaneously to the broadcast and services giving access, within a defined time period after the broadcast,services giving access to television and radio content including services giving access to television and radio programmes which have been previously broadcasted by the broadcasting organisation (so-called catch- up services). In addition, ancillary online servicesThey include services which give access to material which enriches or otherwise expands television and radio programmes broadcast by the broadcasting organisation, including by way of previewing, extending, supplementing or reviewing the relevant programme's content. The provision of access to individual works , as well as content genuinely produced or licensed for other protected subject matter that have been incorporated in a television or radio programme should not be regarded as an ancillary online service. Similarly online environment. Public broadcasters in particular need to be able to use different dissemination channels to reach different audiences in order to fulfil their public service mandate. In order to reach younger audiences, the possibility to disseminate services designed for the online environment is crucial. Therefore, the provision of access to works or other protected subject matter independently of broadcast, such as services giving access to individual musical or audiovisual works, music albums or videos, do not fall under licensed for the broadcaster, and webcasting are included in the scope of the definition of ancillary online services.
Amendment 96 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Since the provision of, the access to or the use of an ancillary online service is deemed to occur solely in the Member State in which the broadcasting organisation has its principal establishment, while de facto the ancillary online service can be provided across borders to other Member States, it is necessary to ensure that in arriving at the amount of the payment to be made for the rights in question, the parties should take into account all aspects of the ancillary online service such as the features of the service, the audience, including the audience in the Member State in which the broadcasting organisation has its principal establishment and in other Member States in which the ancilonline service is accessed and used, and all available language versions. The consideration of language versions is particularly online service is accessed and used, and the language version. important as they often limit the audience in Member States other than the Member States in which the broadcasting organisation has its principal establishment considerably. The use of freely licensed content by broadcasters, such as public sector information which is regularly published under a free license in line with Directive 2003/98/EC, is an important public policy goal. This goal would be undermined by the imposition of any unwaivable remuneration, as unwaivable remuneration is fundamentally incompatible with free licenses, which by definition allow a non-exclusive re-use free of charge. In order to ensure that broadcasters can continue to use freely licensed content under the country of origin principle set out in this Regulation, it is necessary to exclude any imposition of unwaivable remuneration by Member States.
Amendment 98 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Since the provision of, the access to or the use of an ancillary online service is deemed to occur solely in the Member State in which the broadcasting organisation has its principal establishment, while de facto the ancillary online service can be provided across borders to other Member States, it is necessary to ensure that in arriving at the amount of the payment to be made for the rights in question, the parties should take into account all aspects of the ancillary online service such as the features of the service, the audience, including the audience in the Member State in which the broadcasting organisation has its principal establishment and in other Member States in which the ancillary online service is accessed and used, and the language version. However, that does not imply any particular fee calculation methods, such as fees calculated on a 'per use' basis.
Amendment 112 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11 a) While the principle of contractual freedom remains untouched by this regulation, an abuse of negotiating positions through the application of the "country of origin principle" should be prevented. Therefore Member States should ensure that either party may call upon the assistance of impartial mediators, whose task is to assist negotiations and who may submit proposals, in order to enable them reaching an agreement on terms acceptable to both parties.
Amendment 115 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Operators of retransmission services offered on satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based, mobile and similar networks, provide services which are equivalent to those provided by operators of cable retransmission services when they retransmit simultaneously, in an unaltered and unabridged manner, for reception by the public, an initial transmission from another Member State of television or radio programmes, where this initial . They should therefore be within the scope of this Regulation and benefit from the mechanism introducing mandatory collective management of rights. In order to adapt to the development of digital technologies and to the changing user behaviour, this mechanism should include the retransmission, is by wire or over the air, including by satellite but excluding online transmissions, and intended for reception by the public. They should therefore be within the scope of this Regulation and benefit from thn an unaltered manner, via the Internet (so called over- the-top (OTT) service providers). The retransmission does not have to be simultaneous, as this would run counter to the principle of technological neutrality, whereas some mtechanism introducing mandatory collective management of rights. Retransmission services which are offered on the open internet should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation as those services have different characteristics. They are not linked to any particular infrastructure and their ability to ensure a controlled envirnologies may require a certain delay in retransmission, and because catch-up TV services by cable retransmission providers should also be facilitated, in order to achieve a level playing-field. The inclusion of OTT is crucial for allowing, in line with consumer expectations, portability of such services within the Member State of residence, as well as beyond, through the mechanism established by Regulation 2017/... of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. _________________ 1aProposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council onm ent is limited wsuring then compared for example to cable or closed circuit IP-based networks. ross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, COM(2015)0627.
Amendment 145 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
Recital 14 a (new)
(14 a) To prevent the abuse of negotiating positions, Member States should ensure by means of civil or administrative law, that the parties enter and conduct negotiations regarding authorisation for retransmission in good faith and do not prevent or hinder negotiation without valid justification.
Amendment 148 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14a (new)
Recital 14a (new)
(14 a) Distributors, such as cable or platform operators, that receive programme carrying signals through a direct injection process for reception by the public should be covered by the mandatory collective management provisions outlined in this Regulation, even if a communication to the public has not taken place prior to the transmission of the signal by the distributor. Distributors should therefore obtain an authorisation from the relevant rightholders as concerns their respective participation in such acts, subject to mandatory collective management. The notion of "direct injection" is a technical term for the specific situation in which cable or other platform operators receive the broadcast signal directly from the broadcaster's premises or via a privately- closed network, so that such broadcast signal is not transmitted for reception by the public before it is transmitted by the operator receiving the signal. In this situation, which typically occurs within a Member State, there is only one, single communication to the public of such a programme-carrying signal. This clarification is important in order to avoid further complexity in the interpretation of the notion of communication to the public, which would have consequences beyond the issue of retransmission.
Amendment 149 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 b (new)
Recital 14 b (new)
Amendment 150 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 c (new)
Recital 14 c (new)
(14 c) In a number of Member States, rights clearance for the communication to the public or making available of television and radio programmes or related services, in a linear or non-linear form, is facilitated through extended collective licencing agreements. In order to take account of this situation and to improve legal certainty for all concerned parties in light of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-301/15, this Regulation clarifies that such agreements are in line with Union law. The definition of information society services already exists in Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1a and in Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1b ; this definition covers any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service. The definition of linear and non-linear audiovisual media service should be in line with Directive 2010/13/EU. _________________ 1aDirective 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on information society services (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37). 1b Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (OJ L 320, 28.11.1998, p. 54).
Amendment 151 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14d (new)
Recital 14d (new)
(14 d) In light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is also necessary to provide an additional exception to the rights of reproduction and communication to the public laid down in Article 2(a) and Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, as established in Article 5(2) of that Directive, in order to provide legal certainty, and to allow service providers to make such programmes and services available on the basis of extended collective licencing.
Amendment 152 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14e (new)
Recital 14e (new)
(14 e) The application of copyright and related rights is in some cases divided into numerous territorially defined national rights, with different rightholders and exercised in some cases by a different entity. A database maintained by collective management organisations is therefore needed to facilitate the identification of rightholders and the ability of broadcasting organisations and retransmission operators to conclude licensing agreements.
Amendment 176 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to achieve the objective of promoting the cross-border provision of ancillary online services and of facilitating retransmissions of television and radio programmescontent originating in other Member States, it is appropriate to adopt a Regulation, which directly applies in Member States. A Regulation is necessary in order to guarantee a uniform application of the rules across Member States and their entering into force at the same time with regard to all the concerned transmissions and retransmissions. The direct applicability of a Regulation reduces legal fragmentation and provides greater uniformity by introducing a harmonised set of rules which promote the free circulation of television and radio programmes originating in other Member Statescontent originating in other Member States. At the same time, the Regulation should not in any way limit or prohibit already existing mandatory collective management systems in Member States that go beyond what is required by this Regulation, particularly in domestic situations, because this would run counter to the Regulation's objective of facilitating retransmissions. Therefore, this regulation should be without prejudice to any existing mandatory or extended collective management solutions for retransmission existing in a Member State that go beyond what is required in this Regulation.
Amendment 191 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article –1 (new)
Article –1 (new)
Article -1 Subject Matter 1.This Regulation establishes legal mechanisms to facilitate the clearance of copyright and related rights relevant for the cross-border provision of online services and to facilitate digital retransmissions of television and radio content as well as broadcasting organisations' on-demand services originating in other Member States. 2.Those legal mechanisms include the establishment of the country of origin principle as regards the exercise of those rights. The legal mechanisms also include provisions on mandatory collective management of copyright and related rights relevant for retransmission, on legal presumptions of representation by collective management organisations, on the exercise of retransmission rights by broadcasting organisations and on the application of the mandatory collective management rules set out in this Regulation to direct injection.
Amendment 198 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) "ancillary online service" means an online service consisting in the provision to the public, by or under the control and responsibility of a broadcasting organisation, of radio or television programmes simultaneously with or for a defined period of time, before, during or after their broadcast by the broadcasting organisation as well as of any material produced, co-produced or commissioned by or for the broadcasting organisation whichor licenced to ist ancillary to such broadcastd any service by the broadcasting organisation providing access to works under the editorial responsibility of the broadcasting organisation;
Amendment 202 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) "ancillary online service" means an online service provided via the internet consisting in the provision to the public, by or under the control and responsibility of a broadcasting organisation, of linear and non-linear radio or television programmes before, simultaneously with or for a defined period of time, during or after their broadcast by the broadcasting organisation, as well as of any materialnd of any content produced by or for the broadcasting organisation which is ancillary to suchincluding without any connection to the broadcast;
Amendment 218 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) "direct injection" means a two- or more step process by which broadcasting organisations transmit their programme- carrying signals point to point via a private line, in such a way that the programme-carrying signals cannot be received by the general public during the transmission, to a distributor who then offers these programmes to the public in an unaltered and unabridged manner, for viewing or listening on cable, microwave systems, satellite, digital terrestrial, IP- based or similar networks.
Amendment 233 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – title
Article 2 – title
Application of the principle of ‘country of origin’ to ancillary online services by broadcasters
Amendment 240 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
(1) The acts of communication to the public and of making available occurring when providing an ancillary online service by or under the control and responsibility of a broadcasting organisation as well as the acts of reproduction which are necessary for the provision of, the access to or the use of the ancillary online service shall, for the purposes of exercising copyright and related rights relevant for these acts, be deemed to occur solely in the Member State in which the broadcasting organisation has its principal establishment. Any disputes over the exercise of these rights shall fall under the jurisdiction of that Member State.
Amendment 256 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
(2) When fixing the amount of the payment to be made for the rights subject to the country of origin principle as set out in paragraph 1, the parties shall take into account all aspects of the ancillary online service such as the features of the ancillary online service, the audience, and thall available language versions. Member States shall not impose any unwaivable remuneration for the rights subject to the country of origin principle set out in paragraph 1.
Amendment 263 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2 a) Member States may decide to exclude an online service from the application of paragraph 1 only in the case that the broadcasting organisation responsible for the online service establishes itself in one Member State while targeting exclusively an audience in another Member State market for the sole purpose of circumventing national copyright rules.
Amendment 268 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2 a Mediation 1.Where an agreement is being negotiated between a broadcasting organisation and a producer of audiovisual works regarding the clearance of rights for the provision of such works on an online service provided in accordance with Article 2, Member States shall ensure that either party may call upon the assistance of one or more mediators in order to enable reaching an agreement on terms acceptable to both parties. 2.Member States shall also ensure that the mechanism set out in paragraph 1 can apply in the context of the implementation of an agreement concluded between a broadcasting organisation and a producer of audiovisual works, in particular where the parties enter into a dispute or fail to reach an agreement in relation to the amount of the payment to be made to the producer or in relation to the online exploitation of the works. 3.The task of the mediators shall be to provide assistance with negotiation.They may also submit proposals to the parties. 4.The mediators shall be so selected that their independence and impartiality are beyond reasonable doubt.
Amendment 301 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 5 a (new)
(5 a) Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall also apply to the integral re-use of the broadcasting organisation's on-demand services by a party other than the broadcasting organisation under whose control and responsibility such services were primarily made available.
Amendment 302 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 5 b (new)
(5 b) Collective management organisations shall maintain a database providing information related to the application of copyright and related rights including the owner of a right, the type of use, the territory and period of time.
Amendment 310 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall ensure by means of civil or administrative law, as appropriate, that the parties enter and conduct negotiations regarding authorization for retransmission in good faith and do not prevent or hinder negotiation without valid justification.
Amendment 317 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a Direct Injection Article 3 shall also apply to cases of direct injection, as defined in point (b a) of Article 1.
Amendment 318 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 b (new)
Article 4 b (new)
Article 4 b Agreements on passive sales Agreements imposing on broadcasters or retransmission services obligations, in respect of passive sales, to act in violation of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Regulation (EU) No 330/2010, shall be automatically void.
Amendment 319 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 c (new)
Article 4 c (new)
Article 4 c Extended collective licencing 1.Member States may extend the application of a non-exclusive licence concluded by a collective management organisation, on behalf of its members, with an information society service or a linear audiovisual media or radio service provider for the communication to the public or making available of, as well as the acts of reproduction which are necessary for the provision of, broadcasters' radio or television programmes and audiovisual works provided by the broadcasting organisation to the public, to rightholders of the same category as those covered by the licence who are not represented by the collective management organisation, provided that: (a) the collective management organisation is, on the basis of mandates from rightholders, broadly representative of rightholders in the category of works or other subject-matter and of the rights which are the subject of the licence; (b) equal treatment is guaranteed to all rightholders in relation to the terms of the licence; (c) the collective management organisation makes available to all rightholders information about the exploitation of the works subject to this paragraph; (d) all rightholders may at any time exclude the application of the licence to their works or other subject-matter. 2.Exceptions or limitations introduced by Member States to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC apply in cases related to the provision to the public by an information society service provider of works covered by paragraph 1, insofar as the relevant rightholder does not exclude the application of the non-exclusive license.
Amendment 325 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Agreements on the exercise of copyright and related rights relevant for the acts of communication to the public and the making available occurring in the course of provision of an ancillary online service as well as for the acts of reproduction which are necessary for the provision of, the access to or the use of an ancillary online service which are in force on [the date mentioned in Article 7(2), to be inserted by OPOCE ] shall be subject to Article 2 as from [the date mentioned in Article 7(2) + 21 years, to be inserted by OPOCE] if they expire after that date.
Amendment 330 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2 a) The extension of this Regulation to include video-on-demand platforms in its scope shall be considered together with the review of Article 10 of Directive 2017/....1a _________________ 1aProposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market, COM(2016)0593.
Amendment 44 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Amendment 57 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Amendment 65 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Amendment 76 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
Amendment 100 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title IV – Chapter 2 – title
Title IV – Chapter 2 – title
Amendment 101 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 106 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Amendment 108 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The protection of technological measures established in Directive 2001/29/EC remains essentialwas established to ensure the protection and the effective exercise of the rights granted to authors and to other rightholders under Union law. The scope of this protection should be maintained whileadapted in order to better ensuringe that the use of technological measures does not prevent the enjoymentusers' rights to make use of the exceptions and the limitations established in this Directive, which are particularly relevant in the online environment. Rightholders should have the opportunityare often not best placed to ensure this through voluntary measures. They should remain free to choose the format and the modalities to, because technological protection measures are most commonly put in place by entities other than the rightsholders. All actors in the value chain should provide the beneficiaries of the exceptions and the limitations established in this Directive with the means to benefit from them provided that such means are appropriate. In the absence of voluntary measures,, in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU, with the means to benefit from them. Member States should take appropriate measures in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC.
Amendment 110 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7 a) In order to ensure that technological measures do not prevent the enjoyment of the exceptions and limitations established in this Directive and in Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC or Directive 2012/28/EU, Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be updated in order to take account of the fact that in the marketplace, rightsholders are often unable to make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, because technological protection measures are generally not applied by the rightsholders themselves, but by third party suppliers who provide the content to consumers, such as online marketplaces, some of whom enjoy a dominant market position. The inability of users to make use of their rights under copyright exceptions and limitations is not just having a negative impact on users' fundamental rights, it is also detrimental to rightsholders who often find themselves in a weaker bargaining position vis-à-vis suppliers of digital content, especially when consumers are locked into the products and services offered by that seller through the use of technological measures. It is therefore insufficient to require Member States only to place obligations upon the rightsholders, who are generally unable to remove the technological protection measures put on their works by third parties. In addition, the act of circumventing technological protection measures for the purposes of enjoying exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights needs to be exempted from the general legal protection of effective technological measures enshrined in Article 6(1) and 6(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC. Furthermore, the definition of "technological measures" in Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be clarified so as not to include measures which are designed to restrict authorised uses under copyright exceptions and limitations.
Amendment 118 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Amendment 126 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Amendment 183 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) While distance learning and cross- border education programmes are mostly developed at higher education level, digital tools and resources are increasingly used at all education levels, in particular to improve and enrich the learning experience. The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive should therefore benefit all educational establishments in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education, as well as organizations such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions providing non-formal education to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non- commercial purpose. The organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factors to determine the non- commercial nature of the activity.
Amendment 290 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) An open Internet and free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
Amendment 298 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The organisational and financial contribution of journalists and publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital usesnews production.
Amendment 307 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 324 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 339 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 366 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject- matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for i, allowing for diversity and creation of new content, while stimulating the revenues of the creative sector to grow in the digital environment.
