Activities of Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Recalls the 2015 Joint Statement by the European Parliament and the Council stating that Member States should, to the greatest possible extent and in view of the objective of achieving equality between men and women laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, ensure an equal presence of women and men when appointing candidates as judges at the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union; urges the Member States to set a good example;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Underlines that, while over half of the Member States increased expenditure on the judicial system per inhabitant in 2015, the determination of financial resources is still mostly based on historical ~~or actual~~ costs instead of actual workload or number of court requests;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Welcomes the increased use of alternative dispute resolution ~~syste~~mechanisms in most Member States, in particular that of the European online dispute resolution (ODR) platform for consumers and traders;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls on Member States to give greater consideration to the fact that a strong, independent judicial system is a key element of an effective justice system, which is in turn central to respect for the rule of law; points out that an independent judicial system relies, on the one hand, on the lack of interference or pressure from government and politics or from economic vested interests and, on the other hand, on effective guarantees provided by the status and position of judges and on their financial situation;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to provide information to its members, the company carrying out the cross-border conversion should prepare a report. The report should explain and substantiate the legal and economic aspects of the proposed cross-border conversion, in particular the implications of the cross- border conversion for members with regard to the future business of the company and the management organ's strategic plan. It should also include potential remedies available to members, where they do not agree with the decision to carry out a cross- border conversion. ~~This report should also be made available to the employees of the company carrying our cross-border conversion.~~

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(12) In order to provide information to its employees, th~~e company carrying out the cross-border conversion should prepare a report~~is report should also explain~~ing~~ the implications of the proposed cross-border conversion for employees. ~~The report~~ It should explain in particular the implications of the proposed cross-border conversion on the safeguarding of the jobs of the employees, whether there would be any material change in the employment relationships and the locations of the companies’ places of business and how each of these factors would relate to any subsidiaries of the company. This requirement should not however apply where the only employees of the company are in its administrative organ. The provision of th~~e report~~is information should be without prejudice to the applicable information and consultation proceedings instituted at national level following the implementation of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council43 or Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council44 . _________________ 43 Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29). 44 Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast) (OJ L 122, 16.5.2009, p. 28).

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13

(13) ~~In order~~The competent national authorities shall be able to assess the accuracy of the information contained in the draft terms of conversion and in the reports addressed to the members and employees ~~and to provide factual elements necessary to assess whether the proposed~~. Where the competent authority consider, based on reasonable grounds, that there is a risk that the cross-border conversion ~~constitute~~represents an artificial arrangement, an independent expert report should be required to be prepared in order to assess the proposed cross-border conversion. In order to secure the independence of the expert, the expert should be appointed by the competent authority, following an application by the company it shall draw up a report in order to assess the proposed cross-border conversion with all necessary factual elements provided by the company. In such case, the authority can have recourse to an independent expert. In this context, the ~~expert~~ report should ~~present~~contain all relevant information to enable the competent authority in the departure Member State to take an informed decision as to whether or not to issue the pre- conversion certificate. To this end, the ~~expert~~competent authority should be able to obtain all the relevant company information ~~and documents and carry out all necessary investigations in order to gather all the evidence required. The expert should use information, in particular~~, such as net turnover and profit or loss, number of employees and the composition of balance sheet collected by the company in view of the preparation of financial statements in accordance with Union law and the law of Member States, and documents and carry out all necessary investigations in order to gather all the evidence required. However, in order to protect any confidential information, including business secrets of the company, such information should not form part of the ~~expert’s~~ final report which itself would be publically available.

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16

(16) It is appropriate that those members who held voting rights and who ~~did not vote to~~voted against or were unable to attend the general meeting but expressed their intention before the meeting to vote against the approveal of the draft terms of conversion and those members without voting rights, who could not present their position, should be afforded the right to exit the company. Those members should be able to leave the company and receive cash compensation for their shares equivalent to the value of their shares. Furthermore, they should have a right to challenge the calculation and adequacy of that cash compensation offered before a court.

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28

(28) In order to further enhance the existing cross-border merger procedure, it is necessary to simplify those merger rules, where appropriate, whilst at the same time ensuring that stakeholders, and in particular employees, are adequately protected. Therefore, the existing cross- border merger rules should be modified in order to oblige the management or administrative organs of the merging companies to prepare ~~separate reports detailing~~a detailed report on the legal and economic aspects of the cross-border merger for both members and for employees. The obligation on the management or administrative organ of the company to pr~~epare the report~~ovide specific information for the members may however be waived, where those members are already informed about legal and economic aspects of the proposed merger. However, the re~~port prepared for~~quirement to provide information related to employees may only be waived where the merging companies and their subsidiaries do not have any employees other than those who form part of the management or administrative organ.

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 29

(29) Furthermore, in order to enhance the protection afforded to the employees of the merging company or companies, employees or their representatives may provide their opinion on the ~~company report setting out the~~ implications of the cross-border merger for them. The provision ~~of the report~~ should be without prejudice to the applicable information and consultation proceedings instituted at national level following the implementation of Council Directive 2001/23/EC48 , Directive 2002/14/EC or Directive 2009/38/EC. _________________ 48 Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16).

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32

(32) In order to ensure that members of the companies participating in the cross- border merger are treated equally, it is appropriate that members who held voting rights and who ~~did not vote to~~voted against or did not attend the general meeting but expressed their intention before the meeting to vote against approveal of the common draft terms of merger or those members without voting rights, who could not present their position, should be afforded the right to exit the company. Those members should be able to leave the company and receive cash compensation for their shares equivalent to the value of their shares. Furthermore, they should have a right to challenge the calculation and adequacy of that cash compensation offered before a court.

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 43

(43) In order to provide information to its members and employees, the company being divided should prepare a 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.

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 44

(44) ~~In order to provide information its employees, the company being divided should prepare a report~~The report should explain~~ing~~ the implications of the proposed cross-border division for employees. ~~The report should explai~~It should also contain information in particular on 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.

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 45

(45) ~~In order to ensur~~The competent national authority shall be able to evaluate the accuracy of the information contained in the draft terms of division and in the reports addressed to the members and employees and to provide factual elements necessary to assess whether the proposed division constitutes an artificial arrangement which could not be authorised, an independent expert report to assess the division plan should be required to be prepared. In order to secure the independence of the expert, the expert should be appointed by the competent authority, following an application by the company. Where the competent authority considers, based on reasonable grounds that there is a risk that the cross-border division represents an artificial arrangement, it shall draw up a report in order to assess the proposed division with all necessary factual elements. In such case, the competent authority can have recourse to an independent expert. In this context, the ~~expert~~ report should present all relevant information to enable the competent authority of the Member State of the company being divided to take an informed decision as to whether or not to issue the pre-division certificate To this end, the ~~expert~~competent authority should be able to obtain all the relevant company information ~~and documents and carry out all necessary investigations in order to gather all the evidence required. The expert should use information, in particular~~, such as net turnover and profit or loss, number of employees and the composition of balance sheet collected by the company in view of the preparation of financial statements in accordance with Union law and the law of Member States and documents and carry out all necessary investigations in order to gather all the evidence required. However, in order to protect any confidential information, including business secrets of the company, such information should not form part of the ~~expert’s~~ final report which itself would be publically available.

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

4a. The submission of the report is without prejudice to the applicable information and consultation rights and proceedings instituted at national level following the implementation of Directives 2001/23/EC, 2002/14/EC or2009/38/EC

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 124a – title

~~Article 124a Report of the management or administrative organ to the employees~~deleted

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 124a – paragraph 1

~~1. The management or administrative organ of each of the merging companies shall draw up a report explaining the implications of the cross-border merger for employees.~~deleted

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 124a – paragraph 2

2. The report referred to in paragraph 1, shall in particular explain the following: (a) the implications of the cross-border merger on the future business of the company and on the management's strategic plan; (b) the implications of the cross-border merger on the safeguarding of the employment relationships; (c) any material changes in the conditions of employment and in the locations of the companies’ places of business; (d) whether the factors set out in points (a), (b) and (c) also relate to any subsidiaries of the merging companies.deleted

2018/09/25
Committee: JURI

2018/0114(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive (EU) 2017/1132
Article 124a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

The report referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, shall be made available, at least electronically, to the representatives of the employees of each of the merging companies or, where there are no such representatives, to the employees themselves, not less than one month before the date of the general meeting referred to in Article 126. The report shall also be made similarly available to the members of each of the merging companies.deleted

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) In order to facilitate online procedures for companies, Member States’ registers should not charge for online registration or online submission of information over and above the actual administrative costs of providing the service. Furthermore, Member States should assist those seeking to establish a company or a branch by providing up-to- date, clear, concise and user-friendly information concerning the procedures and requirements to establish and operate limited liability companies and their branches. Concerning ~~private~~ limited liability companies, more detailed information should be made available to applicants and directors because Member States should also ensure the possibility of fully online registration for such companies.

2018/09/17
Committee: JURI

2018/0113(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) As a first step in a company’s lifecycle, it should be possible to establish and register limited liability companies fully online. However, Member States should have the possibility to derogate from this requirement in case of public limited liability companies due to the complexity of establishment and registration of such companies and in order to respect Member States’ existing traditions of company law. In any event, Member States should lay down detailed rules of registration. It should be possible to carry out online registration with the submission of documents in electronic form.

2018/09/17
Committee: JURI

2018/0113(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to assist businesses, in particular start-ups, in setting-up their business, it should be possible to register a ~~private~~ limited liability company with the use of harmonised European templates which arshould be model instruments of constitution ~~which should be available online~~and made available online. The Commission should be tasked with the establishment of such templates by way of implementing act. Such models may contain a pre-defined set of options in accordance with different national laws. The applicants should be able to choose between using this model or registering a company with bespoke instruments of constitution and Member States should have the option to provide templates also for other types of companies.

2018/09/17
Committee: JURI

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 16(5) and with point (g) of Article 19(2) by ….[OP please set the date = the last day of the month of 360 months after the date of entry into force] at the latest.

2018/09/17
Committee: JURI

2018/0113(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) the need and feasibility of providing for fully online registration of the types of companies listed in Annex I;~~deleted

2018/09/17
Committee: JURI

2018/0113(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) the need and feasibility of providing templates by Member States for all types of limited liability companies and the need and feasibility of providing a harmonised template across the Union to be used by all Member States for the types of companies listed in Annex IIA;deleted

2018/09/17
Committee: JURI

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. Where a provider of online intermediation services decides to suspend or, terminate or otherwise restrict, in whole or in part, the provision of its online intermediation services to a given business user, it shall provide the business user concerned, without undue delay, with a statement of reasons for that decision.

2018/10/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Providers of online search engines shall set out for corporate website users the main parameters determining ranking, by providing an easily and publicly available description, drafted in clear and unambiguous language on the online search engines of those providers. They shall keep that description up to date. These parameters determining ranking shall not be applied in a discriminatory manner.

2018/10/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1

1. OWithout prejudice to Art. 80 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and after having exhausted the options to settle complaints and disputes, laid down in Art. 9 and 10 of this Regulation, organisations and associations that have a legitimate interest in representing business users or in representing corporate website users, as well as public bodies set up in Member States, shall have the right to take action before national courts in the Union, in accordance with the rules of the law of the Member State where the action is brought, to stop or prohibit any non- compliance by providers of online intermediation services or by providers of online search engines with the relevant requirements laid down in this Regulation.

2018/10/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the rights referred to in Directive XXXX/XX/EU (reference to the Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC, (COM(2018)184)).

2018/10/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0112(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. ~~The Commission~~Member States shall en~~courag~~sure the drawing up of codes of conduct by providers of online intermediation services and by organisations and associations representing them, intended to contribute to the proper application of this Regulation, taking account of the specific features of the various sectors in which online intermediation services are provided, as well as of the specific characteristics of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.

2018/10/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) The present Directive aims at enhancing the exercise of freedom of expression and the freedom of the media enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by setting up protection measures for persons reporting breaches of EU law. It should be highlighted that these freedoms are the cornerstone of the investigative journalism and the principle of the confidentiality of sources of information.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27

(27) Protection should also extend to further categories of natural or legal persons, who, whilst not being 'workers' within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU, can play a key role in exposing breaches of the law and may find themselves in a position of economic vulnerability in the context of their work-related activities. For instance, in areas such as product safety, suppliers are much closer to the source of possible unfair and illicit manufacturing, import or distribution practices of unsafe products; in the implementation of Union funds, consultants providing their services are in a privileged position to draw attention to breaches they witness. Such categories of persons, including self- employed persons providing services, freelance, contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers, are typically subject to retaliation in the form of early termination or cancellation of contract of services, licence or permit, loss of business, loss of income, coercion, intimidation or harassment, blacklisting/business boycotting or damage to their reputation. Shareholders and persons in managerial bodies, may also suffer retaliation, for instance in financial terms or in the form of intimidation or harassment, blacklisting or damage to their reputation. Protection should also be granted to persons whose work-based relationship ended, to candidates for employment or for providing services to an organisation who acquired the information on breaches of law during the recruitment process or other pre-contractual negotiation stage, and may suffer retaliation for instance in the form of negative employment references or blacklisting/business boycotting.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28

(28) Effective whistleblower protection implies protecting also further categories of persons who, whilst not relying on their work-related activities economically, may nevertheless suffer retaliation for exposing breaches. Retaliation against volunteers and paid or unpaid trainees may take the form of no longer making use of their services, or of giving a negative reference for future employment or otherwise damaging their reputation.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 a (new)

(28a) Persons who facilitate the reporting and investigative journalists could play a crucial role in exposing breaches of EU law and potentially suffer from retaliation measures. Therefore, they should also be entitled to enjoy the protection measures provided for in this Directive.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 30

(30) Effective prevention of breaches of Union law requires that protection is also granted to persons who provide information about potential breaches, which have not yet materialised, but are likely to be committed. For the same reasons, protection is warranted also for persons who do not provide positive evidence but raise well-grounded reasonable concerns or suspicions. At the same time, protection should not apply to the reporting of information which is already in the public domain or of unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 30 a (new)

(30a) However, in order to prevent unjustified reputational damages a clear distinction should also be made between deliberate false accusations, intended to harm the reported person or entity, and the reporting of information for which the person had reasonable grounds to believe that it was true. The Directive is without prejudice to national laws applicable in the first case, such as defamation.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34 a (new)

(34a) The designated competent authorities should provide accurate information and appropriate advice to any person, reporting or reported, requesting such an information or advice for example on the protection measures, the appropriateness of the reporting channels and the scope of the Directive.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 52

(52) In order to allow for effective communication with their dedicated staff, it is necessary that the competent authorities have in place and use specific channels, separate from their normal public complaints systems, that should be user- friendly, confidential and allow for written and oral, as well as electronic and non- electronic reporting.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 53

(53) Dedicated staff members of the competent authorities, who are professionally trained, including on applicable data protection rules, would be necessary in order to handle reports and to ensure communication with the reporting person, as well as following up on the report in a suitable manner, as well as to provide information and advice to any interested person.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 62

(62) As a rule, reporting persons should first use the internal and/or external channels at their disposal and report to their employer. However, it may be the case that internal channels do not exist (in case of entities which are not under an obligation to establish such channels by virtue of this Directive or applicable national law) or that their use is not mandatory (which may be the case for persons who are not in an employment relationship), or that they were used but did not function properly (for instance the report was not dealt with diligently or within a reasonable timeframe, or no action was taken to address and/or to the competent authority. Moreover, protection is also to be granted in cases where Union legislation allows for the reporting person to report directly to the bodies, offices or agencies of the Union, for example in the context of fraud against the Union budget, prevention and detection of money laundering and terrorist financing or in the bareach of ~~law despite the positive results of the enquiry)~~financial services.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 63

(63) In other cases, internal channels could not reasonably be expected to function properly, for instance, where the reporting persons have valid reasons to believe that they would suffer retaliation in connection with the reporting; that their confidentiality would not be protected; that the ultimate responsibility holder within the work-related context is involved in the breach; that the breach might be concealed; that evidence may be concealed or destroyed; that the effectiveness of investigative actions by competent authorities might be jeopardised or that urgent action is required (for instance because of an imminent risk of a substantial and specific danger to the life, health and safety of persons, or to the environment. In all such cases, persons reporting externally to the competent authorities and, where relevant, to bodies, offices or agencies of the Union shall be protected. Moreover, protection is also to be granted in cases where Union legislation allows for the reporting person to report directly to the competent national authorities or bodies, offices or agencies of the Union, for example in the context of fraud against the Union budget, prevention and detection of money laundering and terrorist financing or in the area of financial services.deleted

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 64

(64) Persons making a public disclosure directly should also qualify for protection in cases where a breach remains unaddressed (for example, it was not properly assessed or investigated or no remedial action was taken) despite having been reported internally and/or externally ~~following a tiered use of available channels~~; or in cases where reporting persons have valid reasons to believe that there is collusion between the perpetrator of the breach and the competent authority is reasonably suspected , that evidence may be concealed or destroyed, or that the effectiveness of investigative actions by competent authorities might be jeopardised; or in cases of imminent and manifest danger for the public interest, or where there is a risk of irreversible damage, including, inter alia, harm to physical integrity.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 67

(67) Potential whistleblowers who are not sure about how to report or whether they will be protected in the end may be discouraged from reporting. Member States should ensure that relevant information is provided in a user-friendly way and is easily accessible to the general public. Individual, impartial and confidential advice, free of charge, should be available on, for example, whether the information in question is covered by the applicable rules on whistleblower protection, which reporting channel may best be used and which alternative procedures are available in case the information is not covered by the applicable rules (‘signposting’). Access to such advice, notably through the competent authorities, can help ensure that reports are made through the appropriate channels, in a responsible manner and that breaches and wrongdoings are detected in a timely manner or even prevented.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 69

(69) It should not be possible to waive the rights and obligations established by this Directive by contractual means. Individuals’ legal or contractual obligations, such as loyalty clauses in contracts or confidentiality/non-disclosure agreements, cannot be relied on to preclude workers from reporting, to deny protection or to penalise them for having done so. At the same time, this Directive should not affect the protection of legal and other professional privilege, such as professional or medical secrecy, as provided for under national law.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 72

(72) The types of legal action may vary between legal systems but they should ensure as full and effective a remedy as possible. Remedies should not discourage potential future whistleblowers. For instance, allowing for compensation as an alternative to reinstatement in case of dismissal might give rise to a systematic practice in particular by larger organisations, thus having a dissuasive effect on future whistleblowers.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) shareholders and persons belonging to the management body of an undertaking, including non-executive members, as well as volunteers and paid or unpaid trainees;

