1282 Amendments of Sajjad KARIM
Amendment 4 #
2018/2107(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
– having regard to the Annual report on human rights and democracy in the world 2017 and the European Union’s policy on the matter adopted on 12th of December 2018;
Amendment 43 #
2018/2107(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the key objectives of the 2012 GSP reform were to better focus on countries in need - the least developed countries (LDCs) and other low and lower-income countries, further promote the core principles of sustainable development and good governance, and enhance stability and predictability and improve certainty for business operators;
Amendment 72 #
2018/2107(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses in this context the importance of a business to business approach; calls for the setting up of sectorial, multi-stakeholder platforms and online facilities, bringing together export companies from GSP beneficiary countries, import companies in the EU and potential new comers on both sides- those who are currently not exporting or not importing, in order to exchange best practices and to raise awareness of the GSP rules, conditions and economic perspectives it offers;
Amendment 100 #
2018/2107(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the need for amaintaining the current targeted approach for the withdrawal of preferences and that such withdrawal could be limited to specific sectors; calls on the Commission to bring forward new proposals on possible graduated withdrawals of trade preferences or other time bound withdrawal measures;
Amendment 107 #
2018/2107(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Encourages GSP beneficiary countries to introduce effective measures aimed at product diversification; underlines in this sense the need to create access to knowledge and technology to diversify products so the exports can sustain themselves in global competition, particularly in Europe;
Amendment 108 #
2018/2107(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Calls on GSP beneficiary countries to put in place and effectively implement legal measures to protect intellectual property;
Amendment 119 #
2018/2107(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Highlights that the GSP has made the corporate sector more dynamic, resulting in women empowerment in general and in an increased number of women in the labour force in the industries of the export countries that trade with the EU in particular; stresses in this sense that is important to create suitable business environment for women to capitalize on these new skills and experiences in order to be able to move up in companies structures or be able to set up their own new enterprises;
Amendment 125 #
2018/2107(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the effect that the GSP has had on private corporations’voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives to adopt cleaner and safer technologies, and the direct positive impact thereof on workers and the environment; takes the view that measures to further encourage this development should be planned;
Amendment 3 #
2018/2003(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the progress made in FLEGT VPAs; calls on the Commission to strengthen their implementation and to address remaining challenges such as corruption, conflict timber, forest degradation, transparency and the security of tenure for communities as a key principle of land governance; adds that the FLEGT Action Plan should also take into consideration new geographical priority areas, both VPA and non-VPA;
Amendment 18 #
2018/2003(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes with concern that commercial export-oriented agriculture remains the largesta driver of global deforestation and that around half of all tropical deforestation since 2000 has been due to the illegal conversion of forests to commercial agriculture;
Amendment 25 #
2018/2003(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the EU has regulated the supply chains of timber, fish and conflict minerals, but not yet of forest-risk agricultural commodities; urges the Commission to develop a legal framework to enforce due diligence obligations in the supply chain of these commoditiencourage greater involvement from the private sector via the FLEGT VPAs space for multi- stakeholder participation, voluntary corporate social responsibility schemes, and due diligence to ensure that EU companies and individuals do not import illegally logged and harvested forestry resources;
Amendment 35 #
2018/2003(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Urges the EU to always includecontinue to include binding and enforceable provisions in its TSD chapters, to halt illegal logging and forest degradation, including throughpromote the sustainability of the environment, and tackle illegal logging and forest degradation; stresses the importance of monitoring these possible use of sanctions; calls on the Commission to add such provisions to already concluded FTAs through the revision clauserovisions in order to start, without delay, the government consultation procedures in case trade partners disrespect these rules, and trigger the special dispute resolution mechanisms as established within the framework of TSD chapters;
Amendment 45 #
2018/2003(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to use the GSP to improve the protection of forests in partner countries, including by setting up a complaint mechanism allowing interested parties to submit complaints; Notes that the GSP Regulation still has limited scope for the protection and accountable management of forestry resources; calls on the Commission to improve the protection of forests in partner countries, by supporting beneficiary countries with the ratification and implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and exercise regular monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of these principles;
Amendment 51 #
2018/2003(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. UrgesCalls on the Commission to includeassess illegal logging within the scope of the anti- corruption chapters in FTAsfight against corruption in EU trade policy;
Amendment 58 #
2018/2003(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the EU to work towardsconsider developing a transparent, and functioning and mandatory ‘social and environmental traceability’ labelling system for the production chain of timber and forest-risk agricultural commodities, in compliance with WTO provisions, and to promote similar action at international level;
Amendment 65 #
2018/2003(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the EU to develop provisions to enforcwork with the private sector to promote social and environmental standards for investors and to prevthat highlight the consequences for the environment of investment activities which directly or indirectly encourage deforestation and illegal logging.
Amendment 37 #
2018/0256M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas Parliament considered it necessary to go and assess the situation at first hand and gain an understanding of the different views of the people; and recalled the conclusions of the fact-finding INTA mission to the territory on September 2nd and 3rd, 2018;
Amendment 74 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) That exception should cover the making of the product, including and of the product which corresponds to the medicinal product protected by a supplementary protectionresulting from such making, which is protected by a certificate in the territory of a Member State, for the exclusive purpose of export of that product or of a medicinal product containing that product to third countries, as well as any upstream or downstream acts by the maker or by third parties in a contractual relationship with the maker, where such acts would otherwise require the consent of the certificate-holder, and are strictly necessary for making for the purpose of export or for the actual export itself. For instance, such acts may include the possession, supply and import of active ingredients for the purpose of making thea medicinal product containing that product to which the product covered by the certificate corresponds, or temporary storage of the product or advertising for the exclusive purpose of export to third country destinations.
Amendment 134 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In order to ensure thatTo prevent circumstances in which holders of supplementary protection certificates already in force are not deprived of their acquired rights, the exception provided for in this Regulation should only apply to certificates that are granted on or after a specified date after entry into force, irrespective of when the application for the certificate was first lodged. The date specified should allow a reasonable time for applicants and other relevant market players to adjust to the changed legal context and to make appropriate investment and manufacturing location decisions in a timely way. The date should also allow sufficient time for public authorities to put in place appropriate arrangements to receive and publish notifications of the intention to make, and should take due account of pending applications for certificates.
Amendment 153 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) This Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Regulation seeks to ensure full respect for the right to property in Article 17 of the Charter by maintaining the core rights of the supplementary protection certificate, by confinlimiting the exception to certificates granted on or after a specified date after entry into force of this Regulation and by imposing certain conditions on the application of the exception,
Amendment 179 #
2018/0161(COD)
(i) making a product, or a medicinal product containing that product for the exclusive purpose of export to third countries; or
Amendment 202 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 469/2009
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the authority referred to in Article 9(1) of the Member State where that making is to take place (‘the relevant Member State’) is notified by the person doing the making (‘the maker’) referred to in point (a) (i) of paragraph 2 of the information listed in paragraph 3 no later than 28 day3 months before the intended start date of making in that Member Stateany related act;
Amendment 212 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 469/2009
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the maker ensures that a logo, in the form set out in Annex -II, is affixed to the outer packaging of the product or, if there is no outer packaging, to its immediate packaging product forms part of a medicinal product, the outer packaging of the medicinal product;
Amendment 255 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 469/2009
Article 4 – paragraph 5
Article 4 – paragraph 5
5. Paragraph 2 shall only apply in the case only of certificates granted on or after [OP: please insert the date of the first day of the third month that follows the month in which this amending Regulation is published in the Official Journal)].;
Amendment 257 #
2018/0161(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EC) No 469/2009
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. The notification sent to an authority as referred to in Article 4(2)(b9 (1) of the relevant Member State shall publish the information listed in points (a) and (c) of Article 4 (3). It shall also publish any changes to that information that are notified in accordance with the first sentence of point (bc) of Article 4 (2). The remaining information notified under Article 4 (3) shall not be published by thate authority within 15 days of receipt of the notification.; , or made available for inspection by the public, but shall be provided by it, upon request, to a court or other competent authority for the purposes of any legal proceedings in which Article 4 (2) is considered.
Amendment 145 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) These developments in the case-law have opened up new opportunities for companies and firms in the Single Market in order to foster economic growth, effective competition and productivity. At the same time, the objective of a Single Market without internal borders for companies must also be reconciled with other objectives of European integration such as social protection (in particular the protection of workers),such as the protection of creditors and the protection of shareholders. Such objectives, in the absence of harmonised rules specifically regarding cross-border conversions, are pursued by Member States through a number of multifarious legal provisions and administrative practices. As a result, whereas companies are already able to merge cross-border, they experience a number of legal and practical difficulties when wishing to perform a cross-border conversion. Moreover, the national legislation of many Member States provides for the procedure of domestic conversions without offering an equivalent procedure for converting cross-border.
Amendment 147 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) This leads to legal fragmentation and legal uncertainty, and thus to barriers to the exercise of the freedom of establishment. It also leads to a suboptimal protection of employees, creditors and minority shareholders within the Single Market.
Amendment 149 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) It is appropriate therefore to provide procedural and substantive rules on cross-border conversions which would contribute to the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment and provide at the same time adequate and proportionate protection for stakeholders, such as employees, while respecting national employment laws, and providing certainty for creditors and minority shareholders.
Amendment 157 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The right to convert an existing company formed in a Member State into a company governed by another Member State may in certain circumstances be used for abusive purposes such as for the circumvention of labour standards, social security payments, tax obligations, creditors', minority shareholders' rights or rules on employees participation. In order to combat such possible abuses, a general principle of Union law, Member States are required to ensure that companies comply with national laws and do not use the cross-border conversion procedure in order to create artificial arrangements aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or ator unduly prejudicinge the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or members. In so far as it constitutes a derogation from a fundamental freedom, the fight against abuses must be interpreted strictly and be based on an individual assessment of all relevant circumstances. A procedural and substantive framework which describes the margin of discretion and allows for the diversity of approach by Member States whilst at the same time setting out the requirements to streamline the actions to be taken by national authorities to fight abuses in conformity with Union law should be laid down.;
Amendment 167 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) To allow all stakeholders' legitimate interests to be taken into account in the procedure governing a cross-border conversion, the company should disclose the draft terms of the cross-border conversion containing the most important information about the proposed cross- border conversion, including the envisaged new company form, the instrument of constitution and the proposed timetable for the conversion. Members, creditors, investors and employees of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion should be notified in ordera timely manner so that they can submit comments with regard to the proposed conversion.
Amendment 178 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 189 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) In order to prevent the circumvention of employee participation rights by means of a cross-border conversion, the company carrying out a conversion which is registered in the Member State which provides for the employee participation rights, should not be able to perform a cross-border conversion without first entering into negotiations with its employees or their representatives when the average number of employees employed by that company is equivalent to four fifths of the national threshold for triggering such employee participation.
Amendment 193 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) The issue of the pre-conversion certificate by the departure Member State should be scrutinised to ensure the legality of the cross-border conversion of the company. The competent authority of the departure Member State should decide on the issue of the pre-conversion certificate within one month of the application by the company, unless it has serious concerns as to the existence of an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or members. In such a case, the competent authority should carry out an in-depth assessment. However, this in-depth assessment should not be carried out systematically, but it should be conducted on a case-by-case basis, should not create disproportionate burdens, and should only be carried out where there are serious concerns as to the existence of an artificial arrangement. For their assessment, competent authorities shouldmay take into account at least a number of factors laid down in this Directive which however should be only considered as indicative factors in the overall assessment and not be considered in isolation. In order not to burden companies with an overly lengthy procedure, this in-depthan assessment should in any event be concluded within two months of informing the company that the in-depth assessment will be carried out.out delay and with minimal administrative burdens;
Amendment 198 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) In order to provide for the appropriate level of transparency and use of digital tools and processes, the decisions of competent authorities in the departure and destination Member States shouldmay be exchanged by means of the system of interconnection of business registers and should be made publically available.
Amendment 213 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) The right of cCompanies to carrying out a cross- border division may in certain circumstances be used for abusive purposes such as for the circumvention of labour standards, social security payments, tax obligations, creditors' or members' rights or rules on employees participation. In order to combat such abuses, as a general principle of Union law, Member States are required to ensure that companies do not use the cross- border division procedure in order to create artificial arrangements aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or members. In so far as it constitutes a derogation from a fundamental freedom, the fight against abuses must be interpreted strictly and must be based on an individual assessment of all relevant circumstances. A procedural and substantive framework which describes the margin of discretion and allows for the diversity of approaches by Member States whilst at the same time setting out the requirements to streamline the actions to be taken by national authorities to fight abuses in conformity with Union law should be laid downshould pay due regard to the principle of subsidiarity and the competences of Member States involved regarding employment, social security and tax laws.
Amendment 216 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
Recital 41
Amendment 218 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) In order to provide information to its members, the company being divided should prepare a summary report. The report should explain and substantiate the legal and economic aspects of the proposed cross- border division, in particular explaining the implications of the cross- border division for members with regard to the future business of the company and the management organs’ strategic plan. It should also include explanations about the exchange ratio, where applicable, the criteria to determine the allocation of shares and potential remedies available to members, where they do not agree with the decision to carry out a cross-border division.
Amendment 224 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) In order to provide information its employees, the company being divided should prepare a summary report explaining the implications of the proposed cross-border division for employees. The report should explain in particular the implications of the proposed cross-border division on the safeguarding of the jobs of the employees, whether there would be any material change in the conditions of employment and the locations of the companies’ places of business, and how each of these factors would relate to any subsidiaries of the company. The provision of the report should be without prejudice to the applicable information and consultation proceedings instituted at national level following the implementation of Directives 2001/23/EC, 2002/14/EC or 2009/38/EC.
Amendment 225 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 45
Recital 45
Amendment 228 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
Amendment 229 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
Recital 47
Amendment 230 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 48
Recital 48
Amendment 244 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) The Commission should carry out an evaluation of this Directive. It should examine its impact on the economy, competitiveness and growth. Pursuant to paragraph 22 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making of 13 April 201652 that evaluation should be based on the five criteria of efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence and value added and should provide the basis for impact assessments of possible further measures. _________________ 52 OJ L123, 12.5. 2016, p. 1.
Amendment 283 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
3. Member States shall ensure that the competent authority of the departure Member State shall not authorise the cross-border conversion where it determines, after an examination of the specific case and having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances, that it constitutes anWith due regard and respect for subsidiarity and Member States competences regarding tax and employment laws, Member States shall aim to prevent artificial arrangements aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members.
Amendment 408 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 g – title
Article 86 g – title
Amendment 413 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 1
Article 86 g – paragraph 1
Amendment 419 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 86 g – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 422 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 86 g – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 424 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 2
Article 86 g – paragraph 2
Amendment 429 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 3
Article 86 g – paragraph 3
Amendment 434 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 86 g – paragraph 3 – point a
Amendment 439 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 86 g – paragraph 3 – point b
Amendment 445 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 4
Article 86 g – paragraph 4
Amendment 448 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 g – paragraph 5
Article 86 g – paragraph 5
Amendment 459 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 h – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 86 h – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) a notice informing the members, creditors and employees of the company carrying out the cross-border conversion that they may submit, before the date of the general meeting, comments concernregarding the documents referred to in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph to the company and to the competent authority designated in accordance with Article 86m(1).
Amendment 466 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 i – paragraph 3
Article 86 i – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that the approval of or any amendment to the draft terms of the cross-border conversion requires a majority of not less than two thirds but not more than 90 % of the votes attached either to the shares or to the subscribed capital represented. In any event the voting threshold shall not be higher than that provided for in national law for the approval of cross-border mergers.
Amendment 467 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 i – paragraph 4
Article 86 i – paragraph 4
4. The general meeting shall also decide whether the cross-border conversion would necessitateon any amendments to the instruments of constitution of the company carrying out the conversion.
Amendment 527 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 n – title
Article 86 n – title
Article 86n In-depth aAssessment
Amendment 533 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 n – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 86 n – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure in order to assess whether the cross-border conversion constitutes an artificial arrangement within the meaning of Article 86c(3), that the competent authority of the departure Member State carries out an in-depth assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances and shallmay take into account at a minimum the following: the characteristics of the establishment in the destination Member State, including the intent, the sector, the investment, the net turnover and profit or loss, number of employees, the composition of the balance sheet, the tax residence, the assets and their location, the habitual place of work of the employees and of specific groups of employees, the place where social contributions are due and the commercial risks assumed by the converted company in the destination Member State and the departure Member State.
Amendment 537 #
2018/0114(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 86 n – paragraph 2
Article 86 n – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that where the competent authority referred to in paragraph 1 decides to carry out an in- depth assessment, it is able to hear the company and all parties that have submitted observations pursuant Article 86h(1)(c) in accordance with national law. The competent authorities referred to in paragraph 1 may also hear any other interested third parties in accordance with national law. The competent authority shall take its final decision regarding the issue of the pre-conversion certificate within two months from the start of the in-depth assessment.
Amendment 259 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 5
Article 9 – paragraph 5
5. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to providers of online intermediation services that are small enterprises within the meaning of Article 2 (2) of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC29 during the first three years or start up phase of their business operations. _________________ 29 Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium- sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5/2003, p. 36).
Amendment 262 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Providers of online intermediation services shallmay identify in their terms and conditions one or more mediators with which they are willing to engage to attempt to reach an agreement with business users on the settlement, out of court, of any disputes between the provider and the business user arising in relation to the provision of the online intermediation services concerned, including complaints that could not be resolved by means of the internal complaint-handling system referred to in Article 9.
Amendment 268 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Providers of online intermediation servicesThe parties involved shall engage in good faith in any attempt to reach an agreement through the voluntary 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 326 #
2018/0112(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. It shall apply from [date: sixtwelve months following the day of its publication].
Amendment 33 #
2018/0095M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the agreement will ensure a high level of investment protection while safeguarding the Parties’ right to regulate and pursue legitimate public policy objectives, such as public health and environmental protection; it will ensure transparency and accountability;
Amendment 44 #
2018/0095M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the transparency rules applying to proceedings before the tribunals, whichcase documents will be publically available and hearings will be held in public; believes that increased transparency will help to instil public trust in the system;
Amendment 50 #
2018/0095M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Underlines that forum shopping will not be possible and that multiple and parallel proceedings will be avoided;
Amendment 76 #
2018/0095M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 83 #
2018/0095M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 9 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the EU and Singapore share the same fundamental values, including democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, cultural and linguistic diversity and a strong commitment to open trade and the multilateral trading system;
Amendment 11 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas this is the first bilateral trade agreement concluded between the EU and an ASEAN member state and an important stepping stone towards a final objective of a region- to-region FTA; whereas the agreement will also serve as a benchmark for the agreements the EU is currently negotiating with the other main ASEAN economies;
Amendment 16 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas Singapore is a high- income economy with a gross national income of USD 52600 per capita as of 2017; whereas its economic growth has been amongst the world's highest, at average of 7,7 percent since independence,
Amendment 18 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas Singapore ranks among the easiest countries in the world to do business with; is one of the world's most competitive economies and is one of the least corrupt worldwide;
Amendment 20 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas manufacturing, particularly in electronics and precision engineering sectors, and services sectors remain the twin pillars of Singapore's high value-added economy;
Amendment 24 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas more than 10 000 European companies have their regional offices in Singapore; whereas around 50 000 EU companies export to Singapore, of which 83 percent are small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs),
Amendment 26 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
H a. whereas EUSFTA is likely to have very positive effect on trade and investment flows between the EU and Singapore, whereas a 2018 study prepared for the European Parliament estimates that, over the first five years, trade volumes between the EU and Singapore would grow by 10%;
Amendment 36 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. NotStresses that negotiations were originally concluded in 2012 and deeply regrets the long delay in bringing forward the agreement for ratification; calls therefore for speedy ratification process and its conclusion in the current parliamentary mandate so that the agreement enters into force as soon as possible;
Amendment 49 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the economic and strategic importance of this agreement as it is a stepping stone for the region to region EU-ASEAN trade deal in the future, as Singapore is a hub for the entire ASEAN region and as this will avoid EU exporters being at a competitive disadvantage in respect of businesses from the other CPTPP and RCEP countries;
Amendment 59 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the agreement will grant EU companies better access to the Singapore services market such as in financial, telecommunications, engineering, architectural services, maritime transport and postal services and that such liberalisation follows a ‘positive list’ approach;
Amendment 91 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that this is a progressive trade agreement and that both Parties committed in the trade and sustainable development (TSD) chapter to ensure a high level of environmental and labour protection; notes that the agreement also includes a chapter on renewable energy generation;
Amendment 106 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. RecallNotes that the EU-Singapore Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) envisages the possibility for the EU to suspend the FTA in case of fundamental human rights violations by Singapore;
Amendment 111 #
2018/0093M(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to trigger the general review clause of the agreement as soon as possible in order to strengthen the enforceability of labour and environmental provisions including through a sanctions-based mechanism as a last resort;
Amendment 18 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
- having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin;
Amendment 22 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)
Citation 4 b (new)
- having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation;
Amendment 25 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 c (new)
Citation 4 c (new)
- having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law;
Amendment 28 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 d (new)
Citation 4 d (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 15 April 2015 on the occasion of International Roma Day – anti-Gypsyism in Europe and EU recognition of the memorial day of the Roma genocide during World War II 14, Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0095;
Amendment 30 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 f (new)
Citation 4 f (new)
- - having regard to the second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II);
Amendment 31 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 g (new)
Citation 4 g (new)
- having regard to the European Parliament Resolution of 1 June 2017 on combating antisemitism;
Amendment 48 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)
Citation 7 b (new)
- having regard to EC code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online,
Amendment 51 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 h (new)
Citation 4 h (new)
- having regard to its resolution on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration, Texts adopted, (2015/2095(INI))
Amendment 53 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 e (new)
Citation 4 e (new)
- having regard to its resolution on fundamental rights aspects in Roma integration in the EU: fighting anti- Gypsyism, Texts adopted, (2017/2038(INI));
Amendment 88 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the aberrant governance practices, including the participation of parties promoting racist and xenophobic ideas, policies and practices in coalition governments, seen in some Member States reflect a selective approach to the benefits and responsibilities of EU membership, and whereas the refusal by those Member States to fully uphold EU law, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and the predictability of State actions is undermining the credibility of the EU as a legal area;
Amendment 115 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the influxarrival of migrants into Europe is continuing; whereas many of these migrants place their lives in the hands of traffickers and criminals; whereas , according to UNHCR data, 27% of the migrants arriving in Europe via the Mediterranean are children; whereas , according to the IOM, 23% of these children stated that they had never been to school;
Amendment 119 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the dangers faced by refugee and migrant children include separation from their families, detention, multiple discrimination especially Afrophobia, anti-Gypsysism, Islamophobia and sexual and gender- based violence, exploitation and physical and psychological damage;
Amendment 135 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks across the EU has fuelled widespread mistrust of Muslim migrants or those perceived as such, and whereas certain political parties are employing the rhetoric of cultural isolationism and hatred of those who are different on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion/belief and sexual orientation/gender identity;
Amendment 150 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the systematic use of states of emergency, including their institutionalisation in ordinary legislation, discriminatory new criminal justice and administrative measures and border controls does very little to deter terrorists, who have all, thus far, been long-term residents of EU Member States;
Amendment 157 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the political measures taken by a number of Member States in response to the ongoing influxarrival of migrants include the reintroduction of internal border controls in the Schengen area, a step which is increasingly seen as permanent rather than just temporary;
Amendment 165 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas hate speech includes all forms of expression which propagate, encourage, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-SemitismAfrophobia, anti-Gypsyism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance; whereas the development of new kinds of media is making it easier to engage in online hate speech;
Amendment 172 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas there is a risk that the increased levels of racial violence and hatred, xenophobia and, Afrophobia, anti- Gypsyism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance whether expressed in the form of hate crimes, anonymous messages spread on social networks, protests or political propaganda, will come to be seen as normal in the Member States;
Amendment 191 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas , as the Council of Europe has stated, the phenomenon of online hate speech requires further analysis and action with a view to regulating and finding new ways of combating rhetoric of this kind such as alternative narrative and fact checking technologies;
Amendment 274 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 330 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes the view that legal channels should be available for migration, including from Africa, but not for all the men and women hoping to come to Europe; takes the view that the best way to protect the rights of persons who cannot legally enter Europe would be to bring about the rapid and robust development of Africain their country of origin, which Europe could promote by stepping up its involvement on the African continentthrough financial, security, democracy, human rights and rule of law assistance;
Amendment 338 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses the imperative need for all persons of Islamic faith and culture, including those who have already been living here for a lto be included on equal terms in European society; stresses that inclusion of this kind will be the best way to tackle all forms of radicalisation and terrorism in Europe; recalls that exclusion and discrimination can create a fertile ground for individuals in vulnerable situationgs time, to be integrated as effectively as possible into European society; stresses that integration of this kind will be the best way to tackle Islamic radicao join extremist organisations that can be violent; considers a consistent application of equality and participation as a crucial element of strategies to prevent radicalisation or to enable deradicalisation of those belonging to extremist organisations; recommends that Member States' counter-terrorism measures are proportionate and that any restriction to the enjoyment of human rights are subject to judicial review and independent oversight; encourages Member States to ensure that such policies do not create 'suspect categories' broadly based on religious affilisation in Europe; s or practices, nor cultivate environments of stereotyping and racial and religious hatred;
Amendment 352 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Recommends that security approaches be complemented by long- term policies to prevent radicalisation and recruitment of citizens of the Union by extremist organisations; calls for strategies on social inclusion, education, employment and housing and policies to tackle discrimination and exclusion in order to stop vulnerable individuals from joining violent extremist organisations as well as educating the general population about other cultures and traditions;
Amendment 359 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the need for measures to be taken as a matter of priority in all the Member States to give immigrants and their children equal access to education, language learning, healthcare, good living conditions and the opportunity to be reunited with their family; calls on the European Commission to monitor the legal frameworks and policies of Member States to ensure that equal treatment is guaranteed to all in order to avoid asymmetric conditions and stresses that access to justice and protection should be ensured to all victims of exploitation and discrimination;
Amendment 442 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes the view that particular attention should be paid to the situation of women and the rights of women in the EU, be they immigrantin particular racial, ethnic and religious minorities, immigrants, LGBTI people, people with physical and mental disabilities, victims of abuse or modern slavery, alone or accompanied by children; points out that the EU and the Member States must set an example in this regard;
Amendment 468 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Expresses concern at the rhetoric of hatred and fear directed at migrants entering Europe and the upsurge in anti- IslamicAfrophobic, anti-Roma, anti-Semitic and, anti-African migrant and Islamophobic rhetoric;
Amendment 485 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that social networks and the anonymity guaranteed by many different media platforms encourage many forms of expression of hatred, from jihadist preaching to anti-Islamincluding far-right and jihadist extremism, to racist speech, and calls for this phenomenon to be curbed through closerimproved monitoring and the identific, investigation and prosecution of the authors of statements or wordshate speech by Member States, in compatible with European culture and lawllaboration with civil society and IT companies;
Amendment 515 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses the importance of maintaining and stepping up efforts in the areas of data protection, safeguards for children, the protection of victims of criminal acts, Roma people,hate crimes and other criminal acts, the protection of racial, ethnic and religious minorities - including people of African descent, Roma people, Muslims, Jews and migrants, in particular women belonging to those groups - violence against women, freedom of religion and belief, public health, the recognition of marital status in the EU, gender equality, the rights of persons with a disability and the rights of elderly persons;
Amendment 554 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 e (new)
Paragraph 18 e (new)
18e. Deplores the fact that anti- Semitism continues to affect Jewish populations all over Europe and that European Jews are consistently subject to physical violence, insults, discrimination, harassment (online and in person), attacks against property, and the desecration of places of worship and cemeteries; notes that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Right`s unique survey on Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of discrimination, hate crime and anti- Semitism reveals that “in the 12 months prior to the survey, almost half of the respondents (46 %) worry about being verbally insulted or harassed in a public place because they are Jewish, and one third (33%) worry about being physically attacked in the country where they live because they are Jewish;
Amendment 561 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 f (new)
Paragraph 18 f (new)
18f. Concerned by the second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) Muslims – Selected findings which show that Muslims face widespread discrimination; in particular by the high levels of discrimination and exclusion of visibly Muslim women in areas such as employment, education as well as good and services, key social inclusion areas, which tend to be increasingly embedded in legislation and practices, as supported by findings from the Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Network against Racism;
Amendment 565 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 g (new)
Paragraph 18 g (new)
18g. Concerned by the findings of research by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency in EU MIDIS II and the European Network Against Racism which show that people of African descent are particularly victims of discrimination and racism especially in criminal justice, employment, housing, education, health, access to goods, services and information in Member States;
Amendment 570 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 h (new)
Paragraph 18 h (new)
18h. Expresses its concern at the lack of reporting of hate crimes by victims due to inadequate safeguards and failure of authorities to properly investigate and bring convictions for hate crimes in Member States;
Amendment 573 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 i (new)
Paragraph 18 i (new)
18i. Expresses its concern that several Member States have not correctly transposed the provisions of Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA; calls for infringement procedures against those Member States that fail to transpose them;
Amendment 574 #
2017/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 j (new)
Paragraph 18 j (new)
18j. Calls for the adoption of the proposed 2008 Equal Treatment Directive which is still pending for approval by the Council; considers it a condition to secure a consolidated and coherent EU law framework against discrimination, also protecting from discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, disability, age and sexual orientation outside of employment;
Amendment 576 #
2017/2125(INI)
18k. Calls on the European Commission to lead by example in promoting the rights of minorities by amending its own diversity and inclusion strategy to include specific measures on race, ethnicity and religion/belief on the diversification of the EU workplace;
Amendment 34 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas trade policies should aim to reduce socio-economic gaps between the Global North and the Global South in terms of development and wealth, and between women and generate economic growth and wealth creation and contribute to women empowermen,t and realispromote women’s rights by ensuring decent work conditions for women and contributing to sustainable and equitable economic development;
Amendment 58 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the expansion of global trade, and integration of developing countries into global value chains in particular, has allowed many women workers to move from informal economy to the formal sector;
Amendment 63 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas these new trade related employment opportunities for women in developing countries contributed significantly to the household income and poverty reduction;
Amendment 110 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) and GSP+ systems aim to ensure the ratification and implementare designed to help developing countries assume responsibilities resulting from the ratification of international conventions ofn human and labour rights c, environvmentions in developing countries;al protection and good governance as well as from the effective implementation thereof
Amendment 118 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas private sector, civil society, particularly women’s rights organisations and trade unions, has the knowledge and potential to strengthen women’s economic empowerment;
Amendment 131 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas special attention must be given to thepotential negative consequences of trade liberalisation as regards basic public services and goods, such as water and sanitation, education and healthcare;
Amendment 150 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that fair and inclusive international trade policies require a clearer framework aiming to enhance women’s livelihoods, strengthen gender equality, protect the environment, and promote social justiceprogress and international solidarity;
Amendment 172 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the urgent need to adopt gender-sensitive binding human rights regulations on an international level to regulate transnational companies (TNCs) and other companies; wWelcomes the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights;
Amendment 228 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for bindingeffective measures to combat exploitation and improve working conditions for women in the export- oriented industries, in particular the garment and textile manufacturing and agriculture sectors where trade liberalisation has contributedresulted in some cases to precarious labour rights and gender wage gaps;
Amendment 254 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Insists that binding instruments are needed in EU trade policy to ensure that decent work standards, women’s rights, human rights principles and environmental protection are at the core of all types of EU trade agreements and that EU trade policy is coherent with the Union’s overarching aims of sustainable development, poverty reduction and gender equality;
Amendment 258 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls on the Commission to reinforce corporate social responsibility and due diligence mechanisms in free trade agreements with a focus on upholding human rights and their social, labour, gender and environmental aspects;
Amendment 261 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Stresses the importance of implementation, enforcement or transposition of already existing legislation at regional, national and international levels;
Amendment 263 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 278 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that trading commitments in EU agreements should never overrulego hand in hand with human rights, women’s rights or environmental concerns;
Amendment 294 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for the EU and the Member States to ensure that binding clauses on labour rights, based on the ILO Conventions, including Conventions No 189 on Domestic Workers and No 156 on Workers with Family Responsibilities, are included in trade agreements, and that social clauses in trade agreements also apply to informal work;
Amendment 310 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 318 #
2017/2015(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Emphasises the need to enhance codes of conduct, labels and fair-trade schemes, and of ensuring alignment with international standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises;
Amendment 2 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
Citation 13 a (new)
– having regard to the decision of the President of the European Commission of 14 November 2017 on the establishment of a Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and "Doing Less More Efficiently",
Amendment 10 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas subsidiarity and proportionality are relevantessential considerations in the context of retrospective evaluations, which assess whether EU actions are actually delivering the expected results in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, relevance and EU added value;
Amendment 13 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas in 2014, three national chambers (the Danish Folketing, the Dutch Tweede Kamer and the UK House of Lords) issued reports with detailed proposals on how the role of national parliaments could be strengthened in the decision making process;
Amendment 14 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses the importance of the European Union only acting where it can add value in order to reduce the "democratic deficit";
Amendment 15 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Calls on the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and "Doing Less More Efficiently", when evaluating international regulatory cooperation, to fully evaluate the European Union's relative competitiveness;
Amendment 17 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that subsidiarity and proportionality are fundamental principles that the EU institutions should take into consideration when exercising EU competences in order to ensure that the EU adds value; recalls that these principles are aimed at enhancing the functioning of the Union by ensuring that actions are always taken at the most appropriate level of government; draws attention to the fact that these principles can be distorted to serve Eurosceptic ends and emphasises that the EU institutions should be vigilant in order to avoid and counteract this risk;
Amendment 21 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. NotWelcomes the initiative announced by the President of the Commission Jean- Claude Junker during his State of the Union Address 2017 to create a Task Force dedicated to Subsidiarity and Proportionality and headed by Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans, which will include Members of the European Parliament and of national parliaments; invites the Commission to provide Parliament with more complete information about the proposed organisation and competences of this Task Force;
Amendment 22 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Strongly supports the objectives of that Task Force, in particular, how to better apply the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the work of the Union's institutions, notably regarding the preparation and implementation of Union legislation and policies and the identification of policy areas where decision making and implementation could be redelegated in whole or in part and definitively returned to Member States;
Amendment 23 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the Task Force to take into account recommendations put forward in previously adopted European Parliament reports, including proposals for impact assessments on subsidiarity and proportionality at the end of the legislative process to assess whether these principles have been sufficiently complied with, an evaluation of the number of national parliament responses required to trigger a "yellow card" or "orange card" procedure and the requests of some national parliaments to extend the eight week period in which they can issue a reasoned opinion under Article 6 of Protocol No 2;
Amendment 24 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. NoteRegrets the Commission’s methodology in the 2015 and 2016 Annual reports, within which statistics are used to classify reasoned opinions submitted by national parliaments on a package of proposals as one single reasoned opinion, rather than a reasoned opinion on each of the individual proposals;
Amendment 28 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the adoption by the Commission in May 2015 of a new Better Regulation package to ensure, inter alia, that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are applied in a more integrated andrespected in a comprehensive manner; considers that the new Better Regulation framework should be a tool for the European Union to deliver legislationact in full compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; stresses, notwithstanding the above, that, while it should provide for detailed tests of compliance with these principles so that the European Union only acts where it adds value, it should not give rise to unnecessary delays in the adoption of the relevant legislation;
Amendment 39 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. PraiseSupports the Commission’s commitment to ‘evaluate first’ before considering potential legislative changes; considers, in this respect, that the European Union and the authorities of the Member States should work closely together to ensure better monitoring, measurement and evaluation of the actual impact of EU regulation on the economy, social structurecitizens and environment in the Member States;
Amendment 40 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Underlines that impact assessments are a tool designed to assist the thorough evaluation of several different policy options before putting forward a proposal to the co-legislators; highlights, therefore, the importance of stakeholder consultation at the earliest possible stage in the legislative process to ensure that a thorough analysis of the impact of each policy option has been carried out; notes, furthermore, the importance of providing more detailed explanatory memoranda to support policy choices; highlights that in instances when thorough impact assessments have not been carried out by the Commission, the proposals have, in several cases, later been withdrawn or substantially amended;
Amendment 42 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Invites national parliaments to clearly indicate from the outset that their submission is a reasoned opinion under Protocol (No 2) to the Treaties and the legislative proposal(s) it refers to, to clearly state the reasons for which it considers that the proposal breaches the subsidiarity principle, to include a brief summary of the argumentation, and to respect the eight- week time limit from the date of transmission of the relevant draft legislative act; notes that this will facilitate a timely and adequate treatment of reasoned opinions by all the institutions involv, as far as possible; notes that in some circumstances the eight-week deadline cannot be respected by national parliaments and that this should not lead to opinions not being considered;
Amendment 46 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is of the opinion that, since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the involvement of national parliaments in EU affairs has developed significantly, including through their linking up with other national parliaments; encourages national parliaments to continue and further reinforce inter-parliamentary contacts, also on bilateral basis, as a means of enhancing cooperation between Member States, and to do so with a European vision and in a European spirit, based on the rule of law and fundamental rightsbased on considering where the EU can add value; underlines that these contacts can facilitate an exchange of best practices concerning the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 50 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Draws attention to the fact that in 2016 14 chambers of 11 national parliaments submitted reasoned opinions on the proposal for a Directive amending Directive 96/71/EC of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services3 , thus reaching the threshold of one third of the votes required by Article 7(2) of Protocol (No 2) to the Treaties to trigger the so-called ‘yellow card’ procedure; recalls that the arguments put forward by the national parliaments were widely debated in Parliament with the Commission; notes that the Commission engaged with national parliaments within the framework of COSAC; noteregrets that the Commission issued a communication in which it gave extensive reasons for maintaininged the proposal4 ; considers that, with the reasons set out therein, the Commission fully complied with its obligation to give reasons for its decisionnonetheless, despite the concerns raised by national parliaments; _________________ 3 COM(2016)0128. 4 Communication of 20.7.2016 from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the National Parliaments on the proposal for a Directive amending the Posting of Workers Directive, with regard to the principle of subsidiarity, in accordance with Protocol No 2 (COM(2016)0505).
Amendment 52 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 54 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that the ‘yellow card’ procedure has been triggered twice in the past (once in 2012 and once in 2013), which, together with this new ‘yellow card’ procedure, proves that the system functions and that national parliaments can easily and in a timely fashionnational parliaments are keen to participate in the subsidiarity debate when they wish to do sos;
Amendment 55 #
2017/2010(INI)
14. Recalls that, according to Article 7 of Protocol (No 2) to the Treaties, the European institutions should take account of the reasoned opinions issued by national parliaments or by a chamber of a national parliament; observes that the Commission has put in place procedures to ensure that it provides national parliaments with substantive and political responses in a timely manner; calls on the Commission to systematically forward its replies to reasoned opinions to the European Parliament so that these can be considered;
Amendment 56 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Takes note of the changes proposed by some national parliaments to the subsidiarity control mechanism; welcomes the conclusion reached by COSAC that any improvement to the subsidiarity control mechanism should not entail Treaty change; notes that an extension of the eight-week time limit in which national parliaments can issue a reasoned opinion would require an amendment of the Treaties or the Protocols thereto; notes that exclusions in addition to the month of August for the calculation of the eight- week period would unnecessarily slow down the legislative process and the adoption of important legislation;
Amendment 67 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls the possibilities of obtainStresses the importance of promoting access to the impact assessments and roadmaps prepared by the Commission, of participating in public and/or stakeholder consultations organised by the Commission and/or the European Parliament, and of making suggestions through the REFIT platform ‘Lighten the load: Suggestions’;
Amendment 70 #
2017/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes, in relation to the above, that in 2015 20 parliamentary chambers co- signed or supported the first ‘green card’ initiative on food waste, and that in July 2016 nine parliamentary chambers co- signed the second ‘green card’ inviting the Commission to submit a legislative proposal implementing corporate social responsibility principles at European level; observes that some of the suggestions in the first ‘green card’ initiative were subsequently reflected in the revised Circular Economy package adopted by the Commission in December 2015; observes, therefore, that national parliaments already play a constructive role in the institutional framework and that there is no need, at this point in time, to create new institutional and administrative structures, which would make the whole process unnecessarily complicated;
Amendment 9 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas three-dimensional (3D) printing became accessible to the general public when 3D printers for individuals were placed on the market; whereas that market should, however, remain marginal in the medium term, taking into account the cost of printers and materials, the limited capacity of 3D printers designed for individual use, and the limited number and nature of materials made available to consumers;
Amendment 56 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 103 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that to anticipate problems relating to accident liability or intellectual property infringement, the EU will have to adopt new legislation or tailor existing laws to the specific case of 3D technology after having carried out a thorough impact assessment evaluating all policy options; stresses that, in any case, the legislative response should avoid duplicating existing rules and should take into account projects that are already under way; adds that innovation needs to be accompanied by law, without the law acting as a brake or a constraintstresses the importance of developing future-proof legislation;
Amendment 115 #
2017/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that solutions of a legal nature could make it feasible to control the legal reproduction of 3D objects protected by copyright, for example, digital and 3D-printing providers could systematically display a notice on the need to respect intellectual property, a legal limit could be introduced on the number of private copies of 3D objects in order to prevent illegal reproduction, and a tax on 3D printing could be levied to compensate intellectual property rights holders for damages suffered as a result of private copies being made in 3Dlegislative and non- legislative policy options should be assessed regarding the reproduction of 3D objects protected by copyright;
Amendment 39 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Sound prudential supervision should ensure that investment firms are managed in an orderly way and in the best interests of their clients. They should take into account the potential for investment firms and their clients to engage in excessive risk-taking and the different degrees of risk assumed and posed by investment firms. Equally, such prudential supervision should aim to avoid unduvoid disproportionate administrative burdens on investment firms.
Amendment 50 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) To safeguard compliance with the obligations laid down in this Directive and [Regulation (EU) ---/----[IFR], Member States should provide for administrative penalties and other administrative measures which are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In order to ensure that administrative penalties have a dissuasive effect they should be published except in certain well-defined and justified circumstances. To enable clients and investors to make an informed decision about their investment options, those clients and investors should have access to information on administrative penalties and measures imposed on investment firms.
Amendment 59 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) competent authorities make every effort to complyensure compliance with the guidelines and recommendations issued by EBA pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council38 and to respond to the warnings and recommendations issued by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council39 ; _________________ 38 Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12). 39 Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 1).