Amendment 390 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholdeworks uploaded by their users, they should conclude agreements with rightholders that ensure appropriate remuneration for authors, unless they are eligiblequalified for the liability exemptions provided in Article 14s 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, . Such agreements should take into consideration the interests of authors, performers, all end-users and information society services. To avoid multiple licensing for the use of the same work on the same information society service providers, which would lead to fragmentation of the Digital Single Market, rightholders should offer a single agreement or license covering the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16)relevant copyrighted works and should offer pan- European licence for the use of their work covered by this recital.
Amendment 401 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Amendment 413 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Amendment 435 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
Amendment 495 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 496 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The processing of personal data carried out within the framework of this Directive shall be subject to Directive 95/46/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation.
Amendment 511 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
(2) ‘'text and data mining’' means any automated analytical technique aiming to analyse text and datawhich analyses works and other subject matter in digital form in order to generate information such as, including, but not limited to, patterns, trends and correlations;.
Amendment 518 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 543 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions, made by research organisations in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject-matter to which they have lawful access for the purposes of scientific researchas long as the body performing these acts has lawful access.
Amendment 555 #
2016/0280(COD)
3. Rightholders shall not be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.prevent or to hinder beneficiaries from benefiting from the exception provided in paragraph 1
Amendment 561 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall encourage rightholders and research organisationbeneficiaries to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3.
Amendment 580 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 591 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishment or other educational venue, such as cultural heritage institutions, or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff;
Amendment 617 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions.
Amendment 643 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions or educational facilities, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation.
Amendment 651 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall recognise that once a work is in the public domain because the copyright and other related rights therein have expired or never existed, accurate reproductions in full or in part of that work shall not be subject to copyright or related rights.
Amendment 668 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Amendment 734 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 743 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Amendment 766 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Amendment 773 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Amendment 780 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Amendment 802 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Article 13 – title
Use of copyright protected content byuploaded by users of information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users
Amendment 809 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-mattercopyright protected content uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works o conclude agreements with rightholders, unless they fall under the scope of Articles 12, 13,14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC. User uploads, storing and granting public access to that upload, amount to a single use that shall be covered by one agreement. Rightholders and information society services shall conduct negotiations in good faith. Agreements shall be fair and balanced and take into account the interests of users of information society services. In particular, rightholders shall offer other subject-matter identified by conclusion of pan-European agreements. The implementation of such agreements shall respect users' righthols unders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The serve Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. No obligation shall be imposed on service providers to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor an obligation shall be imposed upon them to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. This Article providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevais without prejudice to the ability of rightholders to request the removal of infringing content in accordance with Directive 2000/31/EC. Member States shall ensure that agreements provide adequate level of transparency, legal certaint,y adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matternd predictability to users, without prejudice to trade and commercial secrets. Where appropriate, reporting shall be conducted under the conditions set out by Directive 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 843 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are availableend users have the means to communicate effectively with the rightholders who have requested the measures referred to in paragraph 1 in order to challenge the application of those measures such as when they are applied to a users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 which falls under a copyright limitation or exception or to public domain material. Services referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be required to disclose the identity of users to rightholders.
Amendment 853 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Member States shall ensure that users have access to a court or other relevant judicial authority.
Amendment 857 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.
Amendment 871 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a Modification to Directive 2001/29/EC Directive 2001/29/EC shall be amended as follows: The following Article shall be added: Article 5(3) bis User Generated Content Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4 for the use by natural persons of an existing work or other subject-matter in the creation of a new work or other subject-matter, provided that: (a) the work or other subject-matter has already been lawfully made available to the public; (b) the source, including, if available, the name of the author, is indicated; (c) there is a certain level of originality in the new work. This exception is without prejudice to the exceptions and limitations provided for in Article 5.
Amendment 893 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive on a regular basis and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequccurate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 901 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The obligation in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and effective and shall ensure an appropriate level of transparency in every sector. However, in those cases where the administrative burden resulting from the obligation would be disproportionate in view of the revenues generated by the exploitation of the work or performance, Member States may adjust the obligation in paragraph 1, provided that the obligation remains effective and ensures an appropriate level of transparency.
Amendment 909 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Amendment 961 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a Member States shall ensure that contracts include a rights reversion mechanism, allowing authors to terminate a contract in cases of unsatisfactory promotion, remuneration or lack of transparency.
Amendment 989 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
(b d) In Article 6, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: "3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, and which are not authorised by national or Union law. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject- matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective."
Amendment 990 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b e (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b e (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
(b e) In Article 6(4), the following subparagraph is added: "The protections provided for in paragraph 1 and 2 shall not apply to acts described in paragraph 1 and 2 whose sole purpose is to enable a user's right to enjoy the exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights outlined in this Directive or in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC Directive 2012/28/EU or Directive ... [this directive], to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned;"
Amendment 55 #
2016/0148(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 a (new)
Recital 29 a (new)
(29 a) The European Small Claims Procedure should be promoted as an alternative to the procedures existing under the laws of the Member States. A judgment given in the European Small Claims Procedure is recognized and enforceable in all other Member States without a need for declaration of enforceability. This procedure provides an inexpensive and easy way to pursue a cross-border claim in civil and in commercial matters;
Amendment 14 #
2016/0070(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 53(1) and 62, Article 62, Article 151 and points (a) and (b) of Article 153(1) thereof,
Amendment 36 #
2016/0070(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In view of the long duration of certain posting assignments, it is necessary to provide that, in case of posting lasting for periods higher than 246 months, the host Member State is deemed to be the country in which the work is carried out. In accordance with the principle of Rome I Regulation, the law ofapplicable terms and conditions of employment should be those established by the host Member States therefore applies to the employment contract of such posted workers if no other choice of law was made by the parties. In case a different choice was made, it cannot, however, have the result of depriving the employee of the protection afforded to him by provisions that, without prejudice to more favourable terms and conditions of employment afforded to the worker under provisions from which the parties cannot be derogated from by agreement under the law of the host Member State. This should apply from the start of the posting assignment whenever it is envisaged for more than 24 months and from the first day subsequent to the 24 months when it effectively exceeds this duration. This rule does not affect the right of undertakings posting workers to the territory of another Member State to invoke the freedom to provide services in circumstances also where the posting exceeds 24 months. The purpose is merely to create legal certainty in the application of the Rome I Regulation to a specific situation, without amending that Regulation in any way. The employee will in particular enjoy the protection and benefits pursuant to the Rome I Regulationnational law which would have applied otherwise. This rule does not affect the right of undertakings posting workers to the territory of another Member State to invoke the freedom to provide services.
Amendment 63 #
2016/0070(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14 a (new)
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) In the interests of transparency and in accordance with Directive 2014/67/EU1a of the European Parliament and of the Council, the continuity of the undertaking which posts the workers should be ensured in order to fight against the creation of letterbox companies. In addition, every employer should be able to demonstrate that a worker has an adequate length of service with the undertaking posting him or her. _________________ 1aDirective 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System ('the IMI Regulation') (OJ L 159, 28.5.2014, p. 11).
Amendment 95 #
2016/0070(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1 - point g a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1 - point g a (new)
(ga) allowances associated with the posting including reimbursement of expenditure actually incurred on account of the posting, such as expenditure on travel, board and lodging.
Amendment 98 #
2016/0070(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
For the purpose of this Directive, remuneration means all the elements of remuneration rendered mandatory by national law, regulation or administrative provision, collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been declared universally applicable and/or, in the absence of a system for declaring collective agreements or arbitration awards to be of universal application, other collective agreements or arbitthe concept of remuneration shall be determined by the national law and/or praction awards within the meaning of paragraph 8 second subparagraph, ince of the Member State to whose territory the worker is posted.
Amendment 120 #
2016/0070(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 c
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 c
Directive 96/71/EC
Article 6 c (new)
Article 6 c (new)
(2c) The following Article 6c is inserted: ‘Article 6c Habitual place of work The Member State to which a worker is posted shall be deemed to be the country in which he or she periodically works, with social security arrangements subject to the legislation of the country of origin.’
Amendment 17 #
2015/2329(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Requests the Commission and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to assess regularly the impact that a number of budgetary arrangements have had on applicants and potential eligible applicants;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2329(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Invites the Commission and the EACEA to come up with a realistic strategy for the medium and long term and to weigh up different options, such as a redefinition of programme goals to make them more specific or an increase in funding to bring it more in line widraft a final assessment concerning the financial and budgetary implementation of the Europe for Citizens programme at the end of the current MFF period. This evaluation should be used to redefine the future goals and budgetary requirements of the programme ambitionsin view of the upcoming MFF;
Amendment 34 #
2015/2329(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission, the EACEA, NCPs and programme beneficiaries to make additional efforts to enhance visibility and communication by employing the available financial resources in the most efficient way.
Amendment 8 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that stimulating growth, innovation, creation of jobs, consumer choice and competitiveness is of the utmost importance and believes that the digital single market is key to achieving this objective by removing barriers to trade, streamlining processes for safe online businesses and supporting creators, investors and consumers; calls in this regard for competitiveness tests on all new proposals, while ensuring net neutrality;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
(1a) Points out that it is crucial to get rid of regulatory barriers and move from 28 national markets to a single one, as this could generate €415 billion per year to European economy and create hundreds of thousands new workplaces;
Amendment 32 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -2 a (new)
Paragraph -2 a (new)
-2a. Stresses that the digital single market should give the opportunity to ensure accessibility for all, especially people with disabilities, to products and services protected by copyright and related rights; is therefore deeply concerned by the lack of progress of ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty facilitating access for the visually impaired to published works; urges the Council to ensure ratification of the Treaty as soon as possible;
Amendment 43 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for targeted, evidence-based reforms to enhance cross-border access to legally available online content but stresses the importance of not mandating pan- European licences; calls instead for reforms to enable the enhanced portability of legally acquired content to be prioritised; calls for reforms to enable the enhanced portability of legally acquired content to be prioritised; stresses that for the well- functioning DSM, reforming Copyright laws is vital; in this regards, calls on the Commission to emphasis, in its upcoming Copyright reform proposal, provisions on the harmonisation of exceptions and limitations, including private copying, to tackle issues such as unjustified geo- blocking and to ensure freedom of panorama, linking and quoting;
Amendment 63 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) Recalls that copyright law should balance the interests of all actors in the distribution chain;
Amendment 100 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that iInternet service providers should bear greater responsibility for illegal content made available on the internetstrictly specified obligations and be held responsible for take down of any illegal content detected by authorities on their webpages and should, along with other actors in the supply chain such as payment providers, play a significant role in tackling copyright abuses;
Amendment 148 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that copyright enforcement is important and therefore calls forin order for the copyright law to be respected in the digital age, a modernised approach to the enforcementimplementation of intellectual property rights online, particularly with regard to commercial- scale infringement should be adopted; EU faces a significant number of intellectual property rights infringements; according to the European Commission’s data from July 2014 - customs authorities noted as many as 87 000 detention cases in 2013, while the worth of the 36 million articles seized is estimated at more than EUR 768 million;
Amendment 37 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 a (new)
Citation 34 a (new)
– having regard to nine rounds of talks from 2002 to 2010 between high ranking representatives of the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama,
Amendment 38 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 a (new)
Citation 34 a (new)
– having regard to ‘Tibet’s Path of Development Is Driven by an Irresistible Historical Tide’, China’s White Paper on Tibet, published by China’s State Council Information Office, 15 April 2015,
Amendment 40 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 b (new)
Citation 34 b (new)
– having regard to the 2008 Memorandum and the 2009 Note on Genuine Autonomy both presented by the Representatives of the 14th Dalai Lama,
Amendment 257 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Is concerned that China will extend government's control over civil society via upcoming NGO regulations by banning non-registered NGOs "from overseas" to fund Chinese individuals or organisations, and vice versa by prohibiting Chinese groups from conducting "activities" related to non- registered NGOs;
Amendment 298 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the urgency of environmental protection measures, bearing in mind, for example, that in 2014 only eight out of 74 major cities reached the national standard of PM 2.5 air pollution concentrations; warns that the double water crisis (massive pollution combined with increased water usage) could cause major political and social instability; welcomes the fact that under the new environmental protection law local cadres are accountable, also retroactively, for environmental damage caused during their tenure; is deeply concerned about the destruction of Tibet's environment as a result of China's policies of fast-track development in the region since 1999, underlines in this respect that the Tibetan plateau is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, which may cause the melting of Tibet's estimated 46,000 glaciers;
Amendment 305 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Observes that in recent years China's anti-terrorism policy has evolved rapidly from a somewhat reactive ‘defence against terror' approach to a proactive ‘war on terror', along with permanent ‘crisis management' entailing action to an unprecedented extent in affected regions and in society; is concerned about the upcoming Chinese law on 'counter- terrorism', which may lead to further violations of human and freedom rights, especially in Tibet and Xinjiang as regions with minority populations;
Amendment 394 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that a strong contradiction exists between the official Chinese aspiration to the universality of human rights and the worsening human rights situation; notes that the recent worsening of the situation of human and freedom rights in China has started in 2013; is worried that the situation will become even worse with Chinese laws foreseen to be adopted in 2015 on 'counter-terrorism', 'national security' and NGOs;
Amendment 419 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Criticises the fact that in China freedom of religion is not a right, but a matter for the state, which sets the limits of what is permissible; supports the resistance of Chinese churches against the government's renewed strategy of ‘sinicisation' of Christianity; condemns, in particular, the ongoing anti-Christian campaign in the province of Zhejiang, during which dozens of churches were demolished and more than 400 crosses removed in 2014; shares the concerns of churches about other provinces where there is a strong Christian presence; condemns moreover anti-Buddhism campaigns via the "patriotic education" approach, including measures to state-manage Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries, condemns "legal education" programmes for Buddhist monks and nuns; cannot understand and accept a ban on images of the Dalai Lama in China; is concerned that China's Criminal Law is being abused to persecute Tibetans and Buddhists, sees its concerns confirmed as monks and nuns make over 40% of the political prisoners in Tibet;
Amendment 444 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. is deeply concerned that the Chinese government continues its hard-line policies against the Tibetan people, especially by rejecting the Dalai Lama's "Middle Way Approach" and to defame it as a separatist strategy as recently happened in the official Chinese 'White Paper on Tibet of April 2015'; strongly underlines and supports the Middle Way Approach which seeks neither independence nor separation from the People's Republic of China; emphasises that the Middle Way Approach calls for genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people within the framework of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China;
Amendment 446 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Is deeply concerned that Lama Tulku Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, imprisoned since 2002 for 20 years, died on 13 July 2015 due to denial of access to medical care; is deeply concerned that 10 other prominent Tibetan prisoners also died due to such reasons and as a result of torture in 2014; demands a detailed investigation of all these death cases;
Amendment 451 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Is deeply concerned about the fact that over 142 Tibetans have resorted to self-immolations to protest against the suppression of the Tibetan people; rejects any linkage between self-immolations and terrorism, as no Chinese citizen has ever been injured by such dramatic and desperate acts;
Amendment 452 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Strongly condemns any kind of state measures which aim to collectively punish people associated with self-immolators - such as friends, colleagues, families or entire villages - as violations of international law, which clearly bans collective punishment;
Amendment 455 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Is deeply concerned about the forceful re-settlement of more than 2 million Tibetan nomads and herdsmen since 2006 to 'New Socialist Villages', as they are cut off from medicare, education and prosperity; is deeply concerned about the continued transfer of Han Chinese population into Tibet as well as the state goal to increase the population in Tibet by 30 percent till the end of 2020;
Amendment 461 #
2015/2003(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Highly recommends and urgently calls on China to resume the currently stalled Sino-Tibetan Dialogue as the best political instrument to achieve a mutual and realistic solution for the current instability in Tibet; is extremely worried that the current tensions may lead to an even worse situation in the near future;
Amendment 58 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) There are a number of barriers which hinder the provision of these services to consumers temporarily present in another Member State. Certain online services include content such as music, games or films which are protected by copyright and/or related rights under Union law. In particular, the obstacles toThe problems associated with cross- border portability of online content services stem from the fact that the rights for the transmission of content protected by copyright and/or related rights such as audiovisual works are often licensed on a territorial basis as well as from the fact that online service providers may choose to serve specific markets only. differ from one sector to another: whereas the music industry began to resolve these problems by proposing multi-territorial or pan-European licenses following the implementation of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, the audiovisual sector, where the model of exclusive territorial licensing predominates, is currently confronted with barriers in providing their content services on a portable basis across the Union. This Regulation aims to solve all the difficulties of adjusting to portability in all sectors concerned through a legal fiction, without affecting the high level of protection guaranteed by the copyright and related rights in the Union, especially the existing territorial licensing model. _____________________ 1aDirective 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72).
Amendment 73 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Therefore, the objective of this Regulation is to adapt theprovide a legal framework in order to ensure that the licensing of rights no longer presents barrifor the provision of online content services to subscribers temporarily present in a Member State others to cross-border portability of online content services in the Union and that the cross- border portability can be ensuredhan their Member State of residence by providing a strictly interpretable legal fiction aiming to remove barriers to portability of legally acquired online content related to the licensing of rights.
Amendment 81 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) This Regulation should, therefore, apply to online content services that a service provider, after having obtained the relevant rights from right holders in a given territory, provides to its subscribers on the basis of a contract, by any means including streaming, downloading or any other technique which allows use of that content. A registration to receive content alerts, a simple registration based on general personal information such as the user's email-address or name, or a mere acceptance of HTML cookies should not be regarded as a contract for the provision of online content service for the purposes of this Regulation.