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2

2. This Directive shall ~~also~~ apply to reporting persons whose work-based relationship has ended or is yet to begin in cases where information concerning a breach has been acquired during the recruitment process or other pre- contractual negotiation.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 a (new)

Article 2a Journalists and persons facilitating the reporting This Directive shall apply to persons facilitating the reporting and to investigative journalists.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3

(3) ‘abuse of law’ means acts or omissions falling within the scope of Union law which do not appear to be unlawful in formal terms but defeat the object or the purpose pursued by the applicable rules and which represent a risk of serious harm to the public interest;

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10

(10) ‘work-related context’ means current or past work activities in the public or private sector through which, irrespective of their nature, persons may acquire information on breaches ~~and within which these persons may suffer retaliation if they report them~~.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12

(12) ‘retaliation’ means any threatened or actual act or omission prompted by the internal or external reporting or by the public disclosure which occurs in a work- related context and causes or may cause unjustified detriment to the reporting person;

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 a (new)

Article 6 a Obligation to provide information The designated competent authorities shall provide clear information about the appropriate reporting channels and the scope of the Directive to any person requesting such an advice.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a

a) providing any interested person with information on the procedures for reporting in accordance with Article 6a;

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point g

g) a statement clearly explaining that persons making information available to the competent authority in accordance with this Directive are not considered to be infringing any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision, and are not to be involved in liability of any kind related to such disclosure. , except if they are knowingly reporting wrong information or acting in breach of Directive(EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets)against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. A person reporting ~~person~~internally or/and externally shall qualify for protection under this Directive provided he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that the information reported was true at the time of reporting and that this information falls within the scope of this Directive.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. A person reporting externally shall qualify for protection under this Directive where one of the following conditions is fulfilled : a) he or she first reported internally but no appropriate action was taken in response to the report within the reasonable timeframe referred in Article 5; b) internal reporting channels were not available for the reporting person or the reporting person could not reasonably be expected to be aware of the availability of such channels; c) the use of internal reporting channels was not mandatory for the reporting person, in accordance with Article 4(2); d) he or she could not reasonably be expected to use internal reporting channels in light of the subject-matter of the report; e) he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of internal reporting channels could jeopardise the effectiveness of investigative actions by competent authorities; f) he or she was entitled to report directly through the external reporting channels to a competent authority by virtue of Union law.deleted

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3

3. A person reporting to relevant bodies, offices or agencies of the Union on breaches falling within the scope of this Directive shall qualify for protection as laid down in this Directive under the same conditions ~~as a person who reported externally in accordance with the conditions set out in paragraph 2~~.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point a

a) he or she first reported internally and/or externally in accordance with Chapters II and III ~~and paragraph 2 of this Article~~, but no appropriate action was taken in response to the report within the timeframe referred to in Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(1)(b); or

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 8

8. In addition to providing legal aid to reporting persons in criminal and in cross- border civil proceedings in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/1919 and Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council63 , and in accordance with national law, Member States may provide for further measures of legal and financial assistance and support, including psychological, for reporting persons in the framework of legal proceedings. _________________ 63 Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 136, 24.5.2008, p. 3).

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties applicable to persons making malicious or abusive reports or disclosures knowingly wrong, including measures for compensating persons who have suffered damage from malicious or abusive reports or disclosures.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) The Commission has adopted legislative proposals for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air30 and for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail passengers' rights and obligations.31 It is therefore appropriate to provide that, onthree years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission assesses whether the Union rules in the area of air and rail passengers' rights offer an adequate level of protection for consumers, comparable to that provided for in this Directive, and draws any necessary conclusions as regards the scope of this Directive. _________________ 30 31COM(2013) 130 final. COM(2013) 130 final. 31 COM(2017) 548 final. COM(2017) 548 final.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10

(10) As only qualified entities can bring the representative actions, to ensure that the collective interests of consumers are adequately represented the qualified entities should comply with the criteria established by this Directive. In particular, they would need to be properly constituted according to ~~the law of a Member State~~national law, which could include for example requirements regarding the number of members, the degree of permanence, or transparency requirements on relevant aspects of their structure such as their constitutive statutes, management structure, objectives and working methods. They should also be not for profit and have a legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with the relevant Union law. ~~These criteria should apply to both qualified entities designated in advance and to ad hoc qualified entities that are constituted for the purpose of a specific action.~~

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) Independent public bodies and consumer organisations in particular should play an active role in ensuring compliance with relevant provisions of Union law and are all well placed to act as qualified entities. Since these entities have access to different sources of information regarding traders' practices towards consumers and hold different priorities for their activities, Member States should be free to decide on the types of measures that may be sought by each of these qualified entities in representative actions.deleted

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) Member States may require qualified entities to provide sufficient information to support a representative action for redress, including a description of the group of consumers concerned by an infringement and the questions of fact and law to be resolved within the representative action. ~~The qualified entity should not be required to individually identify all consumers concerned by an infringement in order to initiate the action.~~ In representative actions for redress the court or administrative authority should verify at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings whether the case is suitable for being brought as a representative action, given the nature of the infringement and characteristics of the damages suffered by consumers concerned.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21

(21) In low-value cases most consumers are unlikely to take action in order to enforce their rights because the efforts would outweigh the individual benefits. However, if the same practice concerns a number of consumers, the aggregated loss may be significant. In such cases, a court or authority may consider that it is disproportionate to distribute the funds back to the consumers concerned, for example because it is too onerous or impracticable. Therefore the funds received as redress through representative actions would better serve the purposes of the protection of collective interests of consumers and should be directed to a relevant public purpose, such as a consumer legal aid fund, awareness campaigns or consumer movements.deleted

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32 a (new)

(32a) Member States should be encouraged to set up a national register for representative actions free of charge, which could further enhance the transparency obligations.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

(33) To enhance legal certainty, avoid inconsistency in the application of Union law and to increase the effectiveness and procedural efficiency of representative actions and of possible follow-on actions for redress, the finding of an infringement established in a final decision, including a final injunction order under this Directive, issued by an administrative authority or a court should not be relitigated in subsequent legal actions related to the same infringement by the same trader as regards the nature of the infringement and its material, personal, temporal and territorial scope as determined by that final decisionbe binding upon all parties, which participated in the representative action. The final decision should be without prejudice to any additional rights to redress that the consumers concerned may have under Union or national law. The redress obtained through the settlement should also be binding upon cases involving the same practice, the same trader and the same consumer. Where an action seeking measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement, including for redress, is brought in a Member State other than the Member State where a final decision establishing this infringement was issued, the decision should constitute a rebuttable presumption that the infringement has occurred.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39 a (new)

(39a) In order to apply the "loser pays principle", Member States should foresee that the party that loses a collective redress action reimburses the necessary legal costs borne by the winning party.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39 b (new)

(39b) In order to avoid creating incentives to litigation, Member States should prohibit contingency fees and success-based boni for lawyers and/or other legal representatives.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 41 a (new)

(41a) In order to explore the possibility of having a procedure at Union level for cross-border representative actions, the Commission should assess the possibility of establishing a European Ombudsman for collective redress.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Directive sets out rules enabling ~~qualified~~representative entities to seek representative actions aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers, while ensuring appropriate safeguards to avoid abusive litigation.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall ~~ensure that representative actions can be brought by qualified entities designated, at their request, by the Member States in advance for this purpose and placed in a publicly available list~~designate within their respective territory representative entities for the purpose of representative actions within in meaning of Article 3 (4). The Member States shall make a list of representative entities publicly available and communicate this list to the Commission, updated where necessary.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point a

(a) it is properly constituted according to ~~the law of a Member State~~national law;

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c a (new)

(ca) it is either organised as an independent public body or it demonstrates full transparency as regards its financial capacities.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Member States may provide that representative entities already designated before the entry into force of this Regulation according to national law shall remain eligible for the status of representative entity within the meaning of this Article.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2

~~2. Member States may designate a qualified entity on an ad hoc basis for a particular representative action, at its request, if it complies with the criteria referred to in paragraph 1.~~deleted

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall ensure that ~~in particular~~only consumer organisations and independent public bodies are eligible for the status of ~~qualified~~representative entity. Member States may designate as ~~qualified~~representative entities consumer organisations that represent members from more than one Member State.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4

4. Member States may set out rules specifying which qualified entities may seek all of the measures referred to in Articles 5 and 6, and which qualified entities may seek only one or more of these measures.deleted

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that ~~qualified entities~~the representative entities, which have been designated in advance, are entitled to bring representative actions seeking the following measures:

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Member States shall ensure that no other action is pending at a national court or administrative entities of the same Member State regarding the same practice, the same claimants and the same defendant.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

In order to seek injunction orders, ~~qualified~~representative entities shall ~~not~~ have to obtain the mandate of the individual consumers concerned orand provide proof of actual loss or damage on the part of the consumers concerned or of intention or negligence on the part of the trader.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Member States shall ensure that an individual member of the claimant party is free to leave the claimant party at any time before the final judgment, without being deprived of the possibility to pursue its claims in another form, such as by an individual claims. Member States shall ensure that consumers can join the claimant party of a representative action until the final judgment or settlement.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)

Article 5a Registry of collective redress actions 1. Member States may set up a national register for representative actions, which shall be available free of charge to any interested person through electronic means and/or otherwise. 2. Websites publishing the registries shall provide access to comprehensive and objective information on the available methods of obtaining compensation, including out of court methods as well as the pending representative actions. 3. The national registries shall be interlinked. Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 shall apply.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

For the purposes of Article 5(3), Member States shall ensure that ~~qualified~~representative entities are entitled to bring representative actions seeking a redress order, which obligates the trader to provide for, inter alia, compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination or reimbursement of the price paid, as appropriate. A Member State ~~may~~shall require the mandate of the individual consumers concerned before a declaratory decision is made or a redress order is issued.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

The ~~qualified~~representative entity shall provide ~~sufficient~~all the necessary information as required under national law to support the action, including a description of the consumers concerned by the action and the questions of fact and law to be resolved.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point a

(a) consumers concerned by the infringement are identifiable and suffered comparable harm caused by the same practice in relation to a period of time or a purchase. In such cases the requirement of the mandate of the individual consumers concerned shall not constitute a condition to initiate the action. The redress shall be directed to the consumers concerned;deleted

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) consumers have suffered a small amount of loss and it would be disproportionate to distribute the redress to them. In such cases, Member States shall ensure that the mandate of the individual consumers concerned is not required. The redress shall be directed to a public purpose serving the collective interests of consumers.deleted

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4

4. The redress obtained through a final decision in accordance with paragraphs 1~~, 2~~ and 32 shall be without prejudice to any additional rights to redress that the consumers concerned may have under Union or national law.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – title

FAdmissibility of representative action in case of third-party funding

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1

1. The ~~qualified~~representative entity seeking a redress order as referred to in Article 6(1) shall declare ~~at an early stage of th~~the stage of admissibility of the representative action the source of the funds used for its activity in general and the source of the funds that it uses to support the particular representative action. It shall demonstrate that it has sufficient financial resources to represent the best interests of the consumers concerned and to meet any adverse costs should the action fail.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. Member States shall ensure that in cases where a representative action for redress is funded by a third party, ~~it is prohibited for~~the representative action may be declared inadmissible by the national court or administrative authority if it establishes that the funding by the third party would:

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) to influence decisions of the ~~qualified~~representative entity in the context of a representative action, including the initiation of representative actions and decisions on settlements;

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)

(ba) constitute any further conflict of interest between the third party, the claimant and the representative entities.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall ensure that courts and administrative authorities are empowered to assess the circumstances referred to in paragraph 2 a~~nd accordingly require the qualified entity to refuse the relevant funding and, if necessary, reject the stan~~t the stage of admissibility of the representative action and at a later stage during the court proceeding os if the ~~qualified entity in a specific case~~circumstances only yield then.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6

6. ~~Individual consumers concerned shall be given the possibility to accept or to refuse to be bound by settlements referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.~~ The redress obtained through an approved settlement in accordance with paragraph 4 shall be binding upon all parties, which participated in the representative action without prejudice to any additional rights to redress that the consumers concerned may have under Union or national law. The redress obtained through the settlement shall also be binding upon cases involving the same practice, the same trader and the same consumer.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph -1 (new)

-1 Member States shall ensure that the representative entities: (a) inform consumers about the claimed violation of rights granted under Union law and the intention to seek an injunction or to pursue an action for damages, (b) explain the possibility to join the action, (c) where relevant, inform about subsequent steps and the potential legal consequences.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that the court or administrative authority shall require the infringing trader to inform affected consumers at its expense about the final decisions providing for measures referred to in Articles 5 and 6, and the approved settlements referred to in Article 8, by means appropriate to the circumstance of the case and within specified time limits, including, where appropriate, through notifying all consumers concerned individually. Member States may foresee that the information obligation can be complied with through the national register as referred to in Article 5a (new).

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, in case the representative action fails, the representative entity shall bear the costs of consumer information in accordance with the principle laid down in Article 13a.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. The information referred to in paragraph -1 and 1 shall ~~inclu~~be provided in intelligible language ~~an explanation of the subject- matter of the representative action, its legal consequences and, if relevant, the subsequent steps to be taken by the consumers concerned~~.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

Member States shall ensure that, at the request of ~~a qualified entity that has presented reasonably available facts and evidence sufficient to support the representative action, and has indicated~~one of the parties, in order to obtain further evidence which lies in the control of the ~~defendant~~other party, the court or administrative authority may order, in accordance with national procedural rules, that such evidence be presented ~~by the defendant~~, subject to ~~the~~ applicable Union law and national rules on confidentiality. The order must be adequate and proportionate in the respective case and must not create an imbalance between the two parties involved.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)

Article 13a Costs Member States shall ensure that the party that loses a collective redress action reimburses necessary legal costs borne by the winning party (“loser pays principle”), subject to the conditions provided for in the relevant national law.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in cases where the qualified entities are required to inform consumers concerned about the ongoing representative action the related cost may be recovered from the trader if the action is successful.deleted

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 a (new)

Article 15a Legal representation and fees Member States shall ensure that the lawyers’ remuneration and the method by which it is calculated do not create any incentive to litigation, unnecessary from the point of view of the interest of any of the parties. In particular, Member States shall prohibit contingency fees.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2

2. No later than onthree years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall assess whether the rules on air and rail passenger rights offer a level of protection of the rights of consumers comparable to that provided for under this Directive. Where that is the case, the Commission intends to make appropriate proposals, which may consist in particular in removing the acts referred to in points 10 and 15 of Annex I from the scope of application of this Directive as defined in Article 2.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0089(COD)

Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 a (new)

Article 18a Review clause Without prejudice to Article 16, the Commission shall assess whether cross- border representative actions could be best addressed at Union level by establishing a European Ombudsman for collective redress. No later than three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall draw up a report in this regard and submit it to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied, if appropriate, by a relevant proposal.

2018/11/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) A European Labour Authority (the ‘Authority’) should be established in order to ~~help~~ strengthen fairness and trust in the Single Market and enhance the free movement of citizens. To that effect, the Authority should support the Member States and the Commission in strengthening access to information for individuals and employers about their rights and obligations in cross- border labour mobility situations as well as access to relevant services, support compliance and cooperation between the Member States to ensure the effective application of the Union law in these areas, and mediate and facilitate a solution in case of cross- border disputes or labour market disruptions.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) The Authority should perform its activities in the areas of cross-border labour mobility and social security coordination, including free movement of workers, posting of workers and highly mobile services, such as the transport sector. It should also enhance cooperation between Member States in tackling undeclared work. In cases where the Authority, in the course of the performance of its activities, becomes aware of suspected irregularities, including in areas of Union law beyond its scope, such as violations of working conditions, health and safety rules, or the employment of illegally staying third-country nationals, it should ~~be able to~~ report them and cooperate on these matters with the Commission, competent Union bodies, and national authorities ~~where appropriate.~~

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)

(8a) In this regard, the Authority should notably contribute to the better implementation and to an increased effectiveness of the EU legislation related to the transport sector. Companies operating in the transport sector should be able to request and receive appropriate information about their rights and obligations. Moreover, a strengthened cooperation between Member States within this field will result in higher legal certainty and consequently promote the European labour mobility.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) To facilitate the management of labour market adjustments, the Authority should facilitate cooperation among relevant stakeholders, notably the social partners in order to address labour market disruptions affecting more than one Member State, such as cases of restructuring ~~or major projects impacting employment in border regions~~.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) To guarantee its full autonomy and independence, the Authority should be granted an autonomous budget, with revenue coming from the general budget of the Union, any voluntary financial contribution from the Member States and any contribution from third countries participating in the work of the Authority. In exceptional and duly justified cases it should also be in the position to receive delegation agreements or ad hoc grants~~, and to charge for publications and any service provided by the Authority~~.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The Authority shall not in any way interfere with the exercise of fundamental rights as recognised in the Member States and/or at Union level regarding the collective bargaining rights in accordance with national practice. Nor shall it affect the right to negotiate or to conclude and enforce collective agreements.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) provide relevant information to employers on labour rules, and the living and working conditions applicable to workers in cross-border labour mobility situations, including posted workers and drivers;

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c

(c) promote and share best practices taking into account the specific collective bargaining rights in the Member States;

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2

2. Concerted and joint inspections and their follow-up shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the Member States concerned. National authorities shall also be fully associated in the process and have full and autonomous authority. Where social partners are themselves in charge of inspections at national level, joint and concerted inspections should only take place if the social partners concerned so agree.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. Upon request of one of the Member States concerned by a dispute, the Authority shall launch a mediation procedure before its Mediation Board set up for this purpose in accordance with Article 17(2). The Authority may also ~~launch~~suggest a mediation procedure on its own initiative before the Mediation Board~~, including on the basis of a referral from SOLVIT, subject to~~. In this case, the mediation will be launched following the agreement of all Member States concerned by that dispute.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1

At the request of the national authorities, the Authority may facilitate cooperation between relevant stakeholders in order to address labour market disruptions affecting more than one Member State, such as large-scale restructuring events ~~or major projects impacting employment in border reg~~with cross- border implications.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 4

4. The Stakeholder Group shall be composed of six representatives of Union- level social partners equally representing trade unions and employer’s organisations~~, and two representatives of the Commission~~.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – point e

~~(e) charges for publications and any service provided by the Authority.~~deleted

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19

~~– having regard to European Court of Auditors (ECA) Special Report No 17/2017 of November 2017 on the Commission’s intervention in the Greek financial crisis,~~deleted