Amendment 61 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall update, by means of implementing acts, the amount of initial capital referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Article to take account of developments in the economic and monetary field. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
Amendment 65 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 8
Article 11 – paragraph 8
8. EBA shall submit the draft technical standards referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7 to the Commission by [nineten months from the date of entry into force of this Directive].
Amendment 69 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4
Article 13 – paragraph 4
4. Competent authorities may exchange confidential information for the purposes of paragraph 2, may expressly state how that information is to be treated and may expressly restrict any further transmission of that information.
Amendment 72 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) in case of a legal persons, administrative pecuniary penalties of up to 10% of the total annual net turnover, including the gross income consisting of interest receivable and similar income, income from shares and other variable or fixed-yield securities, and commissions or fees of the undertaking in the preceding business year;
Amendment 74 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
(e) in the case of a legal persons, administrative pecuniary penalties of up to twice the amount of the profits gained or losses avoided due to the breach where those profits or losses can be determined;
Amendment 79 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall ensure that investment firms subject to this Section implement the requirements of this Section in their subsidiaries that are financial institutions as defined in Article 4(13) of [Regulation (EU) ---/----[IFR], including those established in third countries, unless the parent undertaking in the Union can demonstrates to the competent authorities that the application of this Section is unlawful under the laws of the third country where those subsidiaries are established.
Amendment 90 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 2
Article 28 – paragraph 2
Amendment 92 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 3
Article 28 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that investment firms apply the principles referred to in paragraph 1 in a manner that is proportionate and appropriate to their size and, internal organisation and to the nature, the scope and complexity of their activities.
Amendment 95 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) where variable remuneration would be inconsistent with the maintenance of a sound capital base of an investment firm and its timely exit from extraordinary public financial support, variable remuneration of all staff shall be limirestricted to a portion of net revenue;
Amendment 100 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that any variable remuneration awarded and paid by an investment firm complies with all of the following requirementsis proportionate and appropriate in relation to the nature, size and complexity of their activities :
Amendment 103 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point k
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point k
Amendment 105 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 30 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) an investment firm, the asset value of which is on average equal to or less than EUR 100 m5 billion over the four-year period immediately preceding the given financial year;
Amendment 106 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 30 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) an individualemployee or staff member whose annual variable remuneration does not exceed EUR 50 000 and does not represent more than one fourth of this individual's total annual remuneration.eir total annual remuneration. For the purposes of this provision, and in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, Member States may modify the applicable thresholds in accordance with the national market, the specificities of national remuneration practices and the responsibilities and role of the relevant staff member or employee;
Amendment 112 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 3
Article 32 – paragraph 3
3. EBA, in consultation with ESMA, shall issupropose guidelines on the application of sound remuneration policies. Those guidelines shall take into account at least the requirements referred to in Articles 28 to 31 and principles on sound remuneration policies set out in Commission Recommendation 2009/384/EC43 . _________________ 43 Commission Recommendation 2009/384/EC of 30 April 2009 on remuneration policies in the financial services sector (OJ L 120, 15.5.2009, p. 22).
Amendment 113 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 4
Article 32 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that investment firms provide competent authorities, where requested, with information on the number of natural persons per investment firm that are remunerated EUR 1 million or more per financial year, in pay brackets of EUR 1 million, including information on their job responsibilities, the business area involved and the main elements of salary, bonus, long-term award and pension contribution. Competent authorities shall forward that information to EBA, which shall publish it on an aggregate home Member State basis in a common reporting format. EBA, in consultation with ESMA, may elaborate guidelines to facilitate the implementation of this paragraph and to ensure the consistency of the information collected.
Amendment 115 #
2017/0358(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point g
Article 36 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point g
(g) to require investment firms to limiset variable remuneration as a percentage of net revenues where that remuneration is inconsistent with the maintenance of a sound capital base;
Amendment 23 #
2016/2140(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Supports the Commission’'s examination of a possible EU-wide initiative on the garment sector-voluntary initiatives and strict codes of conduct shall be its key principles ; notes, in addition, that the current multiplication of existing initiatives at local regional and global levels could result in an unpredictable environment for companies; stresses furthermore that coordination, sharing information and exchange of best practices may contribute to increasing efficiency of private and public value chain initiatives and achieve positive results on sustainable development;
Amendment 25 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas economic development should go hand-in-hand with social justiceprogress; whereas the complexity and fragmentation of global value chains (GVCs) underline the need for complementary policies and flanking measures to avoid, address and mitigate their potential adverse impacts and to ensure victims of human rights violations have an effective access to remedy;
Amendment 33 #
2016/2140(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the need for a unified approach to the collection of data on social, environmental and labour performance and for standardised methodology for measuring the impact of garment value chains on sustainable development in particular, to be applied along the whole supply chain; points out that the industry- driven Higg Index covers all key impact areas;
Amendment 35 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. highlights the important role of garment sector as a driver of labour- intensive development for emerging economies, especially Asia's emerging markets;
Amendment 36 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
C b. whereas strong performance of garment exports, especially in China, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Cambodia is set to continue;
Amendment 39 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas most human labour-rights violations in the garment sector are labour-rights related and include the denial of workers fundamental right to join or form a union of their choosing and bargain collectively in good faith; whereas this has led to widespreaseveral tragic events and labour rights violations ranging from poverty wages, wage theft, unsafe workplaces, and sexual harassment, to precarious work;
Amendment 47 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas a number of promising initiatives led by the private sector, such as codes of conduct, labels, self-assessments and social audits, have not proven to be at all effectivecontributed positively to improving supply chain standards over the last 20 years in terms of increasing workers’ rights in the garment supply chain;
Amendment 63 #
2016/2140(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the gender aspect to be taken into account in the EU garment initiative. and for specific measures on women's empowerment in particular; points out that global garment industry labour force is highly feminised - about 85% of workers employed in this sector are women who often face difficult working conditions and low salaries;
Amendment 65 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas women’s rights are a constitutive part of human rights; whereas gender equality falls within the scope of the chapters of trade agreements on sustainable development; whereas the specific impact of trade and investment agreements affects women and men differently owing to structural gender inequalities, and whereas sustainable and inclusive development, growth and trade agreements must includeshould respect human rights, including from a gender perspective;
Amendment 70 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas an estimated 60-70 % of employees in the ready-made garment sector are young, mostly low-skilled female workers; many are just children, whereas low wages, coupled with low if any social protection make these women particularly vulnerable to exploitation; whereas a gender perspective and specific measures on women's empowerment is largely missing in the ongoing sustainability initiatives;
Amendment 74 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas employment of women in the garment sector in developing countries contributes significantly to the household income and poverty reduction;
Amendment 77 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the garment sector is the sector which has the most sustainability initiatives in progress; whereas few existing initiatives reach the scale needed to make a significant impact;
Amendment 93 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for the Commission to be committed to promoting binding and non- negotiable human rights and social and environmental clauses in the negotiation of international agreements; regrets that current human rights clauses in free trade agreements and other economic partnership agreements are usually not respected;
Amendment 99 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. AcknowledgWelcomes the increasing attention given to promoting good working conditions through global supply chains following the Rana Plaza factory collapse, the introduction of the draft French law on mandatory due diligence, the UK anti- slavery bill, and the statement made by President Juncker at the G7 Summit in favour of ‘urgent action’ to improve responsibility in global supply chains; acknowledges the Commission’s commitment towards responsible management of supply chains, including in the garment sector, as outlined in the Communication entitled ‘Trade for All’; welcomes the green card initiative in which eight Member States have called for a duty of care by EU-based companies towards individuals and communities whose human rights and local environment are affected by the companies’ activities;
Amendment 106 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposals on bindingoosting industry capacity to implement due diligence obligations for supply chains in the garment sector aligned with OECD guidelines and internationally agreed standards on human rights and social and environmental standards; this proposal should focus on the core problems garment workers face (occupational health and safety, a living wage, child labor, freedom of association, sexual harassment and violence) and should address the following matters: key criteria for sustainable production, transparency and traceability, including collection of data and tools for consumer information, due diligence checks and auditing, access to remedy; gender equality, supply-chain due diligence reporting; awareness raising; notes, however, with concern that a lot more needs to be done and urges the Commission to take further actions which have a direct impact on workers’ lives;
Amendment 117 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 123 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls on the Commission to reinforce corporate social responsibility initiatives and due diligence across the production chain with a focus on upholding human rights and their social, labour and environmental aspects;
Amendment 132 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Stresses the importance of implementation, enforcement or transposition of already existing legislation at regional, national and international levels;
Amendment 133 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Points out that coordination, sharing information and exchange of best practices may contribute to increasing efficiency of private and public value chain initiatives and achieve positive results on sustainable development;
Amendment 136 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the Commission to deliver on its objective to foster improvements in the ready-made garment sector, including through a strong gender focus; calls on the Commission to make gender equalitywomen empowerment a central focus of its flagship legislative initiative;
Amendment 147 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises the need to enhance codes of conduct, labels and fair trade schemes, and of ensuring alignment with international standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the upcoming OECD due diligence guidance for the garment and footwear sector;
Amendment 162 #
2016/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that it is crucial to ensure increased access to information on the conduct of enterprises; considers it fundamental to introduce a mandatoryn effective reporting system and due diligence for EU companies that outsource their production to third countries; believes that responsibility should extend throughout the entire supply chain, including sub- contractors in the formal and informal economy, and commends existing efforts to this effect; believes, however, that the EU is best placed to develop a common framework through legislation on mandatory transnational due diligence and supply chain transparency and traceability;
Amendment 6 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital T a (new)
Recital T a (new)
Ta. whereas the Annual Burden Survey offers a unique opportunity to identify and monitor the results of EU efforts to avoid overregulation and reduce administrative burdens; believes in this regard that the Annual Burden Survey provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the added value of EU legislation and to provide transparency to our citizens;
Amendment 21 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the Commission should, when presenting its Work Programme, in addition to the elements referred to in paragraph 8 of the new IIA, indicate evidence as to how the envisaged legislation is justifiable in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and specify its European added value;
Amendment 23 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that the Commission should urgently fulfil its commitment to reducing regulatory burdens in specific key sectors and propose sectors where specific policy areas could be returned to Member States;
Amendment 25 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to present more inclusive, more detailed and more reliable Work Programmfocused, evidence-based Work Programmes with both legislative and non-legislative measures; requests, in particular, that the Commission Work Programmes clearly indicate the legal nature of each proposal with accurate and realistic timeframes; calls on the Commission to ensure that forthcoming legislative proposals – especially key legislative packages – arrive well before the end of this legislative term, namely early in 2018, thereby giving the co- legislators enough time to exercise their prerogatives in full;
Amendment 28 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the fact that the Commission replied to Parliament’s requests for proposals for Union acts under Article 225 TFEU, for the most part within the three-month deadline referred to in paragraph 10 of the new IIA; points out, however, that the Commission failed to adopt specific communications as foreseen in that provision; calls on the Commission to adopt such communications with a view to ensuring full transparency and providing a political response to requests made by Parliament in its resolutions, and with due regard for Parliament’s relevant European Added Value and Cost of Non- Europe analyses;
Amendment 37 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Welcomes the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process; recalls that the Commission, in the Small Business Act, made a commitment to implementing the ‘think small first’ principle in its policymaking, and that this includes the SME test to assess the impact of forthcoming legislation and administrative initiatives on SMEs27 ; recalls that in its decision of 9 March 2016 on the new IIA Parliament stated that the wording of the new IIA does not sufficiently commit the three Institutions to include SME and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments28 ; underlines that, throughout the legislative procedure and in all assessments of the impact of proposed legislation, particular attention must be paid to the potential impacts on competitiveness and those who have least opportunity to present their concerns to decision takers, including SMEs and others who do not have the advantage of easy access to the Institutions; stresses the importance of taking into account and paying attention to the needs of SMEs at all stages of the legislative cycle and expresses satisfaction that the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines prescribe that potential impacts on SMEs and competitiveness should be considered and reported systematically in all impact assessments; encourages the Commission to consider how the impact on SMEs can be better taken into account even better, including in connection with the European added value of a proposal, and intends to followmonitor this issue closely in the years to come; _________________ 27 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014 on the revision of the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines and the role of the SME test (OJ C 289, 9.8.2016, p. 53), paragraph 16. 28 See Parliament’s resolution of 9 March 2016 on the conclusion of an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0081), paragraph 4.
Amendment 46 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the inclusion of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the scope of impact assessments; stresses, in this regard, that impact assessments should always encompass a thorough and rigorous analysis of the compliance of a proposal with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and specify its European added valuethat they should also be carried out once legislation has been substantially amended;
Amendment 51 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Expresses disappointment at the fact that many Commission proposals, including politically sensitive proposals, were not accompanied by impact assessments, in spite of the commitment made by the Commission in paragraph 13 of the new IIA; points out that experience from committees so far suggests that the quality and level of detail of impact assessments varies from the comprehensive to the rather superficial; points out that in the first phase of application of the new IIA, 20 of the 59 Commission proposals included in the 2017 joint declaration were not accompanied by impact assessments, which can lead to long delays in the legislative process due to unforeseen elements which were not considered by the Commission; recalls in this regard that, while it is in any case foreseen that initiatives which are expected to have a significant social, competitiveness, economic or environmental impact should be accompanied by an impact assessment, the initiatives included in the Commission Work Programme or in the joint declaration should, as a general rule,lways be accompanied by an thorough, evidence-based impact assessment;
Amendment 55 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to further clarify how it intends to assess the cost of non-Europe – inter alia the costs for producers, consumers, workers, administrations and the environment of not having harmonised legislation at European leveladopting Single Market legislation in specific sectors and where divergent national rules may cause extra costs for businesses and consumers and render policies less effective - (as referred to in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the new IIA); points out that such an assessment should not only be conducted in the event of sunset clauses, towards the end of a programme, or when a repeal is envisaged, but should also be considered in cases where action or legislation at EU level is not yet in place or under review;
Amendment 56 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that replacing the former Impact Assessment Board with the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board is a welcome first step to achieving an independent board; reiterates that the independence, transparency and objectiveness of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and its work must be safeguarded and that the members of the Board should not be subjected to political control29 ; stresses the importance of ensuring that all of the Board’s opinions, including negative ones, are made public and accessible at the same time as the relevant impact assessments are published; believes that the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board must show more ambition; calls for an evaluation and follow-up of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in fulfilling its role of supervising and providing objective advice on impact assessments; _________________ 29 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014, cited above, paragraph 12; Parliament decision of 9 March 2016, cited above, paragraph 6.
Amendment 60 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out that Parliament’s Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, established within its administration, assists parliamentary committees and offers them a variety of services, for which sufficient resources must be available so as to ensure that Members and committees receive the best possible support available; notes with appreciation the fact that the Conferenceconsiders that these services should include subsidiarity and proportionality impact assessments and competitiveness tests; underlines that impact assessments should be made available in circumstances when political groups representing at least 40% of the number of members of Ca committee Chairs adopted anrequest an impact assessment and that such impact assessments are a valuable tool in negotiations; supports the updated version of the ‘Impact Assessment Handbook -– Guidelines for Committees’ on 12 September 2017;
Amendment 62 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls for the Impact Assessment Handbook, and if necessary its Rules of Procedure, to provide that an impact assessment on substantive amendments can be requested by a committee where it is supported by political groups representing at least 40% of the number of members of that committee; firmly believes that impact assessments on Parliament’s amendments will help to reinforce its position without replacing the political decision-making process;
Amendment 64 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls that under paragraph 14 of the new IIA, upon considering Commission legislative proposals, Parliament will take full account of the Commission’s impact assessments; recalls in this context that parliamentary committees may invite the Commission to present its impact assessment and the policy option chosen at a full committee meeting and invites its committees to avail themselves of this opportunity more regularly, and of the possibility to see a presentation of the initial appraisal of the Commission’s impact assessment by Parliament’s own services;
Amendment 67 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the possibility that the Commission complements its own impact assessments during the legislative process; considers that paragraph 16 of the new IIA should be interpreted to the effect that, when requested by Parliament or the Council, the Commission should as a rule promptly provide such complementary impact assessments, including on subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 69 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Regrets that the IIA failed to recognise the importance and relevance of the innovation principle in all policy sectors; calls on the Commission to assess the impact of legislation on innovation;
Amendment 84 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Welcomes the commitments made by the Commission as regards the scope of the explanatory memorandum accompanying each of its proposals; expresses particular satisfaction at the fact that the Commission will also explain how the measures proposed are justified in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; underlines in this regard the importance of a strengthened and comprehensive assessment and justification regarding compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 87 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 102 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment, should broader expertise be needed for the early preparation of draft implementing acts, to regularly make use of expert groups, consult targeted stakeholders and carry out public consultations, as appropriate; considers that, whenever any such consultation process is initiated, Parliament should be duly informed;
Amendment 119 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Underlines the importance of the principle set out in paragraph 43 of the new IIA, that when the Member States, in the context of transposing directives into national law, choose to add elements that are in no way related to that Union legislation, such additions should be made identifiable either through the transposing act(s) or through associated documents; notes that this information is often still lacking; calls on the Commission and the Member States to act jointly and consistently to tackle the lack of transparency and other problems related toto reduce ‘gold-plating’36 ; _________________ 36 See Parliament’s resolution of 21 November 2012 on the 28th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2010) (OJ C 419, 16.12.2015, p. 73), paragraph 7.
Amendment 120 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47a. Urges the Commission to be more ambitious in establishing the agreed Annual Burden Survey without delay, as it can play a key role in the implementation and application of EU legislation, in particular the scrutiny of Member States’ transposition of directives, and of all national measures that go beyond the provisions of EU legislation (‘gold-plating’) whilst bearing in mind that Member States are free to apply higher standards if only minimum standards are defined by Union law;
Amendment 130 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Welcomes the Commission’s first annual burden survey undertaken in the context of simplification of EU legislation, for which it carried out a Flash Eurobarometer survey on business perceptions of regulation, interviewing over 10 000 businesses across the 28 Member States, mainly SMEs and reflecting the distribution of business in the EU; stresses the importance of the annual burden survey in identifying problems with the implementation and application of EU legislation; draws attention to the findings of the survey, which confirm that the focus on cutting unnecessary costs remains appropriate and suggest that there is a complex interplay of different factors that influence the perception of businesses, which may also be caused by variations in national administrative and legal set ups concerning the implementation of legislation; points out that gold plating and even inaccurate media coverage can also affect such perception; agrees with the Commission that the only way to identify concretely what can actually be simplified, streamlined or eliminated is to seek views from all stakeholders on specific pieces of legislation or various pieces of legislation that apply to a particular sector; calls on the Commission to refine the annual burden survey, on the basis of the lessons learnt from the first edition, to apply transparent and verifiable data collection methods, to pay particular regard to SMEs’ needs, and to include both actual and perceived burdens;
Amendment 137 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Takes note, furthermore, of the outcome of the Commission’s assessment of the feasibility, without detriment to the purpose of legislation, of establishing objectives to reduce burdens in specific sectors; encourages the Commission to set burden reduction objectives for each initiative in a flexible but evidence-based and reliable manner, and to suggest policy areas which may be returned to Member States, in full consultation with stakeholders, as it does already under REFIT;
Amendment 139 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54a. Reminds the Commission of its commitment in the IIA to burden reduction and calls for the Commission as a matter of urgency to come forward with proposals establishing targets for the reduction of burdens in key sectors as soon as possible, while continuing to ensure high standards of consumer, employee, health and environmental protection;
Amendment 381 #
2016/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Calls on Member States to refrain from inciting fear and hatred in their citizens towards migrants and asylum- seekers for political gains, therefore, calls on Member States to put an end to their strongly biased xenophobic communication strategies (such as anti- refugee billboard campaigns);
Amendment 32 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The development of digital technologies and internet has transformed the distribution of and access to television and radio programmes. Users increasingly expect to have access to television and radio programmes both live and on- demand, using traditional channels such as satellite or cable and also through online services. Broadcasting organisations are therefore increasingly offering, in addition to their own broadcasts of television and radio programmes, online services ancillary to their broadcast, such as simulcasting and catch-up services. Retransmission services operators, which aggregate broadcasts of television and radio programmes into packages and provide them to users simultaneously to the initial transmission of the broadcast, unaltered and unabridged, use various techniques of retransmission such as cable, satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based or mobile networks as well as the open internet. On the part of users, there is a growing demand for access to broadcasts of television and radio programmes not only originating in their Member State but also in other Member States of the Union, including from members of linguistic minorities of the Union as well as from persons who live in another Member State than their Member State of origin.
Amendment 36 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) A number of barriers hinder the provision of online services which are ancillary to broadcasts and the provision of retransmission services and thereby the free circulation of television and radio programmes within the Union. Broadcasting organisations transmit daily many hours of news, cultural, political, documentary or entertainment programmes. These programmes incorporate a variety of content such as audiovisual, musical, literary or graphic works, which is protected by copyright and/or related rights under Union law. That results in a complex process to clear rights from a multitude of right holders and for different categories of works and other protected subject matter. Often the rights need to be cleared in a short time-frame, in particular when preparing programmes such as news or current affairs. In order to make their online services available across borders, broadcasting organisations need to have the reacquired rights to works and other protected subject matter for all the relevant territories which further increases the complexity of the rights' clearance.
Amendment 42 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Operators of retransmission services, that normally offer multiple programmes which use a multitude of works and other protected subject matter included in the retransmitted television and radio programmes, have a very short time- frame for obtaining the necessary licences and hence also face a significant rights clearing burden. There is also a risk for right holders of havthe possibility, due to freedom of contract, to obtaing their works and other protected subject matter exploited without authorisation or payment of remuneration necessary licences.
Amendment 50 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Operators of retransmission services, that normally offer multiple programmes which use a multitude of works and other protected subject matter included in the retransmitted television and radio programmes, have a very short time- frame for obtaining the necessary licences and hencemay also face a significant rights clearing burden. There is also a risk for right holders of having their works and other protected subject matter exploited without authorisation or payment of remuneration.
Amendment 86 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 100 #
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 use objective criteria and take into account all aspects of the ancillary online service such as the features of the service, the actual 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.
Amendment 105 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Through the principle of contractual freedom it will be possible to continue limiting the exploitation of the rights affected by the principle of country of origin laid down in this Regulation, especially as far as certain technical means of transmission or certain language versions are concerned, provided that any such limitations of the exploitation of those rights are in compliance with Union law.
Amendment 127 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Operators of retransmission services offered on satellite, digital terrestrial, or 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 transmission 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 the mechanism 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 environment is limited when compared for example to cable or closed circuit IP-based networks.
Amendment 139 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to provide legal certainty to operators of retransmission services offered on satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based, mobile or similar networks, and to overcome disparities in national law regarding such retransmission services, rules similar to those that apply to cable retransmission as defined in Directive 93/83/EEC should apply. The rules established in that Directive include the obligation to exercise the right to grant or refuse authorisation to an operator of a retransmission service through a collective management organisation. This is without prejudice to Directive 2014/26/EU18 and in particular to its provisions concerning rights of right holders with regard to the choice of a collective management organisation. _________________ 18 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. 72–98.
Amendment 155 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14a (new)
Recital 14a (new)
(14 a) In order to address any legal uncertainty in relation to liability with regard to direct injections, Member States may opt to provide further evidence-based clarifications, if appropriate.
Amendment 158 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 169 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) This Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Whilst there may be an interference with the exercise of the rights of right holders insofar as mandatoryithout prejudice to freedom of contract, collective management is requiredmay take place for the exercise of the right of communication to the public with regard to retransmission services, it is necessary to prescribe such a condition in a targeted manner for specific services and in order to allow more widespread cross-border dissemination of television and radio programmes by facilitating the clearance of these rights.
Amendment 195 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 210 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) "retransmission" means any simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged retransmission, other than cable retransmission as defined in Directive 93/83/EEC and other than retransmission provided over a mobile network or an internet access service as defined in Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council19 , intended for reception by the public of an initial transmission from another Member State, by wire or over the air, including that by satellite but excluding online transmission, of television or radio programmes intended for the reception by the public, provided that such retransmission is made by a party other than the broadcasting organisation which made the initial transmission or under whose control and responsibility such transmission was made. _________________ 19 Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union, OJ L 310, 26.11.2015, p. 1.
Amendment 239 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Amendment 254 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Amendment 276 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
(1) Holders of copyright and related rights other than broadcasting organisations may choose to exercise their rights to grant or refuse the authorisation for a retransmission only through either a collective management organisation or by other appropriate means in accordance with freedom of contract.
Amendment 282 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 288 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
(3) Where more than one collective management organisation manages rights of that category for the territory of that Member State, the right holder shall be free to choose, which of those collective management organisations is deemed to bere applicable mandated to manage his or her right. If in such a situation the right holder does not choose the collec without prejudice to alternative marranagement organisation, it shall be for the Member State for whose territory the operator of the retransmission service seeks to clear rights for a retransmission to indicates under freedom of contract, which of those collective management organisations is deemed to be mandated to manage the right of that right holderto manage his or her right.
Amendment 289 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Amendment 293 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Amendment 323 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Amendment 331 #
2016/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
(2) It shall apply from [618 months following the day of its publication, to be inserted by OPOCE].
Amendment 84 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way works and other subject-matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited. NInnovative new business models and new actors continue to emerge in the Digital Single Market. The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright framework remain sound. However, legal uncertainty remains, for both rightholders and users, as regards certain uses, including cross-border uses, of works and other subject-matter in the digital environment. As set out in the Communication of the Commission entitled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework’26 , in some areas it is necessary to adapt and supplement the current Union copyright framework. This Directive provides for rules to adapt certain exceptions and limitations to digital and cross-border environments, as well as measures to facilitate certain licensing practices as regards the dissemination of out-of- commerce works and the online availability of audiovisual works on video- on-demand platforms with a view to ensuring wider access to content. In order to achieve a well-functioning marketplace for copyright, there should also be rules ona recognition of the rights inof publications,shers, proportionate measures on the use of works and other subject-matter by active online service providers storing and giving access tolatforms which make available to the public user uploaded content and on the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts. _________________ 26 COM(2015) 626 final. COM(2015) 626 final.
Amendment 92 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, innovation, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature of exceptions and limitations provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross- border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for innovation, scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment and for preservation of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Therefore, existing well-functioning exceptions in these fields may continue to be available in Member States, as long as they do not restrict the scope of the exceptions or limitations provided for in this Directive. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
Amendment 114 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) New technologies enable the automated computational analysis of information in digital form, such as text, sounds, images or data, generally known as text and data mining. Those technologies allow researchers tothe processing of large amounts of information for research purposes to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. Whilst text and data mining technologies are prevalent across the digital economy, there is widespread acknowledgment that text and data mining can in particular benefit the research community and in so doing encourage innovation and competitiveness. However, in the Union, when research organisations such as universitiesis carried out by educational establishments and organisations such as universities, the public sector, cultural heritage institutions, and research institutes are confronted with, there is legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of content. In certain instances, text and data mining may involve acts protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right, notably the reproduction of works or other subject-matter and/or the extraction of contents from a database. Where there is no exception or limitation which applies, an authorisation to undertake such acts would be required from rightholders. Text and data mining may also be carried out in relation to mere facts or data which are not protected by copyright and in such instances no authorisation would be required.
Amendment 126 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Union law already provides certain exceptions and limitations covering uses for scientific research purposes which may apply to acts of text and data mining. However, those exceptions and limitations are optional and not fully adapted to the use of technologies in scientific research. Moreover, where researchers have lawful access to content, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences, the terms of the licences may exclude text and data mining. As research is increasingly carried out with the assistance of digital technology, there is a risk that the Union's competitive position as a research area will suffer unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data mining in Union law, while ensuring that text and data mining exceptions in Member States should be able to continue to be provided.
Amendment 145 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction and also to the right to prevent extraction from a database for research purposes. The new exception should be without prejudice to the existing mandatory exception on temporary acts of reproduction laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which should continue to apply to text and data mining techniques which do not involve the making of copies going beyond the scope of that exception. Research organisations shouldMember States should be able to determine that researchers can also benefit from the exception when they engage into public- private partnerships.
Amendment 157 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Research oOrganisations across the Union encompass a wide variety of entities, which carry out research, include the public sector and cultural heritage institutions, the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to do so together with the provision of educational services. Due to the diversity of such entities, it is important to have a common understanding of the beneficiaries of the exception. Despite different legal forms and structures, research organisations across Member States generally have in common that they act either on a not for profit basis or in the context of a public-interest mission recognised by the State. Such a public- interest mission may, for example, be reflected through public funding or through provisions in national laws or public contracts. At the same time, organisations upon which commercial undertakings have a decisive influence allowing them to exercise control because of structural situations such as their quality of shareholders or members, which may result in preferential access to the results of the research, should not be considered research organisations for the purposes of this Directive.
Amendment 175 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC allows Member States to introduce an exception or limitation to the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public for the sole purpose of, among others, illustration for teaching. In addition, Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(b) of Directive 96/9/EC permit the use of a database and the extraction or re-utilization of a substantial part of its contents for the purpose of illustration for teaching. The scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distance. Moreover, the existing framework does not provide for a cross-border effect. This situation may hamper the development of digitally- supported teaching activities and distance learning. Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessary to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using works or other subject-matter in digital teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 188 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) While distance learning, e- 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 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 191 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digital uses of works and other subject-matter such as the use of parts or extracts of works to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including the related learning activities to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved. The use of the works or other subject-matter under the exception or limitation should be only in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. Member States should be able to provide for limits regarding the amount of work which could be copied in their national law, as long as these achieve a fair balance between the interests of users and rightsholders. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means in the classroom and online uses, e- learning and through the educational establishment's secure electronic network, the access to which should be protected, notably by authentication procedures. The exception or limitation should be understood as covering the specific accessibility needs of persons with a disability in the context of illustration for teaching.
Amendment 288 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) An Open Internet and a free and pluralist press isare essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. ItThe press provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. I by investing in content. However, 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 inefficientrecouping their investments and negotiating with online service providers.
Amendment 297 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The organisational and financial contributioninvestment of 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 uses.
Amendment 322 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection does not extend to acts ofinclude hyperlinking which does not constitute communication to the public.
Amendment 323 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 344 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 355 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Publishers, including those of press publications, books or scientific publications, often operate on the basis of the transfer of authors' rights by means of contractual agreements or statutory provisions. In this context, publishers make an investment with a view to the exploitation of the works contained in their publications and may in some instances be deprived of revenues where such works are used under exceptions or limitations such as the ones for private copying and reprography. In a number of Member States compensation for uses under those exceptions is shared between authors and publishers. In order to take account of this situation and improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, Member States should be allowed to determine that, when an author has transferred or licensed his rights to a publisher or otherwise contributes with his works to a publication and there are systems in place to compensate for the harm caused by an exception or limitation, publishers are entitled to claim a share of such compensation, whereas the burden on the publisher to substantiate his claim should not exceed what is required under the system in place.
Amendment 368 #
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. OActive online services providing access to copyright protected digital content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to copyright protected 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 it.
Amendment 399 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers stoare and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matterctively involved in the making available, promoting and curating copyright protected digital content uploaded by their users, to the public, 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 rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 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, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).
Amendment 411 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider has playsed an active role with knowledge of the copyright protected digital content in question, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.
Amendment 423 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts ofactively making available to the public copyright protected digital content, works or other subject- matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/ECtheir value and size to ensure protection of that digital content, in accordance with technological developments.
Amendment 447 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts ofactively making available to the public copyright protected digital content, works or other subject- matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreement.
Amendment 465 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) When implementing transparency obligations, the specificities of different content sectors and of the rights of the authors and performers in each sector should be considered in line with the nature of their contribution to the overall outcome of the work or performance. Member States should consult all relevant stakeholders as that should help determine sector-specific requirements, if these are not already applicable or enforced in the Member State. Collective bargaining should be considered as an option to reach an agreement between the relevant stakeholders regarding transparency. To enable the adaptation of current reporting practices to the transparency obligations, a transitional period should be provided for. The transparency obligations do not need to apply to agreements concluded with collective management organisations as those are already subject to transparency obligations under Directive 2014/26/EU, or where agreements have already been made on the basis of collective bargaining agreements or equivalent arrangements in Member States.
Amendment 474 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) Certain contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long duration, offering few possibilities for authors and performers to renegotiate them with their contractual counterparts or their successors in title. Therefore, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, there should be a remuneration adjustment mechanism which would be applicable for cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevantsubsequent and unanticipated revenues and the benet profits derived from the exploitation of the work or the fixation of the performance, including in light of the transparency ensured by this Directive. The assessment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each case as well as of the specificities and practices of the different content sectors. Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer shouldmay be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority. However, where agreements with collective management organisations are applicable or where agreements with individuals are already in place and enforced, the remuneration mechanism should not apply.
Amendment 483 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) Authors and performers are often reluctant to enforce their rights against their contractual partners before a court or tribunal. Member States should therefore provide for an efficient alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism.
Amendment 494 #
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, 2001/29/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 499 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
‘research organisation’ means aeducational establishment' means a school, college, university, a research institute or any other organisation with the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to conduct scientific research and provideing educational services:.
Amendment 503 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) on a non-for-profit basis or by reinvesting all the profits in its scientific researcheducational activities; or
Amendment 507 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 515 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(3) ‘cultural heritage institution’ means a publicly accessible library, gallery or museum, an archive or a film or audio heritage institution or public broadcaster;
Amendment 533 #
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 Article 2 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 researchnon- commercial research purposes. Member States may continue to provide text and data mining exceptions in accordance with Article 5 (3) (a) of Directive 2001/29/EC.
Amendment 558 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall encourage rightholders and research organisationeducational establishments to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3.
Amendment 582 #
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 teachingeducational purposes, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 644 #
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, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections or use the facilities of third parties to do so, 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 688 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) Member States shall, in consultation with rightsholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, evaluate the effectiveness of such licensing solutions.
Amendment 697 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 754 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/ECthe legal capacity to sue in their own name when defending the rights of authors for the digital use of their press publications.
Amendment 818 #
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-matter uploaded by their usersare actively involved in making available digital content uploaded by their users, including by promoting and curating to the public copyright protected work and with knowledge of the copyright protected content in question, shall, in cooperation with rightsholders, tak in the creative sectors, take effective measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their digital content, works or other subject- matter or to prevent the availability on their services of digital content, works or other subject- matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with thactive service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The active service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the digital content, works andor other subject- matter.
Amendment 921 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. Paragraph 1 shall not be applicable to entitieagreements subject to the transparency obligations established by Directive 2014/26/EU or to agreements with collective management organisations or agreements with individual authors or performers, which are based on collective bargaining or equivalent provisions.
Amendment 938 #
2016/0280(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure thatmay provide for authors and performers are entitled to request additional, appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances. Factors determining disproportionate remuneration shall include the nature, significance and contribution to the work of the author or performer.
Amendment 28 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) This Directive should therefore provide for mandatory exceptions to the rights that are harmonised by Union law and are relevant for the uses and works covered by the Marrakesh Treaty. These include in particular the rights of reproduction, communication to the public, making available, distribution and lending, as provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 2006/115/EC, and Directive 2009/24/EC, as well as the corresponding rights in Directive 96/9/EC. As the scope of exceptions and limitations required by the Marrakesh Treaty also includes works in audio form, like audiobooks, it is necessary that these exceptions also apply to related rights. The exercise of the exceptions provided for by this Directive should be without prejudice to other exceptions provided for by Member States;
Amendment 36 #
2016/0278(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In view of the specific nature of the exception, its targeted scope and the need for legal certainty for its beneficiaries, Member States should not be allowed to impose additional requirements for the application of the exception, such as compensation schemesonly where these are consistent with the objectives of the Directive and justified in light of the three-step test. Otherwise, such additional requirements would run the risk of going against the purpose orf the prior verification of the commercial availabilityexceptions provided for by this Directive, and counter to the objective of facilitating the cross- border exchange of accessible format copies. within the Single Market;
Amendment 38 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) In order to empower viewers, including parents and minors, in making informed decisions about the content to be watched, it is necessary that audiovisual media service providers provide sufficient information about content that may impair minors' physical, mental or moral development. This could be done, for instance, through a system of content descriptors indicating the nature of the content. Content descriptors could be delivered through written, graphical or acoustic means and, where possible, service providers should seek to use locally available systems of rating of descriptors which should ensure protection is in accordance with local standards.
Amendment 65 #
2016/0151(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Providers of on-demand audiovisual media services shouldare encouraged to promote the production and distribution of European works by ensuring that their catalogues contain a minimum share of European works and that those are given enough prominencehigh quality European works.
Amendment 76 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The public should be able to scrutinise all the activities of a group when the group has certain establishments within the Union. For groups which carry out activities within the Union only through subsidiary undertakings or branches, subsidiaries and branches should publish and make accessible the report of the ultimate parent undertaking to the extent that the requested information is available to the subsidiary or branch. If the subsidiary or branch does not have all the requested information it should request its ultimate parent undertaking to provide it with all the information required to enable it to meet its obligation. If the information is not provided, the subsidiary or branch should publish and make accessible a report on itself and the undertakings and branches it controls containing all information in its possession, obtained or acquired, and identify whether information on the ultimate parent undertaking is provided. However for reasons of proportionality and effectiveness, the obligation to publish and make accessible the report should be limited to medium-sized or large subsidiaries established in the Union, or branches of a comparable size opened in a Member State. The scope of Directive 2013/34/EU should therefore be extended accordingly to branches opened in a Member State by an undertaking which is established outside the Union.
Amendment 97 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In order to strengthen responsibility vis-áà-vis third parties and to ensure appropriate governance, the members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies of the ultimate parent undertaking or non-affiliated undertaking which isare established within the Union and which hasve the obligation to draw up, publish and make accessible the report on income tax information, should be collectively responsible for ensuring the compliance with these reporting obligations. Given that members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies of the subsidiaries which are established within the Union and which are controlled by an ultimate parent undertaking established outside the Union or the person(s) in charge of carrying out the disclosures formalities for the branch may have limited knowledge of the content of the report on income taxability to obtain such information prepared byfrom their ultimate parent undertaking or non-affiliated undertaking, their responsibility to publish and make accessible the report on income tax information should be limited.
Amendment 100 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) To ensure that cases of non- compliance are disclosed to the public, Member States may use a statutory auditor(s) or audit firm(s) shouldto check whether the report on income tax information has been submitted and presented in accordance with the requirements of this Directive and made accessible on the relevant undertaking’'s website or on the website of an affiliated undertaking.
Amendment 119 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall require ultimate parent undertakings governed by their national laws and having a consolidated net turnover exceeding EUR 750 000 000 (or equivalent in domestic currency), as well as undertakings governed by their national laws that are not affiliated undertakings and having a net turnover exceeding EUR 750 000 000 to draw up and publish a report on income tax information on an annual basis.
Amendment 138 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member Sstates shall require the medium- sized and large subsidiary undertakings referred to in Article 3(3) and (4) whichthat are governed by their national laws and controlled by an ultimate parent undertaking which has a consolidated net turnover exceeding EUR 750 000 000 (or equivalent in domestic currency), and which is not governed by the law of a Member State, to publish thea report on income tax information of that ultimate parent undertaking on an annual basis. as regards the next financial year, to the extent the information is available to the subsidiary undertaking. When the information is not available, the subsidiary undertaking shall request its ultimate parent undertaking not governed by the law of a Member State to provide it with all the information required to enable it to meet its obligation. If despite that the information is not provided, the subsidiary shall publish a report on itself and the undertakings and branches it controls. The report shall identify whether income tax information on the ultimate parent undertaking is provided.
Amendment 146 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall require branches which are opened in their territories by an undertaking which is not governed by the law of a Member State to publish on an annual basis thea report on income tax information of the ultimate parent undertaking or the non-affiliated undertaking referred to in point (a) of paragraph 5 of this Article. as regards the next financial year, if the information is available to the person(s) designated to carry out the disclosure formalities referred to in Article 48e(2). When the information is not available, such person(s) shall request the ultimate parent undertaking not governed by the law of a Member State or the non-affiliated undertaking referred to in point (a) of paragraph 5 of this Article to provide all information required to meet their obligations. If despite that the information is not provided, the report shall contain information on the undertaking that has the branch and the undertakings and branches it controls. The report shall identify whether income tax information on the ultimate parent undertaking or the non-affiliated undertaking is provided.
Amendment 159 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 5 – point a
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the undertaking which opened the branch is either an affiliated undertaking of a group which is controlled by an ultimate parent undertaking not governed by the law of a Member State and which has a consolidated net turnover exceeding EUR 750 000 000 or an undertaking that is not an affiliated and which has a net turnover exceeding EUR 750 000 000 (or equivalent in domestic currency);
Amendment 163 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 6
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 b – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall not apply the rules set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article where a report on income tax information is drawn up in accordance manner that is consistent with Article 48c and: a. is made accessible: (i) to the public on the website of the ultimate parent undertaking or the non- affiliated undertaking not governed by the law of a Member State within a reasonable period of time, which shall not exceed, or an affiliated undertaking of the group controlled by the ultimate parent undertaking; (ii) in at least one of the official languages of the Union; (iii) within 12 months after the balance sheet date and where the report identifiesof the financial year for which the report is drawn up; and b. the name and registered office of the single subsidiary undertaking or the name and the address of the single branch governed by the law of a Member State which has published the report in accordance with Article 48d(1)made accessible the report is identified and named.