Amendment 87 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) This Regulation should apply to online content services which are provided against payment of money. Providers of such services are in a position to verify the Member State of residence of their subscribers. The right to use an online content service should be regarded as acquired against payment of money whether such payment is made directly to the provider of the online content service, or to another party such as a provider offering a package combining a telecommunications service and an online content service operated by another provider. The payment of a mandatory fee such as a broadcasting licence fee should not be regarded as a payment of money to receive access to those online content services on a cross-border portable basis.
Amendment 108 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Service providers should ensure that their subscribers are properly informed about the conditions of enjoyment of online content services in Member States other than the Member State of residence of the subscribers. Requiring that the delivery of online content services to subscribers temporarily present in Member States other than their Member State of residence be of the same quality as in the Member State of residence could result in high costs for service providers and thus ultimately for subscribers. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this Regulation to require that the provider of an online content service take measures to ensure quality of delivery of such services beyond the quality available via the local online access chosen by a subscriber while temporarily present in another Member State. In such cases the provider shall not be liable if the quality of delivery of the service is lower. Nevertheless, if the provider expressly agrees to guarantee certain quality of delivery to subscribers while temporarily present in other Member States, the provider shall be bound by such agreement.
Amendment 115 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) For the licensing of copyright and related rights, this means that relevant acts of reproduction, communication to the public and making available of works and other protected subject-matter, as well as the acts of extraction or re-utilization in relation to databases protected by sui generis rights, which occur when the service is provided to subscribers when they are temporarily present in a Member State other than their Member State of residence, should be deemed to occur in the subscribers' Member State of residence. The service providers, therefore, should be deemed to carry out such acts on the basis of the respective authorisations from the right holders concerned for the Member State of residence of these subscribers. Whenever service providers can carry out acts of communication to the public or reproduction in the Member State of the subscriber on the basis of an authorisation from the right holders concerned, a subscriber who is temporarily present in a Member State other than his Member State of residence should be able to access and use the service and where necessary carry out any relevant acts of reproduction such as downloading which he would be entitled to do in his own Member State of residence. TProvided that the Member State of residence of the subscriber has been effectively verified in accordance with this Regulation, the provision of an online content service by a service provider to a subscriber temporarily present in a Member State other than his or her Member State of residence and the use of the service by such a subscriber in accordance with this Regulation should not constitute a breach of copyright and related rights or any other rights relevant for the use of the content in the service.
Amendment 121 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) This Regulation defines several concepts which are necessary for its application, including that of Member State of residence. The Member State of residence should be determined, taking into account the objectives of this Regulation and the need to ensure its uniform application within the Union. Regarding current and future arrangements related to online content services, the provision of portability to subscribers temporarily present in another Member State should not give rise to any special contractual provisions, especially with regard to a certain time limit during which service providers grant portable access to their online content services across the Union.
Amendment 141 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25a) This Regulation should not affect the application of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council1a and in particular Title III thereof relating to multi-territorial licensing of online rights. This Regulation is fully consistent with the objective of facilitating the lawful access to content, which is protected by copyright and related rights, as well as services linked thereto. ____________________ 1a Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72).
Amendment 158 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1
Article 1
This Regulation introduces a common approachlegal framework to ensuring that subscribers to online content services in the Union, when temporarily present in a Member State, can access and use these servicesportable and legally acquired online content services in their Member State of residence can access and use these services when temporarily present in another Member State.
Amendment 163 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
This Regulation applies to all online content services provided to a subscriber against payment of money.
Amendment 164 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 b (new)
This Regulation also applies to online content services provided without payment of money as long as the service provider has chosen to enable his subscribers, who are temporarily present in a Member State other than their Member State of residence, to access and use the online content service in question and as long as he verifies the subscriber's Member State of residence in accordance with Article 3b.
Amendment 165 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point a
Article 2 – point a
(a) "Subscriber" means any consumer who, on the basis of a contract for the provision of an online content service with a provider, maycan access and use such service in the Member State of residence;
Amendment 177 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point d
Article 2 – point d
(d) "Temporarily present" means a non-permanent presence of a subscriber in a Member State other than this or her Member State of residence;
Amendment 180 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point e
Article 2 – point e
(e) "Online content service" means a service as defined by Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that a service provider is lawfully providing online in tto a subscriber in his or her Member State of residence on a portable basis and which is an audiovisual media service within the meaning of Directive 2010/13/EU or a service the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of works, other protected subject matter or transmissions of broadcasting organisations, whether in a linear or an on- demand manner,
Amendment 185 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point e – subparagraph 2 – point 2
Article 2 – point e – subparagraph 2 – point 2
(2) without payment of money provided that the subscribonline content service provider decides to offer portable access and use of his online content services to his users across the Union and that the user's Member State of residence is verified by theat provider;
Amendment 190 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Amendment 195 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Paragraph 1 is without prejudice to the possibility for a service provider to allow a subscriber to also access and use the content licensed to the service provider in the Member State where the subscriber is temporarily present.
Amendment 198 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 227 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Clauses in contracts between a service provider and a subscriber designed to prohibit or limit the cross-border portability of online content services shall be unenforceable under this Regulation.
Amendment 228 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1b (new)
1b. The application of this Regulation cannot be circumvented by virtue of the choice of the law of a non-Member State of the Union as the law applicable to contracts signed between service providers and rightholders or to contracts between service providers and subscribers.
Amendment 235 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6
Article 6
The processing of personal data carried out within the framework of this Regulation including, in particular, for purposes of verification of the Member State of residence under Article 5(2)3b, shall be carried out in compliance with Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC.
Amendment 239 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, and every three years thereafter, the Commission shall assess the application of this Regulation and submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the application of this Regulation. The report shall include, inter alia, an assessment of the effectiveness of the verification means of the Member State of residence, including newly developed industry standards and practices. The Commission's report shall be accompanied, if appropriate and necessary, by legislative or non-legislative proposal(s).
Amendment 116 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the harmonious and systematic development of the Europeana digital library, which was founded in 2008 as part of an EU initiative, has made works from Member States’ libraries available;
Amendment 166 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes a reform of the EU copyright system which moves beyond the current fragmentation among Member States to be essential for full and proper development of a digital single market. Considers it important therefore for there to be uniform rules at European level, for the current rules to be updated in response to the dissemination of new technologies and to user and consumer behaviour, and for it to be recognised that copyright holders need to receive appropriate remuneration in the context of a new negotiating position vis-à-vis intermediaries;
Amendment 191 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Acknowledges the necessity for all cultural entities, including authors and performers, to be provided with legal protection for their creative and artistic work; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for all categories of rightholders; calls for improvements to the contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholders and intermediaries;
Amendment 192 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Acknowledges the necessity for authors and performers to be provided with up-to-date, EU-wide legal protection for their creative and artistic work; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for all categories of rightholders; calls for improvements to the contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholders and intermediaries;
Amendment 197 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Emphasises that any reform of the copyright framework needs to find the right balance between user access and fair remuneration and compensation for creators and other rightholders and should take as a basis the rights of creators, while taking into consideration the interest of small and medium-sized enterprises, since rights are crucial to intellectual creation and provide a stable, clear and flexible legal base that fosters investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector, whilst removing legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market to the prejudice of consumers and rightholders;
Amendment 225 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers the introduction of a single European Copyright Title on the basis of Article 118 TFEU that would apply directly and uniformly across the EU, in accordance with the Commission’s objective of better regulation, as a legal means to remedy the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/EC; notes that a similar harmonisation was introduced by Directive 2012/28/EU on certain permitted uses of orphan works;
Amendment 248 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recommends that the EU legislator, to protect the public interest, further lower the barriers to the re-use of public sector information by exempting works produced by the public sector – as part of the political, legal and administrative process – from copyright protection;
Amendment 320 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty for authors and users and has direct negative effects on the functioning of the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activities;
Amendment 341 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to make uniform and mandatory all the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, to allow equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty;
Amendment 350 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 f (new)
Paragraph 11 f (new)
11f. Considers it necessary to strengthen exceptions for institutions of public interest, such as libraries, museums and archives, in order to promote wide- ranging access to cultural heritage, including through online platforms;
Amendment 395 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future- compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include all content, including audio-visual quotations in its scope;
Amendment 428 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of workany objects which are permanently located in public places is permitted;
Amendment 466 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, whichin the general public interest and in order to promote a virtuous circulation of knowledge; takes the view that this should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education;
Amendment 467 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments in cross-border use, but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education;
Amendment 485 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of access, so that their public interest duty of disseminating knowledge can be fulfilled effectively and in an up-to-date manner;
Amendment 521 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regardsconcerning the expenditure algorithm for funds gained from the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13; __________________ 13 As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.
Amendment 555 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 d (new)
Paragraph 24 d (new)
24d. Expresses concern and regret with regard to the political obstacles in the Council which are still delaying ratification of the Treaty of Marrakesh for the Blind, which was already signed by the European Union in 2013;
Amendment 18 #
2014/2253(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that petitions submitted by EU citizens refer to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights and the environment; considers that petitions give evidence of the fact that there are still frequent and widespread instances of absent, flawed or incomplete transposition or misapplication of EU law;
Amendment 32 #
2014/2253(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that a total of 731 infringement cases were closed because the Member State in question had demonstrated its compliance with EU law; points out that the Court of Justice delivered 52 judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2013, of which 31 (59.6 %) were in favour of the Commissionhanded down against Member States;
Amendment 37 #
2014/2253(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes the number of infringement cases closed in 2013 before reaching the Court of Justice (200 out of 484); considers it essential, therefore, to continue to carefully monitor Member State actions, taking into consideration the fact that some of the petitions still refer to problems that persist even after the matter has been closed;
Amendment 38 #
2014/2253(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Feels that, in light of the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, EU legislation must be even more transparent and must be implemented effectively, bringing benefits in terms of human rights and social cohesion, while full attention should be paid to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, including at regional level;
Amendment 43 #
2014/2253(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the EU Pilot procedure is fully operational in all Member States and has produced impressive results so far, in particular with regard to the gathering of information and the improvement of the specific situation causing concern to citizens, as indicated by the reduced number of infringement procedures; calls nonetheless for the continuation of intensive efforts to keep citizens informed about the EU Pilot system;
Amendment 53 #
2014/2253(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 – point c
Paragraph 8 – point c
c) the Commission to take into account the reports of the Committee on Petitions, and particularly the findings and recommendations contained therein, when drawing up its communications and when preparing amendments to legislation;
Amendment 54 #
2014/2253(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the increasing use by the Commission of implementation plans for new pieces of EU legislation addressed to the Member States, which reduce the risks to timely and correct implementation and, in turn, have an impact on the number of relevant petitions submitted. Feels that it should be appreciated that Member States are endeavouring to eliminate infringements, when they are identified, without resorting to judicial process.
Amendment 1 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Citation (new)
Citation (new)
– having regard to its earlier resolutions of 23 October 2012 on trade and economic relations with the United States1, 23 May 2013 on trade and investment negotiations with the United States of America2, 12 March 2014 on the US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights and on transatlantic cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs3,
Amendment 2 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Citation (new)
Citation (new)
Amendment 3 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Commission is currently negotiating on behalf of the European Union a deep, comprehensive and high standards trade and investment partnership agreement with the United States (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – TTIP) that aims to foster and facilitate commercial exchange of goods and services and enhance investment through inter alia the removal of trade barriers; whereas a significant number of European citizens have voiced legitimate concerns that this agreement would threaten fundamental EU regulations, in particular in the fields of labour rights, environmental protection and food and safety standards
Amendment 12 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas in order to contribute to the well-being of all European citizens the objectives of the TTIP is to increase trade and investment between the European Union and the United States;should be to regulate globalisation and support sustainable trade and investment flows in a balanced way across Europe, sustainable economic growth, decent jobs creation and promotion of the European Social Model
Amendment 15 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the negotiations have attracted unprecedented public interest, given the potential economic, social and political impact of the TTIP; and the secretive manner in which the negotiations have been conducted
Amendment 24 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Committee on Petitions has received a number of petitions raising concerns about the EU-US trade agreement (TTIP); whereas the petitioners’ main concerns are related to risks regarding the quality of food imports, the transfer of data from the EU to the US, in particular information allegedly collected by the US regarding natural and legal persons (the right of EU citizens to ‘digital self-determination’), transparency, economic impact, and protection of investorhe lack of transparency of the negotiations, the potential negative economic impact of TTIP, in particular in terms of employment and wages, and the transfer of public authorities’ right to regulate to corporations via the Investor- State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS);
Amendment 27 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the European Commission received a total of nearly 150,000 responses to its public consultation on investment protection and Investor-to- State Dispute Settlement in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement, 97% of which rejected the inclusion of ISDS in TTIP; whereas, unusually, many submissions came from individual respondents, which highlights the scale of public mobilisation over TTIP; whereas some respondents, such as trade unions or large civil society organisations represent a large number of individual members that is vastly in excess of the total number of responses received by the Commission;
Amendment 32 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas the European Ombudsman’s investigation of July 2014 regarding the transparency of the TTIP scrutinised the withholding of key documents and alleged granting of privileged access to certain stakeholders; whereas the European Ombudsman received more than 6000 emails in reply to its TTIP public consultation;
Amendment 40 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
b. Observes that the reforms incorporated in CETA for mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between States and investors represent the right approach and must be developed further for TTIPsignificantly differ from those presented in TTIP negotiations thus far and should not determine the course of future negotiations;
Amendment 47 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
c. Observes that existing dispute settlement mechanisms work well but alsin countries where there is no drisplay weaknesses and that therefore improvements are needed and they must be modernised in order to improve their legitimacy and the institutionalisation of mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between States and investors, so that they can then also be taken as a model for other partnershipsk of political interference in the justice system or legal protection system are operating smoothly and that there is consequently no need to introduce ISDS;
Amendment 47 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the importance of developing the trade relationship and bilateralbalanced trade and investment relations between the European Union and the United States of America in order to help growth and employment and generate new economic opportunitieswith adequate safeguards to provide the highest labour, social, health and environmental standards on a global level in order to generate new economic opportunities and regulate globalisation, so that social and environmental dumping is excluded;
Amendment 53 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the objective of reducing unnecessary regulatory incompatibilities between the EU and the USA in relation to goods and serviceslifting technical barriers to trade between the EU and the USA which are not justified by different approaches to protection and risk management, such as duplication of procedures, inconsistent product requirements and double testing;
Amendment 54 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to oppose the inclusion of ISDS in TTIP, as other options to enforce investment protection are available, such as domestic remedies;
Amendment 60 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
d. Calls on the Commission, in this context, to take account of and to supplement, firstly, the constructive contributions made by the public consultation on TTIP, and, secondly, the dispute settlement mechanisms incorporated in CETAin which 97% of the almost 150 000 people polled in the 28 Member States stated that they were opposed to ISDS in its current form, in order to establish clear structures, impartial procedures, a lawful pool of judges selected by States and a code of conduct for judges, to increase the transparency and legitimacy of such dispute settlement procedures, to limit the scope for legal action in order to prevent forum shopping, to maintain the democratic legitimacy of national and European legislatures for amendments to legislation with defined standards and levels and to assess the feasibility of establishing a permanent court and a multilateral appeal system in TTIP;
Amendment 61 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. NoteDemands that regulatory compatibility is to be without prejudice to thedoes not in any way affect public authorities’ right to regulate in accordance with the level of health, safety, consumer, labour and environmental protection and cultural diversity that each side considers appropriate;
Amendment 62 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the European environment standards remain at the current levels;
Amendment 74 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has made real efforts to make the TTIP negotiating process more transparent, especially in the light of the publication of the European directives for the negotiation on the TTIP (1103/13 CL 1); regrets that this essential document was only disclosed on 9 October 2014 while the negotiations started in June 2013; believes that this delay by the European Commission and the Council in disclosing such essential documents has to date hindered the development of an informed public debate on TTIP and has contributed to reinforcing negative perceptions of the European Union and its institutions in important parts of the general public;
Amendment 76 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the decision of the European Ombudsman concerning its inquiry in relation to the European Commission’s efforts to make TTIP negotiations transparent and accessible to the public; calls on the Commission to rapidly implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations related to public access to consolidated negotiating texts, greater proactive disclosure of TTIP documents and increased transparency as regards meetings that Commission officials hold on TTIP with business organisations, lobby groups or NGOs.