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas Article 3 of the TEU stipulates that the aims of the Union are, inter alia, to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples and to work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, and that the Union shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child,

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the correct application of EU law guarantees the benefits of Union's policies to all European citizens and a level playing field for businesses;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the large number of infringement procedures in 2016 shows that ensuring the timely and correct application of EU legislation in the Member States remains a serious challenge and priority; ~~considers that some of those infringements are the result of the lack of resources dedicated to public administration in some Member States, sometimes as a result of ill-advised austerity measures;~~

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that Memoranda of Understanding concluded between the EU institutions and Member States are not considered EU acts, even if Member States are obliged thereunder to implement fiscal and tax policies for severe cutbacks;deleted

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

10. Notes that the duties conferred on the Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) within the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), important as they are, do not entail any power to make decisions of their own, and that the activities pursued by those two institutions within the ESM Treaty commit the ESM alone and not the EU institutions9 ; _________________ 9 Idem, paragraph 51.deleted

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Points out that major decisions for the EU, the Member States and its people, such as decisions on national budgets and reforms, are usually prepared in almost complete opacity and taken by ministers without adherence to basic transparency principles, often after very limited discussions and with no formal rules10 ; regrets that there is no accountability to Parliament for those decisions11 and encourages the competent institutions to change this situation; _________________ 10See, inter alia: http://www.pierremoscovici.fr/2017/09/02/ my-speech-at-the-ambrossetti-forum-the- future-of-the-euro/ 11 Ibid.deleted

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Expresses concern that the robust fiscal measures (including reductions in expenditure on pensions, the health system and public administration) and reforms of tax policy and tax administration envisaged in the structural adjustment programmes and imposed on the Member States by the EU institutions have had negative effects, inter alia on labour, pension rights and employment12 , and on healthcare systems and the right to health and education13 ; _________________ 12See, inter alia: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/I EDebt/LabourRights/Greece.pdf; ECA Special Report No 17/2017. 13See, inter alia: http://www.kentikelenis.net/uploads/3/1/8/ 9/31894609/kentikelenis2017- structural_adjustment_and_health_a_con ceptual_framework_and_evidence_on_pat hways.pdfdeleted

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls on the Commission to enhance, where possible and necessary, the ~~portion of the European Social Fund dedic~~instruments designed to help Member Stateds to ~~‘enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration’ (Thematic Objective 11)14 in order to promote social welfa~~recognize transposition problems, address them at an early stage of the infringement procedures and economic development, and to enhance the effectiveness of beneficial legislation; _________________ 14Article 3(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006; OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 470.help them find joined solutions and thus, enhance the effectiveness of EU legislation;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Recalls that the legislation which gives rise to the most flagrant infringement proceedings is the result of directives; recalls that regulations are directly and compulsorily applicable in all the Member States; calls, therefore, on the Commission to make use of regulations as far as possible whenever it considers issuing legislative proposals; considers that such an approach could mitigate the risk of over-regulation;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Jens ROHDE, António MARINHO E PINTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Recalls that preliminary rulings help to clarify the manner in which the law of the European Union is to be applied; considers that recourse to this procedure allows a uniform interpretation and implementation of European legislation; encourages, therefore, national courts to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the event of doubt and thus prevent infringement proceedings;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes with regret that insufficient attention has been paid to the concentration of media ownership in Member States; recalls that EU competition rules play an important role in preventing the creation or abuse of dominant positions; calls ~~therefore~~ on the Member States ~~and local authorities~~ to monitor media concentration and to provide easily accessible information on media ownership and economic influence over the media landscape;

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. The independence of the press covers both public and private media; highlights in this regard the importance of ethical codes for journalists and editors; such ethical codes shall encompass the duty to verify information and sources; stresses that the dissemination of content online needs to apply the same duty of care than dissemination offline; is concerned in this regard that standards seem to be lowered in a rapidly changing online environment where quantity and promptness and clickbaits seems more important than accurateness;

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Is concerned about the legislative and administrative measures ~~used in~~taken by certain Member States to restrain and control their media, including public media channels, directly or indirectly; stresses that the fundamental principle of editorial independence from ~~the~~ governments and/or from political or commercial interests ~~should~~must be protected; underlines that ~~the~~any coverage of election campaign~~ing~~ should be fair, balanced, and impartial ~~and systematically monitored;~~; urges Member States to adhere to the recommendations and resolutions by the Council of Europe as regards public media independence and recalls the European standards laid down in the Treaties in this respect; stresses that supervision of public service media must be exercised by independent bodies and not directly by political institutions, such as a government; moreover, in cases of state financed public service media, editorial independence must be guaranteed

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Jens ROHDE, Michał BONI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Is concerned about the legislative and administrative measures used in certain Member States to restrain and control the media, directly or indirectly, especially in the public media sector; stresses that the fundamental principle of editorial independence from the government and from political or commercial interests should be protected; underlines that the coverage of election campaigning should be fair, balanced, impartial and systematically monitored;

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Reiterates its call on all Member States where defamation is a criminal offence to decriminalise it and to ensure that defamation laws respect the right to freedom of expression in conformity with European and international human rights standards;deleted

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Reiterates its call on all Member States where defamation is a criminal offence to decriminalise it and to ensure that defamation laws respect the right to freedom of expression in conformity with European and international human rights standards;deleted

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Underlin~~Notes that whistle-blowers arcting on reasonable ground can be a crucial resource for investigative journalism and thus contribute to an independent press; calls on the Commission therefore to provide EU-wide protection in accordance with the treaties and the Union objectives of democracy, pluralism of opinion and freedom of expression; the protection of whistle-blowers goes hand in hand with the confidentiality of their sources, however, balanced with the fundamental rights of the accused natural and legal persons;

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Underlines that false accusations or misleading information can have far reaching effects for people and businesses; recalls that in the event of false accusations,those responsible should be held accountable for their action and not benefit from whistle-blower protection; stresses that any person who is defamed by inaccurate or misleading information needs to be afforded effective redress mechanisms;

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Points out that, especially in the era of the Internet, one false accusation based on unchecked information can destroy whole businesses and people’s lives

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights that the ~~fight against ‘fake news’, namely false news and other disinformation spread deliberately via the media, s~~deliberate misinformation created or spread in order to make financial or political gains, so called ‘fake news’, break the relationship of trust between the media and citizens and have a potential to endanger liberal democracies as well as to undermine our democratic values such as freedom of expression and the rule of law; as social media has made the circulation of such fake information much easier than in the traditional media, solutions need to be found to hould not result in restricting freedom of internet usage; calls for the Member States and EU institutions to devote sufficient resources to tackling disinformation; is satisfied with the work of the East StratCom Task Force and the establishment of the High Level Expert Groupauthors of fake news accountable for their action in digital media as is the case in the offline world; stresses that strict regulation or censorship of thoughts and views cannot be the response, but that rather assurance of reliability of information and educated, critically thinking citizens as well as media literacy form part of the solution; calls for the Member States and EU institutions to devote sufficient resources to tackling disinformation; highlights in this respect the need for media consumers to be able to distinguish between facts and pure opinions; stresses that the EEAS Strategic Communication Division and in particular the current East StratCom Task Force actively contributing to the development and implementation of a strategy against dissemination onf fake news needs and o~~nline disinformation~~verall upscale and reinforced resources to carry out its tasks properly.

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Welcomes the Commission’s announcement to prepare a strategy to counter fake news, to be published in due course

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Highlights the need for Member States to complement EU efforts to counter fake news and to engage at all levels, including in cooperation with the EU neighbourhood, to foster a pluralistic media environment to communicate EU policies truthfully, coherently and comprehensively,

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, António MARINHO E PINTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5 c. Emphasizes that principles of media freedom, freedom of speech and media pluralism are as relevant for pre- accession countries and the European Neighbourhood area as it is for member states; calls on the Commission to ensure that these principles are strengthened and adequately monitored in these countries and that assistance programs are made contingent upon adherence to these principles.

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2186(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that, in 2016, the operational costs (Title 3) represented 87,8 % of the overall S2R JU budget including the expected un-used appropriations not required in the year (Title 4); further notes that, for the operational budget, the S2R JU attained a rate of implementation of 100 % for the commitment appropriations and a rate of payment appropriations of 86,6 % ; notes that the payment appropriations were used for the pre-financing of the grants resulting from the 2015 and 2016 calls for proposals;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2186(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the S2R JU has set up a risk management policy but has not yet performed a specific anti-fraud assessment, nor has it established an action plan for the implementation of its own anti-fraud strategy; notes also that, since only pre- financing of projects has been paid in 2016, no ex-post controls have been carried out; encourages the S2R JU to adopt, as soon as possible, an ex-post control strategy; asks the S2R JU to provide details on the risk management system, and in particular on how to avoid conflicts of interest;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2186(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Is concerned that in its procedure for the procurement services, S2R JU sets a maximum contract budget, which does not seem to be based on a cost estimation process and a reasonable market price reference system; asks the S2R JU to put in place appropriate cost estimation processes before launching procurement procedures in order to ensure the cost-effectiveness of its multi-annual service contracts, as experience shows that most of the bids received were close to the maximum budget;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2186(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Underlines the importance of research and innovation in the rail sector in order to achieve a significant reduction of the life-cycle cost of the railway transport system and to achieve significant increases in capacity of the railway transport system, in reliability and punctuality, as well as in order to remove the remaining technical obstacles to interoperability and to reduce the negative externalities linked to transport; highlights also that the objectives of the S2R JU are to achieve a Single European Railway Area and to enhance the attractiveness and competitiveness of the European railway system;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2162(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets that corrective actions related to the Court’s comments of 2013 regarding the double location of the Agency in Lille and Valenciennes have not yet been implemented; ~~further regrets that in the absence of~~stresses that it is likely that costs could be reduced if all operations were centralised in one location; points out that the reduction of costs might also facilitate a comprehensive seat agreement with the host Member State - which would have the effect of clarifying the conditions under which the Agency and its staff operate ~~- the costs of operations are likely to be higher than necessary~~;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2162(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes the results of the annual benchmarking exercise focusing on the efficiency of internal resources showing a decrease of the percentage of staff assigned to administrative tasks (from 23 % to 18 %) and an increase in the percentage of staff assigned to operational task (from 65 % to 70 %), while the staff assigned to control and financial tasks was around 12 %; regrets, however, that the evolution of percentage is mainly due to a correction in the assignment of staff into the various categories; points out that such reduction is not in line with the 5 % staff cut communicated by the Commission on the programming of resources for decentralised agencies;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2162(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Highlights the Agency's role in ensuring the safety and interoperability of European rail system in order to contribute to creating a more competitive European railway sector; supports the Commission’s vision of a European railway system that leads the world on safety performance;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2162(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Notes that, in 2016, the Agency continued the implementation of the action plan defined in the Agency Antifraud Strategy, by organising tailor made training sessions on fraud prevention; welcomes that a comprehensive revision of the Agency's rules on Conflict of Interest (Col) has been carried out in 2017; further notes that, within the framework of the policy on conflict of interest for the Administrative Board (AB), the Agency published the CVs and the declaration of interest of AB Members; notes, however, that some CVs and declarations of interest are missing; requests that CVs and declarations of interests are published without delay after the appointment of AB Members;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates the need to ensure the independence of Agency’s staff and external experts; in this context welcomes the ongoing efforts to ensure proper prevention and management of conflicts of interest, taking into account remarks by the Parliament; notes that the Agency provided relevant training to its staff, maintains a Conflict of Interest Register and continues the review of its “Policy on impartiality and independence: prevention and mitigation of Conflict of Interest” in order to further improve the internal process for the completion, review and update of Declarations of Interest for the Agency’s staff members; welcomes the fact that more than 80% of EASA staff were trained on anti-fraud matters by the end of 2016, and encourages the Agency to aim for training 100% of EASA staff; also notes that the Agency produced a Code of Conduct including a policy on Conflict of Interest and a declaration of interest for the external experts supporting the work of the Agency;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes the results of the third benchmarking exercise on the Agency’s posts, which showed that 12,5 % of the jobs were dedicated to administrative support and coordination, 81,0 % to operational tasks and 6,4 % to neutral (finance/control and linguistics) tasks; is pleased that a breakdown of staff by category and sector, as well as by source of funding for their activities (fees and charges versus Union subsidies), has been included in the 2016 Annual Report, which shows that that 60,4 % of posts, including 50,1 % of operational posts, are funded from fees and charges and 33,8 % of posts are funded from the Union subsidy; notes that for the second consecutive year the Agency has achieved full occupancy of all posts according to the establishment plan; notes a discrepancy in this establishment plan between the different AD and AST posts authorised under the EU budget and the posts actually filled, and calls upon the Agency to address this imbalance;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates that the revision of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council1 envisages broadening the scope of competence of the Agency and that, accordingly, the role played by new technologies, such as remotely piloted aircraft systems, must be taken fully into consideration when new competences are assigned; stresses the importance of allocating adequate funding to the Agency to ensure the successful uptake of these new responsibilities, as well as adequate staffing in order to fulfil additional tasks; notes, however, that the Agency should amend its Financial and Fees and charges regulations to better formalise the treatment of an accumulated surplus, in order to potentially reduce the Union subsidy; _________________ 1 Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ L 79, 19.3.2008, p. 1).

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Welcomes the political agreement on the revision of the common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency1a, as agreed in November 2017 by the Parliament, the Council and Commission; urges the Commission and Member States to provide necessary resources for the new and reinforced competences concerning, among others, risks to civil aviation arising from conflict zones, environmental related topics and the certification and registration of unmanned aircraft; _________________ 1aRegulation COM(2015) 613: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Safety Agency, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Welcomes the active role of the Agency in the call for proposals under the Horizont 2020 programme; urges the Agency to remain active in the field of research and development;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2158(DEC)

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8 c. Supports the establishment of a working group to look into the potential risks and impact of Brexit; recommends the Agency to work closely together with the other European Institutions regarding this matter; proposes that the Agency presents the outcomes of this working group to the European Parliament in due time;

2018/01/26
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2017 on road transport in the European Union,

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the installation of driver assistance systems in vehicles for persons ~~of restrict~~with reduced mobility and the elderly enables their safe~~, active~~ participation in road traffic;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the move towards ~~completely~~ driver- free vehicles is progressing rapidly, so that a review of the General Safety Regulation needs to be submitted by the Commission no later than January 2018;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on Member States to improve their road infrastructure ~~significantly~~ by means of ~~regular~~ maintenance and innovative measures;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Observes that nearly half of all pedestrians and cyclist~~s killed on the road~~ deaths resulting from traffic accidents are aged over 65, and calls on Member States to ~~make it possible for older people to use the roads safely by developing programmes to avert age-specific risks of accidents;~~improve the conditions for all pedestrians and cyclists to safely use the roads.

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Observes that, in 43% of cases, fatal road accidents in urban areas occur to pedestrians and cyclists, and ~~calls on Member States to take greater account of the more vulnerable road users in building and maintaining roads, for example by building more cycle paths, or expanding them~~encourages cities to include targets into their Mobility plans to reduce the number of road and traffic accidents;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Observes that relatively fast e- bikes and also electric unicycles are becoming increasingly popular, and calls on the Commission therefore to examine the safety requirements for them without delay and to make proposals relating to safety, taking due account of subsidiarity;deleted

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that ~~some~~approximately 95% of all accidents are due to human error and that therefore it should be compulsory to incorporate driver assistance systems which promote safety, a requirement that should apply only to those driver assistance systems which improve road safety significantly, as demonstrated by scientific evidence~~, which have a favourable cost- benefit ratio and which have attained market maturity.~~;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on manufacturers: (a) to make it clear to drivers what the activation status of each driver assistance system is, (b) where systems can be switched off, to introduce two-stage deactivation systems, such that the driver can initially merely switch off the warning signal and can only deactivate the system itself by means of a second procedure, and (c) to ensure that, each time a vehicle is started afresh, the driver assistance system is restored to active status;deleted

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that warnings should be sufficiently distinct from one another to make it intuitively clear to which system the assistance pertains~~, and that warnings should moreover also be easy to perceive for older persons and persons with limited mobility; calls therefore on the parties concerned to adopt appropriate uniform standards~~;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Encourages the European New Car Assessment Programme to be more ambitious in assessing the safety of new vehicles than the statutory minimum requirements compel it to, in order to promote yet further the development of vehicles with high road safety standards;deleted

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls for incentives for measures to promote road safety based on insurance or taxation aspects, such as the installation of additional safety-relevant driver assistance systems or driver training;deleted

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission and market operators to ~~arrange for~~facilitate the use of open standards and interfaces so that no systems peculiar to a single manufacturer limit interoperability and so that independent tests are possible thanks to access to the relevant vehicle and system data, including updates to them;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that a high level of data protection as required by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the General Data Protection ~~Regulation~~ and by the right to protection of privacy and personal data should be ensured, as should high IT security, so that the possibility of new accident risks due to remote manipulation of on-board systems or conflicts of compatibility is excluded;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Commission to make it compulsory to install automatic emergency braking assistants with cyclist and pedestrian recognition in cars, light commercial vehicles, buses, coaches and heavy goods vehicles, as they have strong potential to prevent road accidents due to autonomous powerful braking and the resultant shorter stopping distance;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls for the compulsory installation of overridable intelligent assistants to indicate speed limits~~, and calls on Member States to ensure that road signs are kept in excellent condition, and that road markings are clearly legible~~;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Emphasises that increasing the immediate field of direct vision in heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches, and reducing the blind spot can help significantly to improve the road safety of such vehicles, and calls on the Commission to make it compulsory to install cameras and turning assistant systems, while observing that such measures should accord with Directive (EU) 2015/719 and should not result in any extension of the time limits for implementation laid down there;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/2085(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Lucy ANDERSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers it necessary to ~~make it compulsory to install~~promote the use of seatbelt reminder systems for back seats too;

2017/07/17
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) Urban, suburban and regional rail passenger services are different in character from long-distance services. Member States should therefore be allowed to exempt urban, suburban and regional rail passenger services which are not cross-border services within the Union from certain provisions on passengers' rights.deleted

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) Users’ rights to rail services include the receipt of information regarding the service both before ~~and~~, during and after the journey. ~~Whenever possible, r~~Railway undertakings and ticket vendors should provide this information in advance and as soon as possible. That information should be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities or persons with reduced mobility.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Gesine MEISSNER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) The increasing popularity of cycling across the Union has implications for overall mobility and tourism. An increase in the use of both railways and cycling in the modal split reduces the environmental impact of transport. Therefore, railway undertakings should facilitate the combination of cycling and train journeys as much as possible, in particular by allowing the carriage of bicycles on board trains. The carriage of bicycles may be refused on the ground of safety and good functioning of rail operation services.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) Railway undertakings should facilitate the transfer of rail passengers from one operator to another by the provision of through-tickets~~, whenever possible~~. In particular, through-tickets should be considered whenever, according to the time schedules, known at the time of the purchase of the ticket, there is time for the passenger to transfer between one service to another.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) Railway undertakings and station managers should take into account the needs of persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility, through compliance with the TSI for persons with reduced mobility. and the Directive XXX when complementing TSI In addition , in accordance with Union public procurement rules, in particular Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council26 , all buildings and rolling stock should be made accessible through the progressive elimination of physical obstacles and functional hindrances when acquiring new material or carrying out construction or major renovation work. _________________ 26 Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65).