Amendment 236 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 d – paragraph 1
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 d – paragraph 1
Amendment 246 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 f – paragraph 1
Chapter 10 a – Article 48 f – paragraph 1
Amendment 272 #
2016/0107(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [Publications Office - set the date = onetwo years after entry into force] at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
Amendment 5 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 17 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls the Commission's new commitment to reviewing the body of EU regulation on an annual basis with regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and eagerly awaits the results; Notes, furthermore, the importance of ensuring appropriate division of competences between EU and national level and for dialogue with national parliament to be stepped up when subsidiarity concerns have been expressed;
Amendment 18 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Notes the importance of monitoring the impact on competitiveness, economic growth and job creation when assessing the application of EU law;
Amendment 21 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that Parliament shcould play a more structured role in the analysis of how accession countries and countries with association agreements with the European Union comply with EU law;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the Commission’s 32nd ‘Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of EU Law’, and notes that environment, transport, and Sinternalgle market and services were the policy areas in 2013 in which most infringement cases remained open in 2014; Stresses the importance of strengthening the effectiveness and implementation of Single Market and services legislation due to its huge potential to deliver jobs, growth and competitiveness to the EU economy;
Amendment 36 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes and reiterates thatNotes the increase in the number of new EU Pilot files during the period under examination, and the decrease in the number of open infringement cases, showwhich may demonstrate that enforcement of EU law is neitherot sufficiently transparent nor subject to any real control by the complainants and the interested parties, and regrets that, despite its repeated requests, Parliament still has inadequate access to information about the EU Pilot procedure and pending cases;
Amendment 41 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that, in its resolution of 15 January 2013, Parliament called for the adoption of an EU regulation on a European law of administrative procedure under Article 298 TFEU, but that, despite the fact that the resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority (572 in favour, 16 against, 12 abstentions), Parliament’s request was not followed up by a Commission proposal; Stresses in this regard, the importance of a thorough impact assessment before any legislative proposal is presented;
Amendment 44 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 46 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Underlines the importance of regular monitoring of the application of implementation of EU law to evaluate problems, unintended consequences and elements which could be reformed, updated or removed, in line with Better Regulation principles; In this regard, calls on the Commission to report to the committee on the state of play of implementation and application of legislation relevant to the Legal Affairs committee on an annual basis, which would provide a necessary forum to enhance dialogue and address specific concerns;
Amendment 48 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls, in this context, that the Committee on Legal Affairs has set up a new Working Group on Administrative Law which has decided to elaborate an actual draft regulation on the administrative procedure of the Union’s administration as a ‘source of inspiration’ for the Commission, not in order to question the Commission’s right of initiative, but to show that such a regulation would be both useful and feasible to enactas a ‘source of inspiration’ for the Commission;
Amendment 51 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that the intent of this draft regulation is not to replace existing EU legislation, but rather to consider supplementing this when there are gaps, and to bring more clarity and coherence to the interpretation of existing rules, for the benefit of citizens and businesses and of the administration and its officials; Notes, in this regard the crucial role of carrying out thorough impact assessments to help evaluate all possible policy choices before pursuing one option;
Amendment 53 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 61 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to make compliance with EU law a real political priority, to be pursued and evaluated in close collaboration with Parliament, which has a duty (a) to keep the Commission politically accountable and (b), as co- legislator, to make sure that it is itself fully informed, with a view to constantly improving its legislative work; Calls on the Commission to publish concerns raised by Member States during the implementation process so that they can be fully addressed; Urges the Commission to fully evaluate problems encountered by Member States with regard to compliance with EU law to better understand any possible unintended consequences of EU law or problems encountered as a result of unrealistic implementation deadlines due to 'fast track' procedures;
Amendment 62 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Recognises that the primary responsibility for the correct application of EU law lies with Member States and therefore notes the importance of enhancing transposition to avoid 'gold plating', while fully respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the prerogatives of Member States in this regard;
Amendment 63 #
2015/2326(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Notes the role that the introduction of sunset clauses may play in monitoring the application of EU law;
Amendment 9 #
2015/2258(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls onSuggests that the Commission to make a comprehensive review ofreviews appropriate and relevant EU legislation in order to ensure that it fullyvaluate whether it complies with the CRPD;
Amendment 20 #
2015/2258(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned about the difficulties that persons with disabilities still face in accessing justice; calls on the Member States to take action in order to provide full procedural accommodation for such persons; considers that the Commission should consider including specific training programmes on the CRPD in the 2014- 2020 EU Justice Programme; suggesttresses that EU courts should apply their internal rules and instructions in a way thatthe organisation of national courts remains the responsibility of Member States; However, encourages Member States to facilitates access to justice for persons with disabilities;
Amendment 24 #
2015/2258(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that any legislative change in the field of copyright and related rights should guaranteprovide people with disabilities access to works and services protected by those rights in any format; recalls onthat the Commission is due to submit legislative proposals on exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights in order to ensure that people with different disabilities have access to works and services protected by those rights;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2258(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recognises the multiple ways in which the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults canmay functionally assist in implementing and supporting the international obligations of the parties to the CRPD; regrets, in this connection, the Commission’s failure to follow up Parliament’s resolution of 18 December 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on cross-border implications of the legal protection of adults;
Amendment 20 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
(1a) Underlines the importance of the creative sector to the economy and its contribution to growth and employment; recalls that the copyright intensive activities account for a significant part in the economy;
Amendment 57 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) Underlines that any modification of the current legal framework on copyright should be considered in a targeted way and with a focus on economic growth, competitiveness and enhanced consumer experience;
Amendment 58 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
(2b) Points out that the creative sector has specificities and different challenges, notably arising from the different types of content and creative works and from the business models used; therefore calls on the Commission to better identify these specificities and take them into account when proposing modifications and solutions;
Amendment 59 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
(2c) Calls on the Commission to make sure that any reform of the copyright directive is evidence based and carefully assessed; considers that it should take into account the results of the ex-post impact assessment of the Directive of 2001, and be based on solid evidence including an assessment of the possible impact of the modifying elements; takes the view that a proper economic analysis including the impact with regards to jobs and growth must be carried out;
Amendment 60 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
(2d) Takes the view that any modification of the audiovisual media services directive should take into account new ways of access to audiovisual content and should be consistent with the current reform of legislation relating to copyright;
Amendment 61 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
(2e) Underlines the importance of ensuring accessibility of the Digital Single Market for people with disabilities; in this regard, notes the conclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty, which will facilitate access for the visually impaired to books, and encourages swift ratification thereof;
Amendment 62 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
(2f) Maintains that the approach of copyright exceptions and limitations should be balanced, targeted and format neutral and should not undermine the interests of right holders;
Amendment 64 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)
Paragraph 2 g (new)
(2g) Emphasises that any European-wide exception for text and data mining should be limited to accredited academic and public-funded research and should not undermine revenue streams or be extended to commercially owned data;
Amendment 65 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 h (new)
Paragraph 2 h (new)
(2h) Points out that the rapid rate of technological development in the digital market calls for a technologically neutral framework for copyright;
Amendment 66 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 i (new)
Paragraph 2 i (new)
(2i) Notes the importance of transparency of copyright levies in those Member States which choose to apply them;
Amendment 87 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) Strongly believes that creators should be granted appropriate remuneration and that copyright should keep its primary function of allowing creators to gain rewards for their efforts through others making use of their work, and therefore to encourage future creativity;
Amendment 104 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that internet service providers should bear greater responsibility for illegal content made available on the internet and shouldconsideration should be given as to how internet service providers and online intermediaries, along with other actors in the supply chain, such as payment providers, could play a significant role ingreater role in facilitating action against illegal content and tackling copyright abuses on a commercial scale;
Amendment 113 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
(3a) Stresses that the growth of online platforms has been driven by consumer demand; notes, however, the importance of taking action against piracy;
Amendment 114 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
(3b) Recognises the clarity that intermediary liability has enabled in terms of the growth of online platforms and warns that the creation of new legal uncertainty in this area could have a negative impact on economic growth;
Amendment 165 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the Commission’s aim to withdraw the proposal on a Common European Sales Law and the intention to propose rules for digital content; notes the proposal to introduce the ‘home’ option’ in order to br with targeted harmonisation as mechanism for bringing down barriers to cross- border trade; but insists on the need for comprehensivethorough evidence and consultation with stakeholders before this approach is pursued, in particular as regardson the impact it would have on the current protection provided to consumers under national law, especially in terms of remedies for failure to comply with the terms of contracts for online sales.with regard to remedies for non-conformity with the contract for online sales; believes that rules on Consumer Rights for Digital Content need to be principles based in order to be technologically neutral and future proof, focused on remedies to concrete problems which have been clearly identified, limited to paid for content only, realistic regarding quality expectations, and fully recognise the differences between digital content and traditionally acquired content; stresses furthermore with regard to future Commission proposals in this area, the importance of avoiding inconsistently and overlap with existing legislation;
Amendment 172 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
(5a) Stresses the need to improve the processes for businesses to establish and operate online across all Member States which should be streamlined and digitalised and calls on the Commission to consider this further in its forthcoming Internal Market strategy;
Amendment 173 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
(5b) Calls for support for small businesses and for the single market to be fit for purpose in a digital age; In this regard, stresses concern about Vatmoss rules, which are hampering small online entrepreneurs by obliging them to collect and process VAT payments, even if they conduct a small volume overseas trade; welcomes in this regard recent suggestions from the Commission on the introduction of minimum thresholds but believes that an interim solution is also urgently required;
Amendment 186 #
2015/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
(5c) Considers that the amended proposal by the Commission should also clarify how the existing rules apply in a digital environment when selling online cross- border, including the application of the Services Directive to address unfair online price discrimination based on nationality or location;
Amendment 70 #
2015/2116(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Highlights that the most discriminated religious groups in the area of employment include Jews, Sikhs and Muslims (and especially women) according to studies; recommends the adoption of European frameworks for national strategies to combat anti- Semitism and Islamophobia;
Amendment 163 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 179 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 189 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 193 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. BelievRecognises that the Rules of Procedure should be amended with regard to Members’ declarations of financial interests to task the Advisory CParliament’s Advisory Committee on the Code of Conduct has functioned well since its established in 2012; considers that the implementation of such a committee, and the supportive administration with factual checks in samples and to empower them to ask for proof where necessarys a body to make recommendations to the President of Parliament, has the improved transparency and consistency of the decision making process as regards Members outside interests;
Amendment 204 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Believes that Article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Members should be rephrased to include a clear ban on MembersReiterates that Members should declare if they are holding side jobs or other paid work that could lead to a conflict of interest;
Amendment 219 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 242 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 48 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Since the sinternalgle market comprises an area without internal frontiers relying, inter alia, on the free movement of services and persons, it is necessary to provide that consumers can use online content services which offer access to content such as music, games, films or sporting events not only in their Member State of residence but also when they are temporarily present in other Member States of the Union travelling for leisure or business. Therefore, barriers that hamper access and use of suchlegally acquired online content services cross border should be eliminated.
Amendment 53 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The technological development leading to a proliferation of portable devices such as tablets and smartphones increasingly facilitates the use of online content services by providing access to them regardless of the consumers' location. There is a rapidly growing demand on the part of consumers for access to content and innovative online services not only in their home countryMember State of residence but also when they are temporarily present in another Member State of the Union.
Amendment 55 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Consumers increasingly enter into contractual arrangements with service providers for the provision of online content services. However, consumers that are temporarily present in another Member State of the Union often cannot access and use the online content services that they have legally acquired the right to use in their home countryMember State of residence.
Amendment 63 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) The controlled, supervised and proportionate implementation of cross- border portability will provide its beneficiaries with an additional means of accessing online content legally.
Amendment 66 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The acquisition of a licence for the relevant rights is not always possible, notably when rights in content are licensed on an exclusive basis. In order to ensure the territorial exclusivity, online service providers often undertake, in their licence contracts with right holders, including broadcasting organisations or events organisers, to prevent their subscribers from accessing and using their service outside the territory for which the service provider holds the licence. These contractual restrictions imposed on service providers require providers to take measures such as disallowing access to their services from IP addresses located outside the territory concerned. Therefore, while the upholding of the principle of territoriality due to its importance to the growth and financing of the audiovisual sector is essential, one of the obstacles to the cross-border portability of online content services is to be found in the contracts concluded between the online service providers and their subscribers, which in turn reflect the territorial restriction clauses included in contracts concluded between those service providers and right holders.
Amendment 72 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Therefore, the objective of this Regulation is to adapt the legal framework in order to ensure that the licensing of rights no longer presents barriers toregarding copyright and related rights in order to reach a common approach in the provision of legally acquired online content to users temporarily present in a Member State other than their Member State of residence. The concept of cross- border portability of online content services in the Union andshould be clearly distinguished from that theof cross- border portability can be ensuredaccess, which does not fall within the scope of this Regulation.
Amendment 82 #
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, the transfer of data, 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 83 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) This Regulation should apply only to online content services which subscribers can effectively access and use in their Member State in which they habituallyof residence without being limited to a specific location, as it is not appropriate to require service providers that do not offer portable services within their home country Member State of residence of the subscriber to do so across borders.
Amendment 88 #
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. Neither contributions towards licence fees, nor the transfer or exchange of data shall be deemed as payment by the consumer.
Amendment 92 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Online content services which are provided without the payment of money are also included in the scope of this Regulation to the extent that providersmay choose not to verify the Member State of residence of their subscribers. OTherefore, online content services which are provided without the payment of money and whose providers do not verify the Member State of residence of their subscribers should be outside the scope of this Regulation as their inclusion would involve a major change to the way these services are delivered and involve disproportionate costs. As concerns verification of the subscriber's Member State of residence, information such as a payment of a licence fee for other services provided should have the possibility to opt in to this Regulation provided that they comply with the verification requirements regarding the Member State of residence, to the existence of a contract for internet or telephone connection, IP address or other means of authentication, should be relied upon, if they enable the provider to have reasonable indicators as to the Member State of residence of its subscriberssame extent as content and services offered against the payment of money.
Amendment 104 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In order to ensure the cross-border portability of legally acquired online content services it is necessary to require that online service providers enable their subscribers to use the service in the Member State of their temporary presence by providing them access to the same content on the same range and number of devices, for the same number of users and with the same range of functionalities as those offered in their Member State of residence. This obligation is mandatory and therefore the parties may not exclude it, derogate from it or vary its effect. Any action by a service provider which would prevent the subscriber from accessing or using the service while temporarily present in a Member State, for example restrictions to the functionalities of the service or to the quality of its delivery, would amount to a circumvention of the obligation to enable cross-border portability of online content services and therefore would be contrary to this Regulation.
Amendment 111 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) 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 and shall display the relevant delivery information on their website.
Amendment 119 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Service providersFee-based content service providers and services without payment of money which opt in to this Regulation should not be liable for breach of any contractual provisions contrary to the obligation to enable their subscribers to use the service in the Member State of their temporary presence. Therefore clauses in contracts designed to prohibit or limit the cross- border portability of online content services should be unenforceable.
Amendment 122 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) Member State of residence implies that the subscriber has a stable residence in the Member State to which he or she returns regularly. For the purposes of this Regulation, a subscriber has one Member State of residence.
Amendment 129 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) 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. Theis Regulation enables right holders to require that the service provider make use of effective means in order to verify on an ongoing basis that the online content service is provided in conformity with this Regulation. It is necessary, however, to ensure that the required means are reasonable and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve this purpose. Examples of the necessary technical and organisational measures may include sampling of IP address instead of constant monitoring of location, transparent information to the individuals about the methods used for the verification and its purposes, and appropriate security measures. Considering that for purposes of the verification what matters is not the location, but rather, in which Member State the subscriber is accessing the service, precise location data should not be collected and processed for this purpose. Similarly, where authentication of a subscriber is sufficient in order to deliver the service provided, identification of the subscriber should not be required.
Amendment 135 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23 a (new)
Recital 23 a (new)
(23a) To this end, providers of online content services should apply the verification criteria set out in this Regulation to provide effective verification and legal certainty. If an online content service provider cannot effectively proceed with this verification, portability cannot be offered to a subscriber.
Amendment 153 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the adaptation of the legal framework so that cross-border portability of online content services is provided in the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objective. Therefore, this Regulation does not substantially affect the way the rights are licensed and does not oblige right holders and service providers to renegotiate contracts. Moreover, this Regulation does not require that the provider takes measures to ensure the quality of delivery of online content services outside the Member State of residence of the subscriber. Finally, this Regulation does not apply to service providers who offer services without payment of money and who do not verify the subscriber's Member State of residence. Therefore, it does not impose any disproportionate costsexercise the option to comply with this Regulation,
Amendment 169 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point c
Article 2 – point c
(c) "Member State of residence" means the Member State where the subscriber is habitually residinges and returns to regularly;
Amendment 179 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point d
Article 2 – point d
(d) "Temporarily present" means athe transient presence of a subscriber in a Member State other than the Member State of residence;
Amendment 188 #
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 provider has decided to offer portability and the subscriber's Member State of residence is verified by the provider;
Amendment 210 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a Verification of the Member State of residence 1. Providers of online content service provided against payment of money shall make use of effective means in order to verify the Member State of residence of its subscribers. These means shall be reasonable and not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve their purpose. 2. In order to comply with the obligation set out in paragraph 1, the provider shall rely on the following verification means, or equivalent means as agreed between rights holders and service providers; (a) an identity card or any other valid document confirming subscriber's Member State of residence, to include electronic identification means; (b) the billing address or postal address of the subscriber; (c) bank details such as bank account, local credit or debit card of the subscriber; (d) physical visitation to the place of installation of a set top box or a similar device used for supply of services to the subscribers; (e) a subscriber being party to a contract for internet or telephone connection in the member state of residence; (f) payment of a license fee by a subscriber for other services provided in the Member state of residence; (g) sampling or periodic checking of Internet Protocol (IP) address to identify where the subscriber accesses content and predominantly uses the online content service be it internal or external to the Member State of residence, or by other geo-locational means equivalent to this; (h) registration on national, regional or local electoral rolls, if publicly available; or (i) the payment of national, regional or local/poll taxes, if available. Unless the Member State of residence can be sufficiently established on the basis of a single verification means, the provider shall rely on a combination of such means. 3. The provider and the holders of copyright and related rights or those holding any other rights in the content of an online content service may agree, in order to take account of new technological developments, any other means of equivalence in accordance with paragraph 1 to verify the Member state of residence. 4 Online content service providers, using the means in paragraph 2, shall ensure subscribers are demonstrating regular return in predominantly accessing content within the Member State of residence. 5. The provider shall be entitled to request the subscriber to provide such information as is necessary for the verification of the Member State of residence in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4. If the subscriber fails to provide such adequate information as to determine the Member State of residence the provider shall prevent the subscriber from accessing or using the online content service when he or she is temporarily present in a Member State other than the Member State of residence.
Amendment 223 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Amendment 232 #
2015/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Amendment 121 #
2015/0281(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Terrorist financing should be punishable in the Member States and cover the financing of terrorist acts, the financing of a terrorist group, as well as other offences related to terrorist activities, such as the recruitment and training, or travel for terrorist purposes, with a view to disrupting the support structures facilitating the commission of terrorist offences. Aiding and abetting or attempting terrorist financing should also be punishable. Sanctions should be reviewed by an independent oversight body and any sanctions should be linked to a specific criminal offence, to avoid arbitrary decisions on the basis of national, religious, ethnical, or racial criteria.
Amendment 150 #
2015/0281(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15 a (new)
Recital 15 a (new)
(15a) In order to prevent and combat terrorism, a closer cross-border cooperation among the competent national and European authorities is needed with regard to expedient exchange of any relevant information from criminal records or other available sources and in particular on individuals who are or have been subject to criminal proceedings or asset freezing.
Amendment 179 #
2015/0281(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Punitive sanctions should be complemented by long-term policies to prevent the radicalisation and recruitment of citizens of the Union by terrorist organisations. Strategies on social inclusion, education, employment and housing and policies tackling discrimination and exclusion to stop vulnerable individuals joining violent extremist organisations are crucial to countering terrorism. Member States should also share good practices on the setting-up of de-radicalisation structures to prevent citizens of the Union and third- country nationals legally residing in the Union from leaving the Union or to control their return to it and their judicial approach in this regard notably through Eurojust. They should share such good practices not only among each other but also with third countries which have already acquired experience and achieved positive results in this area.
Amendment 404 #
2015/0281(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 a (new)
Article 23 a (new)
Amendment 412 #
2015/0281(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 b (new)
Article 23 b (new)
Amendment 436 #
2015/0281(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The Commission shall regularly assess the implementation of the Directive with regard to any potential disproportionate impact on groups of the population and remedial procedures to correct discriminatory practices and report their findings to the European Parliament and Council.
Amendment 54 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European legal framework for copyright and related rights is central to the promotion of creativity and, innovation, economic growth, competitiveness, the Digital Single Market and to access to knowledge and information;
Amendment 88 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights protects the freedom of expression, the freedom of the arts and scientific research, the right to education and the freedom to conduct a business and the protection of intellectual property;
Amendment 97 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 139 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from civil society with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users11 a wide range of stakeholders; __________________ 11 Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.
Amendment 149 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that copyright and related rights protect and stimulate both the development and marketing of new products and services and the creation and exploitation of their creative content, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness, employment and innovation across several industry sectors in the EU;
Amendment 150 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Considers that lessons may be drawn for other types of content from the approach taken in the Collective Rights Management Directive, but that issues concerning portability and geoblocking may not be solved by one all- encompassing solution but may require several different interventions, both regulatory and market-led, in addition to enhanced enforcement of existing law including in competition, services and copyright;
Amendment 151 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Stresses that copyright is only as effective as the enforcement measures in place to protect it and that in order to ensure a flourishing and innovative creative sector copyright enforcement must be robust;
Amendment 160 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes with concern that the vast majority of end-user respondents report facing problems when trying to access online services across the Member States, particularly where technological protection measures are used to enforce territori and that territorial fragmentation may require commercial operators aspiring to offer content related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses for the same content in different geographical arestrictionas;
Amendment 164 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2b. Believes that consumers should be able to access and buy online content from another Member State when it is not accessible from a provider in their own Member State; stresses that clear information should be provided to consumers when purchasing a digital content license regarding any geographical limitations of the use of that content;
Amendment 165 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses that the creative output of the European Union is one of its richest resources, and those who want to enjoy it should be able to pay to do so, even when it is only sold in another Member State;
Amendment 182 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Acknowledges the necessity for 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 intermediarieand appropriate remuneration for their efforts through others making use of their creative and artistic work, thereby facilitating and encouraging future creativity; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for rightholders; recognises the role of effective enforcement in supporting creators and rightholders;
Amendment 220 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the introduction of a single European Ctargeted and appropyright Title on the basis of Article 118 TFEU that would apply directly and uniformly across the EU, in accordate measures, based on robust evidence and in compliance with the Commission’'s objective of bBetter rRegulation, as a legalcould be a means to remedy specific obstacles caused by the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/EC;
Amendment 245 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recommends that the EU legislator further lowerreducing 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 protectionncouraging the use of appropriate licensing;
Amendment 251 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls the adoption of Directive 2013/37/EU on 26 June 2013 on the re- use of public sector information, which provides a common legal framework for an EU market for government-held data (public sector information) and includes provisions on transparency and competition;
Amendment 254 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 269 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 295 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes thate importance of exceptions and limitations in the digital environment should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue worldbeing technologically neutral, where possible, and accessible for persons with disabilities; in this regard, notes the conclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty, which will facilitate access for the visual impaired for books, and encourages ratification in early course; believes that the Treaty is a good step forward, but that much work remains to be done in order to open up access to content for people with disabilities, in addition to those affected by visual impairment;
Amendment 310 #
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 and has direct negative effects on the functioning of the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activitieNotes the right of each Member State to tailor exceptions in accordance with their market and traditions and in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; However, Member States may consider that some exceptions may benefit from common approaches and any exceptions pursued should aim to stimulate economic growth, the development of the Digital Single Market and competitiveness;
Amendment 338 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to make 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 andenhance the provision of information to creators and consumers regarding exceptions and limitations in all Member States to improve legal certainty;
Amendment 369 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 382 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls for exceptions and limitations which have an appropriate level of flexibility and are technologically neutral;
Amendment 405 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. StressNotes that the ability to freely link content lawfully made available from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; highlights the importance of enhanced user information regarding obligations for anyone who knowingly provides hyperlinks to unauthorised content or links that circumvent paywalls; calls on the EU legislator to make it clear that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12 ; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).
Amendment 418 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls onfor the EU legislator to ensure that theCommission to report on the implementation of the Directive with regard to progress on increasing awareness for consumers regarding exceptions and limitations, in particular with regard to differences across the EU, including use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted;
Amendment 445 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses the need to enable automated analytical techniquefacilitate formats for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) for allresearch purposes, provided that permission to read the work has been acquiredwhile recognising the investment that this requires by rightholders; highlights that exceptions for text and data should not facilitate the publication or sharing of copies made under the exception;
Amendment 462 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls for a broatargeted exceptions for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education;
Amendment 476 #
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 accesStresses the importance of taking into account the conclusions of the numerous experiments being undertaken by the book industry to establish fair, balanced and viable business models;
Amendment 520 #
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, taking into account recital 35 of the Directive, which recognises that harm to rightholders in some circumstances is minimal and no payment is made, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13 ; Draws attention to the the discretion of Member States to provide alternative modes of compensation to levies; __________________ 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 537 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Stresses that the effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights protection, should not be unduly hindered by technological measures;
Amendment 543 #
2014/2256(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 3 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 8 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 14 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the Commission's 30th and 31st annual reports on the application of EU law, and notes that, according to these reports, the main fields in which Member States have failed to correctly implement EU law during the year 2012 were transport, protection of health and consumers, protection of the environment, and issues related to the internal market and services, whereas in 2013 the most problematic areas wereis concerned laws on the environment, protection of health and consumers, the Sinternalgle market and services, and transport;
Amendment 15 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Stresses the importance of strengthening the effectiveness of implementation and infringement proceedings, in particular with regard to the Single Market, and the Single Market for services, due to its huge potential to deliver jobs, growth and competitiveness to the EU;
Amendment 16 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Notes the importance of monitoring the impact on competitiveness, economic growth and job creation when assessing the application of EU law;
Amendment 17 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Notes that the Parliament could assist in reviewing the implementation of legislation and through its scrutiny of the Commission by stepping up dialogue on implementation and enforcement and by means of implementation reports ;
Amendment 20 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the decrease in late transposition infringements in 2012 compared to the previous year was mainly due to the fact that there were less directives to transpose in 2012 compared to the previous years; recognises, however, that the statistics for the year 2013 show a real decrease in late transposition infringements, with the number of such infringements reaching a 5-year low at the end of that year, which could be seen as a positive outcome of the introduction in Article 260(3) TFEU of the ‘fast-track' procedure for penalties in cases of non- transposition;
Amendment 25 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that thean increase in the number of new EU Pilot files during the period under examination and the decrease in the number of open infringement cases; show that enforcement of EU law is neither sufficiently transparent nor subject to any real control by the complainants and the interested parties, and regrets that, despite its repeated requests, Parliament still has inadequate access to information about the EU Pilot procedure and pending casestresses that this may demonstrate that enforcement of EU law is not sufficiently transparent;
Amendment 31 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that the EU has been set up as a Union based on the rule of law and respect of human rights (Article 2 TEU), reiterates that careful monitoring of Member States' and EU institutions' acts and omissions is of utmost importance, and expresses its concern at the number of petitions to Parliament and complaints to the Commission concerning problems supposedly resolved byxpresses concern regarding the number of petitions to Parliament and complaints to the Commission;
Amendment 36 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recognises that the primary responsibility for the correct implementation and application of EU law lies with Member States, but points out that this does not absolve EU institutions of their duty to respect primary EU law when; notes, therefore, the importance of enhancing transposition to avoid 'gold plating', while fully respecting they produce secondary EU law, or decide, implement and imposeinciple of subsidiarity and the prerogatives onf Member States social, economic or other policiesin this regard;
Amendment 40 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 44 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 47 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 54 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes, therefore, with regret that the Council, the Commission and the ECB do not always themselves respect the Treaties, nor do they assist Member States with the correct implementation of EU law, thus by their practice severely undermining popular support for the EU and belief in its legitimacyStresses the importance of Commission assisting Member States with the correct implementation of EU law and in identifying problems encountered when transposing EU legislation; calls for the Commission to publish concerns raised by Member States during the implementation process so that they can be fully addressed;
Amendment 55 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Highlights that inserting a review clause into each legislative proposal may serve to ensure the monitoring of existing laws but would also give the possibility to cross-check the initial policy objective and achieved results through ex-post impact assessments and thereby identify any necessary corrective measures or the case for withdrawals;
Amendment 56 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Notes the role that the introduction of sunset clauses may play in monitoring the application of EU law;
Amendment 57 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10 c. Stresses that the support of national parliaments in transposing legislation is essential in improving the application EU law and therefore calls for dialogue with national parliaments to be stepped up, including when subsidiarity concerns have been expressed; notes the crucial role of regular ex-post assessments and the importance of seeking the views of national parliaments to address concerns or complexities of legislation that may not have previously been apparent;
Amendment 60 #
2014/2253(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Encourages the EU institutions to assume their duty to respect primary EU law when they create rules of secondary EU law or decide policies in a number of areas, and also to assume their duty to assist, by all means available, EU Member States in their efforts to respect the values and the principles of the Union in times of austerity and budgetary constraintsist Member States in their efforts to transpose EU legislation;
Amendment 4 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas investment protection provisions and investor state dispute settlement are an essential tool in international economic relations to ensure that states adhere to their commitments under mutually agreed international treaties, and are very important for investment activity, and whereas a balanced relationship between the necessary and effective protection of investors, the right of States to regulate and an appropriate dispute settlement procedure is fundamental;
Amendment 14 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas nine EU Member States have concluded bilateral investment protection agreements with the USA granting US undertakings the right to bring complaints against those Member States, and whereas over 1,400 bilateral agreements betweensigned by EU Member States already contain numerous ISDS clauses;
Amendment 21 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas international agreements are a basis for legal certainty, transparency and predictability and whereas there have been many cases in which the EU and other States have brought legal action against the USA under the aegis of the WTO because the USA was believed to have failed to comply with its international obligations, notes that in some cases the US continues to refuse to respect WTO panel rulings, in clear contradiction of its commitments under WTO law;
Amendment 30 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
a. Considers that the Commission’s proposals for reform initiatives relating to investment protection accord with the European Parliament resolution on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)); observes, however, that the reservations felt by the publicbrought forward should be taken into account in these reforms;
Amendment 38 #
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 are welcome and represent the right approach and must be developed further for TTIP; in clarifying issues relating to the right to regulate, the functioning of arbitral panels as well as leaving open the possibility of an appeals mechanism and must be developed further for TTIP; urges the Commission to ensure full disclosure and regular communication concerning the development-process of said reforms;
Amendment 47 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas an ambitious agreement with the US maywill support the reindustrialisation of Europe and help achieve the 2020 target for an increase of the EU’'s GDP generated by industry from 15 % to 20 %; whereas it has the potential to create opportunities especially for SMEs, which suffer more from non-tariff barriers (NTBs) than larger companies; whereas an agreement between the two biggest economic blocs in the world has the potential to create standards, norms and rules which will be adopted at a global level, which would serve to the advantage of third countries as well;
Amendment 51 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
c. Observes that existing dispute settlement mechanisms work well but also display weaknesses and that therefore improvements are needed and they, providing investors with a means to ensure state compliance under international law, but significant improvements are needed in terms of precise legal drafting which 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 partnerships;
Amendment 55 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas an agreement between the two biggest economic blocs in the world has the potential to create standards, norms and rules which could be adopted at a global level, which would serve to the advantage of third countries as well, especially developing countries; whereas failure to negotiate an agreement will allow other third countries with different standards and values to assume this role instead;
Amendment 59 #
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 CETA, in order to establish clear structures, impartial procedures, a lawful and balanced pool of judges selected by States and a clear code of conduct for judges, to increase the transparency and, legitimacy and neutrality 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 72 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
f. Calls on the Commission to ensure that in the future dispute settlement mechanism in TTIP it is guaranteed that decisions on individual cases will not replace the national law of the contracting parties which is in force; or reunder it ineffective, and that amemine any fundaments by future legislation – provided that they are not made retroactive – cannot be coal principle or protective standard guarantested under such a dispute settlement mechanismEuropean and International law;
Amendment 74 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, given the growing interconnectedness of global markets – up to 40 % of European industrial products are manufactured from imported upstream products – it is crucial that policymakers shape the way these markets interact; whereas proper trade rules are fundamental to creating added value in Europe, since industrial production will increasingly takes place in global value chains;
Amendment 79 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point g
Paragraph 1 – point g
g. Calls on the Commission to ensure that clearly defined rules on regulatory cooperation and coherence are comprehensively incorporated in TTIP; these should aim at ensuring the highest levels of transparency on mutual consultation and exchanges of best practices on important regulatory initiatives, as well as the use of better regulatory approaches, including impact assessments, evaluations and reviews of existing measures;
Amendment 90 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
i. Notes that TTIP gives contracting parties the option of increasingRecalls the crucial importance of intellectual property to the EU economy and requests that TTIP allow for increased levels of protection of EU intellectual property, including in re rights to support research and innovation on both sides of the Atlantion to third States.c, ensuring that those who create high quality innovative products can continue to do so;
Amendment 92 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas we arethe EU is faced with an unregulated rapidly evolving picture of globalisation and a well-designed trade agreement could contribute to harnessingensuring positive spill over effects of liberalisation; whereas such an agreement should not only focus on reducing tariffs and NTBs but should also be a tool to protect workers, consumers and the environment; whereas a strong and ambitious trade agreement is an opportunity to create a framework by strengthening regulation to the highest standards at a global level in order to prevent social and environmental dumpinglight of the shared objective of ensuring free and open competition on a level playing field;
Amendment 101 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas even though common high standards are in the interest of the consumers, it should be noted that theyconvergence also makes sense from an economic perspective, as the higher costs stemming from higher standards armay be compensated by increased economies of scale in a market of 850 million consumers;
Amendment 121 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas many ex-ante economic impact studies on TTIP should be taken with cautionas illustrative as they are built on computable general equilibrium economic models with very optimistic predictions abhich are unable take sufficient account of the capacity of the EU and the US to reducedynamic nature of future economic opportunities and their positive spill over effects as a regsulatory barriers to tradet of an ambitious agreement; whereas the TTIP alone will not resolve economic problems in the EU and no false hopes and expectations should be raised in that respectlong standing structural economic problems and their underlying causes in the EU;
Amendment 147 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the wellbeing of ordinary citizens, workers and consumers has to be the benchmark for a trade agreement; whereas TTIP should be a model for a good trade agreement responding to these requirementsprimary objective of a high quality trade agreement is to enhance trade and investment by establishing improved conditions for the free flow of goods, services and capital across borders leading to the creation of jobs and growth;
Amendment 169 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the secret character of negotiations as they have been conducted in the past has led to deficiencies in terms of democratic control of the negotiation proceslegal framework governing the negotiation of EU trade agreements is laid down in Article 207 TFEU, which establishes that the Commission negotiates agreements in consultation with a special committee established by the Member States;
Amendment 186 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas President Juncker has clearly reiterated in his Political Guidelines that – while the EU and the US can go a significant step further in recognising each other’'s product standards and working towards transatlantic standards – the EU will not sacrifice its safety, health, social and data protection standards or our cultural diversity, recalling that the safety of the food we eat and the protection of Europeans’' personal data are non- negotiable and that the rule of law should also apply in this context;
Amendment 197 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 220 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas many critical voices in the public debate have shown the need for the TTIP negotiations to be conductrade agreements should be negotiated in athe morest transparent and inclusive manner, taking into account the concerns voiced by European citizens possible, while respecting the need for a necessary element of confidentiality to ensure that negotiators can reach a high quality final deal; whereas Parliament fully supports both the decision of the Council to declassify the negotiating directives and the Commission’'s transparency initiative;
Amendment 230 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas since July 2013 talks between the US and the EU have been going onEU began in July 2013, but up to now no common text has been agreed and it is now exactly the right time to undertake a reflection on the state of play; whereas political stocktaking is a useful exercise in influencing the direction of negotiations;
Amendment 234 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas the EU in particular faces growing concerns over its energy security and its need to diversify its energy supplies and transit routes in the face of political and geopolitical developments;
Amendment 247 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a – point i
Paragraph 1 – point a – point i
(i) to ensure that TTIP negotiations lead to a deep, comprehensive, ambitious, balanced and high-standard trade and investment agreement, based on a single undertaking that wouldill promote trade and investment, sustainable growth, support the creation of high-quality jobs for European workercitizens, directly benefit European consumers, increase international competitiveness, and open up new opportunities for EU companies, in particular SMEs; the content of the agreement is more important than the speed of the negotiations;
Amendment 266 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a – point ii
Paragraph 1 – point a – point ii
(ii) to emphasise that while the TTIP negotiations consist of negotiations on three main areas – ambitiously improving reciprocal market access (for goods, services, investment and public procurement at all levels of government), reducing NTBs and enhancing the compatibility of regulatory regimes, and developing common rules to address shared global trade challenges and opportunities – all these areas are equally important to be included in a comprehensive package; TTIP should be ambitious and binding on all levels of government on both sides of the Atlantic, the agreementand should lead to lasting genuine market openness on a reciprocal basis and trade facilitation on the ground, and should pay particular attention to structural means of achieving greater transatlantic cooperation while upholding regulatory standards and preventing social and environmental dumping;
Amendment 276 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a – point iii
Paragraph 1 – point a – point iii
(iii) to keep in mind the strategic importance of the EU-US economic relationship in general and of TTIP in particular, inter alia as an opportunity to promote the principles and values anchored in a liberal, rules based framework that the EU and the US share and cherish and towhile designing common approaches to global trade, investment and trade-related issues such as high standards, norms and regulations, in order to develop a broader transatlantic vision and a common set of strategic goals;
Amendment 288 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a – point iv
Paragraph 1 – point a – point iv
(iv) to ensure, especially given the recent positive developments in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), that an open and accessible agreement with the US serves as a stepping-stone for broader trade negotiations and is not seen as an alternative to the WTO process; bilateral trade agreements are always the second-best option and must not prevent improvements on the multilateral level;
Amendment 301 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – point b – introductory part
(b) regarding market access: for goods, services and procurement;
Amendment 311 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point i
Paragraph 1 – point b – point i
(i) to ensure that the market access offers in the differentall areas are equally ambitious and reflect both parties’ expectations, as market access for industrial goods, agricultural products, services and public procurement isare equally important in all cases and a balance is needed between the different proposals for these areas;
Amendment 327 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point ii
Paragraph 1 – point b – point ii
(ii) to aim at the elimination of all duty tariffs, while respecting sensitive products on both sides;
Amendment 344 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
(iii) to keep in mind that there are important offensive interests for the EU in the services sector, which will generate 85% of future jobs in the EU, demands an ambitious outcome for instance in the areas of engineering, finance, telecommunications, health, professional and transport services;
Amendment 369 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iv
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iv
(iv) to increase market access for services according to the ‘positive list approach’ whereby services that are to be opened up to foreign companies are explicitly mentioned and new services are excluded while ensuring that possible standstill and ratchet clauses only apply to non- discrimination provisions and allow for enough flexibility to bring services back into public controlby tackling long standing market access barriers while granting EU firms no less favourable treatment in the US than US firms according to a negative list whereby services that are to be excluded from the agreement are explicitly mentioned, believes that such an approach allows not only for increased certainty and transparency for operators but will allow for a flexible "living agreement" with the possibility of including future services in the Agreement;
Amendment 372 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iv a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iv a (new)
(iva) to ensure mutual recognition of professional qualifications between the Parties, notably via the creation of a legal framework with federal States which have regulatory powers in this domain, and to promote mobility across the Atlantic through visa facilitation for professionals;
Amendment 406 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point vi
Paragraph 1 – point b – point vi
(vi) to ensure an adequate carve-out of sensitive services such asthe inclusion of reservations for public services and public utilities (including water, health, social security systems and education), in line with existing and recently concluded EU trade agreements, allowing national and local authorities enough room for manoeuvre to legislate in the public interest; ain this regard welcomes the joint declaration reflecting negotiators’' clear commitment to exclude these sectors from the negotiations would be very helpful in this regard; ;
Amendment 433 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point vii
Paragraph 1 – point b – point vii
(vii) to combine market access negotiations on financial services with convergence in financial regulation on the highest level, in order to support the introduction and compatibility of necessary regulation to prevent financial crises and in order to support ongoing cooperation efforts in other international forums, such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision;
Amendment 450 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point viii
Paragraph 1 – point b – point viii
(viii) to ensure that the EU’'s acquis on data privacy is not compromised through the liberalisation of data flowsfully respected in any final Agreement, in particular in the area of e- commerce and financial services; to ensure that no commitments on data flows are taken up before European data protection legislation is in place; , while a stable and predictable legal environment ensuring and facilitating the continued ability of firms, especially in the service sector, to transfer data across the Atlantic, is assured; stresses that the EU should cooperate with the United States in order to encourage third countries to adopt similar high data protection standards in the area of trade around the world; further notes that such provisions must be consistent with the provisions set forth in Article 14 of the GATS and that restrictions on data flows and associated infrastructure may create risks that must be recognised;
Amendment 462 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point ix
Paragraph 1 – point b – point ix
(ix) to include am ambitious chapter on competition ensureing that European competition law is properly respected particularly in the digital world while establishing new standards, in particular regarding state owned enterprises, that could form the basis for improved global rules and common approaches with third countries;
Amendment 479 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point x
Paragraph 1 – point b – point x
(x) to keep in mind that the agreement should not risk prejudicing the Union’'s cultural and linguistic diversity, in line the relevant Articles as established in the Treaties, including in the audiovisual and cultural services sector, and that existing and future provisions and policies in support of the cultural sector, in particular in the digital world, are kept out of the scope of the negotiationsare augmented and complemented;
Amendment 494 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xi
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xi
(xi) to ensure that account is taken of the discrepancies in the openness of public procurement markets on both sides of the Atlantic and the huge interest on the part of European companies in obtaining access to public contracts in the US both at federal and state level, for example for construction services, traffic infrastructure and goods and services while respecting suexistainability criteriag legal frameworks for procurement on both sides, inter alia the new EU procurement and concession package entering into force in 2016; to ensure that that neither party will adopt new measures restricting market access in procurement beyond measures already in place;
Amendment 511 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xii
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xii
(xii) to promote EU-US cooperation at the international level in order to promote sustainability standards for public procurement, inter alia in the implementation of the recently revised Government Procurement Agrefurther international agreements in the field of public procurement;
Amendment 531 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xiv
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xiv
(xiv) to ensure withat the negotiations on rules of origin aim at reconciling the EU and US approaches; given the conclusion of the negotiations for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between EU and Canada and the potential upgrade of the EU-Mexico free trade agreement, that the possibility and scope of cumulation will need to be consideis considered, in view of a possible future transatlantic free trade areda;
Amendment 540 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) regarding regulatory cooperation and coherence pillar and NTBs:
Amendment 555 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c – point i
Paragraph 1 – point c – point i