Amendment 77 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Suggests that further steps are needed in order to continue the Commission’s efforts to increase transparency and to promote more comprehensive participation and involvement of the various stakeholders in the negotiating process and in particular of civil society and consumers organisations, given the potential impact TTIP will have on the lives of European citizens;
Amendment 80 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Suggests thatCalls for a more proactive approach to transparency on the part of the Commission couldto make the negotiating process more legitimate in the eyes of citizens, and encourages the Commission to publish documents and make meeting information available;
Amendment 83 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. SuggestBelieves that a more proactive approach to transparency on the part of the Commission couldis absolutely crucial in order to make the negotiating process more legitimate in the eyes of citiz, and urges the Commission to publish all negotiating documents, and encourages the Commission to publish documentsincluding US offers to the EU, in the fashion of standards practices for all international trade negotiations conducted within the frame of the World Trade Organisation, and make meeting information available;,
Amendment 85 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Deeply regrets that the access given to Members of the European Parliament to TTIP negotiating texts is extremely limited, as only a very partial selection of documents is made available to them, in a fashion that is not conducive to proper parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiations; highlights that documents available in the EP secured reading room do not contain any consolidated material or any text tabled by the US;
Amendment 88 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. AsksCalls on the Commission to ensure that the list of TTIP documents available on its dedicated trade policy website is comprehensive;
Amendment 92 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Regrets that the petition filed by over one and a half million Europeans was not qualified by the European Commission as a ‘European Citizens’ Initiative’, due to limitations contained in the ECI legislative framework; regrets that in effect these limitations entail that any ECI on trade issues could only be admissible after the entry into force of a trade agreement, and that ECIs aimed at influencing ongoing trade negotiations are not permitted in the current framework;
Amendment 103 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights the sensitivity of certain areas of negotiation, such as the agricultural sector, where perceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), cloning and consumer health are divergent between the European Union and the United States;, therefore calls for these areas not be subjected to regulatory cooperation and any additional rules on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards and Technical Barriers to Trade; in areas in which trade in sensitive sectors already occurs, such as GMOs, calls for the establishment of clear labelling rules that would reinforce consumer choice
Amendment 105 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Highlights the high levels of public scrutiny given to the agreement via petitions, which raised strong concerns about the transparency of the negotiations and the adverse negative effects on workers’ rights and public services including health care, social services, education, water and sanitation
Amendment 111 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises that consumer protection and compliance with higher European quality standards for foods and products should be at the centre of the negotiations on the TTIP., the highest standards of environmental protection and strictest control of industrial emissions in the EU and the US and the proper safeguards to protect citizens’ data, should be at the centre of the negotiations on the TTIP; negotiators should not consider any commitments on data protection within the framework of TTIP pending the conclusion of on-going legislative work in this field in the EU and US
Amendment 34 #
2014/2218(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas each petition is carefully assessed and dealt with and each petitioner has the right tomust receive a reply within a reasonable period of time indicating the grounds for closing the petition in question;
Amendment 41 #
2014/2218(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas a petitioner must be duly informed about the grounds for declaring a petition inadmissible;
Amendment 1 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 4 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
8a. - having regard to the Commission’s plan to create a single EU digital market and to Parliament’s resolution of 20 April 2012 on a competitive digital single market;
Amendment 10 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the creation of a single EU digital market and intellectual property rights are one of the driving forces of innovation and creativity and a key contributor to competitiveness and employment; whereas the enforcement of intellectual property rights plays a significant role in ensuring consumers’ health and safety; whereas counterfeiting is generally linked with a black economy;
Amendment 15 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the EU faces a high number of intellectual property rights infringements, and whereas the volume and financial value of these infringements are alarming, as reported by the Commission in its report on the application of the Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (COM(2010)0779); in spite of the small reduction in the number of packages suspected of infringing intellectual property rights, customs authorities noted as many as 87 000 incidents of such abuses in 2013, while the value of the 36 million articles seized is estimated at more than EUR 768 million;
Amendment 22 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. - whereas the placing on the market of goods that are counterfeit, uncertified and not in compliance with EU standards may be harmful to consumers' health and lives;
Amendment 27 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there is a certain level of tolerance among Europeans for the idea that IPR infringements could be considered legitimate, especially among the young generation8 and entrepreneurial start-up companies; __________________ 8 See OHIM Report ‘European Citizens and intellectual property: perception, awareness and behaviour’, November 2013.
Amendment 30 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there is a certain level of tolerance among Europeans for the idea that IPR infringements could be considered legitimate, especially among the young generation8, due to a lack of suitable knowledge of the rights they enjoy and the rules that they should not break; __________________ 8 See OHIM Report ‘European Citizens and intellectual property: perception, awareness and behaviour’, November 2013.
Amendment 33 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas there is a need to redouble efforts to combat the illegal trade in counterfeit goods, and no one should make a profit out of IPR infringements;
Amendment 36 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas law enforcement is essential with regard to the foreseeability of the law, and whereas it is of the utmost importance to find effective, proportionate and dissuasive means of enforcing IPR;
Amendment 51 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that all actors in the supply chain have a role to play in the fight against IPR infringement and should be involved in this process; stresses that an approach involving all actors should be developed both in the online and in the offline context; believes that fundamental rights need to be balanced for this to be successful as measures that impact fundamental rights cannot be undertaken voluntarily by commercial operators, but need a legal basis and judicial oversight;
Amendment 61 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the approach of depriving IPR infringers of their revenues by means of agreements between right-holders and their partners; supports the elaboration of memoranda of understanding as soft-law measures to fight against counterfeiting and piracy, and supports the idea of developing such measures further among stakeholders; reminds the Commission that it is precluded by the 2003 Inter-Institutional Agreement8afrom supporting self- and co- regulatory mechanisms where fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, are at stake; __________________ 8aThe Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (2003/C 321/01)
Amendment 64 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the approach taken by the Commission to develop targeted awareness campaigns; believes that it is essential that the concrete consequences of IPR infringements for society as a whole, and for consumers and citizens individually, should be understood by all; believes that consumers should be better informed of what IPR consist of, and what can be done or not done with protected goods and content as foreseeability of the law is a precondition for its respect; calls on the Commission and the Member States to further develop awareness actions aimed at specific audiences and relevant markets;
Amendment 73 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes at the same time that consumers should be better able to identify infringing offers so that they can decide not to proceed with a given purchase; deplores the fact that the Commission’s action plan does not include any action designed to improve consumers’ ability to identify infringing goods and contents, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to reflect further on the development of specific tools, including labelling, based on the experiences gathered by the Commission and the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy, especially with regard to the sharing of best practices;
Amendment 76 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Insists on the need to coordinate initiatives and campaigns in all Member States in order to avoid duplication of work and ensure coherence and efficiency;
Amendment 87 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes the view as well that opportunities for infringement should not be created, and that business models should be reconsidered by the industry in certain sectors; feels, furthermore, that adequate safeguards should be taken in respect of copyright-protected goods;
Amendment 91 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Takes the view that extensive intermediary liability regimes threatens the development of new business models and a free and open internet;
Amendment 94 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Welcomes the Commission’s declared intention to support SMEs in enforcing their IPR through improving accessible ways of civil redress in order to better fight market abuse from larger competitors and, in particular, to further assess SMEs’ needs for future EU action;
Amendment 97 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Insists on the need to take into account SMEs when drafting legislation, and reiterates that the ‘think small first’ principle should be applied at all times, in particular with regards to clarifying which achievements constitute patentable subject matter;
Amendment 111 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes the publication of the Commission’s report on the application of the IPR Enforcement Directive9, while noting that only limited conclusions can be drawn in some respects owing to the late transposition of the directive by some Member States; calls on the Commission to provide further analysis of the impact of the directive, in particular on innovation and on the development of the information society, as required by its Article 18(1) and as called for by Parliament in its resolution of 22 September 2010; __________________ 9recalls, however, that a number of other aspects of enforcing intellectual property rights were identified by the Commission, such as the role of intermediaries in combating infringements, which could also prove useful in the fight against abuses; __________________ 9 COM(2010) 779. COM(2010) 779.
Amendment 119 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Insists onthat the important role played by customs and international cooperation in the fight against IPR infringement in cross- border trade must not undermine global public health targets and trade in generic medicines;
Amendment 34 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the Petitions Committee considers admissible petitions, related to the principles and the contents of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, its inherent part, and it pursues its investigations on the merits of each case, reminds that, the European Commission has frequently felt itself unable to act when requested by the Committee because of the existence of Article 51 of the Charter; stresses the fact that the expectations of citizens are much greater than the Charter’s strictly legal provisions allow for;
Amendment 37 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Acknowledges that in 2013, many petitioners voiced their alarm at the apparent injustices which occur in certain European Member States regarding the administrative and judicial procedures related to parental separation and divorce and the subsequent custody of young children; noted in this context a tendency in the case of bi-national couples for there to be clear examples of discrimination on grounds of nationality in favour of the spouse from the member state concerned with the proceedings and against the non- national of that state, with severe and often very negative and dramatic repercussions on the rights of the child; notes that the Petitions Committee undertook a fact- finding visit to Denmark to investigate such claims directly where the situation appears to be particularly acute, but that cases were also recorded from other countries, notably Germany (especially cases concerning activities of Jugendamt), France and the UK.;
Amendment 40 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Acknowledges the report of the fact- finding visit to Poland which investigated a proposed open-cast mine site in Lower Silesia following a refusal of polish authorities to accept a result of a legally binding referendum held in September 2009 opposing the project; related petitions raised concerns that the proposed way of exploration is contrary to EU principles on reducing CO2 emissions and preserving the natural environment; welcomed also the intensive discussions held on this occasion, that took place for the very first time, with petitioners and national authorities regarding the possible exploration and exploitation of shale-gas reserves about which the Committee had already conducted a workshop in 2012;
Amendment 52 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Calls on the Commission as a guardian of the Treaty to ensure that the current lack of sufficient implementation of EU law as shown by the number of submitted petitions to the EP will be resolved, allowing EU citizens to take full advantage of their rights;
Amendment 54 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Deplores that in the recent time the reports on fact-finding missions and other documents were not translated to the EU official languages, especially the national languages of petitioners;
Amendment 91 #
2013/2145(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78 a (new)
Paragraph 78 a (new)
78a. Stresses that the two arms of the budgetary authority, in order to create long term savings in the EU budget, must address the need for a roadmap to a single seat, as stated in previous resolutions voted by the parliament, notably its resolutions of 23 October 2012 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013- all sections1 and of 6 February 2013 on the guidelines for the 2014 budget procedure – sections other than the Commission2 and its decision of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section I – European Parliament3; ____________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0359. 2 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0048. 3 OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 1.
Amendment 1 #
2013/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas according to the Legal Service of the European Parliament, the EU Pilot, an online platform used by Member States and the Commission to clarify the factual and legal background to problems arising in relation to the application of EU law, does not have any legal status, and according to the Framework Agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, the latter has to make available to Parliament summary information concerning all infringement procedures from the letter of formal notice, including on a case-by-case basis, and may only refuse access to personal data in the EU Pilot;
Amendment 2 #
2013/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes the decreasing number of infringement cases (60.4%) closed in 2011 before reaching the Court of Justice, in comparison to 88% of cases closed in 2010; continuing to carefully monitor Member States' actions is therefore essential, taking into consideration that some of the petitions to the European Parliament and complaints to the Commission refer to problems that persist even after a matter has been closed;
Amendment 3 #
2013/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. In total, 399 infringement cases were closed because the Member State demonstrated its compliance with EU law, making serious efforts to settle the infringement without court proceedings; the Court delivered 62 judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2011, of which 53 (85 %) were in favour of the Commission;
Amendment 4 #
2013/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that, as regards the functioning of the infringement procedures under Article 258 and 260 TFEU, the Commission should ensure that petitions to the Parliament and complaints to the Commission are treated with equal consideration;
Amendment 5 #
2013/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that it is necessary systematically to use compliance promoting tools and a scrutiny right of the EP in complaint-handling procedures;
Amendment 6 #
2013/2119(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Deplores the lack of legal status and legitimacy of the EU Pilot and considers that ‘legitimacy can only be ensured by enabling transparency, participation of complainants and European Parliament in the EU Pilot and legality can be ensured through the adoption as soon as possible of a legally binding act containing the rules governing the whole pre-infringement and infringement procedure’4; considers that such a legally binding act should clarify the legal rights and obligations of individual complainants and the Commission, respectively, and should strive to allow participation of complainants into the EU Pilot, as far as possible, at least ensuring that they are informed of the different stages of the procedure; ___________________ 4 ‘Tools for Ensuring Implementation and Application of EU Law and Evaluation of their Effectiveness’, p. 13.
Amendment 10 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes that, as regards the functioning of the infringement procedures under Article 258 and 260 of the TFEU, the Commission should ensure that petitions to the Parliament and complaints to the Commission are treated with equal consideration;
Amendment 12 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Notes the decreasing number of infringement cases (60.4%) closed in 2011 before reaching the Court of Justice, in comparison to 88% of cases closed in 2010; continuing to carefully monitor Member States Actions is therefore essential taking into consideration that some of the petitions refer to problems that persist even after a matter has been closed;
Amendment 42 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. In total, 399 infringement cases were closed because the Member State has demonstrated its compliance with EU law. The Court had delivered 62 judgements under Article 258 TFEU in 2011, out of which 53 judgments (85 %) were in favour of the Commission;
Amendment 46 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. It is essential for ‘Smart Regulation’ objectives that citizens and businesses understand how EU legislation is being applied in Member States. In 2011 a long- standing disagreement between EU institutions in this area could be solved. The disagreement concerned the way Member States have to explain in detail how they transpose directives into their legal order (see the section on ‘Correlation tables’ in the previous Annual Reports on Monitoring the Application of EU Law).