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) It is desirable that this Regulation create a system of compensation for passengers in the case of delay which is linked to the liability of the railway undertaking, on the same basis as the international system provided by the COTIF and in particular CIV Uniform Rules thereto relating to passengers' rights. In the event of a delay of a passenger service, railway undertakings should provide passengers with compensation based on a percentage of the ticket price. Compensation rates should reflect the need to mitigate delays and to reduce passengers’ dissatisfaction. Passengers should be able to use a Union standardised complaint form for submitting a complaint in their own Union languages if they prefer, and it should be equally valid to a complaint format provided by the railway undertakings, ticket vendors, railway station or infrastructure manager involved in the complaint process. Railway undertakings, ticket vendors should be encouraged to develop an automatic compensation system, like a passenger account or a Smartcard, to claim compensation for delay or cancellation, both to avoid a complex and cumbersome process for the passenger and to speed up the payment of the compensation.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) This Regulation should not restrict the rights of railway undertakings, ticket vendors, railway station or infrastructure manager to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with applicable national law.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) Rail passengers should be able to submit a complaint to any railway undertaking, ticket vendor, railway station or infrastructure manager involved regarding the rights and obligations conferred by this Regulation, and be entitled to receive a response within a reasonable period of time.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)

(-a) the minimum information to be provided to the passengers by railway undertakings and ticket vendors, including the conclusion of transport contracts, and the issuing of tickets, as laid out in Annex II Part I and Part II.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) non-discrimination between passengers with regard to transport and ticketing conditions;

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point e

~~(e) minimum information to be provided to passengers;~~deleted

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point h

(h) the filing and handling of complaints;

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) urban, suburban and regional rail passenger services as referred to in Directive 2012/34/EU, except cross-border services within the Union;~~deleted

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 4

4. Articles 5, 10, 11, 12 and 25 and Chapter V shall apply to all rail passenger services referred to in paragraph 1, including services exempted in accordance with points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5

(5) ‘ticket vendor’ means any retailer of rail transport services concluding transport contracts and selling tickets on behalf of a one or more railway undertakings or for its own account;

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)

(6a) “ticket” means a valid evidence that entitles the passenger to rail transport, regardless of its form, paper, e- Ticket, Smartcard, travel card;

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Gesine MEISSNER, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8

(8) ‘through-ticket’ means a ticket or separate tickets representing a single transport contract for successive railway services operated by one or more railway undertakings;, , forming part of an end-to- end journey,

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

2017/0237(COD)

Jens ROHDE, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1

Without prejudice to social tariffs, railway undertakings or ticket vendors shall offer ~~contract~~transport contract and ticketing conditions and tariffs to the general public without direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of the final ~~custom~~passenger’'s nationality or residence, or the place of establishment of the railway undertaking or ticket vendor within the Union or the means through which passengers bought the ticket.

2018/04/03
Committee: TRAN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(12) Such balanced criteria should be based on a concept of a sufficient link of a driver with a territory of a host Member State. Therefore, a time threshold should be established, beyond which the minimum rate of pay and the minimum annual paid holidays of the host Member State shall apply in case ofbetween the transport operation and the Member State of employment of the driver. Therefore, it should be established that only international carriage operations beginning and ending in the Member State of employment should be exempt from the application of points (b) and (c) of Directive 96/71 EC. All other international ~~transport~~carriage operations~~. This time threshold should not apply to~~ and cabotage operations as defined by Regulation~~s 1072/200918 and~~ (EC) No 10732/200919 since the entire transport operation is taking place in a host Member State. As a consequence the minimum rate of pay and the minimum annual paid holidays of the host Member State should apply to cabotage irrespective of the frequency and duration of the operations carried out by a driver. _________________ 18 Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliamenhould be covered by points (b) and (c) of Directive 96/71 EC. In order to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens only one host Member State should be pointed out for each individual operation. The individual operation should begin and end with the loading of goods. Unloading should not aend of the ~~Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the int~~individual operation and as a consequence the individual opernation~~al road haulage market (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 72). 19~~ should comprise unladen journeys as defined by Regulation (EC) No 10732/2009 ~~of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules~~. In order to point out only one host Member State for eac~~cess to the int~~h opernation~~al market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p.88)~~ the decisive criterion is the place of unloading.

2018/02/23
Committee: TRAN

2017/0121(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall not apply points (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Directive 96/71/EC to drivers in the road transport sector employed by undertakings referred to in Article 1(3)(a) of that Directive, when performing international carriage operations as defined by Regulations (EC) No 1072/2009 and 1073/2009 where the ~~period of posting to~~ international carriage operation eitheir ~~territory to perform these operations is shorter than or equal to 3 days~~begins or ends in the Member State where the place of business through which the duri~~ng a period of one calendar month~~ver was engaged is situated.

2018/02/23
Committee: TRAN

Ulla TØRNÆS, Jens ROHDE, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) The processing of special categories of personal data may be necessary for reasons of public interest in the areas of public health without consent of the data subject. Such processing should be subject to proportionate, suitable and specific measures so as to protect the rights and freedoms of natural persons. In that context, ‘public health’ should be interpreted as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council15, namely all elements related to health, namely health status, including morbidity and disability, the determinants having an effect on that health status, health care needs, resources allocated to health care, the provision of, and universal access to, health care as well as health care expenditure and financing, and the causes of mortality. Such processing of data concerning health for reasons of public interest should not ~~result in personal data being~~lead to any further processeding for other purposes, including processing by third parties. _________________ 15 Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work (OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 70).

2017/07/18
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 was adopted with the objective of eliminating obstacles to the functioning of the internal market due to differences in national measures regulating trade in seal products. Those measures were adopted in response to public moral concerns about the animal welfare aspects of the killing of seals and the possible presence on the market of products obtained from animals killed in a way that causes excessive pain, distress, fear and other forms of suffering. Such concerns were supported by scientific evidence showing that a genuinely humane killing method cannot be consistently and effectively applied and enforced in the specific conditions in which seal hunting takes place. In order to achieve that objective, Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 introduced, as a general rule, a prohibition of placing on the market of seal products. __________________ 2 Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ L 286, 31.10.2009, p 36).

2015/04/28
Committee: IMCO

Jens ROHDE, Ulla TØRNÆS, Nils TORVALDS, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Marit PAULSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009
Article 7

(3a) Article 7 is replaced by the following: Article 7 Reporting 1. By ~~20 Nov~~31 December 20116 and ~~thereafter~~ every 4four years, thereafter Member States shall submit to the Commission a report outlining the actions taken to implement this Regulation. 2. ~~On the basis of the reports referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall report to the European Parlia~~The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Regulation within 12 months of the end of each reporting period referred to in paragraph 1. The first report shall be submitted not later than 31 November 2017. 3. In its report submitted in accordance with paragraph 2, the Commission shall assess and review the functioning and effectiveness of this Regulation in achieving its objectives. In its assessment and toreview the Co~~uncil on the implementation of this Regulation within 12 months of the end of each reporting period concerned~~mmission shall, in particular, consider the socio-economic development, economic activities and development, nutrition, culture and identity of the Inuit and other indigenous communities as well as the environment and socio-economic effects of this Regulation in areas within the Union where seal hunt other than conducted by the Inuit and other indigenous communities takes place. 4. Following the assessment and review, the Commission reports shall, where appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal.

2015/05/08
Committee: AGRI

2015/0009(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29

(29) To partially finance the contribution of~~rom~~ the Union budget, the available envelopes of the Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2014-2020, provided by Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council2, and the Connecting Europe Facility, provided by Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council3 , should be reduced. Those programmes serve purposes that are not replicated by the EFSI. However, the reduction of both programmes to finance the guarantee fund is expected to ensure a greater investment in certain areas of their respective mandates than is possible through the existing programmes. The EFSI should be able to leverage the EU guarantee to multiply the financial effect within those areas of research, development and innovation and transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructure compared to if the resources had been spent via grants within the planned Horizon 2020 and Connecting Europe Facility programmes. It is, therefore, appropriate to redirect part of the funding presently envisaged for those programmes to the benefit of EFSI. __________________ 2 Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 104). 3Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliao the EU budget Guarantee Fund will be done on a progressive basis using various possibilities within the EU budget. In order of priority, the contribution will be financed by the annual surplus, the unused funds, the Flexibility Instrument and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129)margins of the EU budget.

2015/03/27
Committee: AGRI

2015/0009(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Eligibility criteria for the use of the EU guarantee 1. The EFSI Agreement shall provide that EFSI is to support projects which: (a) are consistent with Union policies, (b) are economically and technically viable, (c) provide additionality, and (d) maximise where possible the mobilisation of private sector capital.

2015/03/27
Committee: AGRI

2015/0009(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e a (new)

(ea) any project covered by the objectives set out in Article 3 and 4 of Regulation 1316/2013

2015/03/27
Committee: AGRI

2015/0009(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e b (new)

(eb) any project covered by the objectives set out in Article 5 of Regulation 1291/2013

2015/03/27
Committee: AGRI

2015/0009(COD)

Fredrick FEDERLEY, Jens ROHDE, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18

Amendments to Regulation (EU) No (1) In Article 6, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are replaced by the following: ‘1. The financial envelope for the implementation of Horizon 2020 is set at EUR 74 328,3 million in current prices, of which a maximum of EUR 71 966,9 million shall be allocated to activities under Title XIX TFEU. The annual appropriations shall be authorised by the European Parliament and by the Council within the limits of the multiannual financial framework. 2. The amount for activities under Title XIX TFEU shall be distributed among the priorities set out in Article 5(2) of this Regulation as follows: (a) Excellent science, EUR 23 897,0 million in current prices; (b) Industrial leadership, EUR 16 430,5 million in current prices; (c) Societal challenges, EUR 28 560,7 million in current prices. The maximum overall amount for the Union financial contribution from Horizon 2020 to the specific objectives set out in Article 5(3) and to the non-nuclear direct actions of the JRC shall be as follows: (i) Spreading excellence and widening participation, EUR 782,3 million in current prices; (ii) Science with and for society, EUR 443,8 million in current prices; (iii) Non-nuclear direct actions of the JRC, EUR 1 852,6 million in current prices. The indicative breakdown for the priorities and specific objectives set out in Article 5(2) and (3) is set out in Annex II. 3. The EIT shall be financed through a maximum contribution from Horizon 2020 of EUR 2 361,4 million in current prices as set out in Annex II.’ (2) Annex II is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Regulation.rticle 18 deleted 1291/2013

2015/03/27
Committee: AGRI

2015/0009(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19

Amendments to Regulation(EU) No In Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: ‘1. The financial envelope for the implementation of the CEF for the period 2014 to 2020 is set at EUR 29 942 259 000 (*) in current prices. That amount shall be distributed as follows: (a) transport sector: EUR 23 550 582 000, of which EUR 11 305 500 000 shall be transferred from the Cohesion Fund to be spent in line with this Regulation exclusively in Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund; (b) telecommunications sector: EUR 1 041 602 000; (c) energy sector: EUR 5 350 075 000. These amounts are without prejudice to the application of the flexibility mechanism provided for under Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013(*). –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (*) Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-20 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884).’rticle 19 deleted 1316/2013

2015/03/27
Committee: AGRI

2014/2075(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

~~7. Calls for the move of all smaller programmes into the second pillar of the CAP;~~deleted

2014/12/11
Committee: AGRI

2014/2075(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 – point a (new)

(a) Calls on the Commission in due time to present a detailed plan for reducing red tape in the CAP by 25% within the following 5 years.

2014/12/11
Committee: AGRI

2014/2075(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls for Union officials to be in charge of the national paying agencies within the respective Member States, instead of officials of that Member State, in particular for those paying agencies that continuously under-performed over the last three years ;deleted

2014/12/11
Committee: AGRI

2014/2040(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Regrets the cut of EUR 481 289 for the school milk programme and the cut of EUR 900 073 for the school fruit programme, as both programmes have proven to be useful and efficient within the Member States; asks to increase the fund for both programmes to previous levels; asks that both programmes are designed toUnderlines that the school milk programme and the school fruit programme should be less bureaucratic and more user friendly;

2014/07/29
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) The risk of non-compliance with the organic production rules is considered higher in agricultural holdings which include units not managed under organic production rules. Therefore, after an appropriate conversion period, all agricultural holdings in the Union which aim to become organic should be entirely managed in compliance with the requirements applicable to organic production. Organic agricultural holdings should undergo the same conversion period in all Member States, irrespective of whether they have previously adhered to agri-environmental measures supported by Union funds. However, no conversion period is necessary in the case of fallow land. In order to ensure quality, traceability and compliance with this Regulation and adaptation to technical developments, the power to adopt certain acts should be delegated to the Commission in respect of establishing rules supplementing the general conversion rules or supplementing and amending the specific conversion rules.deleted

2015/06/24
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Jens ROHDE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point e (new)

(e) organic farmers shall put in place nature- and climate strategies to increase nature and biodiversity and to limit negative climate impact.

2015/06/24
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 (a), a holding may be split up into clearly separated units or aquaculture production sites which are not all managed under organic production. As regards animals, different species shall be involved. As regards aquaculture the same species may be involved, provided that there is adequate separation between the production sites. As regards plants, different varieties that can be easily differentiated/distinguished shall be involved. Where, in accordance with the second subparagraph, not all units of a holding are used for organic production, the operator shall keep the land, animals, and products used for, or produced by, the organic units separate from those used for, or produced by, the non-organic units and keep adequate records to show the separation.

2015/06/24
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5

5. By way of derogation from Article 7(1)(a), during the conversion period, the agricultural holding may be split into clearly separated units which are not all managed under organic production. As regards livestock, different species shall be involved in organic production during the conversion period. As regards aquaculture, the same species may be involved, provided that there is adequate separation between the production sites. As regards plants, different varieties that can easily be distinguished shall be involved in organic production during the conversion period.deleted

2015/06/25
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Each Member State shall ensure that a computerised database is established for listing the available rearing of young stock originating from organic broodstock and organic holdings within the Union.

2015/06/25
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 a (new)

Article 23 a The control authority or control body shall carry out a physical inspection of all operators at least once a year.

2015/06/25
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1

In order to ensure a smooth transition between the rules on organic origin of plant reproductive material provided for in Article 12(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and on animals for breeding purposes provided for in Article 14(1)(a)(ii) of that Regulation and on young stock of aquaculture animals provided for in Article 15(1)(a)(ii) of that Regulation and the exception to production rules that the Commission adopted pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, and the new production rules for plants and plant products and livestock and seaweed and aquaculture animals provided for in Articles 10(1) and 11(1), respectively, of this Regulation, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 36 providing for exceptions where granting exceptions is deemed necessary in order to ensure access to plant reproductive material and live animals for breeding purposes and young stock of aquaculture animals, that may be used in organic production. The delegated acts adopted under this Article shall cease to apply on 31 December 2021.deleted

2015/06/25
Committee: ENVI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part I – point 1.4.2

1.4.2. Use of seeds or plant reproductive material not obtained from organic production 1.4.2.1. In order to ensure access to seed and vegetative propagating material, where such inputs are not available: (a)seed and vegetative propagating material from a production unit in conversion to organic farming may be used, (b)where point (a) is not applicable, Member States may authorise the use of non-organic seed or vegetative propagating material if not available from organic production. However, for the use of non-organic seed and seed potatoes the following paragraphs (1.4.2.2) to (1.4.2.8) apply. 1.4.2.2. Non-organic seed and seed potatoes may be used, provided that the seed or seed potatoes are not treated with plant protection products, other than those authorised for treatment of seed in accordance with Article 19 paragraph 1 (a), unless chemical treatment is prescribed in accordance with Council Directive 2000/29/EC for phytosanitary purposes by the competent authority of the Member State for all varieties of a given species in the area where the seed or seed potatoes are to be used. 1.4.2.3. Member States may delegate the responsibility for granting the authorisation referred to in paragraph 1.4.2.1(b) to another public administration under their supervision or to the control authorities or control bodies as defined in Article 3 paragraphs (33) and (34) 1.4.2.4. Authorisation to use seed or seed potatoes not obtained by the organic production method may only be granted in the following cases: (a) where no variety of the species which the user wants to obtain is registered in the computerised database established in each Member States for the listing of the varieties for which seed or seed potatoes obtained by the organic production method are available on its territory; (b) where no supplier, meaning an operator who markets seed or seed potatoes to other operators, is able to deliver the seed or seed potatoes before sowing or planting in situations where the user has ordered the seed or seed potatoes in reasonable time; (c) where the variety which the user wants to obtain is not registered in the computerised database established in each Member States for the listing of the varieties for which seed or seed potatoes obtained by the organic production method are available on its territory, and the user is able to demonstrate that none of the registered alternatives of the same species are appropriate and that the authorisation therefore is significant for his production; (d) where it is justified for use in research, test in small-scale field trials or for variety conservation purposes agreed by the competent authority of the Member State. 1.4.2.5. The authorisation shall be granted before the sowing of the crop. 1.4.2.6. The authorisation shall be granted only to individual users for one season at a time and the authority or body responsible for the authorisations shall register the quantities of seed or seed potatoes authorised. 1.4.2.7. By way of derogation from paragraph 1.4.2.6, the competent authority of the Member State may grant to all users a general authorisation: (a) for a given species when and in so far as the condition laid down in paragraph 1.4.2.4(a) is fulfilled; (b) for a given variety when and in so far as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1.4.2.4(c) are fulfilled. The authorisations referred to in the first subparagraph shall be clearly indicated in the computerised database established in each Member States for the listing of the varieties for which seed or seed potatoes obtained by the organic production method are available on its territory 1.4.2.8. Authorisation may only be granted during periods for which the database is updated in each Member State.