(i) to ensure that the regulatory cooperation chapterand coherence promotes an effective, transparent, pro- competitive economic environment through the facilitation of trade and investment while developing and securing high levels of protection of health and safety, consumer, labour and environmental legislation and of the cultural diversity that exists within the EU; negotiators on both sides; need to identify and to be very clear about which regulatory measures and standardsotes that some areas may prove challenging in terms of finding an agre fundamental and cannot be compromised,ement, however, insists that negotiators determine, where possible and which ones can be the subject of a common approach, which are the areas where mutual recognition based on a common high standard and a strong system of market surveillance is desirable and which are those where simply an improved exchange of information is possible, based on the experience of one and a half years of ongoing talks;
Amendment 577 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
Paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
(ii) to baseensure that negotiations on SPS and TBT measures go beyond the key principles of the multilateralWTO Agreements on SPS and TBT agreements; to aim in the first place at increasing transparency coherence and openness, mutual recognition, exchanges of best practices, strengthening dialogue between regulators and strengthening cooperation in international standards-setting bodies while removing all unnecessary obstacles to trade and investment and ensuring that regulators create proportionate measures based on scientific evidence and international standards; to recognise, in negotiations on SPS and TBT measures, the right of both parties to manage risk in accordance with the level either deems appropriate in order to protect human, animal or plant life or health; to in full respect and uphold the sensitivities and fundamental values of either side, such as the EU’s precautionary principleof legal frameworks on both sides;
Amendment 598 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c – point iii
Paragraph 1 – point c – point iii
(iii) with regard to the horizontal regulatory cooperation chapter, to give priority to fostering bilateral cooperation between regulatory bodies through enhanced information exchange and to promote the adoption, strengthening and timely implementation of international instruments, on the basis of successful international expe whilst fully respecting the priences such as, for instance, ISO standards or under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UNECE) World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29); to establish that the prior impact assessment for the regulatory act, as defined in the horizontal provisions on regiple subsidiarity, on the basis of a specific and permanent regulatory and consultatoryion cooperation, should also measure the impact on consumers and the environment next to its impact on trade and investment; to handle the possibility of promoting regulatory compatibility with great care and only without compromising legitimate regulatory and policy objectives mechanism, ensuring the creation of a living agreement;
Amendment 603 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c – point iv
Paragraph 1 – point c – point iv
Amendment 614 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c – point v
Paragraph 1 – point c – point v
(v) to fully respect the established regulatory systems on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as the European Parliament’'s role within the EU’'s decision-making process and its democratic scrutiny over EU regulatory processes when creating the framework for future cooperation while at the same time being vigilant about a balanced involvement of stakeholders within the consultations included in the developensuring the utmost transparency and the involvement of all regulatory proposallevant stakeholders;
Amendment 621 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
(d) regarding the rules pillar:
Amendment 626 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point i
Paragraph 1 – point d – point i
(i) to combine negotiations on market access and regulatory cooperation with the establishment of ambitious rules and disciplines, inter alia on on issues such as, but not limited to, sustainable development, energy, SMEs, investment and intellectual property;
Amendment 639 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point ii
Paragraph 1 – point d – point ii
(ii) to ensure that the sustainable development chapter aims at the full and effective ratification, implementation and enforcement of the eight fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and their content, the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda and the core international environmental agreements; provisions should be aimed at improv's provisions should be aimed at safeguarding and promoting levels of protection of labour and environmental standards; asks, therefore, that negotiators include an ambitious trade and sustainable development chapter which should also include rules on corporim ate social responsibility based on the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and a clearly structured civil society involvetting new global benchmarks for a trade agreement;
Amendment 642 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point iii
Paragraph 1 – point d – point iii
Amendment 651 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point iv
Paragraph 1 – point d – point iv
(iv) to ensure that labour and environmental standards are made enforceableincluded, by building on the goodprevious experience of the EU-Korea free trade agreementexisting EU FTAs and good and effective practices in the US’'s free trade agreements and national legislation;
Amendment 660 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point v
Paragraph 1 – point d – point v
Amendment 676 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point vi
Paragraph 1 – point d – point vi
(vi) to ensure that the economic, social and environmental impact of TTIP is examined through a thorough trade sustainability impact assessment with clear involvement of relevant stakeholders and civil society;
Amendment 691 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point vii
Paragraph 1 – point d – point vii
(vii) to ensure that in course of the negotiations the two sides examine ways to facilitate natural gas and oil exports, so that TTIP would abolish any existing export restrictions on energy between the two trading partners, thereby supporting a diversification of energy sources; and reducing EU Member States' reliance on single points of supply and transit;
Amendment 707 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point ix
Paragraph 1 – point d – point ix
(ix) to ensure that TTIP supports the use and promotion of green goods and services, thereby tapping into the considerable potential for environmental and economic gains offered by the transatlantic economy complementing on-going negotiations on the Green Goods Agreement;
Amendment 710 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point x
Paragraph 1 – point d – point x
Amendment 726 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xi
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xi
(xi) to ensure that TTIP includes a specific chapter on SME’'s and aims at creating new opportunities in the US for European SMEs, for instance by eliminating double certification requirements, by establishing a web-based information system about the different regulations and best practices, by introducing ‘'fast- track’' procedures at the border or by eliminating specific tariff peaks that continue to exist; it should establish mechanisms for both sides to work together to facilitate SMEs’' participation in transatlantic trade, for instance through a common SME ’'one-stop shop’' with SME stakeholders playing a key role in the establishment of such a system;
Amendment 740 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xii
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xii
(xii) to ensure that TTIP contains a comprehensive chapter on investment which should look not only to enhance Europe as a destination for investment, but should also increase confidence for EU investment in the US, including provisions on both market access and investment protection; the investment chapter should aim at ensuring non- discriminatory treatment for the establishment of European and US companies in each other’'s territory, while taking account of the sensitive nature of some specific sectorsthese provisions should further look to form a new "gold standard" for investment protection in existing and future international investment for a such a "gold standard" should guarantee the maximum level of transparency possible, look at establishing an appellate mechanism as well as making explicit the right to regulate;
Amendment 747 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiii
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiii
(xiii) to ensure that investment protection provisions are limited to post- establishment provisions and focus on non-discrimination andfocus on non-discrimination, direct and indirect expropriation as well as fair and equitable treatment; standards of protection and definitions of investor and investment should be drawn up in a precise legal manner; free transfer of capital should be in line with the EU treaty provisions and should include a prudential carve-out in the case of financial crises;
Amendment 773 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv
(xiv) to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances, which can be achieved without the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism; such a mechanism is not necessary in TTIP given the EU’s and the US’ developed legal systems; a state-to- state dispute settlement system and the use of national courts are the most appropriate tools to address investment disputesmedy and redress independent of any possible political interference; supports therefore, the inclusion of investment protection mechanisms, including a reformed and improved ISDS and supports DG Trade's on-going efforts in this area;
Amendment 801 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xv
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xv
(xv) to ensure that TTIP includes an ambitious Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) chapter that includes strong protection of precisely and clearly defined areas of IPR, including enhanced protection and recognition of European Geographical Indications (GIs), and reflects a fair and efficient level of protection such as laid out in the EU’'s and the US’'s free trade agreement provisions in this area, while continuing to confirm the existing flexibilities in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), notably in the area of public health thus ensuring that those who create high quality innovate products can continue to do so;
Amendment 813 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xvi
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xvi
(xvi) to ensure that the IPR chapter does not include provisions on criminal sanctions as a tool for enforcement, as having been previouslyincludes appropriate enforcement mechanisms, allowing for remedies and redress in case of failure a to rejspected by Parlia mutually agreed commitments;
Amendment 817 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xvi a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xvi a (new)
(xvia) to facilitate the short term mobility of skilled labour between the EU and US and establish a fast track approach for expeditious processing of visa/work permit applications;
Amendment 820 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xvi b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xvi b (new)
(xvib) to create common frameworks between the US and EU for programmes to encourage both basic research and development, as the commercialisation of new technologies, and to consider horizontal as well as sector and technology-specific aspects for improved cooperation to enhance R&D and innovation;
Amendment 823 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – point e – introductory part
(e) regarding transparency, civil society involvement and public, public and political outreach:
Amendment 827 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e – point i
Paragraph 1 – point e – point i
(i) to continue ongoing efforts to increase transparency in the negotiations by making , where appropriate, more negotiation proposals available to the general public;
Amendment 838 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e – point ii
Paragraph 1 – point e – point ii
(ii) to translate these transparency efforts into meaningful practical results, inter alia by reaching meaningful arrangements with the US side to improve transparency, including access to all negotiating documents, in order to allow Members of Parliament and the Member States to develop constructive discussions with stakeholders and the public;
Amendment 849 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e – point iii
Paragraph 1 – point e – point iii
(iii) to promote an even closer engagement with the Member States and National Parliaments with the aim of forging their active involvement in better communicating the scope and the possible benefits of the agreement for European citizens and in order to ensure a broad, fact-based public debate on TTIP in Europe with the aim of exploring the genuine concerns surrounding the agreement;
Amendment 858 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e – point iv
Paragraph 1 – point e – point iv
(iv) to reinforce its continuous and transparent engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, including, but not limited to, business, environmental, agricultural, consumer, labour and other representatives, throughout the negotiation process; encourages all stakeholders to participate actively and to put forward initiatives and information relevant to the negotiations;
Amendment 873 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) to ensure that TTIP is accompanied by a deepening of transatlantic parliamentary cooperation leading in future to a broader and enhanced political framework to improve global cooperation between the EU and the US. This framework should ensure sustained cooperation not only in the implementation of the deal, but in establishing further cooperation on bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral trade and investment issues of shared interest and importance;
Amendment 1 #
2014/2165(REG)
Paragraph 4
Amendment 4 #
2014/2165(REG)
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the UK and all other Member States in which such problems may have arisen to simplify the registration formalities relating to the participation of nationals of other Member States in the European elections, whether as voters or as candidates, in particular by removing unnecessary administrative barriers so as to make the rights referred to under Article 20(2)(a) and (b) TFEU effective; requests that the Commission ensure that the practices of the Member States comply with EU law;
Amendment 6 #
2014/2165(REG)
Recital H
Amendment 8 #
2014/2165(REG)
Recital K
K. whereas the UK Electoral Commission has reported that, owing to the complexity of the registration formalities in use, a number of nationals of other Member States who are resident in the UK could not exercise their right to vote at the last European election; whereas such complexity may also affect the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament;
Amendment 29 #
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 ; __________________ 8 See OHIM Report ‘European Citizens and intellectual property: perception, awareness and behaviour’, November 2013.significant level of unawareness, especially among young people throughout the EU, regarding the potential consequences of IPR infringements on the European economy and on the general safety of citizens;
Amendment 52 #
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 involv both an onlinge all actorsnd offline context should be developed both in the online and in the offline contexty all actors in a comprehensive, collaborative and transparent manner;
Amendment 56 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that applying due diligence throughout the supply chain and enhanced market surveillance and information sharing between customs authorities would improve the business environment and contribute to preventing infringing goods from entering the market; stresses, however, that the cost-benefit ratio ofand effectiveness of any qualitative auditing schemes should be well assessed before being pursued and that providing support to SMEs should be a strong consideredation in that respect;
Amendment 71 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes at the same time that consumers should b information, including information about obligations, should be enhanced so consumers are 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 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 PiracyInfringements of IPRs, especially with regard to the sharing of best practices;
Amendment 81 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that the lack of a competitive supply of non-infringing products and content makes itit can be difficult to deter consumers from buying unlawful goods or using unlawful content; takes the view that sufficient progress has not been made in this area, and reiterates its demand that the Commission and Member States put more pressure on the industry to develop, in all Member States, licit offers that are both diversified and attractive and that this can be due to a lack of consumer awareness about legal offers in addition to a lack of supply;
Amendment 115 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Reiterates its call for a comprehensive IPR strategy, including a complete and strong legal framework to combat counterfeiting and piracyIPR infringement adapted to the online environment;
Amendment 122 #
2014/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to reflect further on the remainingfor enhanced market surveillance, risk management and sharing of information among customs authorities on issues raised in the context of IPR enforcement by customs, for example, in relation to the storage and destruction of infringing goods;
Amendment 5 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
– having regard to the final report of 24 July 2014 of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, entitled ‘Cutting Red Tape in Europe – Legacy and Outlook’, and in particular the dissenting opinion in Annex 12 from four members of the High Level Group with a background in advocacy for workers, for public health, for the environment and for consumers,
Amendment 22 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the aims and objectives of the Union spelled out in Article 3 TEU are all of equal import; whereas the Commission underlines that the REFIT programme does not call into question existing policy objectives, nor doesshould it impact negatively on the health and safety of citizens, consumers, workers or the environment;
Amendment 25 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the Commission, in establishing its work programme for 2015, for the first time applied the so-called principle of political discontinuity as justification for withdrawing a hugesought to withdraw a number of pending legislative proposals;
Amendment 35 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the decision of Commission President Juncker to entrust the First Vice- President of the Commission with the portfolio of better regulation, which responds to repeated calls for the Parliament to this effect and underlines the high political importance of this topic;
Amendment 39 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that better regulation should encompass the ‘culture’ of public administration at all levels of the European Union, and include the implementation and application of Union acts at European level as well as at national, regional and local levels in order to ensure good administration and ’Europe-friendly conduct’ at all levels;
Amendment 45 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that the Commission should focus more on the quality of legislation rather than on the number of legislative acts; in this regard supports the Commission's approach to scale back the volume of proposals and to prioritise the development of certain measures; advises that those proposals which would contribute most effectively to the promotion of growth and employment be the focus on the Commission in its future activities;
Amendment 51 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. StresRecognises that a European standard generallmay replaces 28 nationalor more diverging standards, thereby underpinning the single market and cutting down on bureaucracy; assisting the development of the single market; Notes that where no corresponding national legislation exists or the differences among Member States is broad in terms of the scale of problem, legislation may impose new and additional burdens in comparison to national or sectoral legislation;
Amendment 54 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Welcomes the package of measures aimed at Better Regulation of 19 May, and in particular the REFIT Communication; supports the continued commitment shown by the Commission towards the better law-making agenda; underlines that the work foreseen in the REFIT Communication should be seen as an ongoing process, ensuring that the legislation in force at European level is fit for purpose, achieving the shared objective of the legislators and meeting the expectations of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders;
Amendment 55 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Considers that the concept of Scoreboards should be modified to instead comprise two documents, one outlining a work plan and the other detailing the progress made by the Commission expressed in a quantitative fashion; calls for this document to form the basis of an annual statement of new costs to business, and an easily understandable statement or ledger of 'debits and credits' in terms of the administrative and regulatory impact of proposals adopted in the previous year, which would be useful, and would demonstrate that the Commission understands the cumulative cost of regulation is problematic;
Amendment 61 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that four memberSupports the conclusions of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders have come out against several of the conclusions presented in the Group’s final report of on administrative burdens andin the final report; Acknowledges that four members of the High Level Group produced a dissenting opinion; expects the Commission to take into account the concerns of all stakeholders involved in the process;
Amendment 65 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. UnderlinNotes that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements apply to a wide range of policy agreementas that can be implemented uniformly; calls on the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and theiimpact significantly on businesses; is concerned that Social Partner negotiations have not kept pace with the EU better nregotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stulation agenda; Calls on the social partners to embrace better regulation tools, to incresases that the REFIT agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding agreements reached between the social partnerse use of impact assessments in their negotiations and refer agreements proposing legislative action to the Commission's Impact Assessment Board;
Amendment 78 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the recognition by the Commission of the important role played by the consultation process in the REFIT programme; points out that, according to Article 11(2) TEU, all EU institutions are required to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society; calls on the institutions to pay special attention to the obligatory and regular dialogue with representative associations, and with civil society, in the negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreement and in the Communication on Better Regulation;
Amendment 81 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Welcomes the commitment of the Commission to improving stakeholder consultation, however, expresses scepticism about the need to have a period time of consultation once a proposal has been adopted; reiterates its belief that there should be a consultation phase on a draft legislative proposal and accompanying draft impact assessment in order to allow stakeholder comments to be incorporated into the proposal ahead of its adoption by the Commission;
Amendment 88 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 93 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that there should be stronger involvement on the part of regional and local authorities in EU policy making, in particular by involving Member State expertise and experience at regional and local levels at an early stage in the preparation of legislation; notes thate role of the Committee of the Regions is an important mouthpiece for these levels of representwith regard to assessing implementation of legislation;
Amendment 98 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Supports the introduction of the REFIT panel, which can make a strong and positive contribution to improving implementation on the ground of EU law, and monitoring and responding to administrative and regulatory burdens or unintended consequences which arise when applying obligations arising at EU level; believes that the REFIT panel should not be too burdensome in its processes and deliberations, but should be a body capable of fast responses as well as more detailed work into issues and opportunities in various sectors across Europe; stresses that proposals form this Panel should be actively considered by the Commission, and that the Commission should address the proposals in accordance with the 'comply or explain' principle; believes that the Panel could serve as a platform for businesses of collective groups working both nationally or across Europe to submit direct input supporting the better regulation principles of contributing to achieving less bureaucracy in the regulation applying to their sector;
Amendment 109 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to be more rigorous in assessing the impact of future and existing regulation on SMEs and competitiveness; Believes that a competitiveness assessment should form a significant part of the impact assessment process; considers that the draft revised guidelines should contain direction on how impacts on competitiveness should be assessed and weighted in the final analysis; supports a standing presumption that proposals with a negative impact on competitiveness should not be adopted by the Commission unless evidence supporting significant unquantifiable benefits is presented;
Amendment 111 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Believes that better regulation principles should apply to decisions on secondary legislation as well as primary legislation; calls on the Commission and its agencies, where appropriate, to accompany delegated and implementing acts with a mandatory impact assessment, including consultation with interested parties and stakeholders;
Amendment 116 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment regularly to revise the impact assessment guidelines in order to improve this process; believes that the Commission should assess the economic, social and environmental consequences, and better evaluate the impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens in order to fully grasp its effects, keeping in mind that the cost-benefit analysis is only one of many criteria when preparing policy initiatives and that such an obligation should correspondingly be reflected in the impact assessment process;
Amendment 119 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes note of the conversion ofSupports the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’(RSB) and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effe positive impact on the impact assessment process within the Commission; insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the addibelieves that the advantages brought by the RBS could be further realised if it serves as a body shared between the three institutionals, costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European levelntributing not only to the Commission's preparatory work but also to the development of impact assessment analysis throughout the legislative process;
Amendment 128 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Welcomes the undertaking of the Commission to not proceed with inter- service consultation without a positive opinion of the RSB; reiterates and underlines, however, that the final proposal and impact assessment must be consistent, and must therefore reflect any changes introduced at the inter-service consultation phase; considers, therefore, that the positive opinion of the RSB should be required on the documentation accompanying the final legislative proposal presented to the College, and not only on the drafts presented at the earlier stage;
Amendment 129 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the fact that the Council Working Parties are now, at an early stage of the debate on specific legislative proposals, to consider the relevant Commission impact assessments on the basis of an indicative check list: regrets, however, that the Council Secretariat does not yet have an impact assessment unit of its own, gi and believens that it should at leastaforementioned solution could contribute towards the Council fulfilling its obligations in assessing any substantive amendments to the Commission proposals;
Amendment 132 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Urges Parliament’s specialist committees to make more consistent use of in-house impact assessment instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisaged; believes, in this regard, that at the initial debate on each legislative proposal the Commission should be invited to present its proposal and an overview of the findings of the accompanying impact assessment; considers that this discussion could be followed by an exchange of views on the appraisal of the impact assessment prepared by the Parliament's services, particularly if deficiencies are identified; notes the use of the impact assessment services by European Parliament committees where substantial changes to the Commission's original proposal are envisaged and their useful contribution to the legislative scrutiny process; emphasises that this should not be seen as a political judgement but rather as a method of introducing independent analysis in support of Parliament's amendments;
Amendment 139 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses the need to take account of the horizontal, social and ecological provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Articles 9 and 11 TFEU) in defining and implementing Union actions and policies; calls on all EU institutions always to consider the short- and long-term effects of legislation; believes that, while the focus of such assessments is primarily on monetary factors, and on easily quantifiable criteria such as economic operators costs, the long-term value of legislation, such as the reduction of adverse health effects or the preservation of ecosystems, is often difficult to quantify, and that, as a consequence, social and environmental costs and benefits are not taken into adequate accounteach of the principles upon which the Union is founded, including the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; calls on all EU institutions always to consider the short- and long-term effects of legislation;
Amendment 144 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. In this regard, notes the importance of reinforcing cooperation with national parliaments in the legislative process by engaging them at an earlier stage and thoroughly evaluating their opinions in instances where concerns have been raised and by making use of a stronger 'red card' procedure; highlights that this will help to reduce the democratic deficit;
Amendment 145 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Notes that a cooling off period taken after the conclusion of negotiations but in advance of a final vote - presently used for lawyer-linguistic revision - could be further utilised for the completion of an impact assessment and subsidiarity check;
Amendment 147 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Believes that all EU institutions should develop a common methodological approach to impact assessments, and calls on them to include this as a priority in the upcoming negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreement; stresserecalls the fact that the legislative impact assessments do not and have not impinged on the prerogatives of Parliament and the Council to amend a proposal from the Commission must remain undiminishedbut rather facilitate better lawmaking;
Amendment 150 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Urges the Commission to increase its consultation procedure, both public and private, with all stakeholders, including consumes, when preparing delegated and implementing acts, with a view to considering how to enhance awareness of proposals at a provisional stage;
Amendment 152 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Strongly believes that such efforts to increase their input before finalising recommendations will lead to better legislation; in this regard, welcomes possible initiatives to compare processes for consulting on provisional rules or standards with those used in other jurisdictions to share and develop best practice;
Amendment 153 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Where legislation is proposed in a complex field, considers that a second stage consultation should be envisaged whereby a draft legislative act is published, accompanied by a provisional impact assessment for comment by all relevant stakeholders; considers that this second state would introduce further rigor into the Commission’s analysis and strengthen the case for any proposal adopted following this process;
Amendment 159 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the Commission’s clear commitment to further improving the SME test, particularly in view of the extremely large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the cornerstone of economic activity and employment; supports consideration of adapted agreements and more flexible SME impact assessment rules, provided that it can be shownrules for SMEs, provided that that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions and that exemptions or more flexible provisions do not encouragelead to fragmentation of the sinternal market or hamper access to it; gle market or hamper access to it; strongly encourages the Commission to build on the progress it has made in this area by continuing to cut the cost of legislation for micro- enterprises and extending these efforts to cover all SMEs as a starting provision, to be rebutted by evidence, where appropriate;
Amendment 164 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission not to abandon its ambitious targets of reducing the regulatory and administrative burden on SMEs and thereby helping to establish a basis for the creation of quality jobs and urges that measures be taken to ensure that objectives concerning the public interest including user-friendly, ecological, social, health and safety and gender-equality standards are not compromisedimproved competitiveness, stronger economic growth and the creation of quality jobs; stresses that reductions in burdens should avoid negative impacts on objectives concerning the public interest and emphasises that simpler or less burdensome application of rules and regulations can be achieved without sacrificing the aims and objectives of legislation;
Amendment 168 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Insists that the Commission should establish a European objective of a 30 per cent reduction in costs generated by administrative and compliance costs and regulatory burdens for each policy area by 2020;
Amendment 169 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20b. Believes that policy makers must ensure that legislation encourages innovation by assessing the impact of risk management legislation on innovation;
Amendment 170 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)
Paragraph 20 c (new)
20c. Stresses that a Single Market which does not over-burden or frustrate production, innovation and commerce is a structure that will bring jobs and growth back to Europe 're-shoring', which previously would have been located outside Europe where standards are lower;
Amendment 171 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 d (new)
Paragraph 20 d (new)
20d. Stresses, therefore, that the shared responsibility for improved Single Market regulation will lead to the realisation of the shared benefits; a strong and vibrant Single Market contributing to the long- term growth of Europe and thus the prosperity of its citizens;
Amendment 172 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 178 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Stresses the need for more clearly worded regulations that can be implemented in a simple manner and can help all actors, including entrepreneurs, operate within the rule of law; Underlines that simpler, smarter regulation leads to consistent transposition and more effective and uniform enforcement by Member States;
Amendment 182 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; stresses that, in the interests of legal certainty for citizens and businesses, such analyses should be carried out within a sufficient time-frame, preferably several years after the deadline for transposition into national lawhave a long term view in mind, focusing on the impact of legislation in terms of addressing the policy challenge it intended to resolve;
Amendment 190 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Underlines that rolling reviews should not be the only ex-post evaluation undertaken, but rather the Commission should also review implementation on the ground as new legislation enters into force; believes that often teething problems and urgent impediments towards achieving the objectives of the legislation manifest themselves clearly once businesses, consumers and other affected stakeholders apply the rules; in this regard, stresses that the Commission should have a 'fast reaction' system which responds to these unforeseen challenges to address any serious implementation concerns over and above any regulatory fitness and general improvement of the acquis;
Amendment 192 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that national parliaments should be involved in the ex-post evaluation of new legislation, as this would not only contribute to strengthening their common European responsibility but also benefit the Commission’s reportalso benefit the Commission’s reports and help explore the different national challenges posed by individual laws and regulations;
Amendment 201 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such;
Amendment 212 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Points out that the Commission, in consequence of its right of legislative initiative, may at any time in the course of a procedure for the adoption of a Union act withdraw a proposal as long as the Council has not yet taken any decision on it; stresses, however, that the Commission’s readiness to take into account the views of the Parliament in questions relating to the withdrawal or amendment of legislative proposals, constitutes an essential element of the political trust between the two institutions;
Amendment 216 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 218 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 222 #
2014/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 252 #
2014/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7
Article 7
Member States shall ensure thatlay down the rules applicable to limitation periods for substantive claims or bringing actions for the application of the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in this Directive may be brought within at least one year but not more than two years after the date on which the applicant became aware, or had reason to become aware, of the last fact giving rise to the action.. Those rules shall determine when the limitation period begins to run, the duration of the limitation period and the circumstances under which the limitation period is interrupted or suspended. The duration of the limitation period shall not exceed six years;
Amendment 156 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3a – paragraph 1
Article 3a – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that intermediaries offer to companies the possibility to have their shareholders identifiedcompanies have the right to identify their shareholders. Member States may provide that companies having their registered office in their territory can only request identification with respect to shareholders holding more than 0,5% of shares.
Amendment 171 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3a – paragraph 3
Article 3a – paragraph 3
3. SMember States shall ensure that shareholders shall bare duly informed by their intermediary that their name and contact details may be transmitted for the purpose of identification information regarding their identity may be processed in accordance with this aArticle. This information may only be used for the purpose of facilitation of the exercise of the rights of the shareholder. The company and the intermediary shall ensure that natural persons are able to rectify or erase any incomplete or inaccurate data and shall not conserve the information relating to the shareholder for longer than is necessary, and in any event not longer than 124 months after receiving it.
Amendment 179 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3a – paragraph 5
Article 3a – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts to specify the requirements to transmit the information laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 including as regards the information to be transmitted, the format of the request and the transmission, including the secure formats to be used, and the deadlines to be complied with. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 14a (2).
Amendment 186 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3b – paragraph 5
Article 3b – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts to specify the requirements to transmit information laid down in paragraphs 1 to 4 including as regards the content to be transmitted, the deadlines to be complied with and the types and format of information to be transmitted, including the secure formats to be used. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 14a (2).
Amendment 188 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3c – paragraph 1
Article 3c – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the intermediary facilitates the exercise of the rights by the shareholder, including the right to participate and vote in general meetings. Such facilitation shall comprise at least eitherboth of the following:
Amendment 194 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3c – paragraph 2
Article 3c – paragraph 2
Amendment 200 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3c – paragraph 3
Article 3c – paragraph 3
Amendment 203 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3d – paragraph 1
Article 3d – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall allow intermediaries to charge prices or fees for the service to be provided under this chapter. Irequire intermediaries shallto publicly disclose prices, fees and any other charges separately for each service referred to in this chapter.
Amendment 207 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3d – paragraph 2
Article 3d – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that any charges that may be levied by an intermediary on shareholders, companies and other intermediaries shall be non- discriminatory and proportional. Any differences in the charges levied between domestic and cross-border exercise of rights shall bonly be permitted where duly justified.
Amendment 214 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – introductory words
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – introductory words
1. Member States shall ensure that institutional investors and asset managers develop a policy on shareholder engagement (“engagement policy”) This engagement policy shall determine how institutional investors and asset managers conduct all of the following actions:explain how institutional investors and asset managers integrate shareholder engagement in their investment strategy and conduct engagement activities as set out in Article 2(h). Institutional investors and asset managers shall publicly disclose how this engagement policy has been implemented in an annual statement, including a general overview of their voting behaviour and their use of proxy advisors. A general overview of voting behaviour shall include disclosure of how votes were cast for each company in which they hold at least 0,3% of the voting rights, either individually or in aggregate where voting rights are held in funds managed by the same asset manager or institutional investor. Information referred to in this paragraph shall be published by institutional investors and asset managers on their websites, or made available where they do not have a website.
Amendment 219 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36 EC
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 221 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 224 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 226 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 229 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 231 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 3f – paragraph 1 – point f
Amendment 235 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 2 – introductory words
Article 3f – paragraph 2 – introductory words
2. Member States shall ensure that the engagement policy includes policies to manage actual or potential conflicts of interests with regard to shareholdetheir engagements. Such policies shall in particular be developed for all of the following situations:
Amendment 238 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 3f – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 239 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 3f – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 240 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 3f – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 241 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 3f – paragraph 2 – point d
Amendment 242 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3f – paragraph 3
Article 3f – paragraph 3
Amendment 249 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3g – Paragraph 1
Article 3g – Paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that institutional investors disclose to the public howwhether and if so how the principles underlying their equity investment strategy (“investment strategy”) isand the arrangements with asset managers who invest on their behalf, either on a discretionary client-by-client basis or through a collective investment undertaking, are aligned with the profile and duration of their liabilities and how ithey contributes to the medium to long- term performance of their assets. The information referred to in the first sentence shall at least be available on the company's website as long as it is applicable.
Amendment 252 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – introductory words
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – introductory words
2. Where an asset manager invests on behalf of an institutional investor, either on a discretionary client-by-client basis or through a collective investment undertaking, the institutional investor shall annualpublicly disclose to the public the main elements ofwhether and if so how the arranggreement withbetween the institutional investor and the asset manager with regard toaddresses the following issues:
Amendment 256 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) whether and to what extent it incentivises the asset manager to make investment decisions based on medium to long-term company performance, including non-financial performance, and to engage with companies as a means of improving company performance to deliver investment returnsinterest of the institutional investor;
Amendment 257 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 259 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – subparagraph – point d
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – subparagraph – point d
Amendment 265 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – subparagraph – point e
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – subparagraph – point e
(e) the targeted portfolio turnover or turnover range, the method used for the turnover calculationwhether and to what extent portfolio turnover costs are monitored, and whether any procedure is established when this is exceedrelated byto the asset managerose costs;
Amendment 266 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 3g – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where the arrangement with the asset manager does not contain one or more of the elements referred to in points (a) to (f)this paragraph, the institutional investor shall give a clear and reasoned explanation as toexplain why this is the case.
Amendment 267 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3h – paragraph 1
Article 3h – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that asset managers disclose on a half-yearlyn annual basis to the institutional investor with which they have entered into the arrangement referred to in Article 3g(2) how their investment strategy and implementation thereof complies with that arrangement and how the investment strategy and implementation thereof contributes to medium to long-term performance of the assets of the institutional investor.
Amendment 269 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3h – paragraph 2 – introductory words
Article 3h – paragraph 2 – introductory words
2. Member States shall ensure that asset managers disclose to the institutional investor on a half-yearly basis all ofthe annual disclosure referred to in paragraph 1 contains at least the following information:
Amendment 274 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3h – paragraph 3
Article 3h – paragraph 3
Amendment 275 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3i – paragraph 1
Article 3i – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that proxy advisors adopt and implement adequate measures to guarantee that their voting recommendations are accurate and reliable, based on a thorough analysis of all the information that is available to themmake public reference to a code of conduct which they apply and report on the application of that code of conduct. Where the proxy advisors depart from any recommendation of the code of conduct which they apply, they shall explain which parts they depart from, provide reasons for doing so and indicate, where appropriate, what alternative measures have been adopted. Where proxy advisors decide not to apply a code of conduct, they should explain their reasons for doing so. Information referred to in this paragraph shall be published by proxy advisors on their websites, or made available where they do not have a website, and updated on an annual basis.
Amendment 279 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory words
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory words
Proxy advisors shall on an annual basis publicly disclose all of the following information in relation to the preparation of their research and voting recommendations:
Amendment 281 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 283 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point ca (new)
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point ca (new)
(ca) the essential features of the research undertaken and voting policies applied for each market;
Amendment 284 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) whether they have communication or dialogues with the companies which are the object of their research and voting recommendations, and, if so, the extent and nature thereof;
Amendment 286 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(da) the policy regarding prevention and management of potential conflicts of interest;
Amendment 287 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Amendment 288 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point f
Article 3i – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point f
Amendment 289 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 3i – paragraph 3
Article 3i – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that proxy advisors identify and disclose without undue delay to their clients and the company concerned any actual or potential conflict of interest or business relationships that may influence the preparation of the research and voting recommendations and the actions they have undertaken to eliminate or mitigate the actual or potential conflict of interest.“
Amendment 319 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
Article 9a – paragraph 2
Amendment 321 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
3. The policy shall be clear and understandable, and shall explain how it contributes to the long-term interests and sustainability of the company. It shall set clear criteria for the award of fixed and variable remuneration, including all benefits in whatever form.
Amendment 334 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The policy shall indicate the maximum amounts of total remuneration that can be awarded, and the corresponding relative proportion of the different components of fixed and variable remuneration. It shall explain how the pay and employment conditions of employees of the company were taken into account when setting the policy or directors' remuneration by explaining the ratio between the average annual adjustment of the remuneration of directors and the average annual adjustment of the remuneration of full time employees of the company other than directors and why this ratio is considered appropriate. The policy may exceptionally be without a ratio in case of exceptional circumstances. In that case, it shall explain why there is no ratio and which measures with the same effect have been taken.
Amendment 377 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9b – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 9b – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the relative change of the remuneration of directors over the last three financial years, its relation to the development of the value of the company and to and the relative change in the average remuneration of full time employees of the company other than directors;
Amendment 408 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
1. Member States shall ensure that companies, in case of transactions with related parties that represent more than 1% of their assets, publicly announce such transactions at the time of the conclusion of the transaction, and accompany the announcement by a report from an independent third party assessing whether or not it is on market terms and confirming that the transaction is fair and reasonable from the perspective of the shareholders, including minority shareholdersentry into the transaction. The announcement shall contain information on the nature of the related party relationship, the name of the related party, the amount of the transaction and any other material information necessary to assess the transactioneconomic fairness of the transaction from the perspective of the company.
Amendment 418 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9c – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 9c – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Member States may provide that companies can request their shareholders to exempt them from the requirement of subparagraph 1 to accompany the announcement of the transaction with a related party by a report from an independent third party in case of clearly defined types of recurrent transactions with an identified related party in a period of not longer than 12 months after granting the exemption. Where the related party transactions involve a shareholder, this shareholder shall be excluded from the votethe announcement published pursuant to paragraph 1 is accompanied by a report assessing whether or not the transaction is fair from the perspective of the shareholders, including minority shareholders, and explaining the assumptions the report based upon together with the methods used. The report shall be produced by an independent third party. Member States may provide that this report can be produced by: (a) the independent directors of the company; or (b) the audit committee or any committee the majority of which is composed of independent directors; provided that the related parties are prevented from influencing the preparation onf the advance exemption. report.
Amendment 428 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 9c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. Member States shall ensure that material transactions with related parties arepresenting more than 5% of the companies’ assets approved at the latest immediately before transactions which can have a significant impact on profits or turnover are submitted to a vote by the shareholders in a general meeting. Where the related party transaction involves a shareholder, this shareholder shall be excluded from that vote. The company shall not conclude the transaction before the shareholders’ approval of the transaction. The company may however conclude the transahe time of their completion by the shareholders or by the administrative or supervisory bodies of the company in accordance with procedures which prevent a related party from taking advantage of its position and provide adequate protection undefor the condition of shareholder approvalminority shareholders' interests.
Amendment 456 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9c – paragraph 4
Article 9c – paragraph 4
4. Member States may excludeBy way of derogation from paragraph 1, transactions entered into between the company and one or more members of its group from the requirements in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, provided that those members of the group are wholly owned by the company. shall not constitute related party transactions for the purposes of this Article where the transactions are: (a) conducted on standard terms in the ordinary course of business; (b) concluded on market terms, provided that the administrative or supervisory body, without influence from the related party, has sanctioned what constitutes market terms in the particular type of case; or transactions entered into between the company and its subsidiary undertakings provided that no other related party of the company has an interest in the subsidiary undertaking or provided that national law provides for adequate protection of interests of minority shareholders of the company and of its subsidiary undertakings in such transactions; (c) clearly defined types of transactions which are not disadvantageous to minority shareholders, such as issuance of shares on a pre-emptive basis or payment of dividends, provided that the related party is offered or granted terms not more favourable than those terms offered or granted to the other shareholders. Member States may exclude from the requirements in paragraphs 1 and 2 transactions entered into between the company and any of its subsidiaries that are not wholly owned if national law provides for adequate protection of the interests of shareholders who are not a related party.
Amendment 4 #
2013/2152(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
- having regard to the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues adopted by the Council on 13 December 2001 and reviewed on 19 January 2009,
Amendment 6 #
2013/2152(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)
Citation 6 b (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on the state of play in the EU-India Free Trade Agreement negotiations;
Amendment 64 #
2013/2152(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Acknowledges the efforts made to list the various EU actions in the field of human rights and democracy support in the country reports, which provide a wealth of information about the work of the EU institutions around the world; regrets, nevertheless, that the country reports still seem to lack a systematic, clear and coherent framework that would allow for more rigorous analysis on the impact and efficiency of EU action; notes to this extend the lack of attention drawn by the report to the current unrest in Indian Administered Kashmir and against the backdrop of reported systematic human rights abuses against Kashmiris;
Amendment 114 #
2013/2152(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Supports the practice of including legally binding human rights and democracy clauses in the EU's international agreements, and considers that these clauses should also be included in all sectoral, bilateral and multilateral trade agreements;
Amendment 125 #
2013/2152(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Calls on India and the EU, in this context, to ensure that dialogue on open issues is stepped up, with particular reference to Kashmir;
Amendment 129 #
2013/2152(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Welcomes the continuation of the GSP+ scheme whereby countries can enjoy additional preferential tariffs as incentives for ratification and implementation of 27 core human rights, labour and environment conventions; stresses that GSP+ preferences must only be granted to countries that have ratified andthe conventions and have shown credible commitment to effectively implementeding the conventionsm; recalls also the possibility of temporal withdrawal of GSP+ preferences for countries in violation of human rights; calls therefore on the European Commission, when conducting the monitoring exercise, to open genuine channels of communication and carry out broad consultations with a wide range of partners, including the European Parliament and local civil society and social actors; calls on the European Commission to make the assessments for GSP+ eligibility publicly available, in order to increase transparency and accountability;
Amendment 268 #
2013/2152(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a (new)
Paragraph 53 a (new)
53a. Raises deep concerns with reference to Kashmir where any act of violence against civilians is to be strongly deplored; is aware that investigations into the issue of unidentified graves have been undertaken; urges nevertheless human rights protection mechanisms to be placed at the centre of any attempt to ensure responsibility and accountability for abuses against civilians;
Amendment 11 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the EU Justice Scoreboard, and congratulates the Commission thereon; calls on the Commission to take this exercise forward in line with the Treaties, bearing in mind the need to avoid the unnecessary duplication of work with other bodies, including the Council of Europe;
Amendment 14 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 16 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that the comparison of national justice systems must be based on objective criteria and on evidence which is objectively compiled, compared and analysed; points out the importance of assessing the functioning of the justice system as a whole, without separating it from the constitutional tradition that it stems from; stresses the importance of treating Member States impartially, thus ensuring equality of treatment between all Member States when assessing their justice systems ; recalls that these principles underpin the work of the Council of Europe's Commission on the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ);
Amendment 22 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Lauds the efforts of the Commission to provide measurable data, but cConsiders that some goals, such as impartial justice, cannot be measured easily or objectively;
Amendment 27 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on theDraws the attention of Member States to examine the results of the 2013 Justice Scoreboard closely and to determine whether any consequences need to be drawn therefrom for the organisation of their respective civil, commercial and administrative justice systems;
Amendment 29 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Encourages the Member States to collect relevant data on issues such as the cost of proceedings, mediation cases and enforcement procedures; regrets that no data have been provided by some Member States for certain categories indicated in the Justice Scoreboard; believes, however, that the Commission should have drawn a distinction between instances where data was not available and instances where indicators were not relevant or applicable to individual Member States;
Amendment 31 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 35 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Asks the Commission to consider cross-border mediation procedures in its next such exercise; eEncourages Member States to actively promote mediation procedures with special regard to family matters regulated at EU level, such as Rome III and Brussels II;
Amendment 37 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. RecallUnderlines the role of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) in gathering and presenting the relevant data, and the leading role of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in facilitating access to knowledge on EU and national law in this field;
Amendment 47 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas in the case of online musicworks, both in terms of access and sales, licence- granting practices are being viewed as an alternative tocomplementary the system of private copying levies;
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 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 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 68 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 79 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the private copying levy should apply to all material, medRecalls the right of Member States to provide exceptions for private copying, and the right of creators to receive compensation for such copying, to the extent that it causes unreasonable harm. In this regard, believes that the private copying levy applies to material and servicesmedia whose value resides in their private recording and storage capacity;
Amendment 106 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 115 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Takes the view that consumers must be informed of the amount and purpose 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, on invoices and receipts issued to consumers;
Amendment 124 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 130 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 139 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 144 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 150 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Observes that, despitein addition to permanent access to online works, licensing practices may enable downloading, storage and private copying for offline use is continuing; takes the view that a private copying levy system cannots are therefore be replaccomplemented by a licencing systempractices;
Amendment 153 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Observes that, despitein addition to permanent access to online works, licensing practices may enable downloading, storage and private copying for offline use is continuing; takes the view that a private copying levy system cannots are therefore be replaccomplemented by a licencing systempractices;
Amendment 157 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 186 #
2013/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 21 #
2013/2077(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the Commission communications on EU Regulatory Fitness (COM(2012)0422746) and (COM(2013)0685),
Amendment 44 #
2013/2077(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
12. Considers that these rhetorical advances should now be consolidated with concrete action; urges the Commission, therefore, to come forward with further concrete proposals to reduce the overall EU regulatory burden without undue delay, and in particular to:
Amendment 50 #
2013/2077(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 3
Paragraph 12 – indent 3
– complete the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT)rapidly implement the commitments set out in its October Regulatory Fitness (REFIT) Communication; complete evaluations in key policy areas before the end of the current legislative term;
Amendment 51 #
2013/2077(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 4
Paragraph 12 – indent 4
Amendment 16 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
Amendment 21 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The European Small Claims Procedure is essentially a written procedure. However, oral hearings may be held exceptionally where it is not possible to render the judgment on the basis of the written evidence provided by the parties. Furthermore, in order to safeguard the procedural rights of the parties, an oral hearing should always be organised upon the request of at least one of the parties where the value of the claim exceeds EUR 2,000. Finally, courts should seek to reach a settlement between the parties and therefore, where the parties declare their willingness to reach a court settlement, the court should organise an oral hearing for this purpose.