Amendment 5 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
- having regard to the impact assessment accompanying the document "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market
Amendment 7 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
- having regard to the Working Document of the Committee on Legal Affairs "Copyright in the music and audiovisual sectors", approved on 29 June 2011,
Amendment 8 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas culture and artistic creation form the bedrock of the European identity past and present, and will play a vital role in themake manifest the fabric of economic and social development of the European Union now, and in the future;
Amendment 11 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas cultural content plays a pivotal role in the digital economy, whereas Europe's digital growth will depend in future on having a varied supply of high- quality cultural content, and whereas it has emerged from consultations and several independent surveys that the cultural and creative sectors are facing common challenges from digitisation and globalisation, along with funding problemse and artistic creation is integral to the digital economy, whereas expression of both high-end and mundane cultural content relies on equal access to Europe's digital growth, and whereas it has emerged from consultations that the European digital market still has not delivered on the promises of effective distribution, fair remuneration to creators and of fair and effective distribution of income within the cultural sector in general, and that EU-level action is needed to resolve these problems;
Amendment 14 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas digitisation is having a huge impact on the way in which cultural goodidentities are being producexpressed, distributed, marketed and consum and developed, and whereas lower distribution costsbarriers for participation and the appearance of new distribution channels can facilitates access to creative works and culture and improve the circulation of those works around the world, discovery and re-discovery of culture and artistic creation around the world and provides opportunities for creators and artists;
Amendment 18 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the proposal for a Directive on the collective management of copyright and related rights currently being discussed reinforces that approach to the management of copyright, placing requires particular emphasis on the transparency of the flows of remuneration collected, distributed and paid to rightholders by collecting societies, including for private copying;
Amendment 21 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas under Directive 2001/29 /EC, Member States may provide for an exception or limitation to the reproduction right for certain types of reproduction of audio, visual and audio-visual material for private use, accompanied by fair remuneration, and may allow consumers in countries that have introduced that limitation to copy their music and audio- visual collections from one medium or type of multimedia material to another freely and as frequently as they wish, without se eking authorisation from the rightholders, provided this is for their private use; whereas any levies should be calculatedthe pervasive nature and ubiquitous presence of digital works makes calculation of levies on the basis of the possible harm to the rightholders resulting from the private copying act ian questionimpossible task;
Amendment 25 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the sum total of private copying levies collected in 23 of the 28 EU Member has more than tripled since Directive 2001/29/EC came into force and, according to the Commission's estimates, now stands at over EUR 600 million, and whereas this constitutes a considerable amouless than 17% of the amount EUR 3.6 billion worth of liabilities to rightholders major collective management for the artistsganisations had accumulated in 2010;
Amendment 30 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas these levies only constitute a small proportion of the turnover of manufacturers and importers of, in some cases, constitute a substantial percentage of the price consumers pay for traditional and digital recording media and material;
Amendment 37 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas media and material prices do not vary according to the different rates of private copying levy applied across the Union,; whereas manufacturers cross- subside levies across the EU in cases where levies are a very significant proportion of the purchase price of a device; and whereas the abolition of private copying levies in Spain in 2012 has had no impact on media and material prices;
Amendment 40 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas disparities exist between the various models and collection rates for private copying levies and between their impact on consumers and the single market; and whereas a European framework should be created that guarantees that equivalent conditions apply to rightholders, consumers, manufacturers and importers of equipment and service providers across the Union until levies have been phased out;
Amendment 50 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that the cultural sector provides 5 millions of jobs in the EU and 2.6 % of its GDP, that it is one of the main drivers for growth in Europe and a wellspring for new and non-relocatable jobs, and that it stimulates innovation and offers an effective means of combating the current recessioncontributes to its GDP, and is therefore in need of a modern legal framework adapted to the digital market;
Amendment 51 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that only some Member States have opted to introduce an exception for private copying, with compensation for right holders, and that the cultural sector is a strong driving force for growth also in Member States which have not opted to impose private copy levies;
Amendment 52 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recalls that copyright law should balance the interests of inter alia creators and consumers; in this context considers that all European consumers should have a right to make private copies of legally acquired content;
Amendment 53 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Therefore calls upon the Commission to present a legislative proposal to review Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society including a provision to fully harmonize exceptions and limitations with regards, inter alia, to private copying;
Amendment 54 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Considers further that private copying of legally acquired content constitutes a normal use of the acquired products or services by the consumer which does not harm the legitimate interests of right holders and which should thus not warrant any compensation;
Amendment 58 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that in times of budget austerity, private copying levies constitute a vital source of revenue for the cultural sector, and particularly for the performance artssubstantial cost for consumers without providing a socially accepted source of revenue for the cultural sector;
Amendment 59 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that private copying levies currently constitute a source of income which is of varying importance for different categories of right holders and that its importance varies significantly between Member States;
Amendment 66 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that the private copying levy system is a virtuous system that balances the right to copying for private use with fair remuneration to rightholders, and that it is a system worth preservingn obsolete old fashioned system that should be phased out to give room for fair remuneration of artists and the right to make copies for private use;
Amendment 72 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Invites the Member States to decide on a common definition of thephase out private copying levy,ies and to look for common ground as regards to which products should not be subject to the levy and to harmonise the negotiating arrangement for the rates applicable toagreeing on the rates of decrease of private copying levy rates; calls on the Commission to facilitate that process;
Amendment 74 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
Single collection procedure, clearer consumer information and more efficient reimbursement procedures during the phase out period
Amendment 75 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 81 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the private copying levy should apply to allnot be extended to include new materials, media and services whose value resides in their private recording and storage capacity;
Amendment 82 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that the notion of private copies should be clearly defined for all materials and that the user should be able to access the copyright content on all media on the basis of a single payment; calls for arrangements already in force in Member States, such as exceptions and levy exemptions, to be respected and for it to be possible for them to apply in parallel on the market;
Amendment 83 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 87 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Considers that private copying levies should be payable by retailers, as this would simplify procedures and prevent double payments;
Amendment 90 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recommends that, in the case of cross- border transactions, private copying levies be collected in the Member State in which the product is placedreceipt is taken onf the marketproduct or service and that the product then be allowed to circulate freely ion the internal market without being subject to additional levies;
Amendment 102 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes the view that, accordingly, private copying levies canshould not be collected by a collective management organisation of aone Member State if remuneration of the same kind has already been collected in another Member State;
Amendment 103 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Takes the view that Member States in which levies are currently charged or collected should simplify and harmonise their levy rates;
Amendment 105 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Member States, in consultation with all stakeholders, to simplify procedures for setting thethe phasing out of levies in such a way as to ensure fairness and objectivity;
Amendment 106 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 117 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Takes the view that consumers must be informed of the exact amount of the levy paid by them; urges the Commission and Member States accordingly, in consultation with manufacturers, importers, retailers and consumer associations, to ensure that this information is indicated on packaging and, as far as possible,explicit on invoices and receipts issued to consumers at the retailer level;
Amendment 121 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Transparency regarding allocation of revenue and cultural policy
Amendment 127 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Member States to earmark at least 25% of revenue from private copying levies to promote the creative and performance artssmooth phasing out of the system as a whole;
Amendment 128 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Member States to publish reports on the allocation of proceeds in open resources format with interpretable data the smooth phasing out of the system as a whole;
Amendment 129 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 134 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Points out that private copying exemption arrangemgives citizents enable consumersthe right to copy freely their musical and audio-visual material from one medium or type of multimedia material to another without the need to seek the authorisation of rightholders, provided that this is for private use;
Amendment 141 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for the elimination of technical protection measures causing an imbalance between freedom to copy and fair remuneration for rightholders under private copying arrangemenwhich would impede the freedom of citizens to make use of their legal right to make copies for personal use as it also undermines a fair remuneration of artists;
Amendment 151 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Observes that, despite permanent access to online works, download storage and copying of works for offline use is increasing with increasing, storage and private copying for offline use is continuingcapacity of storage media; takes the view that a private copying levy system cannot therefore be replaced by a licencing systemupheld and has to be phased out;
Amendment 155 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Notes that the modern digital economy is providing a large multitude of online services where some services technically require copying of the content and others do not and where some of these services would thus be subject to private copying levies and others would not; takes the view that a private copying levy system should therefore be phased out in order not to discriminate between services;
Amendment 163 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses that, as for online services, contractual authorisations cannot be allowed to prevail to the detriment of private copying exception arrangem licensing provisions should not limit the legal rights of citizens to make private copies of legally acquired contents;
Amendment 166 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 172 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Takes the view that private copies of protected works made using new cloud computing technology may have the samenew purposes as compared to those made using traditional and/or digital recording media and materials; considers that these copies should be taken into account by thesuch new media and services should not be included in current private copying compensation mechanisms;
Amendment 178 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Calls on the Commission to assess the impact on the private copying system of the use of cloud computing technology for the private recording and storage of protected works, so as to determine how these private copies of protected works should be taken into account by theexcluded from private copying compensation mechanisms;
Amendment 23 #
2013/2077(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. Considers that national parliaments should be involved in ex post assessments of new regulations, which would as a result help the Commission with its reports and in general improve assessments of European issues by national parliaments;
Amendment 34 #
2013/2077(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 8 – indent 2 a (new)
– Proposes mobilising national parliaments to undertake comparative evaluations of ex ante assessments which they have conducted and ex post assessments drawn up by the Commission;
Amendment 59 #
2013/2077(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Underlines that the REFIT agenda launched by the Commission must not undermine or weaken existing EU legislation in the fields of occupational health and safety or information and consultation of workers; stresses that the Commission should carefully reconsider the approach it has so far taken on these issues;
Amendment 61 #
2013/2077(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 d (new)
Paragraph 12 d (new)
12d. Emphasizes that improving the health and safety at work and the information and consultation of workers are two important keys to strengthening productivity and competitiveness in the European economy; stresses that strong and stable regulation in those areas does not hamper, but rather contributes to growth;
Amendment 64 #
2013/2077(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 g (new)
Paragraph 12 g (new)
12g. Stresses that the REFIT agenda must never become an excuse for not respecting agreements made between social partners at the European level in line with Art 155 TFEU; underlines that such agreements should without exemption be properly implemented;
Amendment 69 #
2013/2077(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Asks the Commission to analyse the methodology used in drafting impact assessments with the view of assessing ways for improvement for both the qualitative indicators and the general conduct of the consultation process, in particular the involvement of relevant stakeholders;
Amendment 83 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006
Article 20
Article 20
Article 2 a Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 is replaced by the following: "Article 20 Minimum standards for review of the judgment 1. After expiry of the time limit laid down in Article 16(2), the defendant shall be entitled to apply for a review of the European order for payment before the court or tribunal with jurisdiction of the Member State where the order was issued, if: (a) the order for payment was not served in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence; or (b) the defendant was prevented from objecting to the claim by reason of force majeure or due to extraordinary circumstances without any fault on his part; However, the entitlement to apply for a review as provided for in the first subparagraph shall not apply where the defendant failed to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so. 2 After expiry of the time limit laid down in Article 16(2), the defendant shall also be entitled to apply for a review of the European order for payment before the competent court in the Member State of origin, in the event that the order for payment was clearly wrongly issued, having regard to the requirements laid down in this Regulation, or due to other exceptional circumstances. 3. The time limit for applying for a review shall be 30 days. It shall run from the day the defendant was effectively acquainted with the contents of the order and was able to react, at the latest from the date of the first enforcement measure having the effect of making property of the defendant non-disposable in whole or in part. No extension of the time limit may be granted on account of distance. 4. If the court rejects the application for a review referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 on the basis that none of the grounds for a review set out in those paragraphs apply, the European order for payment shall remain in force. If the court decides that a review is justified for one of the reasons laid down in paragraph 1 or 2, the European order for payment shall be null and void. However, the creditor shall not lose the benefit of the interruption of prescription or limitation periods."
Amendment 40 #
2013/0000(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls the plenary decision for the Council to present a roadmap by June 2013 on the multiple seats of the EP and expects both the Committees concerned, the Secretary General and the Bureau to provide members with up-to-date figures and information on the financial and environmental impact of the multiple seat arrangement; suggests the EP's own impact assessment services examine this question also with respect to the impact of the EP's presence or partial presence on the respective communities and regions and present an assessment by June 2013 in order for these findings to be considered for the next MFF;
Amendment 5 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Parliament's estimates for 2014 put the overall budget at EUR 1 808 144 206, with costs directly related to the geographic dispersion estimated at EUR 180 000 000between EUR 169 million and EUR 204 million;
Amendment 8 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas since the beginning of the current legislature, both individual committees and the plenary have made several specific requests to the European Parliament's administration to provide comprehensive, detailed and reliable estimates of the additional costs relating to each of the three places of work;
Amendment 9 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas, the numbers provided by the Secretary-General's report to the Bureau of September 2002 are the last overall cost estimates available;
Amendment 10 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas the 2002 Secretary-General's estimate was confirmed by the joint working group report of the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets on Parliament's budget for 2012, when complementing the EUR 148 million estimate by the EUR 25 million of annual amortisation cost for the Strasbourg buildings that need to be taken into account since the purchase of named buildings;
Amendment 13 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11
Citation 11
– having regard to Rules 5.3, 29, 41, 48 and 74a of its Rules of Procedure,
Amendment 14 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Amendment 14 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
Citation 12 a (new)
– having regard to the parliament's vote on 23 October 2012, which saw a majority of 78% of Members call on EU governments to revise the issue of parliament's official seat; Strasbourg;
Amendment 18 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas a reply given to the EP Budgetary Control Committee in preparation for the EP discharge for 2011 does not provide estimates on the potential savings, but only a partial estimate of the additional costs of the Strasbourg seat; whereas this EUR 55 million estimate does not include many budget lines that were included in previous and following estimates, namely the cost of data processing, equipment and movable property, travel expenses of political groups as well as any potential savings connected to time lost travelling (totalling EUR 68 million); whereas this estimate provides lower numbers on several budget lines than both previous and following estimates without providing any justification (totalling EUR 25 million);
Amendment 20 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas none of these estimates includes the additional costs of the European Parliament's geographic dispersion on the other European Union institutions, in particular the European Commission and Council, EU member states' representations, journalists and civil society representatives;
Amendment 21 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas ¾ of members believe that the EP should find significant structural savings and these could be found in re- evaluating the EP's geographical dispersion of places of work, illustrated by a breakdown of the costs of Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg set out in a transparent and credible format to standards expected from a major public body;
Amendment 22 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas the historical reasons for the European bodies permanently seated in Strasbourg are well-known in respect e.g. the European Court for Human Rights and the Council of Europe, and while the European Assembly /Parliament for convenience initially used the latter's Chamber, the choice of Brussels as the seat of the European Commission and of NATO reflect the EU's aspirations for a continent progressively united in prosperity and security;
Amendment 23 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C e (new)
Recital C e (new)
Ce. whereas situating the co-legislators of the EU in a single place does not undermine the tradition of polycentrism in the EU but bears significant efficiency and transparency gains for EU citizens;
Amendment 24 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C f (new)
Recital C f (new)
Cf. whereas, in many Member States, parliament's seat is laid down either in the Constitution or by law and whereas the European Parliament is a co-legislator of European law and can call for changes of the European treaties under article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty;
Amendment 25 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C g (new)
Recital C g (new)
Cg. whereas during the European Year of Citizens it is appropriate to show that their voice is not only heard but that their directly elected representatives are taking action on their behalf in order to end the monthly travel between the EP's places of work;
Amendment 26 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C h (new)
Recital C h (new)
Ch. whereas the European institutions must do everything to further European political integration and bridge the perceived distance from citizens by tackling a major structural issue of the institutions and promoting European understanding, transparency, accountability and coherence by having the EU's decision making bodies in one place;
Amendment 27 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C i (new)
Recital C i (new)
Ci. whereas 6% of the EU budget is intended for administrative purposes and that the European Union, with a relatively small operating budget for 500 million inhabitants, must set an example in these times of crisis by streamlining its own budgetary impact as much as possible without prejudice to the proper functioning of the European Parliament, adding that the efficiency gains of having a single seat near the co-legislator cannot be ignored;
Amendment 35 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that while the seats of the European Institutions are enshrined in the Treaties, so is article 48, which allows for a proposal for treaty change;
Amendment 48 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C a (new)
Paragraph C a (new)
Ca. whereas MEPs have repeatedly requested the Parliament's Administration procure for a Eurobarometer survey which asks European citizens for their views on Parliament's split-site arrangement;
Amendment 83 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q a (new)
Recital Q a (new)
Qa. whereas Members have repeatedly requested up-to-date breakdowns of the financial, environmental and social costs of the parliament's working arrangements, because the Administration has yet to produce a consistent and coherent set of figures;
Amendment 115 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges that any future decision by Parliament on its working arrangements must allow sufficient time for debate and reflection, as well as for an orderly transition; requests a study into the one- off cost of moving all parliament's activities to a single working location;
Amendment 122 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Asks the Administration to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential savings for our budget if the parliament had only one place of work, in Brussels; asks that this analysis includes the budgetary aspects and the ancillary costs such as savings made as a result of loss of working time and efficiency;
Amendment 123 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Asks the Administration to procure that EMAS or suitable external consultants provide an analysis of the environmental aspects if the parliament held all its plenary sessions in Brussels;
Amendment 124 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Asks the Administration to procure that the parliament's Medical Service provide an analysis of the health effects of the monthly session in Strasbourg on Members, staff and assistants;
Amendment 131 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the relevant services of the European Parliament to make an assessment of the agreement between the authorities in Luxembourg and the European Parliament, on the number of staff to be present in Luxembourg, taking into account a revision of the Parliament's needs; this assessment shall include suggestions on how to renegotiate this agreement, without prejudice to the legal provisions;
Amendment 136 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on Parliament's Administration to procure for Eurobarometer or similar professional polling service to conduct a survey of EU citizens' views on the maintenance of Parliament's split site working arrangement by 1 January 2014, with specific reference to the financial, environmental and efficiency costs of this arrangement;
Amendment 129 #
2012/2092(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphs 77 a, b, c, d, e, f, g (new)
Paragraphs 77 a, b, c, d, e, f, g (new)
Amendment 4 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Believes that the Parliament's places of work should be limited to a single seat for Members and officials; calls on the Council to take into account the demands expressed already on several occasions by the Parliament and EU citizens concerning the need to fix a single seat for the Members and officials, further reiterated in paragraph 7 of the resolution of the European Parliament of 16 February 2012 on the guidelines for the 2013 budget procedure, sections other than the Commission1.. ________________ 1 P7_TA(2012)0050.
Amendment 38 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Given that the missions' costs of EU officials travelling between three places of work amount to EUR 29,07 million in 2012, requests an updated expertise on the costs of maintaining three places of work of Parliament;
Amendment 58 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Whereas the Parliament committed not to construct any new buildings, is concerned about increasing costs of the KAD project underway and requests updated figures with regard to the costs of both KAD construction and abandon of the project; further requests to be consulted before any decision on financing the project is taken;
Amendment 68 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The prohibition of tobacco products with characterising flavours does not prohibit the use of individual additives altogether, but obliges the manufactures to reduce the additive or the combination of additives to such an extent that the additives no longer result in a characterising flavour. The use of additives necessary for manufacturing of tobacco products should be allowed, as long as they do not result in a characterising flavour.is allowed. The Commission should ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provision on characterising flavour. Independent panels should be used by the Member States and by the Commission to assist in such decision making. The application of this Directive should not discriminate between different tobacco varieties.
Amendment 69 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) One of the aims of the Directive is to reduce the consumption of tobacco products, especially among young and vulnerable consumers, which will result in the decrease of the production of the tobacco in the European Union and can lead to loss of jobs, moving the industry outside the European Union and need to restructure the farms traditionally basing its production on tobacco. Therefore appropriate measures and financial support must be envisaged in the framework of the EU budget in order to counteract the economic and social consequences of the Directive.
Amendment 83 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) 'age verification system' means a computing system that unambigouisly confirms the consumer's age in electronic form according to national requirements; it can also mean a physical verification system in form accordant to national requirements, that unambiguously confirms the consumer age in situations other than direct purchase for example by the usage of vending machines;
Amendment 85 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 25
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 25
(25) ‘place on the market’ means to make products available to consumers located in the Union, with or without payment, including by means of distance sale or by use of vending machines; in case of cross- border distance sales the product is deemed to be placed on the market in the Member State where the consumer is located;
Amendment 89 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall prohibit the placing on the market of tobacco products with a characterising flavour, where it was unequivocally proved by scientific studies that the additive increases toxicity of the products or facilitate addiction.
Amendment 91 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall not prohibit the use of additives which are essential for the manufacture of tobacco products, as long as the additives do not result in a product with a characterising flavour.
Amendment 94 #
2012/0366(COD)
5. Member States shall prohibit the use of flavourings in the components of tobacco products such as filters, papers, packages, capsules or any technical features allowing modification of flavour or smoke intensity, where it was unequivocally proved by scientific studies that the additive increases toxicity of the products or facilitate addiction. Filters and capsules shall not contain tobacco.
Amendment 103 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)
(b) include smoking cessation information such as phone numbers, e-mail addresses and/or Internet sites designed to inform consumers about the programmes available to support those who want to stop smoking; those platforms designed to inform consumers about the programmes available to support those who want to stop smoking should play active role in promoting knowledge on the severe effects of smoking among children and youth as those most at risk of becoming dependent on tobacco;
Amendment 122 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The unique, safe and impossible to duplicate identifier shall allow determining:
Amendment 131 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 8
Article 14 – paragraph 8
8. In addition to the unique, safe and impossible to duplicate identifier, Member States shall require that all unit packets of tobacco products which are placed on the market carry a visible, tamper proof security feature of at least 1 cm², which shall be irremovably printed or affixed, indelible and in no way hidden or interrupted in any form, including through tax stamps and price marks, or other elements mandated by legislation.
Amendment 138 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4
Article 16 – paragraph 4
4. Retail outlets engaged in distance sales shallas well as owners of premises where there are tobacco vending machine shall use or be equipped within an age verification system, which verifies at the time of sale, that the purchasing consumer respects the minimum age foreseen under the national legislation of the Member State of destination or place of purchase . The retailer or nominated natural person shall report to the competent authorities a description of the details and functioning of the age verification system.
Amendment 139 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Advertising of tobacco product via internet as well as using for that purpose profiling of personal data's shall not be permitted.
Amendment 162 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 20 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The negative economical and social consequences of the implementation of this Directive shall be counteracted by appropriate measures and financial support in the framework of the EU budget.