2015/06/25
Committee: ENVI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 1.3.3 – point c

(c) other forms of artificial reproduction, with the exception of gender selection, such as cloning and embryo transfer, shall not be used;

2015/06/25
Committee: ENVI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 1.4.2.1 – point b

(b) any non-organic animals which use the land concerned are derived from a production system equivalent to one of those provided for in Articles 28 and 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/201369 ; __________________ 69 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 487).deleted

2015/06/25
Committee: ENVI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 1.5.1.3

1.5.1.3. ~~The use of~~With regard to chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics for preventive treatment ~~shall be prohibit~~, only the products authorised for use in organic production pursuant to Article 19 shall be used.

2015/06/25
Committee: ENVI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 1.5.2.2

1.5.2.2. Disease shall be treated immediately to avoid suffering of the animal; chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products including antibiotics may be used where necessary and under strict conditions and under the responsibility of a veterinarian, when the use of phytotherapeutic, homeopathic and other products is inappropriate. In particular restrictions with respect to courses of treatment and withdrawal periods shall be defined. Allopathic veterinary medicinal products authorised for use in organic production pursuant to Article 19 can be used without consulting a veterinarian.

2015/06/25
Committee: ENVI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 1.7.12 (new)

1.7.12a. Nose-ringing of free-range sows shall be allowed in order to control rooting and reduce loss of vegetation in the farrowing enclosure.

2015/06/25
Committee: ENVI

2014/0100(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Ulrike MÜLLER, Jens ROHDE

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.1.1 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) 12 months in the case of bovines animals for meat production~~, and in any case at least three quarters of their lifetime~~;

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.3.2 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) at least 620 % of the feed shall come from the farm itself or in case this is not feasible, be produced in the same region in cooperation with other organic farms or feed operators;

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.3.3 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) exercise areas shall permit dunging and ~~rooting~~activity by porcine animals. For the purposes of ~~rooting~~activation, different ~~substrat~~facilities can be used.

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Ulrike MÜLLER, Jens ROHDE

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.4.2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Poultry shall either be reared until they reach a minimum age or else shall come from slow-growing poultry strains as defined by the Commission competent authority. Where slow-growing poultry strains are not used by the farmer the minimum age at slaughter shall be as follows:

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.4.3 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) at least 620 % of the feed shall come from the farm itself or in case this is not feasible, be produced in the same region in cooperation with other organic farms or feed operators;

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.4.4 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) poultry shall have access to an open air area for at least one third of their life, and permanently from when they are fully feathered. Open air areas for poultry shall be mainly covered with annual or perennial vegetation and be provided with protective facilities and permit fowl to have easy access to adequate numbers of drinking troughs;

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 2 – section 2 – part 2 – point 2.4 – point 2.4.4 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iv

(iv) the external boundary of the house, i.e. including a possible veranda, shall have exit/entry pop-holes of a size adequate for the birds, and those pop-holes shall have a combined length of at least 4 m per 100 m² area of the house available to the birds. Where a veranda is present, the internal pop-holes between the house and the veranda shall have a combined length of 21.5 m per 100 m² area of the house. Twenty- four hour access to the veranda must be allowed;

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.4.4 – paragraph 1 – point g

(g) buildings shall be emptied of livestock between each batch of poultry reared. The buildings and fittings shall be cleaned and disinfected during this time. In addition, when the rearing of each batch of poultry has been completed, runs shall be left empty during a period to be established by the Member States in order to allow vegetation to grow back. These requirements shall not apply where poultry are not reared in batches, are not kept in runs and are free to roam, throughout the day. Open air areas for poultry can be in continuous use provided that at least 50% of the area is covered with annual or perennial vegetation. A mixture of groups of trees and open spaces are allowed.

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.4.5. – paragraph 2

The minimum surface area indoors and outdoors and other characteristics of housing for birds of the species Gallus gallus shall be as follows: Breeders/ ~~Young stock~~ Pullets Fattening birds Capons Layers parents Age Breeding birds ~~Pullets Pullets 9-~~ Starter Finisher 22-150 days Laying ~~hens~~ ~~0-8 weeks 18 weeks 0-21 days 22 to 81 days~~ ~~days~~ ~~from 19~~ hens from 19 weeks In house 6 birds 2415 birds 15 birds 20 birds 10 birds with a 10 birds 6 birds stocking rate with a with a with a maximum of with a (birds per m2 maximum maximum maximum 21 kg maximum of usable area) of 21 kg of 21 kg of 21 kg liveweight/m² of 21 kg for fixed and liveweight/ liveweight/ liveweight/ liveweight/ mobile houses m² m² m² m² Perch space 18 (cm) Multi-layer 912 birds ~~36 birds 22 birds~~21 kg 21 kg Not normally applicable 912 birds systems ~~excluding~~ liveweight/ liveweight/ additional ~~veranda limits/m2 of area~~ m2 m2 limits/m2 of ground floor area (including veranda if 24h access) Flock size 3.000 including 10,000* ~~3,300~~ 10,000 10,000* 4,800 2,500 3,000 limits males Open-air run 4 1 41 1 1 4 4 4 stocking rates (m2/bird), provided that the limit of 170 kg of N/ha/year is not exceeded * sub-dividable to produce 3x3000 or 2x4800 batches

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.5.5 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the siting of the apiaries shall be such that, within a radius of 3 km from the apiary site, nectar and pollen sources consist essentially of organically produced crops or spontaneous vegetation or crops treated with low environmental impact methods equivalent to those as provided for in Articles 28 and 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 which cannot affect the qualification of beekeeping production as being organic. These requirements do not apply where flowering is not taking place, or the hives are dormant;Guidelines should be developed by the Commission expert group, EGTOP.

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Jens ROHDE

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – point 2.5.5 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) the hives and materials used in beekeeping shall be made basically of ~~natural~~ materials presenting no risk of contamination to the environment or the apiculture products;

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part III – point 4.1.3.3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

(f) Astaxanthin derived primarily from organic sources, such as organic crustacean shells may be used in the feed ration for salmon and trout within the limit of their physiological needs. If organic sources are not available natural sources of astaxanthin (such as Phaffia yeast) may be used.

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part III – point 4.1.4.2 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) the use of allopathic treatments shall be limited to two courses of treatment per year, with the exception of vaccinations, parasite treatments and compulsory eradication schemes. However, in the cases of a production cycle of less than a year a limit of one allopathic treatment applies. If the indicated limits for allopathic treatments are exceeded the aquaculture animals concerned shall not be sold as organic products;

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2014/0100(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part VI – point 1.3 – point b a (new)

(ba) The addition of up to 5% non- organic yeast extract or autolysate to the substrate (calculated in dry matter) is allowed for the production of organic yeast.

2015/06/26
Committee: AGRI

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Takes the view that~~, as under the current circumstances the Safe Harbour principl~~ if by the announced deadline there is no satisfactory response from the US authorities dto ~~not provide adequate protec~~the Commission's 13 recommendations for ~~EU citizens~~strengthened safeguards within the current Safe Harbour, these transfers should be carried out under other instruments, such as contractual clauses or BCRs setting out specific safeguards and protections pending the replacement of Safe Harbour by a new framework for transatlantic transfers which meets European privacy standards;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Calls on the Commission to present ~~measures providing for the immediate suspension of~~a proposal for a new framework for transatlantic transfers which meets European privacy standards to replace Commission Decision 520/2000, which declared the adequacy of the Safe Harbour privacy principles, and of the related FAQs issued by the US Department of Commerce;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Jens ROHDE, Nils TORVALDS, Axel VOSS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Calls on Member States’' competent authorities, namely the data protection authorities, to make use of their existing powers and immediately suspend data flows to any organisation that has wrongly or deceptively self- certified its adherence to the US Safe Harbour Principles and to require that such data flows are only carried out under other instruments, provided they contain the necessary safeguards and protections with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Calls on the Commission to present by June 2014 a comprehensive assessment of the US privacy framework covering commercial, law enforcement and intelligence activities in response to the fact that the EU and the US legal systems for protecting personal data are drifting apart and a strategy for convergence on the basis of high and enforceable privacy standards;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77

77. Points out that recent incidents clearly demonstrate the acute vulnerability of the EU, and in particular the EU institutions, national governments and parliaments, major European companies, European IT infrastructures and networks, to sophisticated attacks using complex software and malware; notes that these attacks require such financial and human resources that they are likely to originate from state entities acting on behalf of foreign governments or even from certain EU national governments that support them; in this context, regards the case of the hacking or tapping of the telecommunications company Belgacom as a worrying example of an attack against the EU’s IT capacity;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Jens ROHDE, Nils TORVALDS, Axel VOSS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78

78. Takes the view that the mass surveillance revelations that have initiated this crisis can be used as an opportunity for Europe to take the initiative and build up a~~n autonomous~~ strong IT key-resource capability for the mid term; calls on the Commission and the Member States to use public procurement as leverage to support such resource capability in the EU by making EUthe strongest possible international security and privacy standards a key requirement in the public procurement of IT goods and services;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Jens ROHDE, Nils TORVALDS, Axel VOSS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80

80. Calls on all the Members States, the Commission, the Council and the European Council to ~~address the EU’s dangerous lack of autonomy in terms of~~give the fullest support to development of European innovative and technological capability in IT tools, companies and providers (hardware, software, services and network), including for purposes of cybersecurity and encryption and cryptographic capabilities;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81

81. Calls on the Commission, standardisation bodies and ENISA to develop, by September 2014, ~~minimum~~ security and privacy standards which can set global benchmarks and guidelines for IT systems, networks and services, including cloud computing services, in order to better protect EU citizens’' personal data; believes that such standards should be set in an open and democratic process, not driven by a single country, entity or multinational company; takes the view that, while legitimate law enforcement and intelligence concerns need to be taken into account in order to support the fight against terrorism, they should not lead to a general undermining of the dependability of all IT systems;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84

84. Calls on the Commission, by January 2015 at the latest, to present an Action Plan to develop more EU in~~dependence~~novative and technological capability in the IT sector, including a more coherent approach to boosting European IT technological capabilities (including IT systems, equipment, services, cloud computing, encryption and anonymisation) and to the protection of critical IT infrastructure (including in terms of ownership and vulnerability);

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Jens ROHDE, Nils TORVALDS, Axel VOSS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85

85. Calls on the Commission, in the framework of the next Work Programme of the Horizon 2020 Programme, to assess whether more resources should be directed towards boosting European research, development, innovation and training in the field of IT technologies, in particular privacy-enhancing technologies and infrastructures, cryptology, secure computing, ~~open-sourc~~the best possible security solutions and the Information Society;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87

87. Deems it necessary for the EU to be supported by an EU IT Academy that brings together the best European and international experts in all related fields, tasked with providing all relevant EU Institutions and bodies with scientific advice on IT technologies, including security-related strategies; as a first step asks the Commission to set up an independent scientific expert panel;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 2

· the inclusion in tender procedures for new IT systems of best practice specific IT security/privacy requirements~~, including the possibility of a requirement for Open Source Software as a condition of purchase~~ from among the widest possible choice of software options;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 3

· the list of US companies under contract with the European Parliament in the IT and telecom fields, taking into account ~~revelations about NSA contracts with a company such as RSA, whose products the European Parliament is using to supposedly protect remote access to their data by its Members and staff~~any information that has come to light about their cooperation with intelligence agencies;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 4

· the reliability and resilience of ~~third-party commerci~~all software used by the EU institutions in their IT systems with regard to penetrations and intrusions by EU or third-country law enforcement and intelligence authorities;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 5

· the use ~~of more open-so~~and maintenance of the most securce systems ~~and fewer off-the-shelf commercial system~~based on relevant international standards, best practice security risk management principles and adherence to EU Network Information Security standards including on security breaches;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 10

· the option for use of cloud ~~storage~~computing and storage services by the EP, including what kind of data is stored on the cloud, how the content and access to it is protected and where the cloud is located, clarifying the applicable data protection legal regime;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 13

· an analysis of the benefits of using ~~the GNU Privacy Guard as~~ a default encryption standard for emails which would at the same time allow for the use of digital signatures;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Jens ROHDE, Nils TORVALDS, Axel VOSS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92

92. Calls on the Commission and the EEAS to take action at the international level, with the UN in particular, and in cooperation with interested partners ~~(such as Brazil), and~~ to implement an EU strategy for democratic governance of the internet in order to prevent undue influence over ICANN’s and IANA’s activities by any individual entity, company or country by ensuring appropriate representation of all interested parties in these bodies, while avoiding the facilitation of state control or censorship or the 'balkanisation' and fragmentation of the internet;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93

93. Calls for the overall architecture of the internet in terms of data flows and storage to be reconsidered, striving for more data minimisation and transparency and less centralised mass storage of raw data, as well as avoiding unnecessary routing of traffic through the territory of countries that do not meet basic standards on fundamental rights, data protection and privacEU to take the lead in shaping the architecture of the internet such as to facilitate global exchanges and interconnection while maximising citizens' freedom and data security;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 110

110. Calls on the Commission to present, in January 2015 at the latest, an EU strategy for democratic governance of the internet while avoiding the facilitation of state control or censorship or the 'balkanisation' and fragmentation of the internet;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112

112. Calls on the Member States to develop a coherent and strong strategy within the United Nations, supporting in particular the resolution on ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’ initiated by Brazil and Germany, as adopted by the third UN General Assembly Committee (Human Rights Committee) on 27 November 2013 but avoiding the facilitation of state control or censorship or the 'balkanisation' and fragmentation of the internet;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 3

Action 3: Suspend Safe Harbour ~~until a full review has been conducted and~~if by the announced deadline there is no satisfactory response from the US authorities to the Commission's 13 recommendations for strengthened safeguards which remedy current loopholes ~~are remedied~~, making sure that transfers of personal data for commercial purposes from the Union to the US can only take place in compliance with highest EU standards;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Jens ROHDE, Nils TORVALDS, Axel VOSS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 3 a (new)

Action 3a: The Commission to present a proposal for a new framework for transatlantic transfers which meets European privacy standards to replace Safe Harbour;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 6

Action 6: Develop a European strategy for ~~IT independence~~greater IT innovative and technological capability (at national and EU level);

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 7

Action 7: Develop the EU as a reference player for a democratic and neutral governance of the internet while avoiding the facilitation of state control or censorship or the 'balkanisation' and fragmentation of the internet;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

2013/2135(INI)

Fiona HALL, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Kent JOHANSSON, Corinne LEPAGE, Chris DAVIES, Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)

21c. Notes the importance of aligning the pace of investments in energy infrastructure with investments in RES and other energy sources; emphasises the crucial role of energy transmission in the 2030 framework;

2013/11/15
Committee: ENVI ITRE

2013/2135(INI)

Fiona HALL, Kent JOHANSSON, Corinne LEPAGE, Chris DAVIES, Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 d (new)

21d. Stresses that European support plays a significant role in facilitating the building of cross-border energy transmission infrastructure across the EU; encourages the Commission and Member States to facilitate such cross- border investments through political and financial support, as well as discussions on incentives and regulatory regimes; highlights the need to support coherent and efficient permit granting regimes for infrastructure investments across Europe;

2013/11/15
Committee: ENVI ITRE

2013/2135(INI)

Fiona HALL, Sir Graham WATSON, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Corinne LEPAGE, Kent JOHANSSON, Chris DAVIES, Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Notes that in order to ensure security of supply there must be enough ~~capacity to meet demand~~flexible balancing in ~~peak~~ periods ~~and in periods~~of peak demand and of (political or technological) ~~difficulties and that excess capacity or backup must therefore be ensured and maintained~~problems and that flexibility can be effectively provided by cross-border trading and interconnection, a more efficient use of existing excess-capacity and flexible power plant, and demand side management; points out the need for storage and more ~~grid~~ flexibility from the grid as a response to the ~~intermittence~~variability of some sources of RES; and in order to match variable supply with flexible demand;

2013/11/15
Committee: ENVI ITRE

2013/2135(INI)

Chris DAVIES, Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)

34a. Reminds the Commission that Parliament has called for legislation to require every Member State to produce a 2050 low-carbon strategy; believes that while such nationally-determined roadmaps shall not be legally binding they are essential in order to provide investors and officials with clarity regarding the long term direction of policy and the measures that will be necessary if the goals are to be realised; expects the Commission to propose how the burden will be shared between Member States to set a date for submission of such roadmaps for the purpose of review; calls on the Commission, in the case of any roadmaps that are deemed unrealistic and if the Member State is unwilling to provide appropriate clarification, to propose such additional measures as may be necessary to ensure that the Union's CO2 reduction objectives are credible;

2013/11/18
Committee: ENVI ITRE

2013/2135(INI)

Chris DAVIES, Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 b (new)

34b. Expects the Commission to propose legislation requiring each Member State to produce, within the context of their long term strategy and on the basis of a harmonised framework that shall be established by the Commission, a national action plan for the achievement by 2030 of CO2 emission reductions commensurate with the EU objective of securing an overall 40% domestic reduction; requires Member States to specify within such action plans their own national targets for improvements in energy efficiency and development of renewable energy; insists that the Commission assess such action plans for consistency with the achievement of the Union's internal energy market and calls on the Commission to make such provisions as may be necessary to ensure that the achievement of national targets shall be a legal requirement within Union law;

2013/11/18
Committee: ENVI ITRE

2013/2017(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists that the major EU infrastructure projects (such as Galileo, ITER and Copernicus) must be financed o~~utside~~ver and above the MFF ~~budget~~ceilings and insists that ~~no EU funds must be used to cover additional cost overruns or to cover the costs of the ITER~~the funding and successful implementation of other EU programmes should not be threatened by possible cost overruns of these large-scale projects;

2013/05/22
Committee: ITRE

2013/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Emphasises that workplace democratisation needs to be expanded and th~~at workers should have an individual right to training~~e importance of training of workers;

2013/08/13
Committee: ITRE

2013/2005(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Fiona HALL, Kent JOHANSSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Endorses the Commission's policy to look for cross-border solutions; stresses that before any regional or national measures are set, proper analysis should be conducted to confirm if there is a capacity problem and if there are no alternative solutions, and to verify that the measures proposed take into account cross-border effects;

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2013/2005(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Strongly supports the regulatory measures taken by EU and national authorities to encourage, improve and simplify the cross-border energy trade and to bridge the gap between energy systems in different Member States; by promoting transparent use of interconnectors and secure even stronger harmonisation of European TSOs and regulators