Amendment 24 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The potential costs of litigation may play a role in the claimant's decision to consider court action. Among other costs, court fees may discourage claimants from taking court action, in particular in those Member States where court fees are disproportionate. The court fees should be proportionate to the value of the claim in order to ensure access to justice for cross- border small claims. This Regulationestablished at a level which does not exceed the fees charged for equivalent procedures which are domes not aim at harmonising court fees; instead, it puts in place a maximum limit on court fees which would make the procedure accessible to a significant proportion of claimants, while at the same time allowing Member States wide discretion in choosing the method of calculation and the amount of court feestic in nature. Fees charged at an equal or lower level will encourage use of the European Small Claims Procedure, in part by positioning it as a cost effective and comparable instrument to more familiar domestic procedures. In Member States where domestic procedures do not exist, court fees should be established at a level which is not disproportionate to the value of the claim.
Amendment 27 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The payment of court fees should not require the claimant to travel or hire a lawyer for this purpose. As a minimum, bank transfers and, credit or debit card on- line payment systems or other types of distance payment methods should be accepted by all courts and tribunals with jurisdiction in European Small Claims Procedures.
Amendment 35 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Amendment 45 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 3
Article 3
Amendment 48 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – second subparagraph – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – second subparagraph – point a
Amendment 72 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 9
Article 1 – point 9
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 15a – paragraph 1
Article 15a – paragraph 1
1. The court fee charged for a European Small Claims Procedure shall not exceed 10% of the value of the claim, excluding all interest, expenses and disbursements. If Member States charge a minimum court fee for a European Sthe court fee charged for an equivalent domestic small Cclaims Pprocedure, that fee shall not exceed EUR 35 at the time when the claim form is received by the court or tribunal with jurisdiction in the Member State concerned.
Amendment 75 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 9
Article 1 – point 9
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 15a – paragraph 2
Article 15a – paragraph 2
2. The Member States shall ensure that the parties can pay the court fees by one or more means of distance payment methods, including, but not limited to, bank transfer and credit or debit card on-line payment system.
Amendment 80 #
2013/0403(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 16
Article 1 – point 16
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 28 – first paragraph
Article 28 – first paragraph
By [5 years after the date of application], the Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the operation of this Regulation. The report shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals. An interim report shall be prepared after [2 years after the date of application] which shall examine dissemination of information about the European Small Claims Procedure in the Member States, and may produce recommendations related to improving the publicity of this instrument.
Amendment 93 #
2013/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Member States may provide, in compliance with the provisions of the Treaty, for more protection against the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets than required under this Directive, provided that compliance with Articles 4,5 6 (1), 7, 8 (1) second subparagraph, 8 (3), 8 (4), 9 (2), 10, 12 and 14 (3) is ensured;
Amendment 19 #
2013/0255(APP)
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the need for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to examine and investigate with equal rigour cases from all participating Member States, irrespective of any geographical considerations, past cases or surveys, and adopting a qualitative approach based on objective criteria;
Amendment 20 #
2013/0255(APP)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Underlines the need for clarity as to how the European Public Prosecutor’s Office will work effectively with all Member States;
Amendment 41 #
2013/0185(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
Amendment 54 #
2013/0185(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2
2. ‘national competition law’ means provisions of national law that predominantly pursue the same objective as Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and that are applied to the same case and in parallel to Union competition law pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003; This definition does not apply to national laws which impose criminal sanctions on natural persons except to the extent that such sanctions are the means whereby competition rules applying to undertakings are enforced.
Amendment 78 #
2013/0185(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Article 5 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall take the necessary measures to give full effect to legal privileges and other rights not to be compelled to disclose evidence in accordance to national law.
Amendment 81 #
2013/0185(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 7
Article 5 – paragraph 7
7. Evidence shall include all types of evidence admissible before the national court seiszed, in particular documents and all other objects containing information, irrespective of the medium on which the information is storedwith the exception of leniency corporate statements.
Amendment 54 #
2013/0119(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The aim of this Regulation is not to change the substantive law of the Member States relating to birth, death, name, marriage, registered partnership, parenthood, adoption, residence, citizenship or nationality, real estate, legal status of a company or other undertaking, intellectual property rights or absence of a criminal record. This Regulation should, however, retain adequate safeguards against fraud and forgery and provide that, in limited circumstances such as in relation to immigration matters, Member States will not be precluded from requiring the provision of original documentation.
Amendment 75 #
2013/0119(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may require, for the purposes of detection of fraud, the presentation of original documents in limited circumstances.
Amendment 82 #
2013/0110(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 b (new)
Recital 9 b (new)
(9b) In addition to non-financial reporting encouraged at European level, international efforts to improve transparency in financial reporting have been noted. Country-by-country reporting in the extractives sector has been legislated for by both the EU and the US, while within the context of the G8 and G20, which includes four Member States and involves the European Commission, the OECD has been asked to draw up a standardised reporting template for multi- national undertakings to report to tax authorities where they make their profits and pay taxes around the world. Such developments improving transparency in financial reporting complement the proposals contained in this Directive, as appropriate measures for their respective purposes, be they national, pan-European or international in scale and possible risk.
Amendment 93 #
2013/0110(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The scope of these non-financial disclosure requirements should be defined by reference to the average number of employees, total assets and turnover. SMEs should be exempted from additional requirements, and the obligation to disclose a non-financial statement in the annual report should only apply to those companies which are public interest entities whose average number of employees exceeds 500, and exceed either a balance sheet total of EUR 20 million or a net turnover of EUR 40 million.
Amendment 181 #
2013/0110(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 a (new) – point d
Article 2 a (new) – point d
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19
Article 19
Amendment 192 #
2013/0110(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 a (new) – point e
Article 2 a (new) – point e
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(e) In Article 20(1), the following point is added: (fa) a description of the undertaking's diversity policy for its administrative, management and supervisory bodies with regard to such aspects as age, gender and disability, the objectives of this diversity policy, how it has been implemented and the results in the reporting period. If the undertaking has no such policy, the statement shall contain a clear and reasoned explanation as to why this is the case.
Amendment 41 #
2013/0089(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) To this end, it is necessary to list examples of signs which may constitute a trade mark, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. In order to fulfil the objectives of the registration system for trade marks, which are to ensure legal certainty and sound administration, it is also essential to require that the sign is capable of being represented in a manner which allows for a precise determination of the subject of protis clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, durable and objectionve. A sign should therefore be permitted to be represented in any appropriate form, and thus not necessarily by graphic means, as long as the representation offers satisfactory guarantees to that effect.
Amendment 86 #
2013/0089(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Amendment 105 #
2013/0089(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 52
Article 52
Member States shall ensure that the offices cooperate with each other and with the Agency in order to promote convergence of practices and tools and achieve coherent results in the examination and registration of trade marks.
Amendment 72 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) In order to allow for more flexibility while ensuring greater legal certainty with regard to the means of representation of trademarks, the requirement of graphic representability should be deleted from the definition of a European trade mark. A sign should be permitted to be represented in any appropriate form, and thus not necessarily by graphic means, as long as the representationsign is capable of being represented in a manner which is clear, precise, self- contained, easily accessible, durable and objective. A sign is therefore permitted in any appropriate form, taking account of generally available technology and enables the competent authorities and the public to determine with precision and clarity the precisthe subject matter of protection.
Amendment 102 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point b
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 shall apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain: (a) in only part of the Union; (b) only where a trade mark in a foreign language or script is translated or transcribed in any script or official language of a Member State.
Amendment 104 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) where the trade mark is liable to be confused with an earlier trade mark protected outside the Union, provided that, at the date of the application, the earlier trade mark was still in genuine use and the applicant was acting in bad faith.
Amendment 130 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 28
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 28
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Article 28 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Amendment 134 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 36
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 36
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Article 38 – paragraph 1a
Article 38 – paragraph 1a
(36) In Title IV, Section 2 is deleted;Article 38, the following paragraph 1a is inserted: 1a. Upon notification to the Agency at the time of registration, applicants may choose to not receive the Union search report referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 166 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 98
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 98
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Article 123 c – paragraph 2
Article 123 c – paragraph 2
2. The AgencyManagement Board shall define, and elaborate and coordinate common projects of Union interest with regard to the areas referred to in paragraph 1. The project definition shall containset out the specific obligations and responsibilities of each participating industrial property office of the Member States and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property. Throughout all phases of the common projects, the Agency shall coordinate the common projects and consult with representatives from users.
Amendment 97 #
2013/0064(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 9 – introductory part
Article 9 – introductory part
The use and exchange of SST data and SST information for the purposes of the implementation of the objectives referred to in Article 3 shall be subject to the following rules and an implementing act shall be established to specify the means by which these aims are to be achieved and the measures that are to be put in place to ensure compliance with relevant criteria:
Amendment 102 #
2013/0064(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point a
(a) Regulation (EU) No […] of the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and exploitation of European satellite navigation systems21 , Articles 1, 3 (c) and (d) and 4;, without jeopardising the full functionality of the EGNOS and Galileo programmes. __________________ 21 COM(2011) 814 final, 31.11.2011. Reference to be updated after adoption.
Amendment 107 #
2013/0064(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) Regulation (EU) No […...] of the European Parliament and the Council establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management23 , Article 3(2)(b) and (3)(e) the funding and operation of the European Earth monitoring programme (Copernicus) 2014-2020, without jeopardising the full functionality of the programme.
Amendment 39 #
2013/0049(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) to which consumers are exposedare provided to a consumer in the contexturse of a service provided to them, whether or not the product is used by the consumer himself.
Amendment 42 #
2013/0049(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
4. Chapters II to IV of tThis Regulation shall not apply to products subject to requirements designed to protect human health and safety laid down in Union harmonisation legislation or pursuant to it.
Amendment 63 #
2013/0049(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Manufacturers and importers shall ensure that products bear an indication ofmay indicate on the product the country of its origin of the product or, where the size or nature of the product does not allow it, that indication is tomay be provided on the packaging or in a document accompanying the product.
Amendment 66 #
2013/0049(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. Manufacturers shall keep, for a period of ten years after the product has been placed on the market, the technical documentation and make it available to the market surveillance authorities, upon a reasoned request.
Amendment 73 #
2013/0049(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) further to a reasoned request from a market surveillance authority, provide that authority with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of a product;
Amendment 92 #
2013/0049(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Economic operators shall be able to present the information referred to in the first paragraph for a period of 10 years after they have been supplied with the product and for a period of 10 yearsthat is a reasonable assessment of the lifecycle of a product after they have supplied the product.
Amendment 94 #
2013/0049(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15
Article 15
Amendment 103 #
2013/0049(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 131 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the third judicial reform package as a step towards a comprehensive reform process in the area of the judiciary and fundamental rights; stresses however the crucial importance to continue the reform process with a fourth judicial reform package addressing (a) the issues related to the excessively broad definitions of criminal offences under the Criminal Law orand in particular what constitutes an act of terrorism under the Penal Code and the Anti-Terror Law, with the urgent need to introduce a clear distinction between the promotion of terrorism and the incitement to violence and the expression of non- violent ideas in line with the ECtHR case law, in order to safeguard freedom of expression, (b) the issue of the excessively long pre-trial detention periods, and (c) the need to and media, (b) procedures, including an independent and impartial interpretation of legal provisions that respect fundamental rights, such as allowing full access to the prosecution file for defence lawyers and addressing concerns regarding the quality and consistency of the evidence, c) efficiency such as the backlog of cases, which combined with procedural norms lead to issues such as the excessively long pre- trial detention periods;
Amendment 144 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7a (new)
Paragraph 7a (new)
7a. Calls upon the Turkish government, in order to increase the efficiency of judicial proceedings and address the ongoing backlog of cases, to bring its regional courts of appeal, which were legally due to be operational by June 2007, into operation as soon as possible and to focus on training judges and prosecutors for this purpose;
Amendment 148 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7b (new)
Paragraph 7b (new)
7b. Notes that the Ad Hoc Delegation for the Observation of the Trials of Journalists in Turkey will continue to monitor the trial of journalists and will follow judicial reforms in Turkey addressing freedom of expression and media;
Amendment 162 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that freedom of expression and media pluralism are core European values and that a truly democratic society requires true freedom of expression, including the right of dissent; underlines the importance of abolishing legislation providing for disproportionately high tax fines on the media, leading in some cases to their closure or to self-censorship, and the urgent need to reform the internet law;
Amendment 1 #
2012/2323(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that while the co-legislators may not always share the same understanding of the essential elements of the two type of acts, Parliament should continue to strassess that politically sensitive issues that could supplement the basic act cannot be dealt with by meanse appropriateness of either delegated ofr implementing acts, as this would affect Parliament's right of scrutiny in a negative way on the basis of legal criteria, rather than a political judgement;
Amendment 3 #
2012/2323(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas legislative negotiations on many files have shown divergent interpretations among the institutions on certain issues; whereas, in accordance with Rule 37a of its Rules of Procedure, Parliament's committees may request an opinion from the Committee on Legal Affairs when scrutinising a proposal which contains delegated acts; whereas the Conference of Presidents on 13 January 2012 endorsed a common line, and on 19 April 2012 endorsed a horizontal approach to be followed by individual committees in order to overcome differences of opinion; whereas that common line needs to be taken one step further by Parliament setting out its own criteria for the application of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU and by endeavouring to agree on such criteria with the Council and the Commission;
Amendment 4 #
2012/2323(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Considers that the following criteria should be followed by Parliament in applying Articles 290 and 291 TFEUParliament and Council should assess the appropriateness of either delegated or implementing acts on the basis of legal criteria, rather than a political judgement; nevertheless, where the legal parameters of delegated and implementing acts allow, considers that the choice of delegated or implementing acts may be made on a case-by-case basis, reflecting policy needs; in this regard, believes the following criteria may be helpful:
Amendment 7 #
2012/2323(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 4
Paragraph 1 – indent 4
Amendment 8 #
2012/2323(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 5
Paragraph 1 – indent 5
- Measures designed to lay down (further) conditions, criteria or requirements to be met - the fulfilment of which must be ensured by the Member States or other persons or entities directly concerned by the legislation - will, by definition,- may alter the content of the legislation and add new rules of general application. Consequently, the creation of such further rules or criteria may be accomplished only by means of a delegated act. By contrast, the implementation of the rules or criteria already established in the basic act (or in a future delegated act), without modifying the substance of the rights or obligations stemming from them and without making further policy choices, can take place through implementing acts.
Amendment 10 #
2012/2323(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 7
Paragraph 1 – indent 7
Amendment 12 #
2012/2323(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 11
Paragraph 1 – indent 11
Amendment 15 #
2012/2323(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 12
Paragraph 1 – indent 12
- Authorisations can be measures of general application. This is for instance the case where decisions concern the authorisation or prohibition of the inclusion of a specific substance in food, cosmetics etc. Those decisions are general because they concern any operator willing to use such substance. In such cases, if the Commission decision is fully based on criteria contained in the basic act, it should be an implementing act, provided that the legislator did not choose to keep the authorisations as an integral part of the basic act in the form of an Annex; if it adds new normative content affecting the substance of the rights and obligations and thereby adding secondary political orientation or policy choices to the basic act, thus supplementing it, it should be a delegated act, subject to a time-limited period and review.
Amendment 17 #
2012/2323(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 14
Paragraph 1 – indent 14
Amendment 12 #
2012/2322(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recognises, however, the consistent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which emphasises that national controls should be enacted and applied in a consistent, proportionate and non-discriminatory manner and be in line with the legal objectives pursued in order to protect consumers and the public order and prevent fraud;
Amendment 20 #
2012/2322(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to encourage the establishment of a code of practice by sports event organisers, betting operators and public authorities with a view to developing the mechanisms necessary to preserve the integrity of sports, including provisions for the financing of those mechanisms;
Amendment 22 #
2012/2322(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that the approximation ofa consistent approach towards criminal sanctions is essential to a pan- European approach to regulating the online gambling sector and, to this end, calls on the Commission to examine the appropriateness of bringing forward legislative proposals to establish minimum rules regarding the definition ofurges the Member States to ensure that the fraudulent manipulation of results for financial or other advantage is prohibited by establishing as a criminal offences and sanctions in respect of unregulated online gambling and the fight against match-fixing, and crime associated with it, at EU levely threat to the integrity of competitions, including those linked to betting operations;
Amendment 4 #
2012/2134(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to consider a broader review of EU financial and regulatory legislation which currently burdens SMEs and to present legislative solutions following its examination of the tax obstacles to cross-border venture capital investments in the EU; considers that, following this wider review, the Commission should bring forward proposals to exempt SMEs where regulatory provisions disproportionately affect them and there is no sound reason for including them in the scope of the legislation, or to consider 'tailor-made' approaches or lighter regimes when an exemption would not be suitable;
Amendment 10 #
2012/2134(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Invitessists that the Commission to continuemust applying the SME Test, including specific consideration of microenterprises, and the ‘Think Small First’ principle when preparing draft legislation, and to carry out impact assessments on all legislative proposals, in particular those of a financial nature, to ensuring in the processe that all possible issues applicable to SMEs can be identified and dealt with at an early stage, and to take these into consideration in order to minimise the impact on SMEs in further drafts, as well as to provide an explanation as to why the legislation does or does not apply to SME; considers it essential that the Commission should seek to minimise the regulatory burden falling on SMEs in further drafts;
Amendment 13 #
2012/2134(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the Commission to ensure that Member States provide SMEs with greater support, education and training with regard to funding issues and to consider cooperating more closely with SME representative bodies to develop this training; in conjunction, urges the Commission to advance programmes of simplification to improve access to European financing programmes;
Amendment 3 #
2012/2044(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the commitment shown by the Commission towards addressing problems identified by citizens and businesses affecting the Single Market, however expresses disappointment at the depth shown in the Working Paper;
Amendment 4 #
2012/2044(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Stresses the need to address the problems experienced by citizens and businesses; notes that despite the minimal evidence included in the Working Paper, many of the problem areas identified have been subject to recent impact assessments and proposals by the Commission; strongly considers that where action is proposed the Commission must produce robust and conclusive evidence in favour of the policy option chosen in the draft legislation; calls on the Parliament to give full consideration to the accuracy and persuasiveness of the impact assessments produced by the Commission when considering draft proposals, in order that adopted legislation meets the needs of citizens and businesses alike;
Amendment 10 #
2012/2044(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 11 #
2012/2044(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Considers that a strong adherence to the 'Think Small First' principle would ensure that future legislation does not introduce further difficulties and frustrations for citizens and businesses engaging in the Single Market;
Amendment 15 #
2012/2044(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Agrees with the Commission that differences in contract law do not represent one of the root causes of dissatisfaction with online shopping within Europe; calls therefore on an extensive examination of the necessity and utility of the proposal for a Common European Sales Law; considers that alternative proposals would provide citizens and businesses with the comfort needed to carry out business online, in particular proposals on ADR and ODR;
Amendment 4 #
2012/2030(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that the recently proposed regulation on a Common European Sales Law, which can be agreed on by contracting parties as an alternative to national sales law regulations, has great potential in countering the fragmentwill not address the root causes of fragmentation and dissatisfaction with the operation of the digital single market and making internet business more accessible and legally reliable for consumers and businesses alike; considers that traders and consumers would feel internet business to be more attractive, accessible and legally reliable if other alternative proposals are adopted, in particular those on ADR and ODR;
Amendment 76 #
2012/0360(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 23
Article 1 – point 23
Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Article 3 b – paragraph 2
Article 3 b – paragraph 2
2. Where insolvency proceedings are opened in accordance with national law without a decision by a court, the liquidatorinsolvency representative appointed in such proceedings shall examine whether the Member State in which the proceedings are pending has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3. Where this is the case, the liquidatorinsolvency representative shall specify the grounds on which jurisdiction is based and, in particular, whether jurisdiction is based on Article 3(1) or (2). Such specification may be reviewed by a court in the jurisdiction claimed by the insolvency representative, in cases where competing claims to jurisdiction based on Article 3 exist.
Amendment 88 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The reporting Member State shall submit Part I of the assessment report, including its conclusion, to the sponsor and to the other Member States concerned within the following time periods, which shall include periods for initial assessment, for joint assessment and for consolidation of the final report:
Amendment 90 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) within 10 days from the validation date for low-intervention clinical trials; the time for the joint assessment and for consolidation by Member States concerned and reporting Member State shall not be shorter than 5 days.
Amendment 92 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) within 25 days from the validation date for clinical trials other than low- intervention clinical trials; the time for the joint assessment and for consolidation by Member States concerned and reporting Member State shall not be shorter than 10 days.
Amendment 94 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) within 30 days from the validation date for any clinical trial with an advanced therapy investigational medicinal product; the time for the joint assessment and for consolidation by Member States concerned and reporting Member State shall not be shorter than 10 days.
Amendment 96 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
For the purposes of this Chapter, the assessment date shall be the date on which the assessment report is submitted to the other Member States concerned and the reporting date shall be the date when the final assessment report is submitted to the sponsor and to the other Member States concerned.
Amendment 97 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. Until the assessment date, any the reporting Member State shall develop and circulate to the Member States concerned an initial assessment report. Until 2 days before the reporting date, Member States concerned may communicate to the reporting Member State and all other Member States concerned any considerations relevant to the application. The reporting Member State shall take those considerations duly into account in finalising the assessment report.
Amendment 99 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. The reporting Member State may also extend the time referred to in paragraphs 4 and 6 a further 60 days for trials involving Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products or other novel therapies, for the purpose of consulting with expert committees
Amendment 100 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
The reporting Member State, and only the reporting Member State, may, between the validation date and the assessmentreporting date, request additional explanations from the sponsor, taking into account the considerations referred to in paragraph 5.
Amendment 101 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
For the purpose of obtaining those additional explanations, the reporting Member State may suspextend the time period referred to in paragraph 4 for a maximum of 120 days for low-intervention clinical trials and for a maximum of 230 days for trials other than low-intervention clinical trials.
Amendment 102 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 103 #
2012/0192(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 7
Article 6 – paragraph 7
7. The sponsor may at its own initiative change the content of the application only between the validation date and the assessmentreporting date and only for duly justified reasons. In this case, the reporting Member State may, depending on the extent of the change to the content of the application, suspend the period referred to in paragraph 4 for a maximum of 60 days.
Amendment 225 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘'collecting society’ve 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 owned or controlled by its members;on behalf of more than one rightholder for the collective benefit of those rightsholders. (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)
Amendment 235 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) ‘rightholder’ means any natural person or legal entity other than a collecting society that holds a copyright or related right or who under an agreement for the exploitation of rights or by law, is entitled to a share of the rights revenue from any of the rights managed by the collecting society. Where such persons are performers, 'rightholder' shall include the holder of the related right, or his or her heirs;
Amendment 265 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. Rightholders shall have the right to terminate the authorisation to manage rights, categories of rights or types of works and other subject matter granted to a collecting society or to withdraw from a collecting society any of the rights or categories of rights or types of works and other subject matter of their choice, for the Member States of their choice, upon serving reasonable notice not exceeding six months. The collecting society may decide that such termination or withdrawal will take effect only at the middle andof rights from the repertoire will only take effect at the end of the financial year, whichever is sooner after following the expiry of thean agreed notice period.
Amendment 272 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 6
Article 5 – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall ensure that the rightholder gives express consent specificallyconsent for each right or category of rights or type of works and other subject matter which that rightholder authorises the collecting society to manage and that any such consent is evidenced in documentary form.
Amendment 316 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. The general meeting shall control the activities of the collecting societyve management organisation by, at least, deciding on the appointment and removal of the auditor and approving the annual transparency report and the auditor'shaving placed before them, together with the company's accounts, the annual transparency report.
Amendment 387 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Where the amounts due to rightholders cannot be distributed, after fivnot less than three years from the end of the financial year in which the collection of the rights revenue occurred, and provided that the collecting societyve management organisation has taken all necessary measures to identify and locate the rightholders, the collecting societyMember States shall dspecide on the use of the amounts concerned in accordance with Article 7(5)(b), without prejudice to the right of the rightholder to claim such amounts from the collecting societyfy to whom the undistributed monies shall be paid and shall ensure that the distribution takes place without prejudice to the right of the rightholder to claim such amounts from the collective management organisation in accordance with the laws of the Member States on the statute of limitation claims.
Amendment 433 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall ensure that a collecting society makes available at least once a year, by electronic means, the following information to each rightholder to whom it makes a payment during the period concerned and member it represents:
Amendment 447 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In addition, the collective management organisation shall make available the information referred to in paragraph 1 to rightsholders it represents where requested to do so by those rightsholders.
Amendment 457 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the repertoire and rights it manages and the Member States covered. Such information may be provided in general terms where provision of detailed information imposes an unreasonable burden on the collective management organisation;
Amendment 499 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. Any representation agreement between collecting societies whereby a collecting society mandates another collecting society to grant multi-territorial licences for the online rights in musical works in its own music repertoire shall be of a non- exclusive nature. The mandated collecting society shall manage those online rights on non-discriminatory terms. Unless appropriately justified, the mandated collecting society shall issue licenses under the same conditions as for its own repertoire.
Amendment 512 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 34 – paragraph 1
Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that collecting societies make available to their members and rightholders effective and timely procedures for dealing with complaints and for resolving disputes, including where appropriate recourse to an independent and impartial dispute resolution body, in particular in relation to authorisation to manage rights and termination or withdrawal of rights, membership terms, the collection of amounts due to rightholders, deductions and distributions.
Amendment 513 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 34 – paragraph 3
Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. PartieWhere the obligation set out in paragraph 1 is implemented by recourse to an independent and impartial dispute resolution body with expertise in intellectual property law, this shall not be prevented the parties from asserting and defending their rights by bringing an action before a court.
Amendment 519 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 1
Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that disputes between collecting societies and users concerning existing and proposed licensing conditions, tariffs, and any refusal to grant a licence can be submitted to a court, and if appropriate, to an independent and impartial dispute resolution body with expertise in intellectual property law.
Amendment 528 #
2012/0180(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure, for the purposes of Title III, that the following disputes of a collecting society which grants or offers to grant multi-territorial licences in online rights in musical works can be submitted to an independent and impartial alternative dispute resolution bodiesy expertise in intellectual property law:
Amendment 57 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Amendment 70 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5
Article 5
When an electronic identification using an electronic identification means and authentication is required under national legislation or administrative practice to access a public service online, any in one Member State, the electronic identification means issued in another Member State falling under a scheme, which is included in the list published by the Commission pursuant to the procedure referred to in Article 7 shall be recognised and accepted for the purposes ofArticle 7, shall be recognised in the first Member State for the purposes of accessing that service online, provided that those electronic identification means correspond to an identity assurance level equal to or higher than the identity assurance level required for accessing to thisat service online in the first Member State.
Amendment 71 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
1. EAn electronic identification schemes shall be eligible for notification pursuant to Article 7 if all the following conditions are met:
Amendment 72 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the electronic identification means are issued by, on behalf of or under the responsibility of the notifyingunder that scheme are issued: (i) by the notifying Member State, (ii) under a mandate from the notifying Member State, or (iii) independently of the notifying Member State and are recognised by that Member State;
Amendment 73 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the electronic identification means under that scheme can be used to access at least public servicesone service provided by a public sector body requiring electronic identification in the notifying Member State;
Amendment 75 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the electronic identification scheme meets the requirements of the interoperability mode under Article 8l;
Amendment 78 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the notifying Member State ensures that the person identification data are attributed unambiguously to the natural or legal person referred to in Article 3 point1to a sufficiently high level for the identity assurance level in question to the natural or legal person referred to in point 1 of Article 3 at the time of issuance of the electronic identification means under that scheme;
Amendment 80 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) the party issuing the electronic identification means under that scheme ensures that the person identification data referred to in point (c) are attributed to a sufficiently high level for the identity assurance level in question to the electronic identification means at the time of the issuance of the electronic identification means;
Amendment 82 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the notifying Member State ensures the availability of an authentication possibility online, so that any time and free of charge so that any relying partyrelying party established outside of the territory of that Member State can validate the person identification data received in electronic form. Member States shall not impose any specific technical requirements on relying parties established outside of their territory intending to carry out such authentication. When either the notified identification scheme or authentication possibility is breached or partly compromised, Member States shall suspend or revoke without delay the notified identification scheme or authentication possibility or the compromised parts concerned and inform the other Member States and the Commission pursuant to Article 7Such authentication shall be provided free of charge when accessing a service online provided by a public sector body. Member States shall not unduly impose any specific technical requirements on relying parties intending to carry out such authentication;
Amendment 83 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) at least six months prior to notification pursuant to Article 7(1), the notifying Member State provides to other Member States a description of the electronic identification scheme.
Amendment 84 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 86 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Amendment 90 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Member States which notify an electronic identification schemThe notifying Member State shall forward to the Commission the following information and without undue delay, any subsequent changes thereof: (a) a description of the notified electronic identification scheme; (b) the, including its identity assurance levels; (b) the authority or authorities responsible for the notified electronic identification scheme; (c) information on by whom the registrthe entity or entities which manages the verification of the unambiguous person identifiers is managedcation data; (ca) a description of how the requirements of the interoperability framework referred to in Article 8 are met; (d) a description of the authentication possibilityreferred to in point (d) of Article 6; (e) arrangements for suspension or revocation of either the notified identification scheme or authentication possibility or the compromised parts concerned.
Amendment 94 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. If the Commission receives a notification after the period referred to in paragraph 2 has expired, it shall amend the list within three monthspublish in the Official Journal of the European Union the amendments to the list referred to in paragraph 2 within one month from the date of receipt of that notification.
Amendment 95 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 a (new)
Article 7 a (new)
Article 7a 1. When either the electronic identification scheme notified pursuant to Article 7(1) or the authentication referred to in point (d) of Article 6 is breached or partly compromised in a way that would affect the reliability of that scheme for cross border transactions, the notifying Member State shall without delay suspend or revoke the cross border part of that electronic identification scheme or that authentication or the compromised parts concerned and inform other Member States and the Commission. 2. When the breach or compromise referred to in paragraph 1 has been remedied, the notifying Member State shall reestablish the authentication and shall inform other Member States and the Commission without undue delay. 3. If the breach or compromise referred to in paragraph 1 is not remedied within 3 months of the suspension or revocation, the notifying Member State shall notify the withdrawal of the electronic identification scheme to other Member States and to the Commission. The Commission shall publish without undue delay in the Official Journal of the European Union the corresponding amendments to the list referred to in Article 7(2).
Amendment 96 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 b (new)
Article 7 b (new)
Article 7b 1. The notifying Member State shall be liable for any direct damage caused to any natural or non-natural person due to a failure to comply with its obligations under points (c) and (d) of Article 6, unless it can show that it has not acted negligently. 2. The party issuing the electronic identification means shall be liable for any direct damage caused to any natural or non-natural person for failing to ensure, consistent with the application of the identity assurance levels within national schemes: (i) the attribution of the person identification data referred to in point (ca) of Article 6, and (ii) the correct operation of the authentication referred to in point (d) of Article 6, unless it can show that it has not acted negligently. 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the liability under national legislation of parties to a transaction in which electronic identification means falling under the notified scheme are used
Amendment 98 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – title and paragraph 1
Article 8 – title and paragraph 1
Amendment 100 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The interoperability model shall include the necessary minimum technical requirements, the common operational security standards and the levels of identity assurance and standards against which Member States will map their national scheme, certification and governance.
Amendment 102 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. The interoperability model shall: i) ensure technology neutrality, ii) facilitate the principle of privacy by design, iii) ensure personal data is processed in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC.
Amendment 103 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. By [insert the date], in order to establish uniform conditions for implementing paragraphs 1, 1a and 1b, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts on standards, protocols for the interoperability model and identity assurance levels.
Amendment 104 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 d (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Member States shall cooperate in order to ensure the interoperability of electronic identification means falling under a notified electronic identification scheme and to enhance their security.
Amendment 105 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 e (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. The cooperation between Member States shall consist of: i) exchange of information, experience and good practice on eID schemes, ii) peer review of eID schemes; iii) examination of relevant developments in the eID sector.
Amendment 106 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Amendment 106 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 and 2 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 2 and 2 a (new)
2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish the necessary modalities to facilitate the cooperation between the Member States referred to in paragraphs 1d and 1e with a view to fostering a high level of trust and security appropriate to the degree of risk. 2a. Those implementing acts shall concern, in particular, the exchange of information, experiences and good practice on electronic identification schemes, the peer review of notified electronic identification schemes and the examination of relevant developments arising in the electronic identification sector by the competent authorities of the Member States. Those implementing actsreferred to in paragraphs 1c and 2 of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).
Amendment 107 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Amendment 115 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Qualified tTrust services and qualified certificates provided by qualified trust service providers established in a third country shall be accepted asrecognised as legally equivalent to qualified trust services and qualified certificates provided by a qualified trust service providers established in the territory of the Union if the qualified trust services or qualified certificates originating from the third country are recognised under an agreement between the Union and third countries or international organisations in accordance with Article 218 TFUEcomply with the relevant requirements of this Regulation as determined by a supervisory body established in a Member State.
Amendment 116 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 122 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall designate an appropriate supervisory body established in their territory or, upon mutual agreement, in another Member State under the responsibility of the designating Member State. Supervisory bodies shall be given all supervisory and investigatory powers that are necessary for the exercise of their tasks.
Amendment 124 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall notify to the Commission the names and the addresses of their respective designated supervisory bodies.
Amendment 126 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – introductory wording
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – introductory wording
2. The supervisory body shall be res, insofar as is ponssible for the performance of the following tasks, ensure that:
Amendment 127 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) monitoring trust service providers established in the territory of the designating Member State to ensure that they fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 15this Regulation;
Amendment 128 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) undertaking supervision of qualified trust services providers established in the territory of the designating Member State and of thed by qualified trust services they provide in order to ensure that they and the qualified trust services provided by them meet the applicablrs meet the requirements laid down in this Regulation; and
Amendment 129 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) if relevant pursuant to Article 10, that the trust service providers established in third countries and the trust services they provide fulfil the applicable requirements laid down in this Regulation.
Amendment 130 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 131 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. For the purposes of ensuring continuity of the service, the supervisory body may adopt provisions on termination plans in cases where the qualified trust service providers cease their activities.
Amendment 132 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Each supervisory body shall submit a yearly report onAnnually, by the la31st calendar year’s supervisory activities to the Commission and Member States by the end of the first quarter of the following year. It shall include at least: (a) information on its supervisory activities; (b) a summary of breach notifications received from trust service providers in accordance with Article 15(2); (c) statistics on the market and usage of qualified trust services, including information on qualified trust service providers themselves, the qualified trust services they provide, the products they use and the general description of their customersMarch, each supervisory body shall submit to the Commission a report on its previous calendar year's activities together with a summary of breach notifications received from trust service providers in accordance with Article 15(2).
Amendment 133 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Commission shall make the annual report referred to in paragraph 3 available to Member States.
Amendment 134 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4
Article 13 – paragraph 4
Amendment 135 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 5
Article 13 – paragraph 5
Amendment 136 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6
Article 13 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the circumstances, formats and procedures for the report referred to in paragraph 3. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).
Amendment 137 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Supervisory bodies shall cooperate with a view to exchangeing good practice and provide each other, within the shortest possible time, with relevant information and mutual. A supervisory body shall, upon a receiving a request from another supervisory body, provide that body with assistance so that their activities can be carried out in a consistent manner. Mutual assistance shall cover, in particular, information requests and supervisory measures, such as requests to carry out inspections related to the security audits as referred to in Articles 15, 16 and 17Supervisory bodies shall also cooperate where a request is made under the Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products1. In addition, mutual assistance may also cover information requests and supervisory measures related to the conformity assessment reports as referred to in Articles 15, 16 and 17. _____________ 1 OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30.
Amendment 138 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. A supervisory body to which a request for assistance is addressed may not refuse to comply with it unless: (a) it is not competent to deal with the request; or (b) compliance with the requesthat request under any of the following conditions: (a) the supervisory body is not competent to provide the requested assistance; (aa) the requested assistance is not proportionate to standard supervisory activities of the supervisory body; (b) if the requested assistance would be incompatible with this Regulation.
Amendment 139 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Amendment 140 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Amendment 141 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. Trust service providers who are established in the territory of the Union shall take appropriate technical and organisational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of the trust services they provide. Having regard to state of the art, theseshall manage the risks posed to the security of the trust services they provide in accordance with existing industry best practice and industry standards. Having regard to the latest technological developments, any such measures shall ensure that the level of security is appropricommensurate to the degree of risk. In particular, measures shall be taken to prevent and minimise the impact of security incidents and inform stakeholders of the adverse effects of any incidents. Without prejudice to Article 16(1), any trust service provider mays shall submit the report of a security audit carried out by a recognised independent body to the supervisoryo the supervisory body a conformity assessment report provided by a conformity assessment body to confirm that appropriate security measures have been taken.
Amendment 142 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Trust service providers shall, without undue delay and where feasible not later than 24 hours after having become aware of it, notify the competent supervisory body, and, where appropriate, other relevant bodies, such as the competent national body for information security and other relevant third parties such asor the data protection authoritiesy, of any breach of security or loss of integrity that has a significant impact on the trust service provided and on the personal data maintained therein. Where appropriate, in particular if a breach of security or loss of integrity concerns two or more Member States, the notified supervisory body concerned shall inform the supervisory bodies in the other Member States and the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA). The notified supervisory body concerned may alsoshall inform the public or require the trust service provider to do so, where it determines that disclosure of the breach is in the public interest.
Amendment 144 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5
Article 5
When an electronic identification using an electronic identification means and authentication is required under national legislation or administrative practice to access a public service online, any in one Member State, the electronic identification means issued in another Member State falling under a scheme, which is included in the list published by the Commission pursuant to the procedure referred to in Article 7 shall be recognised and acceptedin the first Member States for the purposes of accessing this servicat service online, provided that those electronic identification means correspond to an identity assurance level equal to or higher than the identity assurance level required for access to that service online in the first Member State.
Amendment 145 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Amendment 146 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
4. In order to implement paragraphs 1 and 2, the competent supervisory body shall have the power to issue binding instructions to trust service providerrequire trust service providers to take the necessary action in order to be able to fulfil these requirements.
Amendment 147 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5
Article 15 – paragraph 5
Amendment 148 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 6
Article 15 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the circumstances,further specification of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 and the formats and procedures, including deadlines, applicable for the purpose of paragraphs 1 to 3 2. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).
Amendment 149 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. Qualified trust service providers shall be audited by a recognised independent body once a yea, annually, at their own expense by a conformity assessment body in order to confirm that they and the qualified trust services provided by them fulfil the requirements set out in this Regulation, and they shall submit the resulting security audiconformity assessment report to the supervisory body.
Amendment 150 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, the supervisory body may at any time audit the qualified trust service providers to confirm that they and the qualified trust services provided by them still meet the conditions set out in this Regulation, either on its own initiative or in response to a request from the Commission. T. Where personal data protection rules as set out in Directive 95/46/EC appear to have been breached, the supervisory body shall inform the data protection authorities of the results of its audits, in case personal data protection rules appear to have been breached.
Amendment 151 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. The supervisory body shall have the power to issue binding instructions torequire qualified trust service providers to remedy any failure to fulfil the requirements indicated in the security audiconformity assessment report.
Amendment 152 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4
Article 16 – paragraph 4
4. With reference to paragraph 3, if the qualified trust service provider does not remedy any such failure within a time limit set by the supervisory body, it shall lose its qualified status and be informed by tthe supervisory body shall withdraw its qualified status and amend the trusted lists referred to in Article 18 accordingly. The supervisory body tshat its status will be changed accordingly in the trusted lists referred to in Article 18ll inform the trust service provider of the withdrawal of its qualified status.
Amendment 153 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. EAn electronic identification schemes shall be eligible for notification pursuant to Article 7 if all the following conditions are met:
Amendment 153 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 5
Article 16 – paragraph 5
Amendment 154 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 6
Article 16 – paragraph 6
Amendment 155 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the electronic identification means are issued by, on behalf of or under the responsibility of the notifying Member State;:
Amendment 155 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. QualifiedWhere trust service providers shall notify the supervisory body of their intentiond to start providing a qualified trust service ands, they shall submit to the supervisory body a security audit report carried out by a recognised independent body, as provided for in Article 16(1). Qualified trust service providers may start to provide the qualified trust service after they have submitted the notification and security audit report to the supervisory bodynotification of their intention together with a conformity assessment report provided by a conformity assessment body, as provided for in Article 16(1).
Amendment 156 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Amendment 157 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the electronic identification means are issued by, on behalf of or under the responsibility of the notifying Member : (i) by the notifying Member State, (ii) under a mandate from the notifying Member State, or (iii) independently of the notifying Member State and are recognised by that Member State;
Amendment 157 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – subparagraphs 1 and 2
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – subparagraphs 1 and 2
3. The supervisory body shall verify the compliance of the qualified trust service provider and of the qualified trust services provided by it with the requirements of theis Regulation. The supervisory body shall indicate, in particular with the requirements provided for qualified trust services providers. If the supervisory body concludes that the trust service provider and the trust services provided by it comply with those requirements, the supervisory body shall grant the qualified status tof the qualifiedtrust service providers and the qualified trust services ithey provide in the trusted lists after the positive conclusion of the verifications and indicate such status in the trusted lists referred to in Article 18, not later than one month after the notification has been done in accordance with paragraph 1.
Amendment 158 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. A qQualified trust service which has been subject to the notification referred to in paragraph 1 cannot be refused for the fulfilment of an administrative procedure or formality by the concerned public sector body for not being included in the lists referred to in paragraph 3providers may start to provide the qualified trust service after the status referred to in paragraph 3 has been indicated in the trusted lists.