Amendment 166 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 23 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. No later than 2 years from the date specified in Article 25 paragraph 1, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions a report on the economic and social consequences of the application of this Directive
Amendment 168 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [Publications Office, please insert the exact date: entry into force + 1836 months] at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
Amendment 133 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) When established or operating in the Union, collecting societies – as service providers – must comply with the national requirements pursuant to Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market which seeks to create a legal framework for ensuring the freedom of establishment and the free movement of services between the Member States. This implies that collecting societies should be free to provide their services across borders, to represent rightholders resident or established in other Member States or grant licences to users resident or established in other Member States.
Amendment 149 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Having the freedom to provide and to receive collective rights management services across national borders entails that rightholders are able to freely choose the collecting society for the management of their rights, such as public performance or broadcasting rights, or categories of rights, such as interactive communication to the public, provided the collecting society already manages such rights or categories of rights. This implies that rightholders can easily withdraw their rights or categories of rights from a collecting society and entrust or transfer all or part of them to another collecting society or another entity irrespective of the Member State of residence or the nationality of either the collecting society or the rightholder. Such freedom of rights management should not give rise to monopolistic practices as defined in Article 102 TFEU and in EU antitrust rules. Collecting societies managing different types of works and other subject matter, such as literary, musical or photographic works, should also allow this flexibility to rightholders as regards the management of different types of works and other subject matter. Collecting societies should inform rightholders of this choice and allow them to exercise it as easily as possible. Finally, this Directive should not prejudice the possibilities of rightholders to manage their rights individually, including for non- commercial uses.
Amendment 152 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Having the freedom to provide and to receivereceive services for collective management serviceof copyright and related rights across national borders entails that rightholders are able to freely choose the collecting societyve management organisation for the management of their rights, such as public performance or broadcasting rights, or categories of rights, such as interactive communication to the public, provided the collecting societyve management organisation already manages such rights or categories of rights. This implies that rightholders can easily withdraw their rights or categories of rights from a collecting societyve management organisation and entrust or transfer all or part of them to another collecting societyve management organisation or another entity irrespective of the Member State of residence or the nationality of either the collecting societyve management organisation or the rightholder. Collecting societieve management organisations managing different types of works and other subject matter, such as literary, musical or photographic works, should also allow this flexibility to rightholders as regards the management of different types of works and other subject matter. Collecting societieve management organisations should inform rightholders of this choice and allow them to exercise it as easily as possible. Finally, this Directive should not prejudice the possibilities of rightholders to manage their rights individually, including for non- commercial uses.
Amendment 202 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 a (new)
Recital 36 a (new)
(36a) To the effectiveness and benefit of the dispute resolution procedures, Members States should ensure that their relevant national dispute resolution bodies have a minimum training and experience in the field of copyright and related rights.
Amendment 203 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 b (new)
Recital 36 b (new)
(36b) In order to ensure that dispute resolution mechanisms are used in good faith, Member States may complement these mechanisms with a provision on escrow procedures. The sums in question should be set up by a court or an independent dispute resolution body.
Amendment 219 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Articles 16 – 19, 24(1) and 24(2) shall also apply to any entity other than a collective management organisation which by way of assignment, licence or other contractual agreement manage copyright or related rights on behalf of more than one rightholder as its sole or main purpose for the collective benefit of those rightholders.
Amendment 228 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘collecting societyve management organisation’ means any organisation which is authorised by law or by way of assignment, licence or any other contractual arrangement, by more than one rightholder, to manage copyright or rights related to copyright as its sole or main purpose and which is: a) owned or controlled by its members; and/or b) is a non profit making body;
Amendment 232 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
a) 'collecting society' means a non-profit association or any organisation which is authorised by law or by way of assignment, licence or any other contractual arrangement, by more than one rightholder, to manage copyright or rights related to copyright as its sole or main purpose and which is owned or controlled by its rightholder members;
Amendment 279 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The statute of the collecting societyve management organisation shall provide for appropriate and effective mechanisms of participation of its members in the collecting society's decision-making process. The representation of the different categories of members in the decision-making process shall be fair and balanced.
Amendment 283 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Collective management organisations shall make information included in Article 19(1) publicly accessible provided that the protection of the personal data of the rightholders is preserved.
Amendment 302 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point d
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point d
(d) the rulesgeneral policy on deductions from rights revenue. and on income derived from its investment, to the extent investments are allowed by the Member States;
Amendment 334 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the collecting societyve management organisation establishes a supervisory function responsible for continuously monitoring the activities and the performance of the duties of the persons entrusted with managerial responsibilities in the collecting societyve management organisation. There shall be fair and balanced representation of the members of the collecting societyve management organisation in the body exercising this function in order to ensure their effective participation.
Amendment 397 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. The collecting society shallMember States shall ensure that a collective management organisation does not apply deductions, other than management fees, to the rights revenue derived from the rights it manages on the basis of a representation agreement with another collecting society, unless the other collecting society expressly consents to such deductions, and to any income arising from the investment of that rights revenue.
Amendment 422 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15a Obligations on users Member States shall ensure that users provide a collective management organisation, within a reasonable period, with relevant information on the use of the rights represented by the collective management organisation that is necessary for the collection and distribution of rights revenue. Member States shall ensure that collective management organisations have the right to request the above information from users. When necessary, this information should be provided in an electronic form allowing for its processing by the collective management organisation.
Amendment 464 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. In addition, a collecting societyA collective management organisation shall make available at the duly motivated request of any rightholder or any collecting societyve management organisation, any information on works for which one or more rightholders have not been identified including, where available, the title of the work, the name of the author, the name of the publisher and any other relevant information available which could be necessary to identify the rightholders.
Amendment 474 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(ga) standard licensing contracts and applicable tariffs;
Amendment 478 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
(gb) the repertoire and rights it manages and the Member States covered;
Amendment 480 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point g c (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point g c (new)
Amendment 503 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The requested collective management organisation shall offer and manage the repertoire of the requesting collective management organisation for the purpose of multi-territorial licensing on the same conditions as its own repertoire.
Amendment 224 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
This Directive aims to facilitate the exercise of the freedom to provide services for service providers and promoting fair competition between service providers, while guaranteeing respect for an appropriate level of minimum protection of the rights of posted workers for the cross- border provision of services, while facilitating the exercise of the freedom to provide services for service providers and promoting fair competition between service providers.
Amendment 241 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘'competent authority’' means anpublic authorityies of a Member State designated by athis Member State to perform functions under this Directive;
Amendment 261 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
1. For the purpose of implementing, applying and enforcing Directive 96/71/EC the competent authorities shall take into account factual elements characterising the activities carried out by an undertaking in the State in which it is established in order to determine whether it genuinely performs substantial activities, other than purely internal management and/or administrative activities. Such elements may include:
Amendment 291 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Amendment 310 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The assessment of these elements shall be adapted to each specific case and take account of the nature of the activities and/or period of time in which these activities were carried out by the undertaking in the Member State in which it is established.
Amendment 375 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. The elements determining whether an undertaking in the State in which it is established genuinely performs activities and assessing whether a posted worker temporarily carries out his or her work in a Member State other than the one in which he or she normally works, shall be interpreted in a balanced way, in accordance with the rules concerning freedom to provide services included in the Title IV, Chapter III of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union.
Amendment 396 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. The elements determining whether an undertaking in the State in which it is established genuinely performs activities and assessing whether a posted worker temporarily carries out his or her work in a Member State other than the one in which he or she normally works, shall be interpreted in a balanced way, in accordance with the rules concerning freedom to provide services included in the Title IV, Chapter III of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union.
Amendment 398 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 c (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. All the factual elements enumerated in paragraph 1 and 2 are only indicative factors in the overall assessment to be made and may therefore never be considered in isolation. The criteria shall be adapted to each specific case and take account of the specificities of the situation. The non-meeting of one or more of the criteria does not necessary preclude the situation of posting, but should help in the evaluation of genuine posting. The criteria in paragraphs 1 and 2 are intended to assist a competent authority in cases where the competent authority has reason to believe that a worker may not qualify as posted under Directive 96/71/EC. In such cases the competent authority may apply the criteria and factual elements in paragraphs 1 and 2 which it considers are relevant to the circumstances under consideration. There is no requirement that evidence must be supplied in respect of each criteria or that each criteria must be satisfied in every instance of a posting.
Amendment 495 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – title
Article 7 – title
Amendment 511 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. During the period of posting a worker to another Member State the inspection of the working conditions to be complied with according to Directive 96/71/EC lies within responsibility of the authorities of the host Member State in cooperation with the Member State of establishment.
Amendment 562 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) an obligation to keep or make available and/or retainwithin a reasonable period of time and/or retain, at the choice of the services provider, copies in paper or electronic form of the employment contract (or an equivalent document within the meaning of Directive 91/533, including, where appropriate or relevant, the additional information referred to in Article 4 of that Directive), payslips, time-sheets and proof of payment of wages or copies of equivalent documents, issued according to the national law of the Member State of establishment, during the period of posting in an accessible and clearly identified place in its territory, such as the workplace or the building site, or for mobile workers in the transport sector the operations base or the vehicle with which the service is provided;
Amendment 581 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) an obligationif necessary, to designate a contact person to negotiate, if necessary, on behalf of the employer with the relevant social partners in the Member State to which the posting takes place, in accordance with national legislation and practice, during the period in which the services are provided. The representative or the contact person can be any person chosen by the employer or employers association in the Member State of establishment of which the employer is a member.
Amendment 599 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall impose the necessary administrative requirements and control measures mentioned in paragraph 1 in a non-discriminatory, justified and proportionate manner.
Amendment 643 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
At the end of each inspection the competent authority shall provide a document which includes at least the name and address of the inspected undertaking, data identifying the competent authority, the days in which the inspection was carried out, the legal ground for the control measure applied, a justification on necessity and proportionality, upon request of the undertaking inspected - information that there are matters covered by trade secrets, a description of fraud identified or information that no fraud was identified, as well as any other relevant information. The inspected undertaking has the right to submit remarks with regard to the findings included in the document. The inspected undertaking receives a copy of the document.
Amendment 671 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that trade unions and other third parties, such as associations, organisations and other legal entities which have, in accordance with the criteria laid down by their national law, a legitimate interest in ensuring that the provisions of this Directive are complied with, may engage, on behalf or in support of the posted workers or their employer, only with their approval in any judicial or administrative proceedings provided for with the objective of implementing this Directive and/or enforcing the obligations under this Directive.
Amendment 689 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) any back-payments or refund of taxes or social security contributions unduly withheld from the worker's salary.
Amendment 92 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67
Recital 67
(67) A personal data breach may, if not addressed in an adequate and timely manner, result in substantial economic loss and social harm, including identity fraud, to the individual concerned. Therefore, as soon as the controller becomes aware that such a breach has occurred, the controller should notify the breach to the supervisory authority without undue delay and, where feasible, within 724 hours. Where this cannot achieved within 724 hours, an explanation of the reasons for the delay should accompany the notification. The individuals whose personal data could be adversely affected by the breach should be notified without undue delay in order to allow them to take the necessary precautions. A breach should be considered as adversely affecting the personal data or privacy of a data subject where it could result in, for example, identity theft or fraud, physical harm, significant humiliation or damage to reputation. The notification should describe the nature of the personal data breach as well as recommendations as well as recommendations for the individual concerned to mitigate potential adverse effects. Notifications to data subjects should be made as soon as reasonably feasible, and in close cooperation with the supervisory authority and respecting guidance provided by it or other relevant authorities (e.g. law enforcement authorities). For example, the chance for data subjects to mitigate an immediate risk of harm would call for a prompt notification of data subjects whereas the need to implement appropriate measures against continuing or similar data breaches may justify a longer delay.
Amendment 106 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point 1
Article 4 – point 1
(1) 'data subject' means an identified natural person or a naturallegal person; an identified person is a person who can be identified, directly or indirectly, by means reasonably likely to be used by the controller or by any other natural or legal person, in particular by reference to an identification number, location data, online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that persoperson, where the use of such means does not entail excessive costs, is not overly time-consuming and does not require that disproportionate actions be taken;
Amendment 115 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point 8
Article 4 – point 8
(8) 'the data subject's consent' means any freely given specific, informed and explicit indication of his or her wishes by which the data subject, either by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to personal data relating to them being processed;(Does not affect English version)
Amendment 138 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks. This provision should also not apply to processing on the basis of one or several of the remaining grounds set out in this paragraph.
Amendment 143 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
In the case referred to in paragraph 1(f), the data controller shall clearly and separately notify the data subject of such processing. The data controller shall also indicate and publish the reasons which led him to believe that his legitimate interest took precedence over the primacy of the data subject's fundamental rights and freedoms.
Amendment 148 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. If the data subject's consent is to be given in the context of a written declaration which also concerns another matter, the requirement to give consent must be presented distinguishable in its appearance from this other matter. The permission of the data subject may be sought electronically, particularly in the context of information society services.
Amendment 199 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
da) there shall be no legal basis for the processing of data other than the consent of the data subject.
Amendment 246 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. Having regard to the state of the art, current technical knowledge and the cost of implementation, the controller shall, both at the time of the determination of the means for processing and at the time of the processing itself, implement appropriate technical and organisational measures and procedures in such a way that the processing will meet the requirements of this Regulation and ensure the protection of the rights of the data subject.
Amendment 287 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Cases in which it is probable that a breach of personal data protection will have a negative impact on the data subject’s privacy shall be deemed serious breaches.
Amendment 289 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The communication of a personal data breach to the data subject shall not be required if the controller has implemented appropriate protection measures, and if those measures were applied to the data concerned by the personal data breach. Such technological protection measures shall render the data unintelligible to any person who is not authorised to access it.
Amendment 292 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The supervisory authority shall maintain a public register of reported breaches.
Amendment 405 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1
Article 79 – paragraph 1
1. EachThe supervisory authority competent under Article 51 shall be empowered to impose administrative sanctions in accordance with this Article.
Amendment 539 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67
Recital 67
(67) A personal data breach may, if not addressed in an adequate and timely manner, result in substantial economic loss and social harm, including identity fraud, to the individual concerned. Therefore, as soon as the controller becomes aware that such a breach has occurredof a breach adversely affecting the personal data or privacy of a data subject, the controller should notify theat breach to the supervisory authority without undue delay and, where feasible, within 724 hours. Where this cannot achievedsuch notification is not possible within 724 hours, an explanation of the reasons for the delay should accompany the notification. The individuals whose personal data could be adversely affected by thesimilar breaches should be notified thereof without undue delay in order to allow themfor them to be able to take the necessary precautions. A breach should be considered as adversely affecting the personal data or privacy of a data subject where it could result in, for example, identity theft or fraud, physical harm, significant humiliation or damage to reputation. The notification should describe the nature of the personal data breach as well as recommendations as well as recommendations for the individual concerned to mitigate potential adverse effects. Notifications to data subjects should be made as soon as reasonably feasible, and in close cooperation with the supervisory authority and respecting guidance provided by it or other relevant authorities (e.g. law enforcement authorities). For example, the chancepossibility for data subjects to mitigate an immediate risk of harm would call for a prompt notification of data subjects whereas the need to implement appropriate measures against continuing or similar data breaches may be an argument to justify a longer delay.
Amendment 718 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘data subject’ means an identified natural person or aor identifiable natural person who can be identified, directly or indirectly, by technically available means reasonably likely to be used by the controller or by any other natural or legal person, in particular by reference to an identification number, location data, online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that persowhere the use of such means does not entail excessive costs, is not overly time-consuming and does not require complex actions to be taken;
Amendment 760 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘the data subject’s consent’ means any freely given specific, and informed and explicit indication of his or her wishes by which the data subject, either by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to personal data relating to them being processed. The permission of the data subject may also be sought electronically, particularly in the context of information society services;
Amendment 885 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data,personal data require particular safeguarding by virtue of the overriding interests of protecting data subjects in connection with their fundamental rights and freedoms. This shall apply in particular where the data subject is a child. ThisIt shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks. Exemption from the scope of this provision may also be based on one or more of the other grounds set out in this paragraph.
Amendment 926 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) In the case referred to in paragraph 1(f), the data controller should clearly and separately notify the data subject of such processing. Upon an express request from the data subject, the data controller should also justify the reasons why he decided that the legitimate interest pursued outweighs the overriding interest of protecting the data subject's fundamental rights and freedoms.
Amendment 973 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. If the data subject's consent is to be given in the context of a written declaration which also concerns another matter, the requirement to give consent must be presented distinguishable in its appearance from this other matter. The permission of the data subject may be sought electronically, particularly in the context of information society services.
Amendment 1398 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the data subject has effectively objectsed to the processing of personal data pursuant to Article 19;
Amendment 1402 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) there is no legal basis for the processing of the data other than the consent of the data subject.
Amendment 1421 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Where the controller referred to in paragraph 1 has made the personal data public, it shall take all reasonable steps, including technical measures, in relation to data for the publication of which the controller is responsible, to inform third parties which are processing such data,. Third parties shall be considered to be subjects who, at the time the request is submitted, the controller is reasonably likely to be able identify and inform that a data subject requests them to erase any links to, or copy or replication of that personal data. Where the controller has authorised a third party publication of personal data, the controller shall be considered responsible for that publication.
Amendment 1423 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The obligation to inform referred to in paragraph 2 should be considered to have been exercised as soon as the controller has informed the third parties which he has identified of a request for the erasure of the data of the relevant subject in a form corresponding to the original publication of that data, or in some other form ensuring the effective receipt of such information.