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2013/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Strongly supports the regulatory measures taken by EU and national authorities to encourage, improve and simplify the cross-border energy trade, including on intra-day and day-ahead markets, and to bridge the gap between energy systems in different Member States;

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2013/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Calls on the Commission to examine the adequacy and flexibility of national generation capacities in the short and long term, fully taking into account the potential contribution of such non- generation capacity as demand response, energy storage and interconnection, and to report on the impact of the applied national measures related to capacity assessment and development planning on the internal energy market, taking into account the cross-border aspects of this complementary market design policy;

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2013/2005(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Calls on the Commission to encourage further cooperation between the energy and information and communications technology (ICT) sectors, and to review existing instruments for financing energy- related innovations, in order to benefit all the consumers and to facilitate the deployment of smart grids in a user- friendly way; calls for cooperation in the development of smart grids at European, national and regional level and the development of European standards for smart grids;

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2013/2005(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Urges the Member States, and regional and local authorities, to promote and create financial incentives for investments in ICT solutions in smart grids and to aim for a prosumer market, taking into account the increasing need for flexibility, energy efficiency/savings and demand-side participation;

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2013/2005(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Fiona HALL, Kent JOHANSSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)

33a. Urges the Commission to develop and recommend a proper supplier centric retail market design to harmonize European retail markets thereby easing the administrative burden on consumers by letting the suppliers charge all levies directly on the electricity bill.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2013/0445(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) Regulation (EU) No …/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of … 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation for the period 2014-2020 (‘Horizon 2020 Framework Programme’)12 aims to achieve a greater impact of research and innovation efforts by combining EU and private-sector funds in public-private partnerships (PPPs) in areas where research and innovation can contribute to the Union's wider competitiveness goals ~~and help tackle societal challenges~~, enhance private investments in research and innovation, and help tackle societal challenges. The governance and functioning of those partnerships should be open, transparent, effective and efficient. The Union involvement in these partnerships can take the form of financial contributions to joint undertakings established on the basis of Article 187 of the Treaty. __________________ 12 OJ … [H2020 FP] OJ … [H2020 FP]

2014/02/21
Committee: ITRE

2013/0445(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) The Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking (hereinafter ‘S2R Joint Undertaking’) should be a PPP aimed at stimulating and better coordinating Union research and innovation investments in the rail sector with a view to accelerating and facilitating the transition towards a more integrated, user-friendly, efficient, sustainable and attractive EU railway market, in line with the business needs of the rail sector and with the general objective of achieving a Single European Railway Area. In particular, the S2R Joint Undertaking should contribute to specific objectives defined in the 2011 White Paper and in the Fourth Railway Package, including the improved efficiency of the rail sector for the benefit of the public purse; a considerable expansion or upgrading of the capacity of the rail network, so as to enable rail to compete effectively and take a significantly greater proportion of passenger and freight transport; an improvement in the quality of rail services by responding to the needs of rail passengers and freight forwarders; the removal of technical obstacles holding back the sector in terms of interoperability; and the reduction of negative externalities linked to railway transport. The progress of the S2R Joint Undertaking towards meeting these objectives should be measured against key performance indicators.

2014/02/21
Committee: ITRE

2013/0445(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) to contribute to the achievement of the Single European Railway Area, to a faster and cheaper transition to a more attractive, user-friendly (including for persons with reduced mobility), competitive, efficient and sustainable European rail system, ~~and~~ to a modal shift from road and air to rail, and to the development of a strong and competitive European rail industry sector, through a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach addressing the research and innovation needs of the rail system and its users. This approach shall cover rolling stock, infrastructure and traffic management for the market segments of freight and of long- distance, regional, local and urban passenger traffic, as well as intermodal links between rail and other modes, providing users with an integrated end-to- end solution for their rail travel and transport needs – from transaction support to en-route assistance.

2014/02/21
Committee: ITRE

2013/0445(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) to ~~act as~~play a central r~~eference point~~ole on rail-related research and innovation actions funded at Union level, ensuring coordination among projects and providing all stakeholders with relevant information.

2014/02/21
Committee: ITRE

2013/0445(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) to actively promote the participation and close involvement of all relevant stakeholders from the full rail value chain and from outside the traditional rail industry, in particular: manufacturers of railway equipment (both rolling stock and train control and traffic management systems) and their supply chain, infrastructure managers, railway operators (both passenger and freight), rail vehicle leasing companies, certifying agencies, professional staff associations, user associations (both passenger and freight), as well as the relevant scientific institutions or the relevant scientific community. The involvement of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC20 , shall be encouraged. __________________ 20 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)

2014/02/21
Committee: ITRE

2013/0445(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – part 1 – point 3 – introductory part

3. 'Innovation Programmes' or 'IPs' refer to the thematic areas around which the S2R Master Plan, referred to in paragraph 4, shall be structured. The IPs shall be selected for their capacity to best deliver performance benefits to one or more operating environments and reflect a railway system and customer-oriented approach. Notwithstanding a decision of the Governing Board to modify this structure, the S2R Master Plan should foresee the creation of at least the five following IPs:

2014/02/21
Committee: ITRE

2013/0445(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – part 2 – paragraph 1 – point j

(j) establish and develop close and long- term cooperation between the Union, the rail manufacturing industry and other stakeholders required to develop pioneering innovations and ensure a strong market uptake of innovative solutions, including organisations representing customers, the rail operating community and other rail private and public stakeholders, as well as actors outside the traditional rail sector;

2014/02/21
Committee: ITRE

2013/0445(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – part 2 – paragraph 1 – point k

(k) liaise with a broad range of stakeholders, including research organisations, universities, etc., and establish links with national and international research and innovation activities in the rail technical domain, in particular via the European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC) Technology Platform, as well as with those in other domains, such as the European Road Transport Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC), the Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE), the Waterborne European Technology Platform, the Future Manufacturing Technologies Platform (Manufuture), the Advanced Engineering Materials and Technologies Platform (EuMaT), and others;

2014/02/21
Committee: ITRE

2013/0445(NLE)

Josefa ANDRÉS BAREA, Philippe LAMBERTS, Catherine TRAUTMANN, Jens ROHDE, Kent JOHANSSON

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – part 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) at least one representative of Associated Members per Innovation Programme, referred to in clause 1(3). ~~These~~Associated Member fulfilling, as a single legal entity, the criteria listed in clause 1(2), and that contributes to meeting the objectives in article 2.2 points (a), (b) and (c), shall be represented in the Governing Board. The other representatives wishall be designated by the Governing Board of the S2R Joint Undertaking, with a view to ensuring balanced representation of actors from the entire rail value chain, as well as from outside the traditional rail sector.

2014/02/21
Committee: ITRE

2013/0445(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – part 8 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

(c b) (d) decide on the final composition of the Governing Board, in particular by selecting the representatives of Associated Members, other than those fulfilling the criteria in clause 1(2). The final selection should ensure a balanced participation of SMEs and of actors from the entire rail value chain, including from outside the traditional rail sector;

2014/02/21
Committee: ITRE

2013/0443(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) As regards the year 2020 and thereafter, the revised Gothenburg Protocol accepted by the Council in Decision [xxxx/xxxx/EU]20 sets out new emission reduction commitments, taking the year 2005 as a base year, for each party regarding SO2, NOx, NH3, NMVOC and fine particulate matter (PM2,5), promotes emission reductions of black carbon and calls for the collection and keeping of information on the adverse effects of air pollutant concentrations and depositions on human health and the environment and participation in the effects-oriented programmes under the LRTAP Convention. However, the ratification of the revised Gothenburg Protocol is still pending at the European Parliament, the Council and a number of Member States. __________________ 20 Council Decision 2013/xxxx/EU on the acceptance of the Amendment to the 1999 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long- Range Transboundary Air Pollution to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone (OJ L.. p,).

2015/04/10
Committee: AGRI

2013/0443(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

~~(6) The national emission ceiling regime established by Directive 2001/81/EC should therefore be revised in order to align it with the international commitments of the Union and the Member States.~~deleted

2015/04/10
Committee: AGRI

2013/0443(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)

(9a) Since 1990 ammonia emissions in the EU have been reduced by almost 30 %1a . When determining emission ceilings for NH3, previous efforts made by Member States to reduce NH3 in the agricultural sector should therefore be acknowledged. Furthermore, the emission ceilings on ammonia laid down in this Directive should not prescribe stricter abatement measures than what are considered as the Best Available Techniques conclusions on ammonia in the Reference Document for intensive poultry and pig rearing (BREF BAT) of the IED. Trade-offs with animal welfare should also be taken into account, such as free stables and pasturing which, though involving more emissions than closed stables, guarantee higher standards of animal welfare. _________________ 1aSee Eurostat leaflet about Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics from 2013, pages 115 to 121.

2015/04/10
Committee: AGRI

2013/0443(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point 12 a (new)

12a. "EU source-based air pollution policies" means Regulations or Directives which, irrespectively from the obligations set out in those Regulations or Directives, have as a goal, whether partially or not, to reduce the emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), non- methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), ammonia (NH3), particulate matter (PM2,5) and methane (CH4), by undertaking mitigation measures at the source, including at least, but not exclusively, the reductions of emissions accomplished by: - Regulation 94/63; - Regulation 97/68; - Regulation 98/70; - Regulation 1999/32; - Regulation 2009/126; - Regulation 2004/42; - Regulation 2007/46/EG, including Directive 15/2007, Directive 79/2009, Directive 595/2009 and Directive 661/2009; - Regulation 2010/75; - Directive 167/2013; - Directive 168/2013; - Regulation 2014/94;

2015/04/10
Committee: AGRI

2013/0443(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Where those reasons, according to the Member State involved, consist in the failure to achieve the emission reductions that are intended, or should have been achieved according to paragraphs 1 or 2, by implementing the EU source-based air pollution policy, the Commission shall, within one year after the submission of the report by the Member State, present a proposal to adapt the national emission reduction commitments set out in Annex II".

2015/04/10
Committee: AGRI

2013/0443(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex II – table b – column 2 – subcolumn 1

~~For any year from 2020 to 2029 […]~~deleted

2015/04/10
Committee: AGRI

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)

(9a) Whereas physical commodities present unique characteristics which must be taken into account in order to avoid undermining the integrity of commodity benchmarks and ensure the existing transparency in the commodity market. Accordingly Annex III of this regulation reflects the principles developed for commodities benchmarks by IOSCO, the International Energy Agency and the International Energy Forum specially designed to apply to all commodity benchmarks within this regulation.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

(26) The integrity and accuracy of benchmarks depends on the integrity and accuracy of the input data provided by contributors. It is essential that the ~~obligations of the contributors in respect of this input data are clearly specified,~~contributors can be relied on and are consistent with the benchmark administrator's controls and methodology. ~~It is therefore necessary that the b~~Benchmark administrators should therefore produces a code of conduct to specify these requirements and that ~~the contributors are bound by that code of conduct~~as far as is practicable, bearing in mind not all contributors are within the Union but may be needed for an accurate benchmark, the contributors are required to sign a binding code of conduct. Where a signature cannot be obtained, the continued provision of data from a contributor after communication of the code of conduct to them by the administrator shall constitute evidence of a legally binding agreement between the parties involved.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 a (new)

(37a) In the cases where this Regulation captures or potentially captures supervised entities and markets covered by Regulation 1227/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on wholesale energy market integrity and transparency (REMIT), the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) should be consulted by ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority) in order to draw on ACER's expertise in energy markets and to mitigate duel-regulation.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41

(41) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to respect for private and family, the protection of personal data, the right to freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the right to consumer protection, the right to an effective remedy, the right of defence. Therefore, this Regulation should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles. Accordingly, this Regulation should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles. Notably, when this Regulation refers to rules governing the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression in other media and the rules or codes governing the journalist professions, consideration should be given to these freedoms as they are guaranteed in the Union and in the Member States and as recognised under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and other relevant provisions.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the administrator shall have robust governance arrangements, which include a clear organisational structure with well defined, transparent and consistent roles and responsibilities for all persons involved in the provision of a benchmark. The administrator shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the provision of a benchmark is not affected by any existing or potential conflict of interest and that, where any discretion or judgement in the benchmark process is required, it is independently and honestly exercised (‘Governance and conflicts of interest’);deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a – subparagraph 2

The administrator shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the provision of a benchmark is not affected by any existing or potential conflict of interest and that, where any discretion or judgement in the benchmark process is required, it is independently and honestly exercised (‘Governance and conflicts of interest’);deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) the administrator shall establish an oversight function to provide oversight of all aspects of the provision of its benchmarks (‘Oversight’);~~deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c

~~(c) the administrator shall have a control framework that ensures that the benchmark is provided and published or made available in accordance with this Regulation (‘Controls’);~~deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) the administrator shall have an accountability framework covering record keeping, auditing and review, and complaints process, that provides evidence of compliance with the requirements of this Regulation (‘Accountability’).deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1

~~The following governance requirements shall apply to the administrator:~~ Administrators of the following qualifying benchmark categories shall be subject to the requirements of this regulation: a) administrators of critical benchmarks; b) administrators of broadly used commodity benchmarks, as defined and updated by ESMA after close consultation with ACER; c) administrators of major benchmarks; d) administrators of exclusively licensed benchmarks as defined and updated by ESMA; e) administrators of an IBOR, Overnight Index Swap, Overnight Index Rates or other benchmark that the competent authority deems a substitute or comparable to those benchmarks and which are widely used; f) administrators of a benchmark with relatively few submitters and which the competent authority considers vulnerable to manipulation; g) benchmarks that the competent authority has investigated and concluded by way of a reasoned decision requires supervision due to its vulnerability; h) substantial numbers of benchmarks which the competent authority or ESMA considers collectively have significant single market impact; (i) administrators of benchmarks used as the standard measure of the performance of the relevant assets or class or group of assets which is not produced by an arm's length third party administrator where the competent authority deems it to have high levels of conflicts of interest. ESMA shall provide guidelines for competent authorities concerning application of the criteria in (b), to (i) and shall provide regulatory technical standards for circumstances when requirements in (a) to (i) can be phased, waived or any provisions of this Regulation dis-applied for reasons of proportionality or duplication of supervisory requirements or existing governance controls. This shall also include lists of exempted types of institutions which shall include identification of the corresponding governance controls... In establishing guidelines and regulatory technical standards, ESMA shall take into account: (i) the exemptions normally provided to Members of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), Central banks of third countries, National statistic authorities of member states and National statistical authorities of third countries; (ii) whether to exempt, wholly or partly, regulated markets, or, after close consultation with ACER, any entities regulated under REMIT; (iii) whether the provisions as specified in Annex III should be the only part of this Regulation applied to price reporting agencies; (iv) where there should be proportionality of application, including a phasing-in of the application of the Regulation; (v) how the regulatory framework interacts with third counties and international trade.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2

2. Where outsourcing takes place, an administrator shall ensure that the outsourcing requirements set out in Section B of Annex 1 or Annex III as applicable are satisfied.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. An administrator shall comply with the requirements concerning input data and methodology set out in Section C of Annex I or Annex III as applicable.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1

1. The administrators of benchmarks under Article 5 shall ensure that there are adequate systems and effective controls designed to ensure the integrity of the input data for the purpose of paragraph 2.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. The code of conduct shall be signed by the administrator and the contributors and ~~shall be legally binding on all parties to it~~insofar as practicable with regard to the nature and location of the contributor shall be legally binding on all parties to it. Where a signature cannot be obtained, the continued provision of data from a contributor after communication of the code of conduct to them by the administrator shall constitute evidence of a legally binding agreement between the parties involved.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

The Commission shall take into account the different characteristics of benchmarks and contributors, notably in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether the contributors are voluntary, the risks of input data being manipulated and international convergence of supervisory practices in relation to benchmarks. and the proportionality of this Regulation. ESMA shall provide guidelines, after close consultation with ACER, with regard to applicability of legally binding codes of conduct in particular with regard to non-regulated entities and price reporting agencies within the EU.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) The supervised contributor shall ensure that the provision of input data is not affected by any existing or potential conflict of interest and that, where any discretion is required, it is independently and honestly exercised based on relevant information in accordance with the code of conduct where applicable (‘Conflicts of interest’).

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) The supervised contributor shall have a control framework that ensures the integrity, accuracy and reliability of the input data and that the input data is provided in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation and the code of conduct where applicable (‘Adequate controls’).