Amendment 159 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the electronic identification means under that scheme can be used to access at least public servicesone service provided by a public sector body requiring electronic identification in the notifying Member State;
Amendment 159 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5
Article 17 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the circumstances, formats and procedures for the purpose of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).
Amendment 160 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall establish, maintain and publish trusted lists with information related to the qualified trust service providers for which it is competentresponsible together with information related to the qualified trust services provided by them.
Amendment 161 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the electronic identification scheme meets the requirements of the interoperability model under Article 8,
Amendment 161 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 5
Article 18 – paragraph 5
Amendment 162 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the notifying Member State ensures that the person identification data are attributed unambiguously to the natural or legal person referred to in Article 3 point1to a sufficiently high level for the identity assurance level in question to the natural or legal person referred to in point1 of Article 3 at the time of issuance of the electronic identification means under that scheme;
Amendment 162 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Article 18 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, specify the information referred to in paragraph 1 and define the technical specifications and formats for trusted lists applicable for the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 4. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).
Amendment 163 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. When issuing a qualified certificate, a qualified trust service provider shall verify, by appropriate means and in accordance with national law, the identity and, if applicable, any specific attributes of the natural or legal person to whom a qualified certificate is issued. SuchThe information referred to in the previous subparagraph shall be verified by the qualified service provider or by an authorised third party acting under the responsibility of the qualified service provider: (a) by a physical appearance of the natural person or of an authorised representative of the legnon-natural person, or (b) remotely, using electronic identification means under a notified scheme issued in compliance with point (a).
Amendment 164 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) employ staff who possess the necessary expertise, experience, and qualifications and who have received appropriate training regarding security and personal data protection rules and shall apply administrative and management procedures which correspond to European or international standards and have received appropriate training regarding security and personal data protection rules;
Amendment 165 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) the party issuing the electronic identification means under that scheme ensures that the person identification data referred to in point (c) are attributed to a sufficiently high level for the identity assurance level in question to the electronic identification means at the time of the issuance of the electronic identification means;
Amendment 165 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) bearwith regard to the risk of liability for damages by, maintaining sufficient financial resources or by aobtain appropriate liability insurance scheme;
Amendment 166 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) before entering into a contractual relationship, inform any person seeking to use a qualified trust service of the precise terms and conditions regarding the use of that service, including any limitation on its use;
Amendment 167 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the notifying Member State ensures the availability of an authentication possibility online, at any time and free of charge so that any relying party established outside of the territory of that Member State can validate the person identification data received in electronic form. Such authentication shall be provided free of charge when accessing a service online provided by a public sector body. Member States shall not unduly impose any specific technical requirements on relying parties established outside of their territory intending to carry out such authentication. When either the notified identification scheme or authentication possibility is breached or partly compromised, Member States shall suspend or revoke without delay the notified identification scheme or authentication possibility or the compromised parts concerned and inform the other Member States and the Commission pursuant to Article 7;
Amendment 167 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) use trustworthy systems to store data provided to them, in a verifiable form so that: –- they are publicly available for retrieval only where the consent of the person to whom the data has been issuedrelates has been obtained, –- only authorised persons can make entries and changes, – information to the stored data, - the data can be checked for authenticity;
Amendment 168 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) take appropriate measures against forgery and theft of data;
Amendment 169 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the notifying Member State ensures the availability of authentication online, so that any relying party established outside of the territory of that Member State can validate the person identification data received in electronic form. Such authentication shall be provided free of charge when accessing a service online provided by a public sector body. Member States shall not unduly impose any specific technical requirements on relying parties intending to carry out such authentication;
Amendment 169 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point g
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) record and keep accessible for an appropriate period of time, including after the activities of the qualified trust service provider have ceased, all relevant information concerning data issued and received by the qualified trust service provider, in particular for the purpose of providing evidence in legal proceedings and for the purpose of ensuring continuity of the service in accordance with the termination plans referred to in Article 13(2)(a). Such recording may be done electronically;
Amendment 170 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point h
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point h
(h) have an up-to-date termination plan to ensure continuity of service, where applicable, in accordance with arrangements issuprovisions adopted by the supervisory body under point (c) of Article 13(2a);
Amendment 171 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point i a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point i a (new)
(ia) when the qualified trust service includes the issuing of qualified certificates, establish and keep updated a certificate database.
Amendment 172 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
Article 19 – paragraph 3
3. QWhen qualified trust service providers issuing qualified certificates shall registerdecide to revoke a certificate, they shall register such revocation in their certificate database and publish the revocation status of the certificate within ten minutes after sin a timely manner (but in any case, within 24 hours) of the decision to revoke being taken. Such revocation shas taken effectll become effective immediately upon its registration in the certificate database.
Amendment 173 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5
Article 19 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for trustworthy systems and products which comply with the requirements under paragraph 2, points (d) and (e), of this Article. Compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 19 shall be presumed where trustworthy systems and products meet those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Amendment 177 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a description of the notified electronic identification scheme; including its identity assurance levels;
Amendment 181 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the authority or authorities responsible for the notified electronic identification scheme;
Amendment 182 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) information on by whom the registrthe entity or entities which manages the verification of the unambiguous person identifiers is managedcation data;
Amendment 185 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) a description of how the requirements of the interoperability framework referred to in Article 8 are met;
Amendment 187 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) a description of the authentication possibility referred to in point (d) of Article 6(1);
Amendment 191 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. If the Commission receives a notification after the period referred to in paragraph 2 has expired, it shall amend the list within three monthspublish in the Official Journal of the European Union the amendments to the list referred to in paragraph 2 within one month from the date of receipt of that notification.
Amendment 192 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 a (new)
Article 7 a (new)
Article 7a 1. When either the electronic identification scheme notified pursuant to Article 7(1) or the authentication referred to in point (d) of Article 6(1) is breached or partly compromised in a way that would affect the reliability of that scheme for cross border transactions, the notifying Member State shall without delay suspend or revoke the cross border part of that electronic identification scheme or that authentication or the compromised parts concerned and inform other Member States and the Commission. 2. When the breach or compromise referred to in paragraph 1 has been remedied, the notifying Member State shall reestablish the authentication and shall inform other Member States and the Commission without undue delay. 3. If the breach or compromise referred to in paragraph 1 is not remedied within 3 months of the suspension or revocation, the notifying Member State shall notify the withdrawal of the electronic identification scheme to other Member States and to the Commission. The Commission shall publish without undue delay in the Official Journal of the European Union the corresponding amendments to the list referred to in Article 7(2).
Amendment 194 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 b (new)
Article 7 b (new)
Article 7b 1. The notifying Member State shall be liable for any direct damage caused to any natural or non-natural person due to a failure to comply with its obligations under points (c) and (d) of Article 6(1), unless it can show that it has not acted negligently. 2. The party issuing the electronic identification means shall be liable for any direct damage caused to any natural or non-natural person for failing to ensure, consistent with the application of the identity assurance levels within national schemes: (i) the attribution of the person identification data referred to in point (ca) of Article 6(1), and (ii) the correct operation of the authentication referred to in point (d) of Article 6(1). unless it can show that it has not acted negligently. 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the liability under national legislation of parties to a transaction in which electronic identification means falling under the notified scheme are used.
Amendment 196 #
Amendment 197 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraphs 1, 1 a (new), 1 b (new), 1 c (new), 1 d (new) and 1 e (new)
Article 8 – paragraphs 1, 1 a (new), 1 b (new), 1 c (new), 1 d (new) and 1 e (new)
1. The national electronic identification infrastructures need to provide for interoperability with the electronic identification infrastructures of other Member States. The interoperability between the national electronic identification infrastructures shall be ensured through an interoperability model. 1a. The interoperability model shall include the necessary minimum technical requirements, the common operational security standards and the levels of identity assurance and standards against which Member States will map their national scheme, certification and governance. 1b. The interoperability model shall : i) ensure technology neutrality; ii) facilitate the principle of privacy by design; iii) ensure personal data is processed in accordance with Directive 95/46EC. 1c. By [insert the date], in order to establish uniform conditions for implementing paragraphs 1, 1a and 1b, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts on standards, protocols for the interoperability model and identity assurance levels. 1d. Member States shall cooperate in order to ensure the interoperability of electronic identification means falling under a notified electronic identification scheme and to enhance their security. 1e. The cooperation between Member States shall consist of: i) exchange of information, experience and good practice on eID schemes; ii) peer review of eID schemes; iii)examination of relevant developments in the eID sector.
Amendment 200 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish the necessary modalities to facilitate the cooperation between the Member States referred to in paragraphs 1d and 1e with a view to fostering a high level of trust and security appropriate to the degree of risk. Those implementing acts shall concern, in particular, the exchange of information, experiences and good practice on electronic identification schemes, the peer review of notified electronic identification schemes and the examination of relevant developments arising in the electronic identification sector by the competent authorities of the Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).
Amendment 203 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the facilitation of cross border interoperability of electronic identification means by setting of minimum technical requirementsImplementing acts referred to in paragraphs 1b and 2 of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).
Amendment 219 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Qualified tTrust services and qualified certificates provided by qualified trust service providers established in a third country shall be accepted as qualified trust services and qualified certificatrecognised as legally equivalent to qualified trust services provided by a qualified trust service providers established in the territory of the Union if the qualified trust services or qualified certificates originating from the third country are recognised under an agreement between the Union and third countries or international organisations in accordance with Article 218 TFUEcomply with the relevant requirements of this Regulation as determined by a supervisory body established in a Member State.
Amendment 221 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 231 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraphs 1 and 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraphs 1 and 1 a (new)
1. Member States shall designate an appropriate supervisory body established in their territory or, upon mutual agreement, in another Member State under the responsibility of the designating Member State. Supervisory bodies shall be given all supervisory and inv. 1a. Member States shall notify to the Commission the names and the addresses of their respective destignatory powers that are necessary for the exercise of their tasked supervisory bodies.
Amendment 234 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The supervisory body shall be res, insofar as is ponssible for the performance of the following tasks, ensure that:
Amendment 238 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) monitoring trust service providers established in the territory of the designating Member State to ensure that they fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 15this Regulation;
Amendment 240 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) undertaking supervision of qualified trust services providers established in the territory of the designating Member State and of thed by qualified trust services they provide in order to ensure that they and the qualified trust services provided by them meet the applicablrs meet the requirements laid down in this Regulation; and
Amendment 243 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) if relevant pursuant to Article 10, that the trust service providers established in third countries and the trust services they provide fulfil the applicable requirements laid down in this Regulation;
Amendment 246 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. For the purposes of ensuring continuity of the service, the supervisory body may adopt provisions on termination plans in cases where the qualified trust service providers cease their activities.
Amendment 247 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. EAnnually, by the 31st March, each supervisory body shall submit a yearly report on the lastto the Commission a report on its previous calendar year's supervisory activities to gethe Commission and Member States by the end of the first quarter of the following year. It shall include at least:r with a summary of breach notifications received from trust service providers in accordance with Article 15(2).
Amendment 249 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point a
Amendment 250 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b
Amendment 252 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point c
Amendment 254 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Commission shall make the annual report referred to in paragraph 3 available to Member States.
Amendment 256 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4
Article 13 – paragraph 4
Amendment 258 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 5
Article 13 – paragraph 5
Amendment 260 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Supervisory bodies shall cooperate with a view to exchangeing good practice and provide each other, within the shortest possible time, with relevant information and mutual. A supervisory body shall, upon a receiving a request from another supervisory body, provide that body with assistance so that their activities can be carried out in a consistent manner. Mutual assistance shall cover, in particular, information requests and supervisory measures, such as requests to carry out inspections related to the security audits as referred to in Articles 15, 16 and 17Supervisory bodies shall also cooperate where a request is made under the Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products1. In addition, mutual assistance may also cover information requests and supervisory measures related to the conformity assessment reports as referred to in Articles 15, 16 and 17 of this Regulation. ______________ 1 OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30.
Amendment 262 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. A supervisory body to which a request for assistance is addressed may not refuse to comply with it unlesrefuse that request under any of the following conditions:
Amendment 264 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) ithe supervisory body is not competent to deal withprovide the request; ored assistance;
Amendment 266 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) the requested assistance is not proportionate to standard supervisory activities of the supervisory body;
Amendment 268 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) compliance with the requestif the requested assistance would be incompatible with this Regulation.
Amendment 269 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Amendment 273 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Amendment 275 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Trust service providers who are established in the territory of the Union shall take appropriate technical and organisational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of the trust services they provide. Having regard to state of the art, theseshall manage the risks posed to the security of the trust services they provide in accordance with existing industry best practice and industry standards. Having regard to the latest technological developments, any such measures shall ensure that the level of security is appropricommensurate to the degree of risk. In particular, measures shall be taken to prevent and minimise the impact of security incidents and inform stakeholders of the adverse effects of any incidents.
Amendment 278 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Without prejudice to Article 16(1), any trust service provider mays shall submit to the report of a security audit carried out by a recognised independent body to the supervisorysupervisory body a conformity assessment report provided by a conformity assessment body to confirm that appropriate security measures have been taken.
Amendment 283 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Trust service providers shall, without undue delay and where feasible not later than 24 hours after having become aware of it, notify the competent supervisory body, and, where appropriate, other relevant bodies, such as the competent national body for information security and other relevant third parties such asor the data protection authoritiesy, of any breach of security or loss of integrity that has a significant impact on the trust service provided and on the personal data maintained therein.
Amendment 286 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where appropriate, in particular if a breach of security or loss of integrity concerns two or more Member States, the notified supervisory body concerned shall inform the supervisory bodies in the other Member States and the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA).
Amendment 290 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
The notified supervisory body concerned may alsoshall inform the public or require the trust service provider to do so, where it determines that disclosure of the breach is in the public interest.
Amendment 291 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Amendment 294 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
4. In order to implement paragraphs 1 and 2, the competent supervisory body shall have the power to issue binding instructions to trust service providerrequire trust service providers to take the necessary action in order to be able to fulfil these requirements.
Amendment 300 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5
Article 15 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 38, concerning the further specification of the measmay, by means of implementing acts, define further specification of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 and the formats and procedures, including deadlines, applicable for the purpose of paragraph 2. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedures referred to in paragraph 1Article 39(2).
Amendment 302 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 6
Article 15 – paragraph 6
Amendment 307 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. Qualified trust service providers shall be audited by a recognised independent body once a yea, annually, at their own expense by a conformity assessment body in order to confirm that they and the qualified trust services provided by them fulfil the requirements set out in this Regulation, and they shall submit the resulting security audiconformity assessment report to the supervisory body.
Amendment 309 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, the supervisory body may at any time audit the qualified trust service providers to confirm that they and the qualified trust services provided by them still meet the conditions set out in this Regulation, either on its own initiative or in response to a request from the Commission. T. Where personal data protection rules as set out in Directive 95/46/EC appear to have been breached, the supervisory body shall inform the data protection authorities of the results of its audits, in case personal data protection rules appear to have been breached.
Amendment 312 #
2012/0146(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. The supervisory body shall have the power to issue binding instructions torequire qualified trust service providers to remedy any failure to fulfil the requirements indicated in the security audiconformity assessment report.
Amendment 74 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Consent should be given explicitly by any appropriate method enabling a freely given specific and informed indication of the data subject's wishes, either by a statement or by a clear affirmative action by the data subject, ensuring that individuals are aware that they give their consent to the processing of personal data, including by ticking a box when visiting an Internet website or by any other statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject's acceptance of the proposed processing of their personal data. Silence orThis is notwithstanding the possibility to express consent to processing in activity should therefore not constitute consentcordance with Directive 2002/58/EC by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application.. Consent should cover all processing activities carried out for the same purpose or purposes. If the data subject's consent is to be given following an electronic request, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.
Amendment 75 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The main establishment of a controller in the Union, including a controller that is also a processor, should be determined according to objective criteria and should imply the effective and real exercise of management activities determining the main decisions as to the purposes, conditions and means of processing through stable arrangements. This criterion should not depend whether the processing of personal data is actually carried out at that location; the presence and use of technical means and technologies for processing personal data or processing activities do not, in themselves, constitute such main establishment and are therefore no determining criteria for a main establishment. The main establishment of the processor that is not also a controller should be the place of its central administration in the Union.
Amendment 91 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
Recital 65
(65) In order to demonstrate compliance with this Regulation, the controller or processor should document each processing operatmaintain relevant information on the main categories of processing undertaken. The Commission should establish a uniform format for the documentation of this information across the Union. Each controller and processor should be obliged to co-operate with the supervisory authority and make this documentation, on request, available to it, so that it might serve for monitoring those processing operassist the supervisory authority in evaluating the compliance of those main categories of processing with this Regulations.
Amendment 102 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
(ea) that has been rendered anonymous.
Amendment 105 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point 1
Article 4 – point 1
(1) ‘data subject’' means an identified natural person or an identifiable natural person who can be identifieduniquely, 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 name, 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 person. If identification requires a disproportionate amount of time, effort or material resources, the natural living person shall not be considered identifiable;
Amendment 110 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point 3
Article 4 – point 3
(3) ‘processing’ means any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data or sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organization, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, erasure or destruction'anonymous data' shall mean information that has never related to a data subject or has been collected, altered or otherwise processed so that it cannot be attributed to a data subject;
Amendment 111 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point 3 a (new)
Article 4 – point 3 a (new)
(3a) 'pseudonymous data' means any personal data that has been collected, altered or otherwise processed so that it of itself cannot be attributed to a data subject without the use of additional data which is subject to separate and distinct technical and organisational controls to ensure such non attribution, or that such attribution would require a disproportionate amount of time expense;
Amendment 114 #
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 processedorm of statement or conduct by the data subject indicating assent to the data processing proposed. Silence or inactivity does not in itself indicate acceptance;
Amendment 116 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point 9
Article 4 – point 9
(9) ‘'personal data breach’' means 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, which is likely to adversely affect the protection of the personal data or privacy of the data subject;
Amendment 119 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point 13
Article 4 – point 13
(13) ‘'main establishment’' means as regards the location as designated by the undertaking or group of undertakings, whether controller, the place of its establishment in the Union where the main decisions as or processor, subject to the consistency mechanism set out in Article 57, on the basis of, but not limited to, the purposes, conditions and means of the processing of personal data are taken; if no decisions as to the purposes, conditions and means of the processing of personal data are taken in the Union, the main establishment is the place where the main processing activities in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller in the Union take place. As regards the processor, ‘main establishment’ means the place of its central administrfollowing optional objective criteria: (1) the location of the European headquarters of a group of undertakings; (2) the location of the entity within a group of undertakings with delegated data protection responsibilities; (3) the location of the entity within the group which is best placed in terms of management functions and administrative responsibilities to deal with and enforce the rules as set out in this Regulation; or (4) the location where effective and real management activities are exercised determining the data processing through stable arrangements. The competent authority shall be informed by the undertaking or group of undertakings of the designation inof the Union; main establishment;
Amendment 127 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – point c
Article 5 – point c
(c) adequate, relevant, and limited to the minimum nenot excessaryive in relation to the purposes for which they are processed; they shall only be processed if, and as long as, the purposes could not be fulfilled by processing information that does not involve personal data;
Amendment 130 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – point e
Article 5 – point e
(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed; personal data may be stored for longer periods insofar as the data will be processed solely for historical, statistical or scientific research purposes in accordance with the rules and conditions of Articles 81 and 83 and if a periodic review is carried out to assess the necessity to continue the storage;
Amendment 139 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) processing is necessary for fraud detection and prevention purposes according to applicable financial regulation or established industry, or professional body, codes of practice.
Amendment 140 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f b (new)
(fb) only pseudonymous data is processed.
Amendment 149 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Where the processing of personal data is an essential element to the controllers' ability to provide adequate security in the provision of a service to the data subject, the withdrawal of consent can lead to the termination of the service.
Amendment 152 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Amendment 158 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply where the processing of personal data of a child concerns health data and where the Member State law in the field of health and social care prioritises the competence of an individual over physical age.
Amendment 171 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Article 12 – paragraph 4
4. The information and the actions taken on requests referred to in paragraph 1 shall be free of charge. Where requests are manifestly excessive, in particular because ofowing to their high volume, complexity or their repetitive character, the controller may charge an appropriate, not for profit, fee for providing the information or taking the action requested, or the controller may notdecline to take the action requested. In that case, the controller shall bear the burden of proving the manifestly excessive character of the request.
Amendment 185 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point b
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) the data are not collected from the data subject and the provision of such information proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort; or and generate excessive administrative burden, especially when the processing is carried out by a SME as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises1; or _____________ 1 OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36.
Amendment 190 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)
(ha) where applicable, where data is collected and processed in exchange for the provision of free services, the controller's value estimate of the subject's processed data.
Amendment 194 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 shall not apply to pseudonymous data.
Amendment 195 #
Amendment 196 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 197 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based according to point (a) of Article 6(1), or when the storage period consented to has expired, and where there is no other legal ground for the processing of the data;
Amendment 198 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 200 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The right to erasure shall not apply when the retention of personal data is necessary for the performance of a contract between an organisation and the data subject, or when there is a regulatory requirement to retain this data, or for fraud prevention purposes.
Amendment 213 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 3
Article 18 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission may specify the electronic format referred to in paragraph 1 and the technical standards, modalities and procedures for the transmission of personal data pursuant to paragraph 2. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 87(2) shall be determined by the controller by reference to harmonised industry standards, or where these are not already defined, shall be developed by industry stakeholders through standardisation bodies.
Amendment 217 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Where pseudonymous data are processed based on Article 6(1)(g), the data subject shall have the right to object free of charge to the processing. This right shall be explicitly offered to the data subject in an intelligible manner and shall be clearly distinguishable from other information.
Amendment 218 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – title
Article 20 – title
Measures based on profilautomated processing
Amendment 219 #
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 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 behaviourA data subject shall not be subject to a decision which is unfair or discriminatory, and which is based solely on automated processing intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to this data subject.
Amendment 222 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Amendment 230 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Amendment 234 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 4
Article 20 – paragraph 4
Amendment 237 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Amendment 245 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. Having regard to the state of the art 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 Where required, mandatory measures may be adopted to ensure that categories of goods or services are designed and have default settings meeting the requirements of this Regulation relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. Such measures shall be based on standardisation pursuant to [Regulation .../2012 of the European Parliameent the requirements of this Reguland of the Council on European standardisation, and ensure the protection of the rights of the data subject. mending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC].
Amendment 248 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 2
2. The controller shall implement mechanisms for ensuring that, by default, only thoseUntil such time as mandatory measures have been adopted peursonal data are processed which are necessary for each specific purpose of the processing and are especially not collected or retained beyond the minimum necessary foruant to paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that no mandatory design or default requirements are imposed on goods or services relating to those purposes, both in terms of the amount of the data and the time of their storage. In particular,rotection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data which could impede the placing of equipment on those mechanisms shall ensure that by default personal data are not made accessible to aarket and the free circulation of such goods and services in iandefinite number of individual between Member States.
Amendment 250 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3
Article 23 – paragraph 3
Amendment 252 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4
Article 23 – paragraph 4
Amendment 259 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1
Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. Where a processing operation is to be carried out on behalf of a controller and which involves the processing of data that would permit the processor to reasonably identify the data subject, the controller shall choose a processor providing sufficient guarantees to 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, in particular in respect of the technical security measures and organizational measures governing the processing to be carried out and shall ensure compliance with those measures. The controller remains solely responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Regulation.
Amendment 261 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point d
Amendment 263 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The controller is deemed to have fulfilled the obligations set out in paragraph 1 when choosing a processor who has voluntarily self-certified or voluntarily obtained a certification, seal or mark pursuant to Articles 38 or 39 of this Regulation showing the implementation of appropriate standard technical and organizational measures in response to the requirements set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 267 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. Each controller and processor and, if any, the controller's representative, shall maintain documentation of all processing operationsthe main categories of processing under its responsibility.
Amendment 270 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – introductory wording
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – introductory wording
2. The core documentation shall contain at least the following information:
Amendment 272 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the purposes of the processing, including the legitimate interests pursued by the controller where the processing is based on point (f) of Article 6(1)generic purposes of processing;
Amendment 273 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) where applicable, transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation, including the identification of that third country or an international organisation and, in case of transfers referred to in point (h) of Article 44(1), the documentation of appropriata reference to the safeguards employed;
Amendment 284 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. In the case of a personal data breach, the controller shall, without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 24 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach to the supervisory authority. The notification to the supervisory authority shall be accompanied by a reasoned justification in cases where it is not made within 24 hours, notify the personal data breach to the supervisory authority.
Amendment 298 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. Where processing operations present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects by virtue of their nature, their scope or their purposes, the controller or the processor acting on the controller's behalf shall carry out an assessment of the impact of the envisaged processing operations on the protection of personal data, unless the activities concerned do not present a risk to the privacy of the data subject.
Amendment 299 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5
Article 33 – paragraph 5
5. Where the controller is a public authority or body or where the data is processed by another body which has been entrusted with the responsibility of delivering public service tasks, and where the processing results from a legal obligation pursuant to point (c) of Article 6(1) providing for rules and procedures pertaining to the processing operations and regulated by Union law, paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not apply, unless Member States deem it necessary to carry out such assessment prior to the processing activities.
Amendment 305 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
1. The controller and the processor shallould designate a data protection officer in any case where:
Amendment 334 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1
Article 42 – paragraph 1
1. Where the Commission has taken no decision pursuant to Article 41, a controller or processor may transfer personal data to a third country or an international organisation only if the controller or processor has adduced appropriate safeguards with respect to the protection of personal data in a legally binding instrument, and where appropriate pursuant to an impact assessment, where the controller or processor has ensured that the recipient of data in a third country maintains high standards of data protection.
Amendment 335 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 42 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) by encouraging controllers to undertake an impact assessment, on an optional basis.
Amendment 404 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1
Article 79 – paragraph 1
1. Each competent supervisory authority shall be empowered to impose administrative sanctions in accordance with this Article.
Amendment 407 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 2
Article 79 – paragraph 2
2. The administrative sanction shall be in each individual case effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The amount of the administrative fine shall be fixed with due regard to the nature, gravity and duration of the breach, the sensitivity of the data in issue, the intentional or negligent character of the infringement, the degree of harm or risk of harm created by the violation, the degree of responsibility of the natural or legal person and of previous breaches by this person, the technical and organisational measures and procedures implemented pursuant to Article 23 and the degree of co-operation with the supervisory authority in order to remedy the breach. Where appropriate, the data protection authority shall also be empowered to require that a data protection officer is appointed if the body, organisation or association has opted not to do so.
Amendment 408 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 79 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Aggravating factors that support administrative fines at the upper limits established in paragraphs 4 to 6 shall include in particular: (i) repeated violations committed in reckless disregard of applicable law; (ii) refusal to co-operate with or obstruction of an enforcement process; (iii) violations that are deliberate, serious and likely to cause substantial damage; (iv) a data protection impact assessment has not been undertaken; (v) a data protection officer has not been appointed.
Amendment 409 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 79 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Mitigating factors which support administrative fines at the lower limits established in paragraphs 4 to 6 shall include: (i) measures having been taken by the natural or legal person to ensure compliance with relevant obligations; (ii) genuine uncertainty as to whether the activity constituted a violation of the relevant obligations; (iii) immediate termination of the violation upon knowledge; (iv) co-operation with any enforcement processes; (v) a data protection impact assessment has been undertaken; (vi) a data protection officer has been appointed.
Amendment 14 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – point i
Paragraph 10 – point i
(i) acknowledges that the composition of the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance should be multinational; considers that the composition must be adapted to the existing court structures; proposes, therefore, that the composition of the local divisions should become multinational after a transitional period of fivthree years, while it has to be ensured that the standard of quality and efficiency of the existing structures is not reduced; considers that the period of fivthree years should be used for intensive training and preparation for the judges;
Amendment 5 #
2011/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes, however, that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors; takes the view that any approach to ADR shcould also have the potential to go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions, family disputes and defamation cases;
Amendment 9 #
2011/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that, whilst self-regulation remains important, legislative action setting out minimum standards upon which ADR schemes may be based is necessary in order to provide a framework for ADR within Member States' legal orders, as shown by the example of Directive 2008/52/EC;
Amendment 13 #
2011/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independence, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; qualification of third parties, whilst retaining reference to the different types of ADR systems;
Amendment 16 #
2011/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. In order not to prejudice access to justice, counselstresses caution in making recourse to ADR mandatory at EU level, whilst advocating voluntary adherence to ADR schemes by businesses;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that ADR is of particular interest to SMEs; reiterates its call upon the Commission to consider synergies between ADR and an instrument in EU contract law; would alsowould welcome guidance on ADR clauses in standard contracts;
Amendment 30 #
2011/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Sees great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims; notes that traditional ADR procedures exist online alongside others that seek to prevent disputes or to facilitate their resolution; emphasises that, where traditional ADR is carried out online, procedural standards should not be lowered, and that issues such as the enforceability of awards should also be resolved; sees a particular benefit in online trustmark systems; points to the work of the UNICTRAL Working Group on Online Dispute Resolution*1, intended for B2B and business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions;
Amendment 31 #
2011/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 33 #
2011/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises the crucial role of types of ADR in family disputes, where it may reduce psychological harm, can help the parties to start talking again and thereby, in particular, help ensure the protection of children; sees potential in cross-border ADR in terms of its flexibility in particular; points also to the work of the European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction;
Amendment 34 #
2011/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 42 #
2011/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission, on the basis of the data collected and a solid impact assessment, to explore providing a harmonised legal framework for some aspectsetting out minimum standards of ADR across sectors, while developing existing schemes and encouraging Member States and sectors covered by schemes to increase funding, bearing in mind that ADR, while providing parties with a low-cost alternative, must not be ‘justice on the cheap’;
Amendment 26 #
2011/2089(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that disputes frequently cover different industry sectors and different areas of law and that victims of unlawful behaviour face the same difficulties in obtaining redress in different sectors, and is concerned that anypossible EU initiatives in the field of collective redress will result in a fragmentation of national procedural and damages laws which will weaken and not strengthen access to justice within the EU; in the event that it is decided after duetailed consideration that a Union schemeinitiatives in the field of collective redress isare needed and desirable, asks that any proposal in the field of collective redress should take the form of a horizontal instrument providing uniform access to justice within the EUconsiders that a sectoral approach would be the most appropriate method, accompanied by a non-binding framework outlining minimum standards and safeguards to be applied by Member States in the establishment or operation of redress mechanisms;
Amendment 29 #
2011/2089(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers that the establishment of common principles could guide the development of collective redress systems in Member States, but stresses the need to take due account of the legal traditions of the individual Member States;
Amendment 31 #
2011/2089(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Believes that in certain sectors, for example competition, EU action may be merited; however, cautions that sectoral initiatives must only be introduced where evidence of economic and other possible impacts demonstrates clearly a need for measures at the EU level; further believes that these measures should operate on the basis of cooperation and access of claimants to Member State systems, with such access being facilitated through the sharing of common principles and safeguards as set out in the framework;
Amendment 33 #
2011/2089(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 43 #
2011/2089(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that collective action under a horizontal instrument should be permissiblsuch sectoral measures creating links between Member State collective redress systems could successfully facilitate access to justice where the defendant and victims represented are not domiciled in the same Member State (cross-border dimension) and where the rights alleged to have been infringed are granted by EU legislation (infringement of EU law);
Amendment 46 #
2011/2089(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
12. Reiterates that safeguards have to be put in placeConsiders that any framework or sectoral measure must include the introduction of safeguards in order to avoid unmeritorious claims and misuse of a horizontal instrumentcollective redress mechanisms, so as to guarantee equality of arms in court proceedings, and stresses that such safeguards must cover, inter alia, the following points:
Amendment 63 #
2011/2089(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 67 #
2011/2089(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that a horizontal instrument should itselfny measures addressing collective action in a sector should lay down rules to prevent a rush to the courts (‘forum shopping’) and believes that forum shopping cannot be excluded by establishing that the courts where the majority of victims of the infringement of Union law are domiciled or where the major part of the damage occurred are to have jurisdiction, as these flexible rules would leave open the possibility of abusive litigation; considers therefore that the courts with jurisdiction in the place where the defendant is domiciled should have jurisdiction;
Amendment 69 #
2011/2089(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Also favours a horizontal instrument that provides for unified rules on the applicable law and cCalls for further examination of how the conflict-of-law rules can be amended; believes that one solution could be to apply the law of the place where the majority of the victims are domiciled, bearing in mind that individual victims should remain free not to pursue the opt-in collective action but instead to seek redress individually in accordance with the general rules of private international law laid down in the Brussels I, Rome I and Rome II regulations;
Amendment 9 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. Whereas following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty national parliaments are now formally involved in monitoring the application of the principle of subsidiarity, with over 300 submissions received so far,
Amendment 11 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas according to the 2010 IAB Annual Report, the Commission comprehensively quantified only 27% of impact assessments undertaken in that year,
Amendment 13 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Recital M a (new)
Ma. Whereas the new system under the Lisbon Treaty of delegated and implementing acts, in Articles 290 and 291 TFEU, are now subject to a common understanding and a regulation respectively,
Amendment 21 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2 (new) and paragraph 4 a (new)
Subheading 2 (new) and paragraph 4 a (new)
National Parliaments 4a. Welcomes the closer involvement of national parliaments in the European legislative process, in particular in the process of verifying the compliance of legislative proposals with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 22 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Considers however that the current timescales allowed for national parliament engagement are often insufficient, particularly in the case of a subsidiarity check; notes also that the form of national parliament responses if often such that they are not classified as reasoned opinions or objections on subsidiarity grounds; further notes that frequently these are only available in the working language of the national parliament; suggests therefore that the Secretary General of the Parliament investigates methods of improving the way in which national parliament submissions are integrated into the working practices of the Parliament;
Amendment 24 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. 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; emphasises, however, that the composition of the group should be better balanced, with the inclusion of more experts representing civil society and experts from other Member States;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the need for the programme to continue post-2012 to cover the life of the current Commission, with a more ambitious targetand clearly defined target, with and enhanced remit, to enable the programme to extend beyond simply administrative burdens and to address regulatory burdens and costs arising from EU legislation as a whole, including regulatory ‘nuisances’;
Amendment 26 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Member States to work consistently to meet their own national targets for reducing administrative burdens and looks forward to continued constructive cooperation with national parliaments on this matter;
Amendment 32 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Regrets that currently the response and feedback given by the Commission to consultations is frequently seen as unsatisfactory by respondents; urges the Commission to improve its communication after the consultation period has closed, and to provide feedback on the main issues raised by all respondents;
Amendment 33 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Amendment 34 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Highlights, in particular, the need for impact assessments to cover all policy options, including the 'do nothing' approach; Further considers that the value of the Commission's impact assessments could be improved if these were available in draft for comment as part of consultation with relevant stakeholders;
Amendment 40 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Calls on the Council and the Commission to work together with Parliament in a constructive manner in order to ensure that the new system of delegated and implementing acts works smoothly in practice;
Amendment 7 #
2011/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the current legislative framework has ensured a high level of protection of personal data and that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the increasing complexity of data protection issues and the current lack of harmonisation between Member States’ national laws all call for the adoption of a comprehensive instrument at European leveland effective common standards;
Amendment 11 #
2011/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Cautions, however, that data protection rules should not be prejudicial to the protection and enjoyment of other fundamental rights;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas thean initiative on European contract law initiative, which seeks to address Sinternal mgle Market problems created bythat are said to arise due to divergent bodies of contract law, has been under discussion for many years,
Amendment 4 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, in the wake of the global financial crisis, it appears more important than ever to provide a coherent European contract law regime in order to realise the full potential of the internal marketSingle Market remains fragmented, owing to many factors, including failure to implement existing Single Market legislation,
Amendment 7 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, according to a Commission survey of 2008, three-quarters of retailers sell only domestically, and cross-border selling often takes place in a few Member States only1 , 1 Eurobarometer 224, 2008, p. 4.t present there are a number of major factors aside from the existence of diverging rules of national contract law, including provisions applicable to consumer contracts, that discourage businesses from cross-border trading, for example cultural obstacles such as language, demographic composition of the population of individual Member States, corporate strategy and company structures, and intellectual property rights, Or. en
Amendment 10 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the application of foreign (consumer) law to cross-border transactions, for instance under the Rome-I Regulation* has been seen to entail considerable transaction costs for businesses, in particular for SMEs, which have been estimated at €15 000 per business and per Member State12, but also in relation to differences in property law, product restrictions or law of torts, for example, could introduce transaction costs for businesses, in particular for SMEs,
Amendment 16 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas such transaction costs are perceived as important obstacles to cross- border trade, as confirmed by 60 % of EU retailers interviewed in 2008*1 , and whereas 46 % said harmonised rules would help to increase74% of those questioned indicated that harmonisation of the laws applicable when transacting with consumers across the European Union would have little or no effect on the level of their cross-border sales,
Amendment 23 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas there is evidence that the online market remains fragmented: in a survey, 61 % of 10 964 test cross-border orders failed, inter alia because traders refused to serve the consumer's country*2; whereas, on the oth however no causal link was drawn between refusal to trade cross-border hand, cross-border shopping appears to increase consumers' chances of finding a cheaper offer4 and of finding products 1 COM(2009)0557, p. 5. 2 Ibid, p. 3. 3 Ibid, p. 5. 4 Ibid, p. 3. not available domestically online1 problems arising as a direct result of differences in contract law; whereas cross-border shopping, particularly online, may increase choice for consumers, practical issues such as difficulties with language, uncertain complaints procedures, unclear or impractical redress mechanisms and a lack of recognition or trust in brand names used in other countries may dissuade consumers from shopping cross- border to a much greater extent than any differences in contract law,
Amendment 26 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Amendment 38 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Favours the option of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that should be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreementa "toolbox"; believes more invasive policy options such as an optional instrument (OI) would be a disproportionate response to perceived barriers arising in relation to cross-border trading;
Amendment 48 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that a ‘toolbox’ could possibly be put into practice step-by-step, starting as a Commission tool, and being converted, once agreed between the institutionsif found useful, into a tool for the Union legislator; points outconsiders that a ‘toolbox’ wcould provide the necessary legal backdrop and underpinning agaibe usefully augmented with a free- standing set of standard terms and conditionst which an OI could operatemay be made freely available to businesses;
Amendment 56 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that an OI "toolbox" and accompanying set of standard terms and conditions would generate European added value, in particular by ensuring legal certainty through the jurmeans to tackle both legal and linguisdtiction of the Court of Justice, providing at a stroke the potential to surmount both legal and linguistic barriers, as an OI would naturally be available in all EU languages; barriers, as the "toolbox" will naturally assist legislators, encouraging common definitions and approaches in instances of legal reform, while a set of standard terms and conditions would naturally be available in all EU languages, facilitating use in cross- border transactions;
Amendment 61 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Sees a compelling practical advantage in the flexible and voluntary nature of an opt-in instrument; calls, however, on the Commission to include in any proposal for an OI a mechanism for regular monitoring and review, with the close involveuse of a "toolbox" as a reference point for legislators; considers that a "toolbox" allows legislators to carry out a considered appraisal of the utility of the Common Frame of Reference in relation to future revisions and developments of all parties concernedcontract law within the European Union;
Amendment 72 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that both business-to-business andthe set of standard terms and conditions should be drawn up exclusively in relation to business-to- consumer contracts should be coveredross-border contracts; emphasises that the level of consumer protection would need to be high, as mandatory national provisions, including in the area of consumer law, would be replaced;
Amendment 80 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Sees no reason why an OI should not be available as an opt-in both in cross-border andConsiders that the scope of a "toolbox" should be broad, applicable primarily in relation to situations with cross-border implications; notes that it may also have application in domestic situations, as this wcould have thebring advantages ofvia simplicity and cost- saving, especially for the SME sector; strongly believes, however, that the effects of a domestic opt-in on national bodies of contract law merit specific analysisany such domestic application be a matter for Member States to determine;
Amendment 86 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Acknowledges that e-commerce or distance-selling contracts account for an important share of cross-border transactions; believes, however, that an OI should not be limited to these types of transaction that a set of standard terms and conditions could assist in encouraging traders to offer goods online;
Amendment 90 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 95 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Sees benefits in an OI containing specific "toolbox" considering in detail provisions for the most frequent types of contract, in particular for the sale of goods and provision of services; reiterates its earlier call to include insurance contracts within the scope of the OI, believing that such an instrument could be particularly useful for small- scale insurance contracts; points out that some specific issues in connection with which an OI might be beneficial have been raised, such asbelieves that other areas may also benefit from consideration, including treatment of digital rights and beneficial ownership; considers that, on the other hand, there might be a need to exclude certain types of complex public law contracts;
Amendment 102 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that there seems to be a clear constituency among SMEs which is expecting benefits from an OI, with the caveat that it should be drawn up in a manner which makes it simple and attractive to use for all partiesConsiders that a "toolbox" can be readily integrated into the drafting processes for future Union legislation; notes that there is clear agreement amongst business and consumer groups regarding the utility of a "toolbox"; further notes the scepticism of many of these stakeholders towards action going beyond a "toolbox", for example an OI;
Amendment 107 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that whilst an OI will have the effect of providing a single body of law, there will still be a need to seek provision of standard terms and conditions of trade which can be produced in a simple and comprehensible form, should be available off- the-shelf for businesses, and in particular SMEs, and with some form of trust mark systemendorsement to ensure consumer confidence;
Amendment 111 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), in particular for SMEs and consumers, remains a priority, but emphasises that, if the parties use one body of law provided by an OI, ADR will be further facilitated; calls on the Commission to consider synergies when putting forward a proposal;
Amendment 117 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Suggests that lack of confidence inimprovements to the functioning and effectiveness cross-border redress systems could be further tackled by a directacilitated by linkages between the OIa "toolbox" and standard terms and conditions and the European Order for Payment Procedure and the European Small Claims Procedure;
Amendment 122 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes concerns that consumers seldom feel they have a choice with regard to contract terms and are confronted with a ‘take it or leave it’ situation; strongly believes that an attractive OI, by opening up business opportunities andthe combination of a "toolbox" and set of standard terms and conditions will encourage new entrants to markets across the European Union, thereby strengthening competition, will actually and broadening the overall choice available to consumers;
Amendment 128 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls, in accordance with Better Lawmaking principles, the need for a comprehensive and broad impact assessment, analysing different policy options, including that of not taking Union action, and focusing on practical issues; notes the opinion of many stakeholders that while the Commission may have acted according to the letter of the Better Lawmaking initiative, the principles and spirit behind the Better Lawmaking and Smart Regulation programmes have not been evident in the Commission's recent approach towards this issue; looks forward to the European Commission presenting to the European Parliament the results of the consultation and of the impact assessment evaluating fully all the options proposed by the Green Paper;
Amendment 12 #
2011/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Amendment 14 #
2011/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K b (new)
Recital K b (new)
Kb. whereas Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer1 has met its objective of ensuring a minimum degree of protection for employees in the event of insolvency, whilst maintaining adequate flexibility for Member States, and whereas there is no need to set a minimum ceiling for the payments made by the guarantee institution at European level, ___________ 1 OJ L 283, 28.10.2008, p. 36.