Amendment 1551 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. Every natural person shall have the right not to be subject to a measure which produces legal effects concerning this natural person or significantly adversely affects this natural person, and which is based solely on automated processing intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to this natural person or to analyse or predict in particular the natural person's performance at work, economic situation, location, health, personal preferences, reliability or behaviour.
Amendment 1576 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) is expressly authorized by a Union or Member State law which also lays down suitable measures to safeguard the data subject's legitimate interests; or
Amendment 1718 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. Having regard to the stlate of the art andst technological developments, the cost of their implementation and the current state of the art, the controller shall, both at the time of the determination of the means for processing and at the time of the processing itself, implement appropriate technical and organisational measures and procedures in such a way that the processing will meet the requirements of this Regulation and ensure the protection of the rights of the data subject.
Amendment 2852 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1
Article 79 – paragraph 1
1. EachThe competent supervisory authority in accordance with Article 51 shall be empowered to impose administrative sanctions in accordance with this Article.
Amendment 8 #
2011/2313(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Points out that the European copyright "acquis communautaire" does not per se preclude voluntary multi- territorial or pan-European licensing mechanisms but that cultural and language differences between Member States, as well as variations in national rules unrelated to intellectual property, necessitate a flexible and complementary approach at European level in order to advance towards the digital single market;
Amendment 15 #
2011/2313(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Stresses the importance of promoting digital skills and media literacy for all EU citizens including those with disabilities such as those who are hard of hearing, as it plays an essential role for societal participation and democratic citizenship; recalls the important role of public service media plays in this regard as part of their public service;
Amendment 27 #
2011/2313(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Stresses that problems associated with online payment systems, such as lack of interoperability and high costs of micro- payment for consumers, should be tackled with a view to developing simple, innovative and cost-effective solutions of benefit to consumers and digital platforms;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2011 on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the year 20101,
Amendment 3 #
2011/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the status of the ‘EU Pilot’ system and to define clearly the framework and rules of its application in such a way that they will be understood by citizens;
Amendment 6 #
2011/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Amendment 16 #
2011/2069(INI)
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Urges Poland and the United Kingdom to review their position and adhere to the Charter of Fundamental Rights so that equal standards of protection of citizens' rights apply throughout the community;
Amendment 30 #
2011/2069(INI)
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 7 a (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Urges the Commission to include in their review of the Agency of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Institute for Gender Equality to create an appropriate legal framework for the two institutions to cooperate; encourages those two institutions to closely cooperate and coordinate in order effectively to combat violations of rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 3 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18
Citation 18
Amendment 7 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the Lisbon Treaty provides for the formal involvement of national parliaments in monitoring the application of the principle of subsidiarity,
Amendment 8 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Lisbon Treaty has sought to redress the balance of powers between the European institutions, and considers Parliament to be equal with the Council in lawmaking under the ordinary legislative procedure; whereas comitology was replaced by a new distinction between delegated and implementing acts,
Amendment 10 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas consultations with all interested parties, in particular small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs) and social partners, are of fundamental importance in the preparation of draft legislation, including impact assessments,
Amendment 12 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas on 1 April 2011 the Regulation on European Citizens' Initiative entered into force,
Amendment 29 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Invites the Commission, in its role of initiative, to take a wider advantage of regulations as legislative tools which give more legal certainty in comparison to other instruments;
Amendment 30 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Stresses that the process of reduction of administrative burden and simplyfying of legislation must not lead to lowering of the standards laid down in the current legislation, and therefore consultations with all interested parties, including SMEs and social partners, must be an integral part of the process;
Amendment 31 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. In particular, calls on the Commission to effectively mainstream multilingualism in the running and publication of the results of public consultations, as a prerequisite for extensive involvement of all the European stakeholders;
Amendment 35 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 38 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Calls on the Commission to systematically consult with all interested parties including social partners, in order to provide a broad analysis of possible social, economic and environmental impacts of proposed legislation, in conformity with the principle of integrated approach;
Amendment 42 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Welcomes the wider use of ex-post evaluation of implemented legislation; emphasises, however, that such evaluation should be used for all legislation, not only in key sectors; notes in this regard that implementing and delegated acts should also come under consideration; calls on the Commission to expand ex-post evaluation to all policy areas, and suggests that ‘sunset’ clauses to enforce reviews may be a useful means of guaranteeing that regulations still in force are necessary and proportionate;
Amendment 43 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Urges the Commission to allocate the necessary human resources to provide technical and legal assistance for citizens initiatives; underlines in particular the need to conform with data protection requirements;
Amendment 44 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6 (new) after paragraph 22
Subheading 6 (new) after paragraph 22
European Citizens Initiative
Amendment 45 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22b. Calls on the European Commission to establish clear eligibility criteria as well as grounds for refusal for admissibility of initiatives; points out in particular the need to provide citizens with clear information as to the limits of competence of the EU established by the Treaty;
Amendment 46 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 c (new)
Paragraph 22 c (new)
Amendment 158 #
2011/0177(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Points to the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a single seat; urges the budgetary authority to raise this issue in the negotiations on the next MFF 2014-2020;
Amendment 1981 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Cases in which it is highly probable that a breach of personal data protection will have a negative impact on the data subject’s privacy shall be deemed serious breaches.
Amendment 1982 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The supervisory authority should maintain a publicly accessible register of identified and closed serious breaches.
Amendment 1984 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 4 b (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Notification of a breach of personal data protection shall, exceptionally, not be required where the controller has, without delay, implemented appropriate technological measures to safeguard the personal data concerned by the breach, and where such measures ensure that the at-risk data are rendered unintelligible to any person not authorised to access them,
Amendment 5 #
2010/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the list of measures identified by the Commission to promote and protect creativity, and calls on the Commission not to delay any further the presentation of the proposals for legislative and non-legislative measures in this area, in particular the framework directive on collective management of copyright and orphan works; regrets however that reform on collective rights management remains unknown to a majority of artists and calls on European Commission to engage into further promotion of the reform; takes the view that the Commission revision of the EU trademark legislation should be included on that list;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Points out that another reason for slow development of digital single market is due to the fact that distribution for copyright protected works remains uncompetitive, which constitutes an additional burden for new market entrants who wish to provide access to such works online;
Amendment 8 #
2010/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Shares the concerns expressed by European consumer organisations as to obstacles which consumers face while accessing legal online platforms offering copyright protected work; points out that a number of innovative services which successfully operate outside Europe have not decided to establish themselves in the EU; urges the European Commission to quickly address the aspect of "access to content online" its Communication "Digital Agenda for Europe";
Amendment 9 #
2010/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. While acknowledging that IPR enforcement is an important aspect of development of digital single market, does not share the Commission's certitude, expressed in the report on the application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights as to the need of amending EU legal framework with respect to sanctions for non commercial file-sharing; points out that measures involving Internet intermediaries in filtering online content are doubtful from a practical point of view and raise concerns regarding the respect of privacy;
Amendment 16 #
2010/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5d. Points out that a renewed Single market should take into account the specific needs of people with disabilities and use their potential in contributing to the economic growth of the EU; calls European Commission to take further actions in order to facilitate their access to market both as employees and consumers.
Amendment 38 #
2010/2272(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas access to information and culture play a vital role in intellectual development of young people including people with disabilities,
Amendment 39 #
2010/2272(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
E b. whereas access to information has been explicitly confirmed in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
Amendment 40 #
2010/2272(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)
Recital E c (new)
E c. whereas access to information has a direct impact on employment opportunities of people with disabilities,
Amendment 135 #
2010/2272(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider and evaluate the application of Article 16 of DirectiveRegulation 1083/2006/EC as well as the efforts on accessibility in light of the contribution that could be made by using the European Structural Funds, especially the European Social Fund;
Amendment 173 #
2010/2272(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6 a (new) – before paragraph 19
Subheading 6 a (new) – before paragraph 19
Access to information and culture
Amendment 203 #
2010/2272(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23 a. Stresses that people with disabilities should enjoy non-discriminatory access to information and culture, which will be beneficial to them also in terms of employment opportunities;
Amendment 206 #
2010/2272(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23 b. Is concerned by the low rate of availability of subtitling and audio- description on public TV in the European Union; calls for more diligent implementation of the Member States' obligation under Directive 2007/65/EC to encourage broadcasters to ensure a greater accessibility of media services to people with hearing or visual disability;
Amendment 207 #
2010/2272(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 c (new)
Paragraph 23 c (new)
23 c. Recalls that the Commission itself, in its Communication on a European Disability Strategy, expresses concerns as to the low availability of subtitles in television in the European Union; underlines especially the fact that a pan- European campaign to ensure a wider access to subtitling in public TV in the European Union has been conducted for several years by organisations of deaf and hard of hearing people with the support of the European Parliament;
Amendment 208 #
2010/2272(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 d (new)
Paragraph 23 d (new)
23 d. Calls on the Commission to provide for specific funding possibilities for public and private broadcasters in order to help them cover costs related to introduction of subtitles and audio-description in their programmes;
Amendment 5 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Highlights that active role of the citizens of the European Union is clearly stated in the Treaty of the European Union, particularly with reference to the European Citizens' Initiative; considers that the possibility for the citizens to set the legislative agenda is also directly connected with their actual and essential role in ensuring the correct application and compliance with European Union law and the transparency and certainty of the related procedures;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes that delays in correctly applying and transposing the European Union law directly affect the daily life of citizens and the enjoyment of their rights; highlights the high costs deriving from the non compliance and non application of the EU law and the consequent lack of trust in the European Institutions;
Amendment 8 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Recalls that the Legal Affairs Committee recently launched a Working Group on EU administrative law with the aim to examine whether a codification of EU administrative law is possible and what such a project would involve in practice; considers that the outcomes of this Working Group should be taken into account when discussing a European administrative code;
Amendment 9 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Reminds that the Commission has a primary role as the guardian of the Treaties in ensuring the correct and timely application of European Union law by the Member States; encourages the Commission to use all the competences granted to her by the Treaties, especially the new provisions of Article 260 TFEU concerning Member States' failure of notification of transposition measures of directives;
Amendment 10 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Notes with particular interest the Commission's commitment to deliver systematically an evaluation of the reply to complaint provided by a Member State; calls on the Commission to provide such an evaluation with the highest attention and after prompt analysis of the dossier; calls for a clarification of the role of complainant in the evaluation process;
Amendment 12 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Recalls its resolution of 17 June 2010 on the Judicial Training in civil and commercial matters; considers that it is of fundamental importance that judicial training is enhanced also in the perspective of the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme;
Amendment 4 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)
Citation 7 b (new)
- having regard to the resolution of 26 June 2010 on better lawmaking – 15th annual report from the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (2009/2142(INI)),
Amendment 17 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out that reforming the impact assessment mechanisms within EU institutions must not lead to a further slowing down of the legislative process;
Amendment 30 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for impact assessments to take a large number of criteria into account, in accordance with the principle of an integrated approach, in order to provide the legislator with as comprehensive a picture as possible; draws attention in this context to the economic, social and environmental aspects referred to in the interinstitutional agreement of 16 December 2003, which are to be combined in a single evaluation;
Amendment 31 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses, in particular, the need to examine the social effects of legislative proposals, including their impact on the European labour market and living standards;
Amendment 40 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Underlines the Commission's primary responsibility for conducting high quality impact assessments of its proposals when exercising its right of initiative in accordance with the Treaty;
Amendment 47 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for the early and comprehensive involvement – including by means of notification and interim reports – of the European Parliament, and in particular of its relevant committees, in the whole impact assessment process and in the work of the IAB; invites the Commission to provide the Parliament and the Council with two-to-four-page summaries with the full impact assessment, when submitting the legislative proposal;
Amendment 4 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation (new)
Citation (new)
– having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms and having regard to the legally binding character of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
Amendment 7 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas violations of intellectual property rights (IPR), defined as any violation of any IPR, such as copyright, trade marks, designs or patents,commercial goods counterfeiting constitutes a genuine threat not only to consumer health and safety but also to our economies and societies,
Amendment 10 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas knowledge sharing and dissemination of innovation are strong traditions in the European Union; whereas access by the greatest possible number to technological progress and cultural products continues to be the foundation of education and development policy,
Amendment 14 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas data concerning the scale of IPR infringements are inconsistent, incomplete, insufficient and dispersed, and therefore do not provide a basis for any additional criminal legislative initiatives,
Amendment 17 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the phenomenon of on-line piracy has assumed very alarming proportions, particularly for the creative content industries, and whereas the existing legal framework has proven incapable of effectively protecting rights- holders on the Internet andre are no reliable and independent data as to the impact of on- line IPR infringements, and whereas the existing legal framework needs to be clarified to ensure the balance between all the interests at stake, including those of consumers,
Amendment 20 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas efforts to tackle on-line non- commercial file sharing have created a strong and prejudicial antagonism between the creative industries and their public, and it is therefore necessary to explore new ways of creating synergy between the rights of the public and the revenues of authors and creators,
Amendment 26 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas, with the exception of legislation on penalties under the criminal law, a Community legal framework already exists with regard to the phenomenon of counterfeiting and piracy of physical goods, but whereas lacunae persist with regard to the trade of counterfeit goods over the Internet piracy,
Amendment 30 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas the telecoms regulatory framework has recently been amended, rejecting proposals for so-called graduated response schemes at EU level, and instead includes provisions for standardised public interest notices which can address, among other things, copyright and infringement thereof without jeopardising data protection and privacy rights and stresses the need to respect fundamental rights in matters relating to Internet access,
Amendment 32 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas there are proven connections between various forms of organised crime and IPR infringements, in particular counterfeiting and piracy,
Amendment 41 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Views as regrettable the fact that the Commission links the terms ‘piracy’ and ‘counterfeiting’ in its communication, thereby creating a legal grey area with regard to the offence being referred to;
Amendment 43 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Wonders about the accuracy of the word ‘piracy’ as used to designate the non-commercial exchange of content on line, which leads to a de facto criminalisation of millions of European citizens, particularly young people;
Amendment 44 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Amendment 45 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Recalls that an exception to IPRs exists in the cultural area: the ‘private copy’; calls on the Commission to retain this exception and to adapt it to new technological progress and the internet; stresses the potential usefulness of authorising sharing between individuals of copies for non-commercial use and linking them to new mutualised forms of funding for creative endeavour;
Amendment 46 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to urgently presentpropose a comprehensive IPR strategy addressing all aspects of IPRs, including their enforceon IPR which will remove obstacles to creating a single market in the online environment and adapt the European legislative framework in the field of IPR to current trends in society as well as to technical developments;
Amendment 49 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that any measures taken to enforce IPR must respect the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including Article 10, Article 8, and Article 6, and be necessary, proportionate, and appropriate within a democratic society;
Amendment 54 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. DoTakes not sharee of the Commission's certitudeview that the current civil enforcement framework in the EU is effective and harmonised to the extent necessary forcontributes to the proper functioning of the internal market and reminds the Commission that the report on the application of Directive 2004/48/EC is essential to confirm those claims;
Amendment 59 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Does not sShares the Commission view that the principal body of laws with respect to IPR enforcement is already in place; points out in this respect that negotiations on the directive on criminal sanctions have not been successfully concluded and calls on the Commission to put forward a new proposal on criminal sanctions under the Treaty of Lisbon for serious infringements committed by organized crime entities;
Amendment 60 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the measures aimed at strengthening the application of intellectual property rights in the internal market do not impinge on the legitimate right to interoperability, this being essential to healthy competition on the digital works distribution market, inter alia for the authors and users of free software;
Amendment 61 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to put forward appropriate legislative proposals based on Article 118 of the TFEU which will address the issue of an effective EU patent system and will harmonise certain aspects of European Copyright Law;
Amendment 68 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Urges the Commission to guarantee that the Observatory obeys EU rules in the field of privacy and data protection;
Amendment 82 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 87 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Agrees with the Commission that additionalCautions against non-legislative measures are useful to improvegarding the application of IPR, particularly measures arising from as they may lead to the circumvention of legal safeguards, including those concernin-g depth dialogue among stakeholdersata protection and privacy;
Amendment 89 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 92 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses that a number of factors have allowed this phenomenon to develop, particularly technological advances and the lack of legitimate offers; recalls however that this phenomenon constitutes a violation of IPR to which appropriate, urgent solutions need to be found, geared to the sector concerned and in compliance with fundamental rights;
Amendment 94 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that support for and development of the provision of a diversified, attractive, high-profile, legal range of goods and services for consumers may help to tackle the phenomenon, but recognises that this is not sufficient: piracy is today the biggest obstacle to the development of legal online offers and the EU runs the risk of condemning to failure efforts to develop the legitimate online market if it does not recognise that fact and make urgent proposals to address iwill ensure the development of a dynamic market for online creative content;
Amendment 99 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that all parties concerned, includingUrges the Commission to rethink the critical issue of intellectual property and to invite all those active in the sector, including in particular telecom operators and Internet service providers, musto join in the dialogue with stakeholders in order to find the appropriate solutions in the course of 2010; calls on the Commission, failing this, to submit a legislative proposal or to amend existing legislation, particularly Directive 2004/48/EC, so as to upgrade the Community legal framework in this field on the basis of national experiencesforces and seek solutions that are equitable for large and small stakeholders as much as for consumers, that guarantee fair, effective remuneration to all categories of rights holders, real choice for consumers, cultural diversity and respect for fundamental rights, including the right to data protection and privacy;