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2

2. ~~In addition to the requirements of the Title II,~~For commodity benchmarks only the specific requirements set out in Annex III shall apply ~~to commodity benchmarks~~.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 39 to specify, or adjust, in light of market and technological developments and international developments, the following elements of Annex~~es II and I~~ II:

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point j

~~(j) The criteria and procedures for developing the benchmark (Annex III point 1 a)~~deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point k

~~(k) The elements to be included in the methodology and the description of the methodology (Annex III point 1 and 2)~~deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point l

~~(l) The requirements of the administrator regarding the quality and the integrity of the benchmark calculation and the content of the description attached to each calculation (Annex III point 5 and 6)~~deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 a (new)

Article 15 a Disclosure or dissemination of information in the media Where information is disclosed or disseminated and where recommendations are produced or disseminated for the purpose of journalism, such disclosure or dissemination of information shall be assessed taking into account the rules governing the freedom of expression, the freedom and pluralism of the media and the rules or codes governing the journalist profession, unless: (a) the persons concerned or persons closely associated with them derive, directly or indirectly, an advantage or profits from the disclosure or the dissemination of the information in question; or (b) the disclosure or the dissemination is made with the intention of misleading the market as to the supply of, demand for, or price of financial instruments.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1

1. An administrator shall publish the input data or the methodology used to determine the benchmark ~~immediately after publication~~at appropriate intervals proportionate to the sectoral importance of the benchmark except where publication wcould have serious adverse consequences for the contributors or adversely affect the reliability or integrity of the benchmark. ~~In such cases publication may be delayed for a period that significantly diminishes these consequences. Any p~~Personal data included in input data shall not be published without consent.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Benchmarks provided by an administrator established in a third country may be used by supervised entities in the Union ~~provided that the following conditions are complied with:~~ unless they would have fallen by analogy into the qualifying benchmark category in Article 5.1. Benchmarks that would fall by analogy in the qualifying benchmark categories may be used provided that the legal framework, supervisory practice, or rules of the producer or administrator of the benchmark in that third country follow IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks or any subsequently agreed international standards for benchmarks; the supervised entity shall notify its competent authority and ESMA of the actual or prospective benchmarks that it uses and the basis on which it relies to demonstrate compliance with IOSCO or international standards for benchmarks. Administrators of third country benchmarks may submit demonstration of compliance with IOSCO principles directly to ESMA, which may then be referenced by supervised entities ESMA shall maintain a register of third countries and benchmark providers that it considers can be relied upon as a basis for compliance with international standards without further evidence. ESMA shall update this list using its own information and in consideration of evidence submitted by supervised entities or received from third country administrators, national competent authorities or ACER. In the event of dispute between competent authorities of Member States concerning the use of a third country benchmark by a supervised entity that has extensive cross border use, ESMA may conduct binding mediation. Six months before the entry into force of this regulation ESMA shall produce a report on the implementation of IOSCO principles. The procedure under this paragraph shall be reviewed after five years in the light of international regulatory convergence and in particular whether to extend the duration of its application.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the Commission has adopted an equivalence decision in accordance with paragraph 2, recognising the legal framework and supervisory practice of that third country as equivalent to the requirements of this Regulation;deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the administrator has notified ESMA of its consent that its actual or prospective benchmarks may be used by supervised entities in the Union, the list of the benchmarks which may be used in the Union and the competent authority responsible for its supervision in the third country;deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d

~~(d) the administrator is duly registered under Article 21; an~~deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e

~~(e) the cooperation arrangements referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article are operational.~~deleted

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

For the exercise of those powers, competent authorities shall have in place adequate and effective safeguards in regard to the right of defence, confidentiality and fundamental rights.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 4

4. The use of a benchmark shall be permitted by the relevant competent authority of the Member State where the administrator is located until ~~such time as the benchmark references~~the termination of the financial instruments and financial contracts ~~worth no more than 5% by value of the~~that referenced this benchmark at the time of entry into force of this Regulation. No new financial instruments ~~and~~or financial contracts tshatll reference~~d this~~ such an existing benchmark atfter the ~~time of entry into force of this Regulation. No financial instruments or financial contracts shall reference such an existing benchmark after the entry into application of this Regulation.~~ entry into application of this Regulation. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, after close consultation with ACER in the case of point (c), to specify: a) information to be provided by an administrator in the application for authorisation in order to reasonably demonstrate that frustration, force majeure or breach of a contract could happen; b) the circumstances in which frustration, force majeure and breach of the terms of any financial contract are regarded to occur in accordance with this Regulation; c) calibrated and proportional transitional procedures for critical and sectoral benchmarks in particular for interest- rates and commodities. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 and subject to a third month extension [as provided for in Omnibus 2]

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – point 1 – point e

(e) criteria that address the assessment periods where the submitted data fall below the methodology's recommended transaction data threshold or the requisite administrator's quality standards, including any alternative methods of assessment including theoretical estimation models. The criteria shall explain the procedures used where no transaction data exists;

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – point 6 – introductory part

6. An administrator shall describe and publish with each calculation, to the extent ~~possi~~reasonable without ~~prejudicing due publication of the benchmark~~delaying a price reporting deadline:

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – point 12

12. An administrator shall ensure that its other business operations have in place appropriate procedures and mechanisms designed to minimise the likelihood that conflicts of interest will affect the integrity of benchmark calculations.

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – point 13 – introductory part

13. An administrator shall ensure it has appropriate segregated reporting lines amongst its managers, assessors and other employees and from the managers to the administrator's most senior level management and its board to ensure:

2013/12/18
Committee: ITRE

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)

(9 a) Physical commodities markets present unique characteristics which must be taken into account in order to avoid undermining the integrity of commodity benchmarks and negatively impacting commodity market transparency, European security of supply, competitiveness and the interests of consumers. Accordingly, certain articles in this Regulation are not appropriate to apply to commodity benchmarks. Annex III of this Regulation, which closely reflects principles developed for commodities benchmarks by IOSCO in collaboration with the International Energy Agency and the International Energy Forum among others, is specifically designed to apply to all commodity benchmarks which fall within the scope of this Regulation and sets out which of the requirements in the Regulation will not apply to commodity benchmarks.

2013/12/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) Any discretion that can be exercised in providing input data creates an opportunity to manipulate a benchmark. Where the input data is transaction based data, there is less discretion and therefore the opportunity to manipulate the data is reduced. As a general rule benchmark administrators should therefore use actual transaction input data where possible but other data may be used in those cases where the transaction data is insufficient to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the benchmark. In cases where transaction data is not sufficiently available, the administrator should retain flexibility to use the inputs it believes are appropriate under its methodology to ensure the quality and integrity of the benchmark.

2013/12/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

(26) The integrity and accuracy of benchmarks depends on the integrity and accuracy of the input data provided by contributors. It is essential that the ~~obligations of the contributors in respect of this input data are clearly specified,~~contributors can be relied on and are consistent with the benchmark administrator's controls and methodology. It is therefore necessary that the benchmark administrator produces a code of conduct to specify these requirements and that ~~the contributors are bound by that code of conduct.~~ as far as is practicable, bearing in mind not all contributors are within the EU but may be needed for an accurate benchmark, the contributors are bound by that code of conduct. Where it becomes evident that a contributor does not comply with the code of conduct administrators should take remedial action which may include, but not be limited to, refusing submissions from that contributor.

2013/12/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34

(34) This Regulation should take into account the Principles for financial benchmarks issued by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) (hereinafter referred to as ‘'IOSCO Principles’') on the 17 July 2013 which serve as a global standard for regulatory requirements for benchmarks. It is necessary for investor protection that an assessment that the supervisions and regulation ~~in any third country are equivalent to Union supervision and regulation of benchmarks takes place before any benchmark provided from that third country can be used in the Un~~, which may include reliance on administrator rules, in any third country follows IOSCO standards. Given that many third country benchmarks are in use for international trade involving EU corporates and institutions, it is important that such international trade is not disrupted by premature or inappropriate application of regulation.

2013/12/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. An administrator shall comply with the requirements concerning input data and methodology set out in Section C of Annex I or Annex III as applicable.

2013/12/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – paragraph 1

This Annex is the only Annex in this Regulation which applies to ‘commodity benchmarks’ which means a benchmark where the underlying asset for the purposes of Article 3(1)(c) is a commodity within the meaning of point (2) of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006~~28 . __________________ 28~~[1] which fall within this Regulation. Article 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 8(2), 9(2) and 15 shall not apply. Although this Annex articulates uniform requirements, it does not contemplate a ‘one-size-fits-all’ method of implementation to achieve compliance. For example, differences in methodological approach or in the specific measures implemented by administrators to obtain bona fide data and other information are consistent with these provisions, as long as the approaches and measures meet the objectives set out in this Annex. Nothing in this Annex is intended to restrict an administrator from adopting its own unique methodologies or from adapting their methodologies to changing market conditions. The various measures set out in this Annex shall be implemented in accordance with a ‘reasonableness’ standard. (1a)(new) An administrator should formalise, document, and make public any methodology that it uses for a benchmark. (1b)(new) A methodology should aim to achieve benchmarks which are reliable indicators of market value, free from distortion and representative of the particular market to which they relate. __________________ 28 OJ L 241, 2.9.2006, p. 1. OJ L 241, 2.9.2006, p. 1.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 1 – introductory part

1. ~~For the purposes of Articles 8, 9 and 16, the methodology and the description of the methodology in the benchmark statement shall include the following elements~~The methodology shall contain and describe:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 1 – point c

(c) the relative importance that generally shall be assigned to each criterion used in benchmark calculation, in particular the type of market data used, and the type of criterion used to guide judgement so as to ensure the quality and integrity of the benchmark calculation. This is not intended to restrict the specific application of the relevant methodology but is to ensure the quality and integrity of the benchmark;

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 1 – point e

(e) criteria that address the assessment periods where the submitted data fall below the methodology’s recommended transaction data threshold or the requisite administrator’s quality standards, including any alternative methods of assessment including theoretical estimation models. Those criteria should explain the procedures used where no transaction data exists;

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 3 – introductory part

3. ~~In accordance with Article 7(1)(e) a~~An administrator shall adopt and make public to users’ explicit procedures and the rationale of any proposed material change in its methodology. Those procedures shall be consistent with the overriding objective that an administrator must seek to ensure the continued integrity of its benchmark calculations and implement changes for good order of the particular market to which such changes relate. Such procedures shall provide:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 4 a (new)

4a. An administrator shall establish and maintain a permanent and effective oversight function, which operates independently, to review and approve procedures for cessation of the benchmark, including any consultation about a cessation.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 5 – introductory part

5. ~~In accordance with Article 8 and 9, a~~An administrator shall:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 5 – point b – introductory part

(b) ~~give~~utilise input data, giving priority to input data in the following order, where consistent with the administrator’s ~~methodologies~~approach to ensuring the quality and integrity of a benchmark:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 5 – point b – paragraph 1

~~If concluded and report~~Nothing in this provision is intended to restrict an administrator’s flexibility in using input data consistent with its methodologies. However, if concluded transactions are not given priority, the reasons should be explained as called for in point 6(b).

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 5 – point d

(d) establish and employ procedures to identify anomalous ~~or suspicious~~(i.e. in the context of an administrator’s methodology) transaction data and keep records of decisions to exclude transaction data from the administrator’s benchmark calculation process;

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 5 – point f

(f) employ a system of appropriate measures so to enassure ~~that~~, to the extent possible, contributors comply with the administrator’s quality and integrity standards for market data.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 6 – introductory part

6. An administrator shall describe and publish ~~with each calculation~~regularly with each benchmark, to the extent ~~possi~~reasonable without prejudicing due publication of the benchmark:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 6 – point a

(a) a concise explanation, sufficient to facilitate a benchmark subscriber’s or competent authority’s ability to understand how the calculation was developed, including, at a minimum, the size and liquidity of the physical market being assessed (~~such as~~meaning the number and volume of transactions submitted), the range and average volume and range and average of price, and indicative percentages of each type of market data that have been considered in a calculation; terms referring to the pricing methodology shall be included such as ‘transaction-based’, ‘spread-based’ or ‘interpolated or extrapolated’;

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 6 – point b

(b) a concise explanation of the extent to which, and the basis upon which, judgment ~~including the~~(meaning exclusions of data which otherwise conformed to the requirements of the relevant methodology for that calculation, basing prices on spreads or interpolation, extrapolation, or weighting bids or offers higher than concluded transactions), if any, was used in any calculation.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 7 – introductory part

7. ~~In accordance with Article 5, a~~An administrator shall:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 7 a (new)

7a. Code of Conduct for contributors In accordance with Article 9(1), an administrator shall adopt a code of conduct which shall: (a) specify the responsibilities of contributors with respect to the input data provided to administrators (b) encourage the provision of input data that is consistent with the administrator’s approach to ensuring the quality and integrity of a benchmark (c) provide guidance as to who may contribute input data to the administrator (d) encourage contributors to provide all relevant input data (e) encourage contributors to establish: (i) procedures for submitting input data; (ii) policies preventing the misuse of discretion by the contributor in providing input data; (iii) record keeping policies of the contributors; (iv) conflict management processes (f) encourage contributors to comply with all applicable laws.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 8 – introductory part

8. ~~In accordance with Article 5, a~~An administrator shall:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 8 – point b

(b) maintain continuity and succession planning in respect of its assessors in order to seek to ensure that calculations are made consistently and by employees who possess the relevant levels of expertise;

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 8 – point c

(c) institute internal control procedures designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of calculations. At a minimum, such internal controls and procedures shall require (a) the on-going supervision of assessors to seek to ensure that the methodology was properly applied; and (b) procedures for internal sign-off by a supervisor prior to releasing benchmarks for dissemination to the market.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 9 – introductory part

9. ~~In accordance with Article 5, a~~An administrator shall have rules and procedures in place to document contemporaneously relevant information, including:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 10

10. ~~In accordance with Article 5, a~~An administrator shall have rules and procedures in place to ensure that an audit trail of relevant information is retained for at least five years in order to document the construction of its calculations.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 11 – introductory part

11. ~~In accordance with Article 5, an~~ An administrator’s conflicts of interest policies and procedures shall be designed to:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 12

12. An administrator shall ensure that its other business operations have in place appropriate procedures and mechanisms designed to minimise the likelihood that conflicts of interest will affect the integrity of benchmark calculations.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 13 – introductory part

13. An administrator shall ensure it has appropriate segregated reporting lines amongst its managers, assessors and other employees and from the managers to the administrator’s most senior level management and its board (if any), designed to ensure:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 14

14. An administrator shall disclose to its ustakeholders as soon as it becomes aware of a conflict of interest arising from the ownership of the administrator. An administrator shall put in place policies and procedures to specifically mitigate conflicts due to the administrator’s ownership or control, or due to other interests in its group or as a result of other persons that may exercise influence or control over the administrator in relation to setting the benchmark.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 15 – introductory part

15. ~~In accordance with Article 5, a~~An administrator shall have in place and publish written procedures for receiving, investigating and retaining records concerning complaints made about an administrator’s calculation process. Such complaint mechanisms shall ensure that:

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 16 a (new)

16a. An administrator shall establish and maintain a permanent and effective oversight function which operates independently and which shall assess internal and external audits or reviews, and monitor the implementation of identified actions.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 16 b (new)

16b. An administrator shall appoint an internal function, with the necessary capability to review and report on the administrator’s adherence to the benchmark methodology and this Regulation.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 16 c (new)

16c. Upon the request of the relevant competent authority the administrator shall provide or publish details of the reviews in point 17 or audits under point 18.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 16 d (new)

16d. Oversight Functions 1. The oversight function shall be one of the following: (a) where the administrator is owned or controlled by contributors or users, a separate board or committee, whose composition ensures its independence and the absence of conflicts of interest. Where the administrator is owned or controlled by contributors, a majority of the committee should not be contributors. Where the administrator is owned or controlled by users, a majority of the committee should not be users; (b) where the administrator is not owned or controlled by its contributors or users, an internal board or committee. The members of the internal board or committee shall not be involved in the provision of any benchmark they oversee; (c) where the administrator is able to demonstrate that in view of the nature, scale and complexity of its provision of the benchmark, and the risk and impact of the benchmark, the requirements under points (a) and (b) are not proportionate, a natural person may provide the function of oversight officer. The oversight officer must not be involved in the provision of any benchmark they oversee. (d) The oversight function may exercise oversight of more than one benchmark provided by an administrator provided that it otherwise complies with the other requirements of this section.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3 – point 16 e (new)

16e. Outsourcing Requirements 1. Where outsourcing takes place, an administrator shall ensure that the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the service provider shall have the ability, capacity, and any authorisation required by law to perform the outsourced functions, services or activities reliably and professionally; (b) the administrator shall be take appropriate action if it appears that the service provider may not be carrying out the functions effectively and in compliance with applicable laws and regulatory requirements; (c) the administrator shall retain the necessary expertise to supervise the outsourced functions effectively and to manage the risks associated with the outsourcing; (d) the service provider shall disclose to the administrator any development that may have a material impact on its ability to carry out the outsourced functions effectively and in compliance with applicable laws and regulatory requirements; (e) the service provider shall co-operate with the relevant competent authority in connection with the outsourced activities, and the administrator and the relevant competent authority shall have effective access to data related to the outsourced activities, as well as to the business premises of the service provider, and the relevant competent authority shall be able to exercise these rights of access; (f) the administrator shall be able to terminate the arrangements where necessary.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0309(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75 a (new)

(75a) While the Roaming III Regulation with its structural measures will inject greater competition into the market it is not expected of its own to create a situation where customers can confidently replicate their consumption behaviour in their home Member State when travelling abroad and thereby to end roaming surcharges overall in Europe. Article 37, therefore, builds on the Roaming Regulation, providing incentives to operators to provide roaming at domestic price levels. The proposal modifies the wholesale roaming caps entering into force on 1 July 2014 and introduces a further reduction of the wholesale roaming caps on 1 July 2015 in such a manner as to enable all domestic providers to internalise the wholesale roaming costs and to gradually introduce roaming services at domestic price levels from 1 July 2014 The proposed regime is designed to induce the pass-on of reduced wholesale roaming charges to consumers through the provision of roaming services at domestic price levels, under conditions which ensure that roaming throughout the Union is covered and that consumers throughout the Union benefit in due course from such offers. At the same time, the proposal provides the necessary balance to allow operators to adjust their retail offers and to gradually ensure all of their customer base benefits from them. Without the proposed reduction of wholesale roaming charges it is unrealistic to imagine that an operator alone would be able to provide roaming at domestic price levels throughout the whole Union in the envisaged time frame.

2014/01/17
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a decision
Recital 7

(7) The Eurostars-2 Programme (hereinafter ‘Eurostars-2’), aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy, the related Flagship initiative ‘Innovation Union’25 and ‘A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth’26 will aim at supporting research performing SMEs by co-financing their market oriented research projects in any field. As such, and in combination with the activities under the ‘Leading and Enabling Technology’ objective set out in the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, it will contribute to the goals of the Industrial Leadership part of that programme to speed-up development of the technologies and innovations that will underpin tomorrow's businesses and help innovative European SMEs to grow into world- leading companies. As part of the improvements from the previous Eurostars programme, Eurostars-2 should head towards shorter time to grant, stronger integration and lean, transparent and more efficient administration to the ultimate benefit of research performing SMEs. ~~__________________ 25 COM(2010) 546 final of 6 October 2010. 26~~To keep the bottom up nature and the business-driven agenda with its main focus on market potential from the previous Eurostars programme is key to the success of Eurostars-2. __________________ 25 COM(2010) 546 final of 6 October 2010. 26 COM(2012) 392 final of 17 July 2012. COM(2012) 392 final of 17 July 2012.

2013/12/06
Committee: ITRE

2013/0232(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – point 2

(2) ‘research performing SME’ is an SME which reinvests at least 10% of its turnover to research and development activities or dedicates at least 10% of its full-time equivalents to research and development activities, or either has at least 5 full-time equivalents (for SME with up to 100 full- time equivalents) or 10 full-time equivalents (for SME with at least 100 full-time equivalents).

2013/12/06
Committee: ITRE

2013/0232(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Any EUREKA Member or Associated EUREKA country that is not associated to Horizon 2020 may be partner to Eurostars-2 provided it fulfils the condition set out in point (c) of Article 6(1). Those EUREKA Members or Associated countries that fulfil these conditions shall be regarded as partner states for the purposes of this Decision. Those partner states shall however not be eligible for the Union's financial contribution under Eurostars-2.