Amendment 42 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Taking into account the likely evolution of the workload of the General Court, the number of Judges should be fixhe number of Judges at the General Court may be increased up to a maximum of 40 provided that 56 at the end of a three-stage process, it being understood that at no point of time can there be more than two Judges sitting at the General Court appointed upon a proposal by the same Member Stateit would not lead to an increase of the existing budget, impact Heading 5 of the EU budget, result in additional burdens on EU taxpayers or increase the contribution of Member States to the EU budget.
Amendment 89 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 1 – point 2 – point a
Protocol No 3
Article 48
Article 48
(a) 40 Judges as from …3 ; __________________ 3 OJ: insert ‘1 September 2015’, or the date of entry into force of this Regulation if that date is after 1 September 2015.at least one Judge per Member State, which may be increased by up to twelve additional Judges provided that it would not lead to an increase of the existing budget, impact Heading 5 of the EU budget, result in additional burdens on EU taxpayers or increase the contribution of Member States to the EU budget;
Amendment 91 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 1 – point 2 – point b
Protocol No 3
Article 48
Article 48
Amendment 95 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2 – point c
Article 1 – point 2 – point c
Protocol No 3
Article 48
Article 48
Amendment 105 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2 a (new)
Article 1 – point 2 a (new)
Protocol No 3
Article 48 a (new)
Article 48 a (new)
(2a) The following Article is inserted: ‘Article 48a Judges shall be nominated and appointed exclusively by Member States in accordance with Article 254 TFEU. The independence of judges will be ensured by the independent quality control panel, as set out under Article 255 TFEU.’
Amendment 108 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2 b (new)
Article 1 – point 2 b (new)
Protocol No 3
Article 48b (new)
Article 48b (new)
(2b) The following Article is inserted: ‘Article 48b 1. Posts for additional Judges shall be filled, irrespective of origin by nominees from any Member State, following agreement by common accord of the Governments of the Member States in accordance with Article 254 TFEU. 2. When one or more of the 12 additional Judges’ posts are to be filled, the panel referred to in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall deliver an opinion on the suitability of the nominees to perform the duties of Court Judge. To accompany its opinion on the nominees’ suitability, the panel shall draw up a list of nominees best qualified in the light of their high-level experience, ranking them in order of merit. The panel will also ensure that in the appointment of judges, all areas of law are represented.
Amendment 16 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Where charges are made for supplying and allowing the re-use of documents, they should in principle be limited to the marginal costs incurred for their reproduction and dissemination, unless exceptionally justified according to objective, transparent and verifiable criteria. The necessity of not hindering the normal running of public sector bodies covering a substantial part of. However, for public sector bodies that cover a substantial part of their costs relating to the performance of their public task or any particular activity falling within their public task as well as the normal running of libraries, museums and archives their ability to continue funding their operating cost relating to the performance of their public task from the exploitation of their intellectual property rights should notably be taken into considerationons in this manner should notably be taken into consideration. Those public sector bodies should be allowed to charge higher charges for re-use. The total income from supplying and allowing re-use of documents should not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination, together with a reasonable return on investment. The burden of proving that charges are cost- oriented and comply with relevant limitscriteria should lie with the public sector body charging for the re-use of documents.
Amendment 18 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point 1 a (new)
Article 1 – point 1 – point 1 a (new)
(1a) In paragraph 2, point (b) is replaced by the following: '(b) documents for which third parties hold intellectual property rights, including documents held by a university library in which the university holds intellectual property rights;'
Amendment 19 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4 – point 2 – introductory wording
Article 1 – point 4 – point 2 – introductory wording
(2) At the end of paragraph 4, the following wording is addedParagraph 4 is replaced by the following:
Amendment 20 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Directive 2003/98/EC should therefore lay down a clear obligation for Member States to make all generally available documents re-usable. As it constitutes a limitation to the intellectual property rights hold by the authors of the documents, the scope of such a link between the right of access and the right of use should be narrowed to what is strictly necessary to reach the objectives pursued by its introduction. In this respect, tTaking into account the Union legislation and Member States' and Union's international obligations, notably under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement), documents on which third parties hold intellectual property rights should be excluded from the scope of Directive 2003/98/EC. If a third party was the initial owner of a document held by libraries (including university libraries), museums and archives that is still protected by intellectual property rights, that document should, for the purpose of this Directive, be considered as a document for which third parties hold intellectual property rights.
Amendment 20 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4 – point 2
Article 1 – point 4 – point 2
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
'4. Any decision on re-use shall contain a reference to the means of redress in case the applicant wishes to appeal the decision. The means of redress shall include the possibility of review by an independentmpartial review body, such as the national competition authority, that is vested with specific regulatory powere national access to documents authority or the national judicial authority, that has the authority to investigate complaints regarding the re-use of public sector informationdocuments and whose decisions are binding uponmust be considered by the public sector body concerned.'
Amendment 21 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6 – point 1
Article 1 – point 6 – point 1
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
'1. Where charges are made for the re-use of documents, the total amount charged by public sector bodies shall be limited to the marginal costs incurred for their reproduction, collection, production and dissemination.'
Amendment 22 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6 – point 1
Article 1 – point 6 – point 1
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
'2. In exceptional cases, in particular where pParagraph 1 shall not apply to the following: (a) Public sector bodies that generate revenue to cover a substantial part of their operating costs relating to the performance of their public service tasks from the exploitation of their intellectual property rights, public sector bodies may be allowed to charge for the re-use of documents over and above the marginal costs, according to objective, transparent and verifiable criteria, provided this is tasks or any particular activity falling within their public interest and subject to the approval of the independent authority referred to in Article 4(4), and without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Articletasks. (b) Libraries (including university libraries), museums and archives.'
Amendment 24 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) For the purpose of identifying documents the supply of which is an activity falling outside the scope of the public task of the public sector bodies concerned as defined by law or by other binding rules in the Member State, the public task could be defined generally or on a case-by-case basis for individual public sector bodies.
Amendment 25 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6 – point 1
Article 1 – point 6 – point 1
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 4 (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 4 (new)
'4. Where charges are made under paragraph 2, the total income from supplying and allowing re-use of documents shall not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination, together with a reasonable return on investment. Charges should be cost-oriented over the appropriate accounting period and calculated in line with the accounting principles applicable to the public sector bodies involved.'
Amendment 26 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 b (new)
Recital 7 b (new)
(7b) This Directive should be implemented and applied in full compliance with the principles relating to the protection of personal data in accordance with the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of data and of the free movement of such data. In particular, the granting of permission to re-use documents access to which is not restricted by virtue of access regimes in the Member States should respect the restrictions set by national law in compliance with Directive 95/46/EC on processing of personal data contained therein.
Amendment 26 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6 – point 2
Article 1 – point 6 – point 2
Amendment 27 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 10
Article 1 – point 10
10. In Article 11 (Prohibition of exclusive arrangements), the following sentence is added at the end of paragraph 3: is amended as follows: '(1) The following paragraph is inserted : 2a. Notwithstanding paragraph 11(1), where an exclusive right is necessary for the provision of a service in the public interest such as digitisation, the validity of the reason for granting such an exclusive right shall be subject to regular review, and shall, in any event, be reviewed every three years. The exclusive arrangements established after the entry into force of this Directive shall be transparent and made public. Where an exclusive right relating to the preferential commercial exploitation necessary to digitise cultural resources exists, the public sector body shall be provided with a copy of the digitised cultural resources as part of that agreement.'
Amendment 28 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 10 – point 2 (new)
Article 1 – point 10 – point 2 (new)
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Amendment 35 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Where charges are made for supplying and allowing the re-use of documents, they should in principle be limited to the marginal costs incurred for their reproduction and dissemination, unless exceptionally justified according to objective, transparent and verifiable criteria. T. However, the necessity of not hindering the normal running of public sector bodies that covering a substantial part of the operatingir costs relating to the performance of their public task from the exploitation of their intellectual property rights should notably be taken into considerationor any particular activity falling within their public task as well as the normal running of libraries, museums and archives should notably be taken into consideration. Those public sector bodies should be allowed to charge higher charges for re-use. The total income from supplying and allowing re-use of documents should not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination, together with a reasonable return on investment. The burden of proving that charges are cost-oriented and comply with relevant limitscriteria should lie with the public sector body charging for the re- use of documents.
Amendment 49 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point 1 a (new)
Article 1 – point 1 – point 1 a (new)
(1a) In paragraph 2, point (b) is replaced by the following: "(b) documents for which third parties hold intellectual property rights, including documents held by a university library in which the university holds intellectual property rights;".
Amendment 52 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point 2 a (new)
Article 1 – point 1 – point 2 a (new)
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
(2a) In paragraph 2, the following point is inserted after point (e): “(ea) documents held by archives, museums or libraries (including university libraries) of a particularly sensitive religious nature or that involve traditional knowledge;”
Amendment 69 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4 – point 2 – introductory part
Article 1 – point 4 – point 2 – introductory part
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
(2) At the end of paragraph 4, the following wording is addedParagraph 4 is replaced by the following:
Amendment 71 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4 – point 2
Article 1 – point 4 – point 2
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Any decision on re-use shall contain a reference to the means of redress in case the applicant wishes to appeal the decision. The means of redress shall include the possibility of review by an independentmpartial review body, such as the national competition authority, that is vested with specific regulatory powere national access to documents authority or the national judicial authority, that has the authority to investigate complaints regarding the re-use of public sector informationdocuments and whose decisions are binding uponmust be considered by the public sector body concerned.
Amendment 78 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6 – point 1
Article 1 – point 6 – point 1
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Where charges are made for the re-use of documents, the total amount charged by public sector bodies shall be limited to the marginal costs incurred for their collection, production, reproduction and dissemination.
Amendment 84 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6 – point 1
Article 1 – point 6 – point 1
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. In exceptional cases, in particular whereParagraph 1 shall not apply to public sector bodies that generate revenue to cover a substantial part of their operating costs relating to the performance of their public service tasks from the exploitation of their intellectual property rights, public sector bodies may be allowed to charge for the re-use of documents over and above the marginal costs, according to objective, transparent and verifiable criteria, provided this is tasks or any particular activity falling within their public interest and subject to the approval of the independent authority referred to in Article 4(4), antasks. This exclusion shall be applied without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article.
Amendment 92 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6 – point 2
Article 1 – point 6 – point 2
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
(2) The existing text of Article 6 becomes paragraph 4 amended in the following way: Where charges are made under paragraphs 2 and 3, the total income from supplying and allowing re-use of documents shall not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination, together with a reasonable return on investment. Charges should be cost-oriented over the appropriate accounting period and calculated in line with the accounting principles applicable to the public sector bodies involved.
Amendment 105 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 9
Article 1 – point 9
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 9
Article 9
Member States shall ensure thatmake practical arrangements facilitating the cross- lingual search for documents available for re-use are in place, such as asset lists of main documents with relevant metadata, accessible preferablypreferably accessible online and in machine-readable format, and portal sites that are linked to decentralised asset lists.
Amendment 119 #
2011/0430(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 10
Article 1 – point 10
Directive 2003/98/EC
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Amendment 9 #
2011/0401(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23 a (new)
Recital 23 a (new)
(23a) Research and innovation often builds on the capacity of scientists, research institutions, businesses and citizens to access, share and use scientific information. To increase the circulation and exploitation of knowledge, sustainable access to scientific publications, already embraced in the Seventh Framework Programme, should be a general principle for scientific publications which receive public funding from Horizon 2020. Furthermore, Horizon 2020 should experiment with online open access to scientific data produced or collected by publicly funded research aiming at open access to such data becoming the general rule by 2020. Where appropriate, the costs of publishing may be covered by the Horizon 2020 budget.
Amendment 10 #
2011/0401(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) Research and innovation activities supported by Horizon 2020 should respect fundamental ethical principles. The opinions of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies should be taken into account. Research activities should also take into account Article 13 TFEU and reduce the use of animals in research and testing, with a view ultimately to replacing animal use. All activities should be carried out ensuring a high level of human health protection in accordance with Article 168 TFEU and with Article 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in order to facilitate the realisation of the right of everyone to access preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices.
Amendment 11 #
2011/0401(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)
Recital 24 a (new)
(24a) Research which may not be patentable but which may provide benefits to society with respect to obligations under the Treaty and Charter of Fundamental Rights should not be excluded without due consideration from funding under this Regulation; in particular, progress made as a result of research activities in the health sector could reduce escalating health care costs across Europe.
Amendment 13 #
2011/0401(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) The European Commission does not explicitly solicit the use of human embryonic stem cells. The use of human stem cells, be they adult or embryonic, if any, depends on the judgement of the scientists in view of the objectives they want to achieve and is subject to stringent Ethics Review. No project involving the use of human embryonic stem cells should be funded that does not obtain the necessary approvals fromunder the law of the Member States concerned. No activity should be funded that is forbidden in all Member States. No activity should be funded in a Member State where such activity is forbidden.
Amendment 14 #
2011/0401(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25a) Under FP7, each project proposing to use human embryonic stem cells must have successfully passed a scientific evaluation during which the necessity of using such stem cells to achieve the scientific objectives is assessed by independent scientific experts. This should continue under Horizon 2020.
Amendment 15 #
2011/0401(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In research projects where human beings are involved as subjects or end- users, Horizon 2020 shall ensure that all participants and societal groups are treated equally.
Amendment 16 #
2011/0401(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a Open Access With a view to enhancing the exploitation and dissemination of results and thereby boosting European innovation, sustainable open access to publications resulting from research funded by Horizon 2020 shall be encouraged, whilst taking care to ensure that European scientists are able to publish in the most highly regarded journals and other fora. Open access to scientific data produced or collected in research funded by Horizon 2020 may be promoted. Where publications resulting from Horizon 2020 are to be published in an open access, free-to-read format, the cost of publication shall be covered by the Horizon 2020 budget.
Amendment 18 #
2011/0401(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) research activities intended to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Amendment 20 #
2011/0401(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) actions which bring together results from a range of projects, including those that may be funded from other sources, to provide user-friendly databases and reports that summarise key findings and, where relevant, their communication and dissemination to the scientific community and the general public;
Amendment 108 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 26 – paragraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, “'international auditing standards”' means International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and related Statement and Standards which are part of the Clarity Project issued by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) inissued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) with an effective date stated therein of 2009 insofar as they are relevant to the statutory audit.
Amendment 156 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 20
Article 1 – point 20
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 43 b – paragraph 3
Article 43 b – paragraph 3
For the purposes of this Article, a “"limited review” means a procedureassurance engagement" means an engagement undertaken by a statutory auditor or audit firm with a view to detecting misstatements due to error or fraud in the financial statements of an entity and which providesin which a lower level of assurance thanis obtained than in a statutory audit engagement.
Amendment 77 #
2011/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) proposing, based on the information contained in the electronic complaint form, one or more competent ADR entities to the partiescomplainant based upon those entities the trader has committed to use, and providing information on their fees, if applicable, the language or languages in which the procedure will be conducted, the approximate length of the procedures or informing the complainant party that based on the information submitted, no competent ADR entity could be identified;
Amendment 79 #
2011/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point f
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point f
Amendment 90 #
2011/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) if, following the notification of the dispute to the parties, the parties agree to institute proceedings before the entity, accomplish the conclusion of the dispute resolution procedure within 390 days from when the proceedings have been instituted. In the casWhere disputes are of a complex disputes, the ADR entity may extend this time limit;or highly technical nature the ADR entity may, at their discretion, choose to extend this time period. Any extension shall be informed to the parties, together with an expected approximate length for the conclusion of the dispute.
Amendment 61 #
2011/0373(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) This Directive should apply to contractual disputes between consumers and traders that are arising from the sale of goods or provision of services in all economic sectors. This should include complaints submitted by consumers against traders but alsoDirective should not apply to disputes or complaints submitted by traders against consumers. This Directive should not apply to disputes between traders; however, it should not prevent Member States from adopting or maintaining in force provisions on procedures for the out-of-court resolution of such disputes.
Amendment 86 #
2011/0373(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) procedures initiated by a trader against a consumer.
Amendment 95 #
2011/0373(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that ADR entities where the natural persons in charge of dispute resolution form part of a collegial body provide for an equal number ofappropriate balance between representatives of consumers' interests and of representatives of traders' interests in that body.
Amendment 106 #
2011/0373(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the dispute is resolved within 90 days from the date on which the ADR entity has received the complaint. In the casWhere disputes are of a complex disputes, the ADR entity may extend this time periodor highly technical nature the ADR entity may, at their discretion, choose to extend this time period. Any extension shall be informed to the parties, together with an expected approximate length for the conclusion of the dispute.
Amendment 123 #
2011/0373(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that traders established on their territories inform consumers about the ADR entities by which they are covered and which are competent to deal withthat they commit to use to resolve potential disputes between themselves and consumers. Such information shall include the addresses of the relevant ADR entities' websites and specify whether or not the trader commits to use these entities to resolve disputes with consumers.
Amendment 125 #
2011/0373(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be mentioned in an easily, directly, prominently and permanently clear and accessible way on the trader's website, where one exists, and in the general terms and conditions of contracts for the sale of goods or provision of services between the trader and a consumer and in invoices and receipts relating to such contracts. It shall specify how further information on the ADR entity concerned and on the conditions for using it can be accessed.
Amendment 20 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
Amendment 22 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
Amendment 39 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 20
Article 1 – point 20
Amendment 422 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where a statutory auditor or an audit firm carries out statutory audit of a public- interest entity which is part of a group of undertakings whose parent undertaking is situated in a third country, the confidentiality and professional secrecy rules referred to in Article 23(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC shall not impede the transfer by the statutory auditor or audit firm of relevant documentation of the audit work performed to the group auditor situated in a third country if such documentation is exclusively necessary for the preparationerformance of the audit of consolidated financial statements of the parent undertaking.
Amendment 437 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) specifyidentify the title of each financial statement included in the annual or consolidated financial statements of the individual entity or consolidated group, and the date andof, or period they covered by each financial statement;
Amendment 438 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) explain, where additional reports have been reviewed, the scope of such review; report concerning the consistency, in all material respects, or otherwise of the management report or consolidated management report with the annual financial statements or consolidated financial statements, respectively, for the same financial year, and report on whether, based on the audit, the auditor has identified material inconsistencies between the audited financial statements and any other information in a document(s), if any, containing or accompanying those financial statements, and to clearly identify in the auditor's report that other information and include a description of the auditor's responsibilities in this regard in accordance with the requirements of the international auditing standards as referred to in Article 26 of Directive 2006/43/EC.
Amendment 441 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
Amendment 549 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 32 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
For the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph, the competent authority referred to in Article 35(1) shall make public a list of the auditors and audit firms concerned which shall be updated on an annual basis. The competent authority shall use the information provided by statutory auditors and audit firms pursuant to Article 286 to make the relevant calculations.
Amendment 7 #
2011/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is important to improve consumer protection. To achieve this general objective, specific objectives should be set as regards safety, consumer information and education, rights and redress as well as enforcement in respect of consumer rights. Differences do, however, still exist at national level in these areas, and the measures taken under the Programme should be targeted at areas of maximum harmonisation, in order to provide clarity for consumers and businesses. The value and impact of the measures taken under the Programme should regularly be monitored and evaluated. For the purposes of evaluating consumer policy indicators should be developed.
Amendment 11 #
2011/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) Objective 2 - information and education: to improve consumers' education, information and awareness of their rights where these are fully harmonised at European level, to develop the evidence base for consumer policy and to provide support to consumer organisations.
Amendment 13 #
2011/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – subparagraph 1
(c) Objective 3 - rights and redress: to consolidate consumer rights in particular through regulatory action and improving access to redress including alternative dispute resolution.
Amendment 14 #
2011/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – subparagraph 2
This objective will be measured in particular through the recourse to alternative dispute resolution to solve cross-border disputes and through the activity of a Union-wide on-line dispute resolution system.
Amendment 16 #
2011/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point b – point 7
Article 4 – point b – point 7
(7) enhancingsupport for national initiatives on consumer education;
Amendment 17 #
2011/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point c – point 9
Article 4 – point c – point 9
(9) facilitating access to and monitoring of the functioning and the effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms for consumers, in particular of alternative dispute resolution schemes, including on- line, also through the development and maintenance of relevant IT tools;
Amendment 18 #
2011/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Objective II – paragraph 7 – title
Annex I – Objective II – paragraph 7 – title
7. EnhancingSupport for national initiatives on consumer education
Amendment 19 #
2011/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Objective II – paragraph 7 – point a
Annex I – Objective II – paragraph 7 – point a
Amendment 20 #
2011/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Objective II – paragraph 7 – point b
Annex I – Objective II – paragraph 7 – point b
(b) development, in cooperation with national initiatives, of education measures and materials on e.g. consumer rights including cross-border issues , health and safety, Union consumer legislation, sustainable consumption, financial literacy , where these rights are fully harmonised at the European level.
Amendment 21 #
2011/0340(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Objective III – paragraph 9 – point b
Annex I – Objective III – paragraph 9 – point b
Amendment 17 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a REGULATIONDIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on safety of offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities(Text with EEA relevance) (This amendment applies throughout the text.)
Amendment 21 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The existing fragmenteddifferent Member State regulatory frameworks applying to safety of offshore activities in Europe and current industry safety practices do not provide an adequate assurance that risks from offshore accidents are minimised throughout the Union, and that in the event of accident occurring in Union waters, the most effective response would be timely deployed. Under certain existing liability regimes, the responsible party may not always be clearly identifiable and/or may not be able, or liable, to pay all the costs to remedy the damage it has caused.
Amendment 22 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) There is a need to clarify that holders of authorisations for offshore activities pursuant to Directive 94/22/EC are also potential liable ‘operators’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, and may not be entitled to delegate their responsibilities in this regard to third parties contracted by themand establish without ambiguity who the liable parties should be prior to the commencement of offshore activities.
Amendment 24 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) In order to ensure effective implementation of the requirements of this Regulation, Member States with offshore oil and gas activities under their jurisdiction should ensure effective and proportionate sanctions should bpenalties are put in place.
Amendment 25 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) AOperators should ensure they have sufficient physical, personnel and financial resources to minimise and rectify the impact of a major accident. However, as no existing financial security instruments, including risk pooling arrangements, can accommodate all possible consequences of extreme accidents, the Commission should proceed with further analysis and studies of the appropriate measures to ensure adequately robust liability regime for damages related to offshore oil and gas operations, requirements on financial capacity including availability of appropriated financial security instruments or other arrangements and report on the findings and proposals within 1 year after adoption. In order to provide a safety net, mutual oil pollution insurance schemes should be established in each individual Union sea area, with mandatory membership for operators conducting operations in Union waters. Operators in third countries that share sea borders with the Union should also be encouraged to join the schemes.
Amendment 27 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. In particular, when assessing the competent authorities shall assess whether the technical and financial capacity of the entities that apply for authorisation for planned offshore oil and gas activities, due account shall be taken ofoperations pursuant to Directive 94/22/EC are proportionate to the risk,s, the hazards and any other relevant information related to the area concernedlicensed area and the particular stage of exploration and production operations and also. Due account shall be taken of the applicants‘' financial capacities, including any financial security and capacity to cover liabilities potentially deriving from the offshore oil and gas activities in question, in particular liability for environmental damages. Member States may also take into account the history of the applicant with regards to major incidents where the applicant was proven to be liable and negligent.
Amendment 28 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. LicensingCompetent authorities pursuant to Directive 94/22/EC shall, when assessing the technical and financial capacity of the entities that apply for authorisation for offshore oil and gas activities, take into account the risks, hazards and any other relevant information related to the location concerned and the particular stage of exploration and production operations. Competent authorities shall ensure that provisions pursuant to paragraph 2 are proportionate to such risks, hazards and any other relevant information related to the location concerned and stage of operations.
Amendment 31 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The licensee is liable for the prevention and remediation of environmental damage, pursuant to Directive 2004/35/EC, caused by offshore oil and gas activitieoperations carried out by the licensee or any entityoperator participating in the offshore oil and gas operations on the basis of a contract with the licensee. The consenting procedure for operations pursuant to this Regulation shall not prejudice the liability of the licensee.
Amendment 36 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Commission, the Union Offshore Authorities Forum and competent authorities concerned shall work with other international fora and Union operators to encourage the application of the highest possible safety and environmental standards globally.
Amendment 37 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3
Article 30 – paragraph 3
3. External emergency response plans shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Annex I and V, and made available to the Commission, and to the public as appropriate with due regard for data protection and confidentiality.
Amendment 38 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Member States with offshore oil and gas activities under their jurisdiction shall establish penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation by the industryoperators and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment 39 #
2011/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37
Article 37
Amendment 132 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 a (new)
Article 8 a (new)
Article 8a Layout of the balance sheet For the presentation of the balance sheet, Member States must require one or both of the layouts set out in Articles 9 and 9a. If a Member State permits both layouts, it must allow undertakings to choose which of the prescribed layouts to adopt.
Amendment 133 #
Amendment 134 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – Assets – point A – subparagraph 2
Article 9 – Assets – point A – subparagraph 2
(unless national law provides that called-up capital be shownmay be included under ‘capital and reserves’. In that case, the part of the capital called but not yet paid shall appear as an asset either under A or under C (II) (5)).
Amendment 135 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 a (new)
Article 9 a (new)
Amendment 137 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Member States may permit or require undertakings, or certain classes of undertaking, to present items on the basis of a distinction between current and non- current items in a different layout than that prescribed in Article 9 or 9a, as appropriate, provided that the information given is at least equivalent to that otherwise required by the relevant Article 9.
Amendment 139 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 10
Article 11 – paragraph 10
10. Goodwill shall be written off systematically over its useful life. Where its useful life cannot be reliably estimated it shall be written off within a maximum period of 510 years. An explanation of the period(s) over which goodwill is written off shall be provided within the notes to the financial statements.
Amendment 143 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall permit small undertakings to draw up abridged balance sheets showing only those items preceded by letters and roman numerals in Article 9, or, as the case may be, Article 9a, disclosing separately as applicable: (a) the information required in brackets in C (II) under ‘'Assets’' and C under ‘'Capital, reserves and liabilities’', but in total for eachaggregate for each; or (b) the information required in Article 9a in brackets in D(II).
Amendment 159 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) abridged balance sheets showing only those items preceded by letters and roman numerals in Article 9 or, as the case may be, Article 9a disclosing separately, either in the balance sheet or in the notes to the financial statements:
Amendment 160 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the financial statements of public interest entities, medium-sized and large undertakings are audited by one or more persons approved by Member States to carry out statutory audits on the basis of Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Amendment 161 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 162 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 34 – paragraph 2
Article 34 – paragraph 2
Amendment 163 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 164 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 3
Article 35 – paragraph 3
3. The report of the statutory auditor on the consolidated financial statements shall comply with the requirements set out in of paragraphs 1 and 2. In reporting on the consistency of the management report and the financial statements as required by paragraph 1(e), the statutory auditor shall consider the consolidated financial statements and the consolidated management report. Where the annual financial statements of the parent undertaking are attached to the consolidated financial statements, the reports of the statutory auditors required by this Article may be combined.
Amendment 33 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
1. The home Member State may make an issuer subject to requirements more stringent than those laid down in this Directive, except requiring issuers to publish periodic financial information other thann a more frequent basis than annual financial reports referred to in Article 4 and half- yearly financial reports referred to in Article 5. Member States may however impose publication of additional periodic financial information other than the annual financial reports referred to in Article 4 and the half-yearly financial reports referred to in Article 5 for the following purposes: - protection of financial stability; and - prudential and conduct regulation of institutions.
Amendment 37 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
The home Member State may not make a holder of shares, or a natural person or legal entity referred to in Articles 10 or 13, subject to requirements more stringent than those laid down in this Directive, except setting lower notification thresholds than those laid down in Article 9(1).when:
Amendment 38 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point a (new)
(a) setting lower or additional notification thresholds than those laid down in Article 9(1);
Amendment 39 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b (new)
(b) applying more stringent requirements than those referred to in Article 12; and
Amendment 40 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c (new)
(c) applying laws, regulations or administrative provisions adopted in relation to takeover bids, merger transactions and other transactions affecting the ownership or control of companies, regulated by the supervisory authorities appointed by Member States pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids.
Amendment 49 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 8 – point a
Article 1 – point 8 – point a
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) financial instruments that, on maturity, give the holder, under a formal agreement, either the unconditional right to acquire or the discretion as to his right to acquire, shares to which voting rights are attached, alreadywhether already issued or to be issued, of an issuer whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market;
Amendment 50 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 8 – point a
Article 1 – point 8 – point a
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) financial instruments which are not included in point (a) but which are referenced to shares referred to in that point and with economic effects similar to thosefinancial instruments referred to in that point (a), whether they give right to a physical settlement or not.
Amendment 51 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 8 – point b
Article 1 – point 8 – point b
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a – subparagraph 1
1a. The number of voting rights shall be calculated by reference to the full notional amount of shares underlying the financial instrumentESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the method to calculate the number of voting rights. For this purpose, the holder shall aggregate and notify all financial instruments relating to the same underlying issuer. Only long positions shall be taken into account for the calculation of voting rights. Long positions shall not be netted with short positions relating to the same underlying issuer.
Amendment 52 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 8
Article 1 – point 8
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subject to the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures to: (a) modify the method to calculate the number of voting rights relating to the financial instruments referred to in paragraph 1a; (b) specify the types of instruments to be considered as financial instruments within the meaning of paragraph 1b; (c) specify the contents of the notification to be made, the notification period and to whom the notification is to be made, as referred to in paragraph 1. (Point (c) in the Commission text has partly become subparagraph 1 in ParliaESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the contents of the notification to be made, the notification period and to whom the notification is to be made as referred to in paragraph 1. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2013. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first sub-paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. amendment's.)
Amendment 55 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 15
Article 1 – point 15
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to the powers of competent authorities in accordance with Article 24 and the right of Member States to impose criminal sanctions, Member States shall provide that their respective competent authorities may take appropriate administrative sanctions and measures where the national provisions adopted in the implementation of this Directive have not been complied with, and shall ensure that they are applied. Those administrative sanctions and measures shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment 59 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 16
Article 1 – point 16
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 28 a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 28 a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 66 #
2011/0307(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 16
Article 1 – point 16
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 28 b
Article 28 b
Member States shallmay ensure that the competent authorities publish any sanction or measure imposed for breach of the national provisions adopted in the implementation of this Directive without undue delay, including information on the type and nature of the breach and the identity of persons responsible for it, unless such publication would seriously jeopardise the stability of financial markets. Where publication would, cause a disproportionate damage to the parties involved, competent authorities shall publish th or jeopardise sanctions on an anonymous basis. on- going criminal investigation
Amendment 252 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 a (new)
Recital 37 a (new)
(37a) In order to avoid duplication and to create complementarity with existing EU law this Directive should take into account the principles of directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights which harmonised rules for distance and off- premises contracts such as pre- contractual information, formal requirements, right of withdrawal, delivery, passing of risk and payment means. This should provide for a solid legal framework of European rules for business who sell goods or digital content to consumers across the Union.
Amendment 253 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 b (new)
Recital 37 b (new)
(37b) After the adoption of this directive, the European Commission should establish a working group, composed mainly of groups representing consumers and businesses, supported by academics and practitioners, in order to develop standard terms and conditions for on-line business to consumers contracts based on the rules in this directive and the consumer acquis, in particular Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights.
Amendment 318 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 a (new)
Article 16 a (new)
Amendment 320 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 b (new)
Article 16 b (new)
Article 16b The Commission shall carry out an information campaign to inform businesses at national level about these standards terms for on-line consumer transactions based on the European rules.
Amendment 410 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 1
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 1
1. In the case of non-performance of an obligation by the seller, the buyer may do any of the following: (a) require performance, which includes specific performance, repair or replacement of the goods or digital content, under Section 3 of this Chapter; (b) withhold the buyer's own performance under Section 4 of this Chapter; (c) terminate the contract under Section 5 of this Chapter and claim the return of any price already paid, under Chapter 17; (d) reduce the price under Section 6 of this Chapter; and (e) claim damages under Chapter 16shall be entitled to exercise the rights to remedy contained in paragraphs 2 and 4, where applicable.
Amendment 418 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 2
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 2
2. If the buyer is a trader: (a), the buyer's rights to exercise any remedy except withholding of performance are subject to cure by the seller as set out in may do any of the following: (a) require performance, which includes specific performance, repair or replacement of the goods or digital content, under Section 23 of this Chapter; and (b) the buyer's rights to rely on lack of conformity are subject to the requirements of examination and notification set out in(b) withhold the buyer's own performance under Section 4 of this Chapter; (c) terminate the contract under Section 5 of this Chapter and claim the return of any price already paid, under Chapter 17; (d) reduce the price under Section 76 of this Chapter; and (e) claim damages under Chapter 16.
Amendment 420 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Where exercising rights under paragraph 2, the following conditions shall apply, where applicable: (a) the buyer's rights to exercise any remedy except withholding of performance are subject to cure by the seller as set out in Section 2 of this Chapter; and (b) the buyer's rights to rely on lack of conformity are subject to the requirements of examination and notification set out in Section 7 of this Chapter.
Amendment 423 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 3
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 3
3. If the buyer is a consumer: (a), the buyer's rights are not subject to cure by the seller; and (b) the requirements of examination and notification set out in Section 7 of this Chapter do not apply may choose to either: (a) require performance, which includes specific performance, repair or replacement of the goods or digital content, under Section 3 of this Chapter; or (b) terminate the contract under Section 5 of this Chapter within a reasonable time, and claim the return of any price already paid, under Chapter 17. Where a consumer chooses to exercise this right, the trader may not make a deduction for any use the consumer has had of the goods.
Amendment 425 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 4
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 4
4. If the seller's non-performance is excused, the buyer may resort to any of the remedies referred to in paragraph 1this Article except requiring performance and damages.
Amendment 426 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Where the buyer chooses to exercise his right under paragraph 4 subparagraph (a), and the seller cannot perform specific performance, repair or replacement of the goods or digital content within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience to the buyer, the buyer may have further recourse to any of the following: (a) withhold the buyer's own performance under Section 4 of this Chapter; (b) terminate the contract under Section 5 of this Chapter and claim the return of any price already paid, under Chapter 17; (c) reduce the price under Section 6 of this Chapter; and (d) claim damages under Chapter 16.
Amendment 428 #
2011/0284(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 5
Annex I – Article 106 – paragraph 5
5. The buyer may not resort to any of the remedies referred to in paragraph 1this Article to the extent that the buyer caused the seller's non-performance.
Amendment 61 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) For reasons of international comity, this Directive should only apply to works that are first published or broadcast inoriginate in the territory of a Member State.
Amendment 68 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) In order to avoid duplication of search efforts, a diligent search should be conducted only in the Member State where the work was first published or broadcast, or, where this is unclear or the work has not been published, the country most associated with the work. In order to enable other Member States to ascertain whether the orphan status of a work has been established in another Member State, Member States should ensure that the results of diligent searches carried out in their territories are recorded in a publicly accessible database.
Amendment 79 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) This Directive should be without prejudice to existing or future arrangements in the Member States concerning the management of rights such as extended collective licences or requirement for authorisation.
Amendment 90 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. This Directive applies to works protected by copyright, which are contained in the collections of organisations referred to in Article 1(1), originate or have been first published or broadcast in the territory of a Member State and which are:
Amendment 121 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Where a work has not been published or broadcast, or the Member State of first publication or broadcast cannot be determined, a diligent search shall be carried out in the country of origin or country most associated with the work. If necessary, the additional consultation of information available in other countries shall be undertaken.
Amendment 127 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
This Directive is without prejudice to present and future arrangements in the Member States concerning the management of rights, such as extended collective licences or requirements for authorisation.
Amendment 168 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex – point 3 – point a
Annex – point 3 – point a
(a) The publishers and the publishers' association in the respective country and the authors and journalists associations;
Amendment 64 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The Communication set out that the Observatory should become the central resource for gathering, monitoring and reporting information and data related to all intellectual property rights infringements. It should be used as a platform for cooperation between representatives from national authorities and stakeholders to exchange ideas and expertise on best practices, to develop joint enforcement strategies and to make recommendations to policy-makers. The Communication specified that the Observatory would be hosted and managed by the services of the Commission.
Amendment 65 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 a (new)
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) The European Parliament, in its resolution of 12 May 2011 on unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries1 urged the Commission to take into account the specific problems encountered by small and medium-sized enterprises when it comes to asserting their intellectual property rights and to promote best practice and effective methods to respect those rights. __________________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0240.
Amendment 69 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The Office should offer a forum that brings together public authorities and the private sector, ensuring the collection, analysis and dissemination of relevant objective, comparable and reliable data regarding the value of intellectual property rights and the infringements of those rights, the development of best practices and strategies to protectidentifying and promoting best practices to enforce intellectual property rights, and raising public awareness of the impacts of intellectual property rights infringements. Furthermore, the Office should fulfil additional tasks, such as to improve the understanding of the value of intellectual property rights, exchange information on new competitive business models expanding the legal offer of cultural and creative content, enhance the expertise of persons involved in the enforcement of intellectual property rights by appropriate training measures, increase knowledge on techniques to prevent counterfeitinginfringement of intellectual property rights, and improve cooperation with third countries and international organisations.
Amendment 70 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) In order to fulfil those tasks in the most efficient manner, the Office should consult and cooperate with other authorities at national, European and, where appropriate, international levels, create synergies with the activities carried out by such authorities and avoid any duplication of measures.
Amendment 73 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) With regard to representatives of the private sector, the Office should involve, when assembling the Observatory in the context of its activities, a representative selection of the economic sectors, including the creative industries, most concerned by andor most experienced in the fight against infringements of intellectual property rights, in particular representatives of authors, right holders and Internet intermediaries, including Internet service providers, telecommunications providers and online service providers. Also, a proper representation of consumers and of small and medium -sized enterprises should be ensured.
Amendment 83 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) evaluating best practices with a view to ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises, non-profit organisations and universities can enforce their intellectual property rights;
Amendment 85 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 91 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) enhancing the knowledge on technical tools to prevent and combat counterfeiting and piracyinfringement of intellectual property rights, including tracking and tracing systems;
Amendment 93 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) establishing a methodology for the collection, analysis and reporting of independent, objective, comparable, robust and reliable data related to infringements of intellectual property rights;
Amendment 94 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) collecting, analysing and disseminating relevant independent, objective, comparable, robust and reliable data regarding infringements of intellectual property rights;
Amendment 95 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) collecting, analysing and disseminating relevant independent, objective, comparable, robust and reliable data regarding the economic value of intellectual property and its contribution to economic growth, welfare, innovation, creativity, cultural diversity, the creation of high quality jobs and the development of high quality products and services within the Union;
Amendment 97 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) providing regular assessments and specific reports by economic sector, geographic area and type of intellectual property right infringed, which evaluate, inter alia, the impact of intellectual property rights infringements on society, economy, including an assessment of the effects on SMEs, health, environment, safety and security, and the relation of such infringements with organized crime and terrorism;
Amendment 98 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) collecting, analysing and disseminating information regarding best practices between the representatives meeting as the Observatory, and developing strategiewhen requested, making recommendations based on such practices;
Amendment 100 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) drawing up reports and publications to raise awareness ofamong the Union's citizens of the impact of infringements of intellectual property rights, and to that end, organising conferences, on-line and off-line campaigns, events and meetings at European and international levels and supporting national and pan- European actions;
Amendment 102 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
(ga) monitoring the development of new competitive business models, expanding the legal offer of cultural and creative content and encouraging the exchange of information;
Amendment 105 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point l
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point l
(l) buildingassisting, when requested, in the development of strategies in cooperation with the central industrial property offices of the Member States, including the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, and developing techniques, skills and tools related to the protection of intellectual property rights, including training programmes and awareness campaigns;
Amendment 114 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – introductory words
Article 5 – introductory words
Without prejudice to law governing the processing of personal data, Member States and private sector representatives meeting as the Observatory shallmay:
Amendment 115 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – point b
Article 5 – point b
(b) provide, when available, statistical data on infringements of intellectual property rights;
Amendment 116 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 117 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – point e
Article 7 – point e
Amendment 93 #
2011/0093(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. It shall apply from [a specific date will be set and it will coincide with the date of application of Council Regulation …/….../... on the implementation of enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements] or the date of the entry into force of the instrument creating a unified patent litigation system and the setting-up of such a system, whichever is the later.
Amendment 8 #
2010/2303(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. There should be a presumption in Financial Institutions that the functions of chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer be separate, though there may be occasions where this is necessary as a short-term measure;
Amendment 1 #
2010/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas it welcomes the ongoing work on regulation in the credit rating agency industry and encourages all actors – at the national, European and international levels – to strengthen the ongoing regulation processto work together to improve the regulatory regime,
Amendment 2 #
2010/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 7 #
2010/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to encourage existing businesses to become registered as CRAs under European legislation by reducing barriers to entry or to expand in the CRA sector, especially for niche markets such as local SMEs, but also for structured credits or public debt; considers that this wouldmay enhance competition in this sector and that, in order to be visible at European level, small CRAs could be encouraged to establish networks; but strongly cautions that such measures should not reduce the quality or standard of ratings; suggests the Commission could investigate methods of supporting networks of CRAs, but takes the view that any such network be an industry-led initiative;
Amendment 9 #
2010/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 12 #
2010/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers thatNotes that there may be circumstances where obtaining at least two ratings, e.g. for calculation of capital requirements, are recommended; further considers that this would improve the accuracy of the regulatory capital calculationmay be advantageous; but considers that the number of ratings obtained should be determined according to the needs of the market;
Amendment 14 #
2010/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that all measures should be taken in order to avoid too favourable ratings being given by reducing any conflicts of interest, e.g. by disclosure of the methodologies, especially for ratings of sovereign debt, and rethinking the payment model on the basis of a ‘payment upon request’Notes all payment models necessarily contain conflicts of interest, and invites the Commission to examine measures to reduce or identify conflicts of interest in the variety of payment models used in the credit ratings sector.