Amendment 101 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Asks the Commission to recognize the non-commercial file sharing associated with alternative reward systems, including the creation of a new exception or limitation to the making available and reproduction rights;
Amendment 104 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to think broadly about methods of facilitating industry’s access to the digital market without geographical borders by addressing urgently the issue of multi- territory licences where there is substantial demand from consumers, as well as an effective and transparent system for rights management, as this is a requirement for thewhich would complement the existing growth in services which are legal and which meet consumer demand for ubiquitous, instant and customised access to content;
Amendment 108 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Invites the Commission to adopt an open-ended approach to the proposals that have emerged regarding the recognition of online file sharing by producing comprehensive data regarding the economic aspects of mutualised funding schemes for creation based on non-market exchanges of digital content (such as the ‘creative contribution’ or ‘Kulturflatrate’);
Amendment 109 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Stresses the need to ensure that any legislative measure should not restrict in any way the fundamental rights to data protection and privacy as recognised in EU law;
Amendment 112 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Supports steps taken by the Commission with a view to identifying the best ways to further improve the EU Customs Regulation which allows the detention of goods suspected of infringing IPRs and is, as such, one of the pillars of the Union legal framework designed to enforce IPRs, and calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that the detention of goods whose illegality is not proven should be as short as possible to avoid illegitimately blocking international transfers of such goods when an overriding general interest, such as public health, is at stake in countries of destination;
Amendment 114 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to pursue innovative and upgraded cooperation between administrative departments and the various sectors of industry concerned, without prejudice to the traditional and legal distinction between the roles and competences of the law enforcement and judicial authorities and of the industry;
Amendment 116 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to step up its cooperation with priority third countries with regard to intellectual property and continue its effortspromote a balanced approach in the context of the negotiations on intellectual property under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation concerning intellectual property, particularly in the framework of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS);
Amendment 122 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Stresses the importance of fighting organised crime in the area of IPRs, in particular counterfeiting and piracy; points out in this context the need for appropriate EU legislation on criminal sanctions and supports close strategic and operational cooperation between all the interested parties within the EU, in particular Europol, national authorities and the private sector, as well as with non-EU states and international organisations;
Amendment 10 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. to this end, invites the Commission to provide systematically a two to four page summary of its impact assessment to Parliament and the Council together with the full impact assessment when submitting the legislative proposal;
Amendment 11 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. encourages all Parliament committees to precede any discussion of a Commission legislative proposal with an exchange of views with the Commission on the impact assessment;
Amendment 25 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23 a. Emphasises that the Standard Cost Model for the measurement of administrative burdens has not been independently evaluated;
Amendment 26 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Notes the positive contribution made by the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens to the programme to reduce those burdens that is being carried out by the Commission; calls for an extension ofemphasises however that the Ggroup's mandate to 2013, to enable it to carry out an assessment of the programme to reduce administrative burdens at EU and Member State level; believes that the group should be should have a more balanced composition by including more experts representing civil society and experts from other Member States; calls for prolongation of the mandate of such an expatended to include experts from other Member Statesgroup to 2013;
Amendment 27 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on Member States to work consistently to meet the national targets for reducing administrative burdens that they set; encourages the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens to monitor the achievement of national targets by Member States and hopes for fruitful cooperation with national parliaments in this matter;
Amendment 33 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Points, furthermore, to a series of other institutional changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty that will affect lawmaking in the European Union; emphasises in particular the importance of the European citizens’ initiative and welcomes the Commission’s Green Paper on this matter, which has the potential to become an essential element of European public debate; welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on this initiative;
Amendment 34 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39. Supports the Commission’s proposal to examine the admissibility of a proposed ex-ante citizens’ initiative already when it has obtained one-third of the required declarations of support, which will make it possible to avoid disappointing citizens in the event of initiatives being declared inadmissible;
Amendment 35 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 b (new)
Paragraph 39 b (new)
39b. Calls on the Commission to define not only its time limit for examining an officially submitted initiative, but also the time limit for it to bring forward a legislative proposal in the event of the initiative being admissible;
Amendment 36 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40a. Points out that the issue of better lawmaking is directly linked to the issue of monitoring the implementation of European Union law;
Amendment 37 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 b (new)
Paragraph 40 b (new)
40b. Is closely following the implementation of the pilot project for such monitoring; is concerned that the proposed method for examining complaints could lead to the Commission being overly dependent on the Member States;
Amendment 18 #
2008/2183(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Congratulates Member States on their efforts to prioritise investments aimed at increasing labour participation and improving skills, as well as fighting against poverty and social exclusion, in their programmes financed by the European Social Fund; stresses that it is important and necessary to continue efforts to support employment in the face of the growing economic crisis in Europe;
Amendment 20 #
2008/2183(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 31 #
2008/2183(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses the need to promote cooperation between the private and public sectors in the form of public- private partnerships to make it possible to carry out many key projects to boost the effects of investment;
Amendment 34 #
2008/2183(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Particularly appreciates the integration by the new Member States of the URBAN and EQUAL Community Initiatives' results into the operational programmes for the 2007 - 2013 period; approves the efforts made by Member States to put in place integrated plans for sustainable urban development, as towns and cities are the seats of industries, responsible for economic growth and job creation; furthermore, considers that the full potential of the European Territorial Cooperation programmes, as well as the Jessica, Jaspers, Jeremie and Jasmine instruments, should be exploited in order to speed-up development and achieve higher growth rates;
Amendment 4 #
2008/2055(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that, for many years, EU regional policy has demonstrated to the European public its unique European added-value by effectively promoting economic and social cohesion across the EU, whilst at the same time contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs; opposes, therefore, any attempt to re- nationalise this Community policy; reiterates its long-standing position that cohesion policy should relate to the whole of the territory of the EU and that the larger part of the financial resources available should be concentrated on the needs of less-developedthe poorest regions;
Amendment 10 #
2008/2055(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers it indispensable that adequate funding be guaranteed founder the periodnew multiannual financial framework after 2013, so as to enable cohesion policy not only to continue carrying out successfully its traditional tasks, but also to deal with a number of new global challenges with significant territorial impact, such as climate and demographic change, energy efficiency and urban concentration, as detailed in the Commission's Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (COM(2007)0273); therefore takes the view that the allocation of no more than 0.35% of the EU’s GDP will be infar from sufficient to finance this policy;
Amendment 22 #
2008/2055(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the need to simplify the procedures for the implementation of Structural Funds, especially the management and control systems, including at national and regional level; notes that the complexity of the system is to a certain extent responsible for the poor absorption by the Member States of the available resources; urges the Commission to present without further delay concrete proposals for simplifying relevant procedures which should be implemented immediately;
Amendment 2 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the principle of non- discrimination is one of the cornerstones of the European integration process and is directly linked to the operation of the internal market, with particular reference to the principle of the free movement of persons, services, goods and capital, and whereas it guarantees equal rights and opportunities for all European Union citizens,
Amendment 3 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Ka (new)
Recital Ka (new)
Ka. whereas the deadline for transposing Directive 2004/38/EC, concerning the right of all citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the European Union, was fixed at 2006,
Amendment 4 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Kb (new)
Recital Kb (new)
Kb. whereas students continue to experience difficulties in enjoying free movement or gaining access to higher education in other Member States of the European Union, such as administrative barriers or quota systems (which discriminate against foreign students wishing to register at universities) and whereas the EU can intervene only in the event of discrimination based on nationality,
Amendment 5 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Kc (new)
Recital Kc (new)
Kc. whereas Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community stipulates that the free movement of workers entails the abolition of any discrimination against workers from other Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work, and whereas secondary Community law includes a series of provisions designed to combat this type of discrimination effectively,
Amendment 6 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Kd (new)
Recital Kd (new)
Kd. whereas, although the deadline for its transposition expired in October 2005, only one Member State - Spain - has fully transposed the provisions of Directive 2002/73/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, and whereas the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities is currently drawing up a report on this matter,
Amendment 7 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Ke (new)
Recital Ke (new)
Ke. whereas infringements of Community law on equal treatment for men and women relate essentially to problems which arise as a result of inadequate adaptation to existing legislation and whereas the proceedings initiated by the Commission in 2006 for infringement of Community law and failure to notify national transposition measures concern Directives 86/378/EEC and 96/97/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes, as well as Directive 96/34/EC on parental leave,
Amendment 8 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Kf (new)
Recital Kf (new)
Kf. whereas, because of the lack of harmonisation of direct taxation at European level, the functioning of the common market is affected by distortions caused by the decision of some businesses to establish their headquarters in another Member State and by tax fraud,
Amendment 18 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls onWelcomes the Commission to submit’s adoption on 2 July 2008, as provided for in the annual policy strategy for 2008, aof the proposal for a horizontal directive implementing the principle of equal treatment outside the scope of employment and ensuring equal access to goods, services, housing, education, social protection and social advantages, and takes the view that this would constitutes an important addition to the current anti- discrimination package;
Amendment 19 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Points out that the problem of discrimination should not be seen only in the context of free movement of persons, but also with due regard for other freedoms set out in the Treaty establishing the European Community, namely the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital and that, in this connection, the problem is also of concern to European enterprises;
Amendment 20 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Notes that, on the basis of the most recent case law of the Court of Justice and the petitions submitted to Parliament, it is the problem of inadequate harmonisation of direct taxation which leads to discrimination against European enterprises;
Amendment 2 #
2008/2026(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Urges the Commission to increase efforts in order to make more rapid progress towards the general implementation of principle of gender budgeting as essential means in promoting equality between men and women; welcomes the Commission's willingness to systematically apply gender mainstreaming in the budgetary process, and awaits the study on the feasibility of gender budgeting and asks the Commission to act on the appropriate conclusions in the EU budgetary process;
Amendment 12 #
2008/2026(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Regrets that the communications budget is lacking instruments enabling DG Communication to apply the general gender budgeting approach; stresses the importance and the role of the EU Communication policy in raising awareness about gender issues and calls for appropriate financial means to be found for this kind of action.
Amendment 50 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Among the accompanying transitional measures is also the mandatory collective exercise of the rights of performers and phonogram producers concerning on-demand services by broadcasters of their radio or television productions of which music from lawfully published phonograms is an integral part. This system of collective rights management complements the remuneration regime for the broadcasting of lawfully published phonograms under Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC and guarantees that, throughout the full term of protection of lawfully published phonograms, the relevant performers and phonogram producers receive a fair share of the remuneration also for the on- demand use of broadcast productions.
Amendment 84 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article -1 – point 4
Article -1 – point 4
Directive 2006/116/EC
Article 10a – paragraph 5
Article 10a – paragraph 5
5. Member States may regulate whether and to what extent administration by collecting societies of the right to obtain an annual supplementary remuneration referred to in paragraph 3 may be imposed. With respect to the administration of rights concerning the on-demand services by broadcasters of their radio or television productions incorporating music from lawfully published phonograms, Member States shall ensure that the rights of performers and phonogram producers to grant or refuse authorization for such use may be exercised only through the collecting society which has been established for collecting and distributing the remuneration for broadcasting such phonograms.
Amendment 9 #
2008/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point -1 (new)
Article 1 – point -1 (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003
Recital 17
Recital 17
(-1) Recital 17 shall be replaced by the following: "The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission1. The European Parliament should be fully informed of the measures envisaged, pursuant to point 5 of the Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing Council Decision 1999/468/EC. _________________ 1 OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23."
Amendment 10 #
2008/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point -1 a (new)
Article 1 – point -1 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003
Article 18
Article 18
(-1a) Article 18 shall be replaced by the following: "The following shall be determined in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 44(2): 1. the exact categories of information to be exchanged; 2. the frequency of the exchanges; 3. the practical arrangements for the exchange of information. Each Member State shall determine whether it will take part in the exchange of information in an automatic or structured automatic way."
Amendment 11 #
2008/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point -1 b (new)
Article 1 – point -1 b (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Amendment 12 #
2008/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3 a (new)
Article 1 – point 3 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003
Article 25 – paragraph 3
Article 25 – paragraph 3
(3a) Article 25(3) shall be replaced by the following: "3. The conditions under which access to the corrected information may be granted shall be laid in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 44(2)."
Amendment 13 #
2008/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3 b (new)
Article 1 – point 3 b (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003
Article 27 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 27 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
(3b) Article 27(4)(2) shall be replaced by the following: "For the period provided for in Article 4 of Directive 2002/38/EC Member States shall, in particular, provide such confirmation by electronic means in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 44(2)."
Amendment 14 #
2008/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3 c (new)
Article 1 – point 3 c (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003
Article 29
Article 29
(3c) Article 29 shall be replaced by the following: "1. The information from the non- established taxable person to the Member State of identification when his activities commence set out in the second subparagraph of Article 26c(B)(2) of Directive 77/388/EEC is to be submitted in an electronic manner. The technical details, including a common electronic message, shall be determined in accordance with the regulatory procedure provided for in Article 44(2). 2. The Member State of identification shall transmit this information by electronic means to the competent authorities of the other Member States within 10 days from the end of the month during which the information was received from the non-established taxable person. In the same manner the competent authorities of the other Member States shall be informed of the allocated identification number. The technical details, including a common electronic message, by which this information is to be transmitted, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure regulatory provided for in Article 44(2). 3. The Member State of identification shall without delay inform by electronic means the competent authorities of the other Members States if a non- established taxable person is excluded from the identification register."
Amendment 15 #
2008/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3 d (new)
Article 1 – point 3 d (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003
Article 30
Article 30
Amendment 16 #
2008/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3 e (new)
Article 1 – point 3 e (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003
Article 35 – paragraph 3
Article 35 – paragraph 3
(3e) Article 35(3) shall be replaced by the following: "3. A list of statistical data needed for evaluation of this Regulation shall be determined in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 44(2). The Member States shall communicate these data to the Commission in so far as they are available and the communication is not likely to involve administrative burdens which would be unjustified."
Amendment 17 #
2008/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3 f (new)
Article 1 – point 3 f (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003
Article 37
Article 37
(3f) Article 37 shall be replaced by the following: "Information communicated pursuant to this Regulation shall, as far as possible, be provided by electronic means under arrangements to be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 44(2)."
Amendment 18 #
2008/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3 g (new)
Article 1 – point 3 g (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003
Article 44 – paragraph 3a (new)
Article 44 – paragraph 3a (new)
(3g)The following paragraph shall be added to Article 44: "3a. The European Parliament shall be fully informed of the measures envisaged, pursuant to point 5 of the Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing Council Decision 1999/468/EC."
Amendment 77 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its conviction that energy projects of this kindinvolving EU Member States and third countries should be subjects of common European interest and concern for the whole European Union and its citizens;
Amendment 98 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Council and Commission to conduct a thorough assessment of whether the project's implementation is in keeping with Community and international law;
Amendment 105 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that dozens of months of work in an area of up to 2 400 km², requiring the use of a large number of vessels and other equipment, represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the number of habitats, as well as to the safety and smooth operation of shipping, in the region;
Amendment 118 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises that the construction and operation of the Gas Pipeline on the Baltic seabed willmay threaten many species of fish and birds as well as the existence of a population of porpoises numbering only 600, which are a species unique to this geographical region;
Amendment 122 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Finds that in addition to declaring the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea to be a key component of the Northern Dimension of the EU, the EU must take a common stance on the matter and Community institutions must take specific action with respect to this largest- ever Baltic Sea project;
Amendment 132 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that, given the serious environmental risks and the high cost of the proposed project, alternative gas pipeline routes, which do not disturb the marine environment, should be analysed first, and notes that it is possible to run such routes to the Russian border overland, solely through European Union Member States;
Amendment 141 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to carry out a thorough assessment of the economic, budgetary and transparency-related aspects of the Nord Stream project and the firms involved in it;
Amendment 162 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a.Points out the importance of conducting a transparent communication strategy on steps concerning the results of the environmental impact assessment, and of communicating those results actively to all EU Member States, especially the Baltic littoral states;
Amendment 179 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Council and Commission to use every legal means at their disposal to prevent the construction of the North European gas pipeline on the scale proposed by the investor, should it become apparent that there is a risk of an environmental disaster in the Baltic Sea area;
Amendment 14 #
2007/0278(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 8 - paragraph 2
Article 8 - paragraph 2
2. Actions at local, regional or national level may be co-financed from the general budget of the European Union up to a maximum of 50 % (or in exceptional cases up to 80 %) of the total eligible costs of the actions implemented in accordance with the procedure set out in part II of the Annex.
Amendment 16 #
2007/0278(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Annex - part II - point 1
Annex - part II - point 1
1. Actions at local, regional or national level may qualify for financing from the Community budget up to a maximum of 50% of the total eligible costs per participating country. National co-funding should match the EU funding with at least 50% from public or private sources. With the agreement of the Commission, particular actions at national level with a strong European dimension may receive financing from the Community budget up to a maximum of 80% of the total eligible costs. When selecting actions, National Implementing Bodies will be free to decide whether or not, and at what level, to request co- funding from the organisation responsible for implementing individual actions.
Amendment 24 #
2007/0248(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 – point 3
Article 2 – point 3
Directive 2002/58/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. In case of a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of or access to personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed in connection with the provision of publicly available communications services in the Community, the provider of publicly available electronic communications services shall, without undue delay, notify the subscriber concerned and the national regulatory authority of such a breach. The notification to the subscriber shall at least describe the nature of the breach and recommend measures to mitigate its possible negative effects. The notification to the national regulatory authority shall, in addition, describe the consequences of and the measures taken by the provider to address the breach. Where disclosure of a breach is in the public interest, the national regulatory authority may inform the public.