4 Amendments of Neena GILL related to 2016/2244(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the lack of homogeneity in its application across the Member States undermined the effectiveness of Commission Regulation No 330/2010; highlights the growth of e- commerce and its impact on the franchise business model as a significant challenge for the sector.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is concerned at the fact that some Member States have introduced legislation on franchising that prevents homogeneity of the market; believes that an approach based on EU competition law enforcement and better implementation of the regulation at national level would improve distribution and, increase market access for other Member States’ businesses; and provide potentially a better deal for end consumers.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to also ensure the recovery of any illegal state aid by means of tax advantages in the area of franchises and to show firmness in the conduct and result of ongoing inquiries, such as the McDonald’s and Starbuck's case; stresses, moreover, that the EU needs to have more stringent legislation on tax rulings, providing also for an effective system and a debt recovery procedure in favour of EU budget own resources; calls on the Commission to rectify any infringement in the area of franchising with the view to ensuring fair competition across the single market;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that national rules vary greatly from one Member State to another; Stresses that the European Parliament should be actively involved when regulations and directives on franchising are adapted in order to get a more consistent regulatory framework;