Amendment 3 #
2010/2289(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to ensure that ADR mechanisms should be available to both consumers and businesses when enforcing their rights, inter alia under aas part of any future optionproposals instrument in the area of European Contract Law which may be chosen following the results of the consultation undertaken by the European Commission;
Amendment 1 #
2010/2278(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Firmly believes that the only way in which the social market economy can be preserved is through revitalising enterprise and in particular the small-business sector and having the same legislation, thereby producing legal certainty in the Member States for citizens and enterprises, preferably through regulations; considers that what is needed is broader horizons and a leap of the imagination on the part of the European Institutions;
Amendment 3 #
2010/2278(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that, although the non- economic rights of persons who have exercised their single market rights are not covered by the Commission’s communication, the promised efforts to improve the existing situation as regards civil status documents would sit well with the Commission’s idea of introducing a European skills passport and a ‘Youth on the Move card’; particularly appreciates the idea of creatingthe allocation of a portion of the existing budget in the form of European student mobility loans to give more young Europeans, in particular the most disadvantaged among them, the opportunity to experience a period of study, training or job placement in another country; considers that the European Institutions can set a good example in this connectionregard by increasing the number and range of traineeships (stages) and abolishing the unpaid stage as discriminatory;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2278(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises the lack of direct communication with citizens and considers that the EU's representations in the Member States must be mandated to respond immediately to negative and misleading reports in the media by presenting the facts, thereby alsoshould make further efforts to provide information on European legislation, projects and programmes, together with promotingon of informed debate on European issues; further advocates the use of modern technology in the most extensive and imaginative forms, including role-playing videogames which young people can play in a competitive way at the European level (e.g. as part of an EU competition for schools), while at the same time learning and informing themselves about how the economy and order to provide interactive methods of learning which will be attractive to schools as a tool to help children learn about how the EU works;
Amendment 2 #
2010/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Given the Council's failure to reach a unanimous decision on the translation arrangement for EU patents, welcomes the request made by several Member States for authorisation for enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, but notes with regret that this will not lead to the prompt creation of an EU patent; calls on all Member States to join in the enhanced; calls on all Member States to join in the enhanced cooperation; encourages swift adoption and implementation to support innovation and strengthen European coomperationtitiveness on a global scale;
Amendment 4 #
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, supported by a thorough impact assessment, in particular the framework directive on collective management of copyright and orphan works; takes the view that the Commission revision of the EU trademark legislation should be included on that list;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2245(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that the territorial nature of copyright and the lack of harmonisation of national legislation createneed not be a major obstacles to the mobility of knowledge in Europe;
Amendment 9 #
2010/2245(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines in this respect that a short- term measure to deal with certain obstacles created by territoriality should include a reassessment of the optional nature of the exceptione need for an effective and transparent system for collective rights management, involving a functional approach towards pand limitatio-European licens introduced by Directive 2001/29/EC and that a review of this directive, as prescribed by its provisions, is now long overdueg, which will encourage and enable strong growth in the provision of services in the EU digital single market;
Amendment 29 #
2010/2137(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Invites the Commission to consider, within the integrated regulatory framework on the protection of intellectual property rights, the use of competition legislation as a tool for preventing any abuse of IPRs;
Amendment 16 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the Smart Regulation Communication, and emphasises that impact assessments should play a key role throughout the whole policy cycle, from design to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and to the revision of legislation; stresses the importance of well-considered and fully informed decision-making at the design stage of legislative proposals, because this can lead to both improved quality of outcomes and a shorter legislative process;
Amendment 22 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers it advisable and necessary to involve external experts from all policy areas affected in the impact assessment process in order to guarantee independence and objectivity; notes in this connection the fundamental distinction between public consultation and independent impact assessment;
Amendment 37 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that impact assessments must highlightfully consider the alternatives available to the legislator, which should always include a serious examination of the option of taking no action;
Amendment 49 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Notes the criticism by the European Court of Auditors to the effect that the Commission sometimes undertakes legislative initiatives even though the impact assessment process has not been completed; further notes the criticism that not all policy options may receive the same level of attention; stresses that all policy options must be fully considered in the impact assessment process;
Amendment 55 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls on its committees to make more consistent use of the parliamentary impact assessment, an instrument which is already available; recalls that there is a specific budget line to cover the carrying out of impact assessments; considers recourse to a parliamentary impact assessment particularly necessary when substantive changes to the initial proposal have been introduced;
Amendment 58 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Notes that Parliament and its committees already possess the machinery with which to scrutinise the Commission's impact assessments; stresses that this mayconsiders that a presentation of the impact assessment by the Commission to the relevant committees would be a valuable addition to the scrutiny undertaken in the Parliament; notes that such scrutiny may also take a number of other forms, including complementary impact assessments, more detailed analyses, the review of Commission impact assessments by external experts and the holding of special meetings with independent experts; stresses that the work of its policy departments in this area should develop in a consistent manner;
Amendment 62 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
Amendment 67 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
Amendment 69 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
Amendment 74 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Notes that the Council has hitherto made very little use of impact assessment as an instrument; calls therefore on the Council too to make more intensive use of impact assessments in order to improve the quality of its contribution to European legislation; emphasises that smart regulation based on complete and objective impact assessment remains the shared responsibility of the European institutions and of the Member States;
Amendment 5 #
2010/2012(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas it is crucial to ensure legal certainty and transparency in the process of rights clearance when an e-retailer uploads content protected by copyright onto a website,
Amendment 7 #
2010/2012(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls on Member States and the Commission to better integrate Single Market centres incorporating SOLVIT, points of single contact (as required by the Services Directive), product centres (provided for in the Mutual Recognition Regulation), and further information, including legal requirements, required by businesses to sell their goods cross-border and over the internet; emphasises that the functioning of this "one-stop shop" is essential for completing the single market for e-commerce;
Amendment 16 #
2010/2012(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Commission to make available an integrated VAT collection scheme to encourage SMEs to trade across borders at lower adninistrative cost;
Amendment 18 #
2010/2012(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Urges the Commission to take steps to create legal certainty and tackle the severe fragmentation that exists in regards to the process of rights clearance and multiple Member State jurisdictions, when uploading media content to websites;
Amendment 19 #
2010/2012(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Reminds the Commission that there are still gaps in the legal framework for on-line services and calls on the Commission to come forward with targeted legislative proposals in order to strengthen consumer access to products and offer them a simple one-stop shop approach;
Amendment 2 #
2010/2006(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the European Banking Authority should have the power to implement binding measures at EU level applicable to all Member States, whilst also empowering national supervisors to conduct day-to-day supervision to the highest possible level;
Amendment 3 #
2010/2006(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that ‘living wills’ should be approved by the supervisors that have requiconduct their daily supervision, in order to ensured they be preparedat changes are noticed and taken into account, so that living wills can be kept up-to-date and relevant;
Amendment 10 #
2010/2006(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that a uniform approach to preventing the failure of banking groups would be more in keeping with the concept of a single market.;
Amendment 11 #
2010/2006(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Emphasises the importance of respecting the principle of subsidiarity in any consideration of possible legislation for the banking sector;
Amendment 12 #
2010/2006(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Reminds the Commission of the importance of carrying out full impact assessments in any consideration of the question whether new guidelines for the management of companies would be appropriate.
Amendment 38 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, a natural or legal person shall be considered to have an uncovered position in a credit default swap relating to an obligation of a Member State or the Union, to the extent that the credit default swap is not serving to hedge against the risk of defaulta decline in the creditworthiness of the issuer where the natural or legal person has a long position in the sovereign debt of that issuer or any long position in the debt of an issuer for which the price of its debt has a high correlation with the price of the obligation of a Member State or the Unionnother position whose value is likely to be negatively impacted by such a decline. The party under a credit default swap that is obliged to make the payment or pay the compensation in the event of a default or a credit event relating to the reference entity does not by reason of that obligation have an uncovered position for the purposes of this paragraph.
Amendment 51 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. A natural or legal person who has a net short position in relation to the issued share capital of a company that has shares admitted to trading on a trading venue shall disclose to the public details of the position whenever the position reaches or falls below a relevant publication threshold referred to in paragraph 2The relevant competent authority shall publish on a daily basis details of the aggregate amount of net short positions for each share for which it has received a notification under Article 5. Such disclosure shall not identify the holder of the net short position.
Amendment 52 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 53 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Amendment 56 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A natural or legal person may only enter into a short sale of a share admitted to trading on a trading venue or a short sale of a sovereign debt instrument where one of the following conditions is fulfilled by 11.59 p.m. on the trading day on which the person enters into the short sale:
Amendment 57 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)
(-a) the natural or legal person has re- purchased the share or sovereign debt instrument
Amendment 59 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the natural or legal person has entered into an arrangement with a third party under which thate third party has confirmed that the share or sovereign debt instrument has been located and reservedwill be available for lending forto the natural or legal person so that settlement can be effected when iperson or for settling the short sale on the date that settlement is due.
Amendment 60 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the natural or legal person has an arrangement with a third party under which that third party has confirmed that the share or sovereign debt instrument has been located and reserved for lending for the natural or legal person so that settlement can be effected when it is due.
Amendment 63 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 65 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Articles 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 any restrictions or requirements imposed under Articles 16, 17, 18 or 24 shall not apply to the activities of an investment firm, or a third country entity or a local firm that is a member of a trading venue or of a market in a third country, whose legal and supervisory framework has been declared equivalent pursuant to paragraph 2, when it deals as principal in a financial instrument, whether traded on or outside a trading venue, in either or both of the following capacities:
Amendment 68 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Articles 8 and 12 and any restrictions or requirements imposed in relation to sovereign debt under Articles 16, 17, 18 or 24 shall not apply to the activities of a natural or legal person when, acting ao is an authorised primary dealer pursuant to an agreement with an issuer of sovereign debt, it and who is dealing as principal in a financial instrument in relation to primary or secondary market operations relating to the sovereign debt of a Member State.
Amendment 70 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The competent authority of a Member State may require natural or legal persons who have net short positions in relation to a specific financial instrument or class of financial instruments to notify it orhare admitted to trading on a trading venue to disclose to the public details of the position whenever the position reaches or falls below a notification threshold fixed by the competent authority, where all the following conditions are fulfilled:
Amendment 71 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Amendment 72 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The competent authority of the Member State may prohibit or impose conditions relating to natural or legal persons entering into:stablishing or increasing net short positions in relation to shares admitted to trading on a trading venue in the Member State.
Amendment 73 #
Amendment 74 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 76 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Amendment 77 #
2010/0251(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Amendment 17 #
2010/0051(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The examination procedure may only apply for the adoption of:
Amendment 18 #
2010/0051(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b – point iiia (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b – point iiia (new)
iiia) taxation
Amendment 20 #
2010/0051(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3. For all other implementing measures, and for implementing measures referred to in paragraph 2 where it is considered to be appropriate, the advisory procedure shallmay apply.
Amendment 21 #
2010/0051(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Within the time-limit laid down in accordance with the previous subparagraph, any committee member may ask for the written procedure to be terminated and for the draft measures to be examined at a committee meeting. The chairperson may decide to maintain the written procedure or to terminate the written procedure without result, in which case a committee meeting shall be convened as soon as possible.
Amendment 26 #
2010/0051(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Amendment 27 #
2010/0051(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. In the case of measures relating to taxation, the Commission shall not adopt the draft measures unless there is a qualified majority in favour of the measures.
Amendment 33 #
2009/2226(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is disappoinNoteds that no additional financing for this programme has been proposed by readjusting the current Multiannual Financial Framework, and that the Commission estimates that this will leading to further delays, additional costs and possibly the loss of a ‘window of opportunity’; in that light, believes that FOC should be reached by 2018 at the latest, which would require anasks the Commission to consider what financial efficiency savings could be made from the estimated additional financing of EUR 1.9 billion and annual funding to covefor operating costs of EUR 800 million from 2014 onwards;
Amendment 16 #
2009/2225(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas citizens will refrain from interacting, expressing their opinions freely and entering into transactions if they do not have sufficient confidence in the legal framework of the new digital space; whereas the guarantee of digital rights is an essential condition for confidence on the part of citizens; whereas the guarantee of protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and other rights is an essential condition for confidence on the part of business,
Amendment 37 #
2009/2225(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas competitive communications markets are important in ensuring that users receive maximum benefits in terms of choice, quality and affordable prices,
Amendment 65 #
2009/2225(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the importance of continuing efforts towards ubiquitous and high-speed access for all citizens and consumers, through the promotion of access to fixed and mobile Internet and the deploycompetition and investment ofin next-generation infrastructure and services; emphasises that this requires policies that promote and support choice and diversity in high speed services delivering access on fair terms and at competitive prices for all communities, irrespective of location, thereby ensuring that no European citizen faces exclusion;
Amendment 130 #
2009/2225(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on Member States to fully enforce the EU telecoms framework, empower national regulators and transpose the telecoms package before the established deadline, in particularcluding the new provisions on Next Generation Access (NGA) networks, functional separation and spectrum, which provide for a stable regulatory environment tohat stimulates investment while safeguardingand competition;
Amendment 137 #
2009/2225(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on Member States to reinvigorate their efforts to achieve competitive markets for ICT networks, products and services and also an enhanced single market for information society services;
Amendment 142 #
2009/2225(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Calls on stakeholders to adopt open models for communications network deployment to help boost innovation and drive demand;
Amendment 185 #
2009/2225(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Emphasises that all EU citizens should be made aware of their basic digital rights and obligations through a European Charter of citizens' and consumers' rights in the digital environment, consolidating and updating the Community acquis as appropriate;
Amendment 207 #
2009/2225(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Insists on safeguarding an open Internet, where citizens, through a competitive choice of service providers, have the right to access and distribute legal information or run applications and services of their choice; calls on the Commission, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) to monitor closely and enforce the harmonised implementation of the 'net neutrality' provisionsw provisions in the revised Regulatory Framework, making use of the new powers where appropriate;
Amendment 15 #
2009/2178(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Consider effective sanactions to deter infringement of copyright and prevent the losses caused to rights holders as a result, while upholding the principle that, for example, communications providers are mere conduits and as such not liable for infringement occurring through or facilitated by their services;
Amendment 2 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas correct application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality is essential for the proper functioning of the European Union and for its institutions activities to meet the expectations of its citizens, companies operating in the internal market and national and local government, and to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen,
Amendment 3 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas consultations with all interested parties, in particular social partners, are of fundamental importance in the preparation of draft legislation (including impact assessments),
Amendment 4 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph - 1 a (new)
Paragraph - 1 a (new)
- 1 a. Emphasises that European institutions must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality when formulating proposals and observe the criteria laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,
Amendment 5 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph - 1 b (new)
Paragraph - 1 b (new)
- 1 b. Stresses that all draft legislation must include reasons for concluding that the objective can be better achieved by EU action and substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative indicators, in accordance with the above- mentioned Protocol,
Amendment 8 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Reminds the Commission that all legislative proposals should be accompanied by an impact assessment which addresses whether the legislation would be appropriate according to the principle of subsidiarity,
Amendment 12 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recognises the need, in the light of experience to date, for a revision of the Interinstitutional Common Approach to Impact Assessment and encourages all institutions to fulfil their commitments regarding impact assessments; draws attention to the conclusions of the Conference of Committee Chairs working document in this connection; encourages the initiatives of Parliament committees to invite the Commission to present all impact assessments so that they can be scrutinised fully by the relevant committees at the outset and before the first exchange of views;
Amendment 16 #
2009/2142(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses, in particular, the need to examine the social and economic effects of legislative proposals, including their impact on the European labour market and living standards;
Amendment 35 #
2009/0161(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
Amendment 262 #
2009/0161(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 9 – point 8
Article 9 – point 8
Directive 2006/48/EC
Article 42 a(1) – subparagraph 4 a
Article 42 a(1) – subparagraph 4 a
"If, at the end of the initial two -month period, any of the competent authorityies concerned has referred the matter to the European Banking Authority in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation …/… [EBA], the consolidating supervisor shallmpetent authorities of the host Member State shall defer their decision and await anythe decision that the European Banking Authority may take in accordance with Article 11(3) of that Regulation, and shall acttake their decision in conformity with thate Authority‘s decision. The two -month period shall be deemed the conciliation period within the meaning of that Regulation. The European Banking Authority shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to the Authority after the end of the initial two -month period or after a joint decision has been reached". Decisions taken by the European Banking Authority shall not replace the lawful exercise of judgment by the competent authorities of the host Member State pursuant to this Directive”.
Amendment 303 #
2009/0161(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 9 – point 23
Article 9 – point 23
Directive 2006/48/EC
Article 129 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5 – sub-subparagraph 2
Article 129 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5 – sub-subparagraph 2
If, at the end of the six month period, any of the competent authorityies concerned has referred the matter to the European Banking Authority in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation …/… [EBA], the consolidating supervisor shall defer its decision and await any decision that the European Banking Authority may take in accordance with Article 11(3) of that rRegulation, and shall act on its decision, and shall take its decision in conformity with thate Authority's decision. The six -month period shall be deemed the conciliation period within the meaning of the Regulation. The European Banking Authority shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to the Authority after the end of the six -month period or after a joint decision has been reached". Decisions taken by the European Banking Authority shall not replace the lawful exercise of judgment by the competent authorities of the consolidating supervisor pursuant to this Directive";
Amendment 304 #
2009/0161(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 9 – point 24 – points a to c
Article 9 – point 24 – points a to c
Directive 2006/48/EC
Article 129 – paragraph 3 – subparagraphs 3 to 5
Article 129 – paragraph 3 – subparagraphs 3 to 5
(a) In the third sub-paragraph, "Committee of European Banking Supervisors" is replaced by "European Banking Authority". (b) The fourth subparagraph is replaced by the following: "In the absence of such a joint decision between the competent authorities within four months, a decision on the application of Articles 123 and 124 and Article 136(2) shall be taken on a consolidated basis by the consolidating supervisor after duly considering the risk assessment of subsidiaries performed by relevant competent authorities. If, at the end of the four -month period, any of the competent authorityies concerned has referred the matter to the European Banking Authority in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation …/… [EBA], the consolidating supervisor shall defer its decision and await any decision that the European Banking Authority may take in accordance with Article 11(3) of that Regulation, and shall acttake its decision in conformity with thate Authority's decision. The four -month period shall be deemed the conciliation period within the meaning of the Regulation. The European Banking Authority shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to the Authority after the end of the four- month period or after a joint decision has been reached. Decisions taken by the EBA shall not replace the lawful exercise of judgment by the competent authorities of the consolidating supervisor pursuant to this Directive." (c) The fifth sub-paragraph is replaced by the following: "The decision on the application of Articles 123 and 124 and Article 136(2) shall be taken by the respective competent authorities responsible for supervision of subsidiaries of an EU parent credit institution or an EU parent financial holding company on an individual or sub- consolidated basis after duly considering the views and reservations expressed by the consolidating supervisor. If, at the end of the four -month period, the consolidating supervisorany of the competent authorities concerned has referred the matter to the European Banking Authority in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation …/… [EBA], the competent authorities shall defer their decision and await any decision that the European Banking Authority shall take in accordance with Article 11(3) of that Regulation, and shall acttake its decision in conformity with thate Authority's decision. The four -month period shall be deemed the conciliation period within the meaning of that Regulation. The European Banking Authority shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to the Authority after the end of the four- month period or after a joint decision has been reached. Decisions taken by the European Banking Authority shall not replace the exercise of discretion by the competent authorities responsible for supervision of subsidiaries of an EU parent credit institution or an EU parent financial holding company on an individual or sub-consolidated basis pursuant to this Directive."
Amendment 205 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – introductory wording
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – introductory wording
2. TNotwithstanding the law applicable to the succession shall be no obstacle to the application of, where the law of the Member State in which succession property is located requires the appointment of an administrator of the estate or an executor of the will, the law of theat Member State in whichshall apply in relation to theat property ias located where itregards the following matters:
Amendment 206 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) subjects the administration and liquidation of the succession to the appointment of anthe administrator or the executor of the will viaby an authority located in thisat Member State. The law applicable to the succession shall govern the determination of the persons, such as the heirs, legatees, executors or administrators of the will, who are likely to be appointed to administer and liquidate the succession;
Amendment 209 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) subjects the final transfer of the inheritance to the beneficiaries to the prior payment of taxesthe powers and duties of any appointed administrator or executor which are exercisable in relationg to the successionassets located in that Member State.
Amendment 211 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where this paragraph applies, any administrator or executor appointed under that law shall also be entitled, pursuant to that law, to discharge the debts of the deceased, whether or not they are located in that Member State. However, the order of priority for the discharge of all such debts shall be determined in accordance with the law applicable to the succession.
Amendment 212 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. In application of point (a) of paragraph 2, the authority of the Member State concerned shall appoint the following persons to act there in that capacity: (a) any persons entrusted with the administration of the estate by a court on which jurisdiction has been conferred in relation to the succession; or (b) where no person has been so entrusted, any persons entitled as heirs pursuant to the law applicable to the succession; or (c) such other persons as that authority shall appoint.
Amendment 213 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 c (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Appointments made under point (c) of paragraph 2b may only be made by way of exception and only in cases where the persons entitled as heirs under the law applicable to the succession are either insufficient or excessive in number under the law of the Member State where the authority is situated or are not qualified to act as administrators or executors for a reason concerning the public policy (ordre public) of that Member State.
Amendment 30 #
2009/0144(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) To overcome exceptional situations of persistent inaction by the competent authority concerned, the Authority should be empowered, as a last resort and only in urgent situations, to adopt decisions addressed to individual financial institutions. This power should be limited to exceptional circumstances in which a competent authority does not comply with the decisions addressed to it and in which Community law is directly applicable to financial institutions by virtue of existing30 or future EU Regulations.
Amendment 38 #
2009/0144(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
6. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 22658 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article within the period of time specified therein, and where it is urgent and necessary to remedy in a timely manner the non -compliance by the competent authority in order to maintain or restore neutral conditions of competition in the market or ensureensure financial stability and the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial system in the internal market, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements of the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) are directly applicable to financial market participants, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial market participant requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under CommunityUnion law including the cessation of any practice.
Amendment 39 #
2009/0144(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Amendment 40 #
2009/0144(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 41 #
2009/0144(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 33 #
2009/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) To overcome exceptional situations of persistent inaction by the competent authority concerned, the Authority should be empowered, as a last resort and only in urgent situations, to adopt decisions addressed to individual financial institutions. This power should be limited to exceptional circumstances in which a competent authority does not comply with the decisions addressed to it and in which Community law is directly applicable to financial institutions by virtue of existing or future EU Regulations.
Amendment 35 #
2009/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
6. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 22658 of the Treaty, where a national supervisory on the Functioning of the European Union, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article within the period of time specified therein, and where it is urgent and necessary to remedy in a timely manner the non -compliance by the national supervisory authority in order to maintain or restore neutral conditions of competition in the market or ensureto ensure financial stability, the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial system in the internal market, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements of the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) are directly applicable to financial institutionmarket participants, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institutionmarket participant requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under CommunityUnion law including the cessation of any practice.
Amendment 36 #
2009/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Amendment 37 #
2009/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 38 #
2009/0143(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 16 #
2009/0142(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) To overcome exceptional situations of persistent inaction by the competent authority concerned, the Authority should be empowered, as a last resort and only in urgent situations, to adopt decisions addressed to individual financial institutions. This power should be limited to exceptional circumstances in which a competent authority does not comply with the decisions addressed to it and in which CommunityUnion law is directly applicable to financial institutions by virtue of existing or future EU Regulations.
Amendment 23 #
2009/0142(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 226 of the Treaty, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article within the period of time specified therein, and where it is urgent and necessary to remedy in a timely manner the non compliance by the competent authority in order to maintain or restore neutral conditions of competition in the market or ensureensure financial stability, the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial system in the internal market, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements of the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) are directly applicable to financial institutions, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under CommunityUnion law including the cessation of any practice.
Amendment 25 #
2009/0142(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Amendment 26 #
2009/0142(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 27 #
2009/0142(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 206 #
2009/0108(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Where Member States have existing Public Service Obligations that relate to security of supply, the Competent Authorities shall publish these within 2 months of this Regulation being in force and update as necessary following adoption of their Preventative and Emergency Plans.
Amendment 174 #
2009/0076(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The labelling shall be clearly visible, easily legible and, appropriately durable and in the national language or languages of the Member State on whose market the treated article or material is to be placed.
Amendment 192 #
2009/0076(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 3
Article 58 – paragraph 3
3. Member States mayshall require that biocidal products placed on the market of their territories are labelled in their national language or languages.
Amendment 3 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union should continue to give priority to a rule-based multilateral trading system, established through the WTO, which offers the best prospects for fair and equitable international trade by establishing appropriate rules and ensuring compliance with them,
Amendment 4 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas a successful and balanced conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is of crucial importance to both the European Union and India; an FTAd such an agreement does not preclude bilateral WTO+ agreements which can be complementary to multilateral rules,
Amendment 6 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas political relations with India are based on the 2004 Strategic Partnership, on the 2005 Joint Action Plan adopted at the EU-India Summit in September 2005 and revised at the 9th EU-India Summit in Marseille and on the 1994 Cooperation Agreement; whereas the FTA should build and expand upon the cooperation already foreseen in Article 24 of the Cooperation Agreement,
Amendment 7 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, the European Union is India's largest source of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), with €10,9 billion invested in 2007; and the European Union accounted for 65% of all FDI flows into India in 2007; and whereas India's FDI into the European Union increased from €0,5 billion in 2006 to €9,5 billion in 2007,
Amendment 10 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas as stated in the 2007/8 UNDP Human Development Report, India ranks 128 on the Human Development Index(out of 177 countries), 35% of the Indian population lives on 1$/day and 80% on less than $2/day; whereas India ranks 62nd on the human poverty index for developing countries among 108 developing countries for which the index has been calculated; and whereas India has one of the highest incidences of child labour,
Amendment 12 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas India is the single largest beneficiary of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) scheme; whereas the European Union's preferential imports from India reached a value of €11,3 bn in 2007 compared to € 9,7 bn in 2006,
Amendment 13 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas both parties reaffirm their respective commitments for tariff reductions, progressive reciprocal liberalisation of establishment and trade in services; and whereas therefore the FTA should also address issues of investment;
Amendment 20 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas account should be duly taken of the elements on recognition, suitable and effective protection, implementation and enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), including patents, trade or service marks, copyright and similar rights, geographical indications (including marks of origin), industrial design and integrated circuit topography,
Amendment 22 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas according to the 2008 Global Hunger Index, India ranks 66 out of 88 nations (developing countries and countries in transition); and whereas the India Hunger Index found that not a single State in India falls in the "low hunger" or "moderate hunger" categories; twelve States fall in the "alarming" category; and four States - Punjab, Kerala, Haryana and Assam - fall in the "serious" category,
Amendment 23 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the FTA should include commitments on social and environmental standards and sustainable development and effective implementation of internationally agreed standards in the social and environmental domain as a necessary condition to support the promotion of decent work through effective domestic implementation of International Labour Organisation (ILO) core labour standards,
Amendment 29 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas a Horizontal Aviation Agreement and a revised Joint Action Planwas signed at the 9th EU- India Summit in Marseille and India ranked 11th in terms of passenger traffic between the EU and non- EU countries; where adopted at the 9th EU- India Summit;as the EU and India adopted a revised Joint Action Plan extending the strategic partnership of 2005 to new areas; and whereas the European Business and Technology Centre in India has been established,
Amendment 30 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the FTA should be comprehensive, balanced and compatible with and complementary to the WTO rules and obligations; theconsiders that a successful DDA remains both the European Union's and India's trade priority, and that negotiations with India on the FTA be thus complementary to multilateral rules;
Amendment 39 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the outcome of the 9th EU- India Summit and the revised Joint Action Plan; recalls the pledge of the European Union and India to accelerate FTA talksnotably the signing of the horizontal civil aviation agreement, and the approval of a joint working programme on energy, clean development and climate change; welcomes also the approval of a revised Joint Action Plan adding new areas of cooperation including solar energy and civilian nuclear research; recalls the pledge of the European Union and India to accelerate FTA talks and to make substantive and efficient progress for the early conclusion of an ambitious and balanced, broad-based trade and investment agreement; is disappointed with the slow pace of negotiations; calls for both parties to conclude a comprehensive, ambitions and balanced FTA by the end of 2009;
Amendment 40 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. PBased on the complementarities of both economies, points to the future potential for an increase in EU-India trade and investment between the EU and India and enormous business opportunities arising from the FTA; considers the EU- India FTA as win-win scenario;
Amendment 50 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses thatWelcomes the results of many free trade simulations which show that FTA would increase overall exports and imports for both the EU and India; stresses that at the existing average growth rate, bilateral trade is expected to exceed €70.7 billion by 2010 and €160.6 billion by 2015;
Amendment 51 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Regrets that India maintains its position as regards the principle of asymmetry; urges the Commission to push for a reciprocal, and symmetrical FTA which is in line with the commitments as agreed in the High Level Trade Group;
Amendment 59 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that India's decreased average applied tariffs have decreased to levels that are now comparable with other countries in Asia; notably, India's average applied tariff which is now 14.5% compared to an EU average of 4.1%; stresses that overall these levels remain a genuine problem for European industry;
Amendment 60 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers it important that the FTA confirms the provisions of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement; calls on the Commission in this regard to address outstanding issues such as animal welfare;
Amendment 61 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that India is concerned about the lack of harmonisation of micro-biological standards in the EU, implications of REACH, costly certificates andfor exporting fruit to the EU, lack of harmonisation of VAT and costly conformity procedures; for the EC mark, and stresses that these issues must be resolved in the FTA; calls on both parties to ensure that regulation and NTBs do not getunnecessarily remain in the way of trade; calls on both the EU and India to work more closely in their different working groups towards a more transparent framework for technical regulations and standards;
Amendment 68 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Acknowledges that India's standards regime is still evolving; calls on the Bureau of Indian Standards to raise its standards in line with international standards and to increase transparency in the formulation of standards, by improving its testing and certification procedures;
Amendment 75 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes that according to the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry bilateral trade in services is expected to exceed € 205.546.8 billion by 2015 by the time the FTA in Services is implemented;
Amendment 76 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Notes that trade in services between the EU and India is relatively unbalanced; the EU exports 1.5% of its services to India, while India exports 9.2% of its total exports to the EU;
Amendment 77 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that in general India's services suffer from a range of horizontal barriers such as archaic laws, a multiplicity of rules and regulations, inconsistent practices across States and a multiplicity of contact points at different levels of bureaucracy, regulatory gaps, public sector bias and limits on foreign investment and ownership; stresses that the challenge for the FTA is not only to accelerate liberalisation in India's services sectors, but also to facilitate the implementation of a range of complementary reforms designed to improve the quality of regulation;
Amendment 84 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Encourages India to develop appropriate data protection legislation which would enable India to achieve the status of a country with an adequate level of protection to allow transfer of personal data from the EU;
Amendment 85 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. INotes that India is the fifth largest telecom services market in the world and that the telecom market has grown at about 25% per year over the last 5 years; in telecoms, welcomes the relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions;, but regrets that domestic policy restraints still remain; calls therefore for a relaxation of the licensing restrictions on service providers; and to remove policy uncertainty on tariff and inter-connect regimes and stresses the need to replace the old laws governing the sector with new forward looking legislation that incorporates cyber laws and new licensing;
Amendment 86 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that the telecom and IT sectors are major drivers of the Indian economy and that India is to be made a hub for telecom manufacturing by facilitating telecom specific Special Economic Zones (SEZs); stresses that there are enormous opportunities in the manufacturing sector; notes that India perceives high and different mobile termination rates as a hindrance to entering the single market; calls on the Commission and Member States to address this issue in the FTA;
Amendment 91 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that India is gradually liberalising its banking sector; encourages India to allow more competition notably by allowing European banks to open more branches, including in rural areas;
Amendment 92 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Encourages India to amend the proposed draft postal bill which would seriously reduce current market access opportunities for express service providers and regrets that new restrictions reducing current opportunities for self- handling for airport services will be enforced as from 1 July 2009; invites the Commission to seek full commitments from India on express services as well as on self-handling for express cargo carriers at airports with a view to safeguarding market access opportunities also in the future;
Amendment 96 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Welcomes the Indian pledge to allow foreign law firms to operate in India as this opening will bring significant benefits for the Indian economy and legal profession, as well as for European law firms, who have expertise in international law, and for their clients; calls on the Commission to push for liberalisation of legal services in the FTA;
Amendment 97 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Encourages India to liberalise the insurance sector and increase the equity cap up to 49% minimum so as to allow the development of this important sector for the Indian economy;
Amendment 98 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21.Notes that the full ambition of the FTA cannot be achieved without commitments in Mode 4; stresses that there are huge benefits to nationwide and EU-wide accreditation of professional qualifications and agreements on mutual recognition and licensing requirements within professional services in both the EU and India, which could be easily covered by the FTA;
Amendment 103 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to incorporate a chapter on investment in the FTA which could provide forbeing a significant part and enabling thus the process of investing in each others markets to become much smoother by promoting and protecting investment deals while exploring immediate opportunities; proposes that such an investment agreement could provide for the setting up of a system of a single point of information for investors of both economies explaining to them the differences in investment rules and practices and providing information on all legal aspects;
Amendment 104 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Welcomes the establishment of the European Business and Technology Centre in New Delhi which aims to enhance business-to-business and technology co- operation between India and the Member States;
Amendment 111 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Regrets that India is not willing to include public procurement in the FTA; given its significance, calls on the Commission to negotiate effective and transparenton a set of binding rules including adequate transparency provisions that support the setting up of effective procurement systems;
Amendment 112 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Encourages the implementation of the new Indian competition law; believes that the European Union should incorporate Art 81 and 82 of the Treaty in the FTA to secure commitments on competition policy that would do away with private barriers to entry for importers;
Amendment 120 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Welcomes India's’s firm commitment to a strong IPR regime; encourages its rigorous implementation and enforcement;
Amendment 121 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. CNotes that the pharmaceutical industry is among the most globally competitive industries in India, with over one-third of its output being exported; calls on the European Union and India to ensure that TRIPS does not preclude access to essential medicines whilst India is developing its capacity from a generic to a research based industry;
Amendment 137 #
2008/2135(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. CIs concerned that despite sustained economic development, 35% of the Indian population lives on less $1 a day and 80% on less than $2 a day; is particularly concerned about the situation of underprivileged and marginalised section of population; calls on India to ensure that the benefits of the FTA reach Dalits and Adivasis and other marginalised tribes and castes;
Amendment 5 #
2008/2063(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers though that the Parliament is entitled to establish preconditions in order to give its consent, which will be required for the conclusion of all trade agreements; stresses therefore the need for a reinforced Framework Agreement, in particular paragraph 19 thereof, on relations between Parliament and the Commission;
Amendment 8 #
2008/2063(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that, according to Article 188 C (2) TFEU, Parliament and Council will be co-legislators on an equal footing when determining the framework for implementing the Common Commercial Policy (CCP), which may include both policy and technical aspects of the CCP;
Amendment 11 #
2008/2063(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that uniform conditions for implementing legislative acts in the CCP require the legislative acts to confer implementing powers on the Commission for adopting ‘implementing acts’, in accordance with Article 249 C TFEU; therefore urges Parliament and Council to adopt, before the entry into force of the Treaty, a regulation laying down the rules and general principles on implementing acts, including mechanisms for control of these powers by the Member States;
Amendment 17 #
2008/2063(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that all matters falling under the CCP (Part V, Title II TFEU) will come within the exclusive competence of the Union, including trade in goods, services, commercial aspects of intellectual property and foreign direct investment, which means that they will be ‘Union agreements’ and that there will be no more mixed trade agreements concluded by both the Union and the Member States;
Amendment 92 #
2008/2004(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses with regards to the negotiation of the EU-India FTA the importance of our partnership with India and the need to get increased access to the Indian market in areas such as financial servicesan ambitious agreement with substantial and broad commitments, with the fewest restrictions on Indian market access possible across all modes of supply. Points out that liberalisation of trade in services should be at least 90% by both sectoral coverage and volume of trade as required by GATS Article V; Stresses that restrictions are particularly acute in financial services, securities, accountancy, telecommunications, distribution, postal and courier, and legal services;
Amendment 26 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) A first accompanying transitional measure should be that phonogram producers are under an obligation to set aside, at least once a year, at least 20 percent of the revenues from the exclusive rights of distribution, reproduction and making available of phonograms, after the deduction of all costs directly relating to the administration of the extended term of protection for the phonographic works in question, which, in the absence of the extension of the term of protection as a result of lawful publication or lawful communication, would be in the public domain.
Amendment 41 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) A second accompanying transitional measure should be that the rights in the fixation of the performance should revert to the performer if a phonogram producer refrains fromno longer offerings for sale in sufficient quantity copies of at least one version of a phonogram which, but for the term extension, would be in the public domain or from makingno longer makes at least one version of such a phonogram available to the public, the performer may request him to do so, and if the producer does not within a reasonable time agree to fulfil his request, the performer may terminate the assignment of the rights in the fixation of that performance. As a consequence, the rights of the phonogram producer in theat phonogram should expire, in order to avoid a situation in which these rights would coexist with those of the performer in the fixation of the performance whilst the latter rights are no longer transferred or assigned to the phonogram producer;
Amendment 43 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) This accompanying measure should also ensure that a phonogram is no longer protected once it is not made available to the public after a certain period of time following the term extension, because right holders do not exploit it or because the phonogram producer or the performers cannot be located or identified. If, upon reversion, the performer has had a reasonable period of time to make available to the public the phonogram which, but for the term extension, would be no longer protected, the phonogram is not made available to the public, the rights in the phonogram and in the fixation of the performance should expire.
Amendment 77 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2006/116/EC
Article 10a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 10a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
4. The overall amount to be dedicated by a phonogram producer to payments of the supplementary remuneration referred to in paragraph 3 shall correspond to at least 20 percent of the revenues which he has derived, after the deduction of all costs directly relating to the administration of the extended term of protection for the phonographic works in question, during the year preceding that for which the said remuneration is paid, from the reproduction, distribution and making available of those phonograms in regard of which, by virtue of Article 3 (1) and (2) in their version before amendment by Directive [// insert: Nr. of this amending directive]/EC, the performer and the phonogram producer would be no longer protected on 31 December of the said year.
Amendment 95 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2006/116/EC
Article 10a – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 10a – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
6. If, after the moment at which, by virtue of Article 3 (1) and (2) in their version before the amendment by Directive [// insert: Nr. of this amending directive]/EC, the performer and the phonogram producer would be no longer protected in regard of, respectively, the fixation of the performance and the phonogram, the phonogram producer ceases tono longer offers copies of at least one version of the phonogram for sale in sufficient quantity or to make its available to the public, by wire or wireless means, at least one version of the phonogram, in such a way that members of the public may access ithem from a place antd at a time individually chosen by them, the performer may terminate the contract on transfer or assignmentrequest to the producer to do so, and if the producer does not within a reasonable time agree to fulfil his request , the performer may terminate the assignment of rights in that phonogram. Where a phonogram contains the fixation of the performances of a plurality of performers, they may terminate their contracts on transfer or assignment only jointly. If the contract on transfer or assignment is terminated pursuant to sentences 1 orand 2, the rights of the phonogram producer in theat phonogram shall expire.
Amendment 97 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2006/116/EC
Article 10a – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Article 10a – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 6 #
2007/2261(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that, in view of the unique characteristics of sport, the Commission should consider, after consulting the various interests concerned and Parliament, the adoption of interpretative guidelines designed to clarify the whole question of the relationship between Community law and "sporting rules" that do not fall within the remit of that law and the area to which that law applies, in particular the demarcation between those aspects of the organisation of sport which are subject to that law and those rules which are not, having regard also to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and bearing in mind that sporting rules concerning questions of purely sporting interest and having as such nothing to do with economic activity do not fall within the scope of the Treaty; points out that such rules, which relate to the particular nature and context of sporting events, are inherent in the organisation and proper conduct of sporting competition and cannot be regarded as constituting a restriction on the Community rules on free movement of workers and freedom to provide services, provided that the restrictive effects on competition are proportionate to the legitimate genuine sporting interest pursued;
Amendment 1 #
2007/2239(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Indent 1 a (new)
Indent 1 a (new)
– having regard to the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 31 January 1977 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent1,
Amendment 2 #
2007/2239(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Indent 3 a (new)
Indent 3 a (new)
Amendment 3 #
2007/2239(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Indent 8 a (new)
Indent 8 a (new)
– having regard to Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments1,
Amendment 4 #
2007/2239(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Indent 13 a (new)
Indent 13 a (new)
Amendment 5 #
2007/2239(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Indent 16 a (new)
Indent 16 a (new)
– having regard to Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive1 (MiFID Implementing Directive),
Amendment 6 #
2007/2239(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Indent 16 b (new)
Indent 16 b (new)
Amendment 7 #
2007/2239(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Indent 18 a (new)
Indent 18 a (new)
– having regard to the Study on Hedge Funds: Transparency and Conflict of Interest, commissioned by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs1,
Amendment 8 #
2007/2239(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas it is recognised that alternative investment vehicles such as hedge funds and private equity funds can offer new diversification benefits for asset managers, increase market liquidity and the prospects of high returns for investors, contribute to the price discovery process, risk diversification and financial integration, and improve market efficiency,
Amendment 27 #
2007/2239(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the primary reason forre is an international consensus expressed by the Commission, Member States, the cEurrent sub-prime crisis is not the lack of regulation of investors but the failure of rating agencies; whereas the rating agencies should therefore be made subject in principle to the same compliance rules as those applying to auditorsopean Central Bank, the Financial Stability Forum, the International Organization of Securities Commissions and others that it will take time to understand the full causes and effects of the sub-prime crisis; whereas neither hedge funds nor private equity are considered to be the cause of the current financial turmoil,
Amendment 32 #
2007/2239(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas numerous different business initiatives have established their own codes of best practice which may serve as a model for EU legislationcomplement formal EU legislation in areas that are difficult or undesirable to address in a more formalised way; whereas, in addition to complying with EU legislation, companies and business associations should be encouraged to establish their own code of best practice,