2013/12/06
Committee: ITRE

2013/0232(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Without exceeding the maximum amount set out in paragraph 1, the Union's contribution shall be ~~equal to one third~~up to half of the contributions of the participating states referred to in Article 7 (1)(a). It shall cover ~~administrative and operational~~operational costs, including the costs of the evaluation of proposals and administrative costs.

2013/12/06
Committee: ITRE

2013/0232(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 3

3. A maximum of 24% of the Union's financial contribution may be used to contribute to the administrative costs of Eurostars-2. Participating states shall cover ~~any other~~the national administrative costs necessary for the implementation of Eurostars-2.

2013/12/06
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) The international dimension of Copernicus is of particular relevance in the exchange of data and information, as well as in access to observation infra-structure. Such an exchange system, when based on level playing field data sharing principles, is more cost- efficient than data-buy schemes and strengthens the global dimension of the programme.

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 - point b a (new)

(ba) fostering the development of a strong and competitive European space industry and maximising opportunities for European enterprises to develop and provide innovative Earth observation systems and services;

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 - point b b (new)

(bb) ensuring autonomous access to environmental knowledge and key technologies for Earth observation and geoinformation services, thus enabling Europe with independent decision-making and action;

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3

3. For the purpose of paragraph 2, the Copernicus user communities are defined as those comprising the European national, regional or local bodies entrusted with the definition, implementation, enforcement or monitoring of a public service or policy in areas referred to in point (1) of Article 4; universities and other research institutions; commercial and private users; any other third party.

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b – indent 1

– identification of observation gaps and the specification of new space missions on the basis of user requirements and existing or planned space infrastructure.

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b – indent 2

– developments aiming at modernising and complementing the Copernicus space component, including design and procurement of new elements of the space infrastructure; for entry into service after 2025.

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission shall coordinate the contributions of Member States aiming at the operational delivery of services and the long-term availability of the data from public and private observation infrastructures needed to operate ~~the service~~existing and future services by establishing and executing a multi-year procurement plan assigning to each of the various resolution classes a firm share of the overall allocated budget for Contributing Missions and maintaining a competitive environment in each class.

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 a (new)

Article 11a Role of the European Space Agency 1. In accordance with point (c) of Article 58 (1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, the Commission shall conclude a delegation agreement with ESA laying down the general conditions for tasks to be entrusted by the Commission to ESA, as regards: (a) the design, development and procurement of the Copernicus system space component; (b) the definition of the system architecture of the space component on the basis of user requirements; (c) the management of the funds entrusted; (d) the monitoring and control procedures. (e) organization of a procurement process of the operations of the dedicated missions to a suitable entity, with the exception of missions operated by Eumetsat. In accordance with Article 60 of the Financial Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012, when it concerns development of the Copernicus space component, ESA shall act as contracting authority with the capacity to take decisions regarding the implementation and coordination of the procurement tasks delegated to the agency. Such delegation agreement shall be referred to the Copernicus Committee for consultation and communicated to the European Parliament. ESA shall provide the Commission with systematic information on plans, costs and schedules, indicating corrective action to be taken in the event of a discrepancy between planned budgets, performance and timetable.

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 a (new)

Article 14a Review of the data policy No later than 30 June 2016 the Commission shall in consultation with all relevant stakeholders conduct a review of the impact of this data policy on the European data and services market. If appropriate, the review may lead to a revision of the data policy.

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission may be assisted by representatives of public and private end users, independent experts, in particular on security issues, by representatives of industry and by representatives of the relevant national agencies, in particular national/regional space agencies or their associations, to provide it with the necessary technical and scientific expertise and user feedback.

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0164(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1

1. By 30 June 20186 at the latest, an evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives of all the tasks financed by the Copernicus programme at the level of their results and impacts, their European added value and on the efficiency of the use of resources. In particular, the evaluation shall address the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures to the objectives described in Articles 2 and 3.

2013/10/24
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Title 1

Proposal for a ~~REGULATION~~DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (Text with EEA relevance)

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) This ~~Regulation~~Directive aims at providing some minimum rights and obligations applicable across the Union in order to facilitate the rollout of high-speed electronic communications networks and cross-sector coordination. While ensuring a minimum level playing field, this should be without prejudice to existing best practices and measures adopted at national and local level entailing more detailed provisions and conditions as well as additional measures complementing those rights and obligations, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) In light of the lex specialis principle, when more specific regulatory measures in conformity with EU law apply, these should prevail over the minimum rights and obligations provided for in this ~~Regulation~~Directive. Therefore this ~~Regulation~~Directive should be without prejudice to EU law and in particular to any specific regulatory measure, including the imposition of remedies on undertakings having significant market power, applied in accordance with the Union regulatory framework for electronic communications (Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive)32 , Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive)33 , Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive)34 , Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive)35 and Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services36 ). __________________ 32 OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33. 33 OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 21. 34 OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 7. 35 OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51. 36 OJ L 249, 17.9.2002, p. 21.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) It can be significantly more efficient for electronic communications network operators, in particular new entrants, to re- use existing physical infrastructures, including those of other utilities, in order to roll-out electronic communications networks, in particular in areas where no suitable electronic communications network is available or where it may not be economically feasible to build-up a new physical infrastructure. Moreover, synergies across sectors may significantly reduce the need for civil works due to the deployment of electronic communications networks and therefore also the social and environmental costs linked to them, such as pollution, nuisances and traffic congestion. Therefore this ~~Regulation~~Directive should be applicable not only to electronic communications network providers but to any owner or holder of rights to use extensive and ubiquitous physical infrastructures suitable to host electronic communications network elements, such as physical networks for the provision of electricity, gas, water and sewage, heating and transport services.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) While this ~~Regulation~~Directive should be also without prejudice to any specific safeguard needed to ensure the security and integrity of the networks as well as to ensure that the main service provided by the network operator is not affected, general rules in national legislation prohibiting network operators to negotiate access to physical infrastructures by electronic communications network providers could prevent the establishment of a market for access to physical infrastructures and should therefore be abolished. At the same time, the measures provided in this ~~Regulation~~Directive are without prejudice to the possibility of the Member States to render the provision of infrastructure access by utilities operators more attractive by excluding revenues stemming from this service from the basis for the calculation of end-users tariffs for their main activity or activities, in accordance with applicable EU law.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) A network operator may refuse access to specific physical infrastructures due to objective reasons. In particular, a physical infrastructure may not be technically suitable in view of specific circumstances concerning infrastructures for which access has been requested, including lack of available space. Similarly, in specific circumstances, sharing the infrastructure may jeopardise network integrity and security or may endanger the provision of services that are primarily provided over the same infrastructure. Moreover, when the network operator already provides wholesale physical network infrastructure access that would meet the needs of the access seeker, access to the underlying physical infrastructure may have an adverse economic impact on its business model and incentives to invest while possibly entailing an inefficient duplication of network elements. At the same time in the case of physical infrastructure access obligations imposed pursuant to the Union regulatory framework for electronic communications, such as those on undertakings having significant market power, this would be already covered by specific regulatory obligations that should not be affected by this ~~Regulation~~Directive.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) While not imposing any new mapping obligation on Member States, this ~~Regulation~~Directive provides that minimum information already collected by public sector bodies and available in electronic form pursuant to national initiatives as well as under Union law (such as Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE)37 ) should be made available , e.g. via hyperlink, to a single information point with a view to allow a coordinated access to information on physical infrastructures for electronic communications network providers while at the same time ensuring the security and integrity of any such information. Such provision of information should be without prejudice to the transparency requirements already applicable to the re-use of public sector information pursuant to Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information38 . Where information available to the public sector does not ensure adequate knowledge of the existing physical infrastructures in a specific area or of a certain type, network operators should make the information available to the single information point upon request. __________________ 37 38OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1. OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1. 38 OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 90. OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 90.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29

(29) Without prejudice to the tasks entrusted to national regulatory authorities provided under the Union regulatory framework for electronic communications, in the absence of specific designations by Member States, in order to ensure consistent dispute settlement decisions, such functions provided for in this ~~Regulation~~Directive should be assigned to the authorities fulfilling the tasks provided in Article 20 of Directive 2002/21/EC, taking into account the expertise available and the guarantees of independence and impartiality. However, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, this Regulation should be without prejudice to the possibility of Member States to allocate the regulatory tasks provided herewith to authorities better suited to fulfil them in accordance with the domestic constitutional system of attribution of competences and powers and with the requirements set forth in this ~~Regulation~~Directive.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

(31) In order to ensure effectiveness of the information points provided for in this ~~Regulation~~Directive, Member States deciding to appoint different bodies from the national regulatory authority fulfilling the tasks provided in Article 20 of Directive 2002/21/EC should ensure adequate resources as well as that the relevant information concerning a specific area is made available at such information points at an optimal level of aggregation where valuable efficiencies may be ensured in view of the tasks assigned (such as the cadastre). In this regard, Member States may consider the possible synergies and economies of scope with the Points of Single Contact within the meaning of Article 6 of Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (the Services Directive), with a view to build on existing structures and maximising the benefits for end-users.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33

(33) This ~~Regulation~~Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably the right to privacy and the protection of business secrets, the freedom to conduct business, the right to property and the right to an effective remedy. This ~~Regulation~~Directive has to be applied by the Member States in accordance with those rights and principles.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This ~~Regulation~~Directive aims to facilitate and incentivise the roll-out of high-speed electronic communications networks by promoting joint use of existing and enabling more efficient deployment of new physical infrastructure so that such networks can be rolled out at lower cost.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2

2. This ~~Regulation~~Directive shall apply to all civil works and physical infrastructure, as defined in Article 2.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3

3. This ~~Regulation~~Directive is without prejudice to the rights of Member States to maintain or introduce measures in conformity with Union law which contain more detailed provisions than those set out in this ~~Regulation~~Directive.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4

4. This ~~Regulation~~Directive is without prejudice to Directive 2002/21/EC, Directive 2002/20/EC, Directive 2002/19/EC, Directive 2002/22/EC and Directive 2002/77/EC.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1

For the purposes of this ~~Regulation~~Directive, the definitions set out in Directives 2002/21/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/19/EC, 2002/22/EC and 2002/77/EC shall apply.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

The Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council by [Publications Office: please insert the exact date: entry into force of this Regulation + 3 years] at the latest on the implementation of this ~~Regulation~~Directive. The report shall include a summary of the impact of the measures provided by this Regulation and an assessment of the progress towards achieving its objectives.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1

This ~~Regulation~~Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2

~~This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.~~deleted

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2013/0080(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 a (new)

Article 11 a Addresses This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

2013/10/09
Committee: ITRE

2012/2259(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that secure, affordable and environmentally sound energy provision is indispensable for the competitiveness of European industry whilst the RES and clean-tech related industry also represent one of the major growth drivers for the EU economy due to the competitive advantage held by EU-based green businesses; emphasises, therefore, that the energy supply system needs to be overhauled and the share of RES increased in a manner that is cost-efficient and without prejudice to supply security;

2012/12/20
Committee: ITRE

2012/2259(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Notes that many of the best and most competitive locations for RES in the EU are at a considerable distance from the centres of energy consumption; notes that the use of such locations is contingent on the development of transmission systems; however, also notes the potential of micro- generation of renewable energy such as geo-thermal heating and solar power as mentioned in the Commission's communication (COM (2012) 271) as well as local biogas plants;

2012/12/20
Committee: ITRE

2012/2259(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Recognises that world markets for RES are growing and that this will have a positive impact on prices and on the further development of existing technologies as well as on the EU economy taken that the EU political and regulatory framework enables EU-based RES and clean-tech businesses to keep their competitive advantage vis-à-vis their global counterparts;

2012/12/20
Committee: ITRE

2012/2259(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Welcomes the Commission's declared intention to draw up guidelines on good practice and the reform of national support ~~arrang~~schements; calls on the Commission to produce the guidelines as soon as possible ~~but is convinced that good-practice guidel~~to ensure the different national schemes do not distort competition and create barriers to trade and inves are only a first step and that efforts need to be directed at winding down the national support systems, although they must not be retrospectively amended or cancelled because that would send out disastrous signals to investortment within the EU; in this regards highlights the need to examine potential local content requirements within the EU as experienced by some market players and urges the Commission to ensure that internal market acquis is fully respected by the Member States; furthermore, calls on the Commission to include an interpretation of art. 13 of the RES directive (2009/28) to ensure that Member States implement the directive correctly and prevent public authorities from using certification and licensing procedures in a manner that distorts competition; is convinced that good-practice guidelines are an important step to ensure a functioning single market for energy and believes the guidelines could be supplemented on a national level with an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of current national schemes; stresses any potential change must not be retrospectively amended or cancelled because that would send out disastrous signals to investors as well potentially causing severe economic distress to private citizens having invested in for instance solar panels based on such national schemes;

2012/12/20
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas 25% of EU SMEs have been internationally active within the single market ~~but~~while only 13% have been internationally active outside the EU; and whereas only 24% of micro firms export goods or services compared to 38% of small firms and 53% of medium- sized firms;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas almost ~~one~~a third of the administrative burdens deriving from EU legislation stem~~s from~~ primarily from disproportionate and inefficient national implementation, which means that ~~up to EUR 40 billion could be saved~~ if Member States would transposed EU legislation more efficiently6 , up to EUR 40 bn could be saved.;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas more than 96 % of SMEs in the European Union have fewer than 50 employees and less than EUR 10 Million in annual turnover and whereas their ability to export goods and services outside their national borders is limited, mainly due to high fixed costs linked to international trade, legal insecurity and regulatory fragmentation;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas 85% of all new jobs in the EU between 2002 ~~and 2010 were~~-2010 have been created by SMEs, in particular by new firms; whereas 32.,5 million people in the EU are self- employed;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Stress~~Notes the ~~need to tackle SME market failures such as limited~~common structural and regulatory challenges faced by SMEs, such as access to financ~~ial~~e, human capital and organisational resources; in this respect welcomes the fact that the Commission endeavours to promote and support SMEs's economic activities in ~~foreign markets both inside and outside the EU~~the single market and third country markets;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Emphasises the incredible variety of SMEs and that proper distinctions need to be made between different business cases and needs~~Underlines that SMEs are extremely varied; therefore, when designing new policies for SMEs, the Commission should take into account the different challenges faced by companies depending on size and sector;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 – subheading 1

~~INFORMATION F~~MAPPING OF SUPPORT S~~MEs~~ERVICES

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Urge~~Supports the Commission´s commitment to launch the multilingual online portal foreseen in the Communication ~~before the end of 2012~~ , as soon as possible; believes that the portal should be easily accessible ~~and~~, user- friendly and should not be a duplicateion of existing portals;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Is convinced that the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) is an effective tool to support SMEs in accessing markets inside and outside the EU; agrees, however, that a new governance model for the EEN is needed, with a view to creating synergies with existing structures run by national or stakeholder organisations, to increase effectiveness and to allowing for tailor- made support; Deleted Or. en (moved to another part)

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Is convinced that the EEN will only become the first agency of choice for SMEs in the EU if the functioning and governance of its constituent organisations is strengthened and awareness of its support services raised; Deleted Or. en (moved to another part)

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 – subheading 2

~~MAPPING OF SUPPORT SERVICES~~ Deleted Or. en (moved to another part)

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Shares the view that support programmes funded with public resources should be delivered in the most cost- effective possible form, especially at a time when the EU economy is still recovering from its worst crisis in decades; Deleted Or. en (moved to another part)

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Supports the proposal that a large number of local, regional, national and European support schemes should undergo a "mapping exercise"; believes that this exercise should also be accompanied with an assessment of the effectiveness of existing EU support schemes; believes that the mapping should be conducted in regular intervals and serve as basis for a benchmark and scoreboard system;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Expects specific proposals by the end of 2012 ~~to rationalise and~~from the Commission, on how to coordinate ~~the~~ EU support schemes ~~and to create the best possible synergies for EU SMEs, based on existing structures where feasible, without creating unnecessary competition with~~for SMEs in order to create effective synergies based on existing structures and complementary to measures carried out by national organisations;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Fiona HALL, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 – subheading 3

IMPRO~~MOT~~VING ~~EU CLUSTERS AND NETWORK~~MARKET ACCESS

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Supports the Commission's suggestion to enhance cooperation between ~~the~~ various ~~business~~company associations, chambers of commerce and other ~~private actors active in non-EU countrie~~actors active in the single market and third countries in order to facilitate business partnerships, promote clusters and access to new markets;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that the creation of joint ventures or other partnership agreements between or with SMEs should be fostered as a strategy for penetrating new markets, developing direct investment projects in the single market and third countries and taking part in invitations to tender; calls on the Commission to mobilise resources in order to promote such transnational cooperation;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Fiona HALL, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Calls for increased and more efficient support for SMEs in access to the single market and third country markets at the EU, national and regional level particularly regarding promotion and access to information, the protection of intellectual property rights, participation in public tenders, ICT, standardisation and regulatory issues; believes that the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) is an effective tool to achieve these objectives; shares the view that, based on a thorough evaluation, a new governance model for EEN should be put in place with the view to increase effectiveness and to help it to provide tailor made support;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Is convinced that SMEs will only use the EEN to the desired extent if the organisations that form the EEN are strengthened and awareness is raised among SMEs of the support services it can provide;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10c. Notes the importance of the creation of a simplified and transparent EU regulatory framework for public procurement, so that SMEs gain better access to public contracts, both within the EU and in third countries;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 d (new)

10d. Supports a European standardisation system that includes SMEs more systematically in the decision making processes, while respecting the proven principle of national delegation; calls for standards to be made more easily available to SMEs and at a lower cost, in order to enable interoperability and mitigate some of the substantial obstacles faced by SMEs going international;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 e (new)

10e. Emphasises that the effective and affordable protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) is key to encourage SMEs to develop new ideas and technologies as a basis for their international activities; in this respect welcomes the promotion of IPR helpdesks;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Fiona HALL, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 f (new)

10f. Encourage Member States to actively support the Commission´s role in boosting SMEs access to third country markets in international forums and conferences;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Phil BENNION, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 g (new)

10g. Strongly urges the Member States to finalise an agreement on the common patent system under the Danish presidency as it is vital for the EU to offer businesses easy and affordable access to patent protection in the single market, similar to their competitors in the US, China and Japan;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 – subheading 4

~~FUTURE STEPS~~ACCESS TO FINANCE

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT, Phil BENNION

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new) after subheading 4

10a. Shares the view that support programmes funded with public resources should be delivered in the most cost effective possible form, especially at a time when the European economy is still recovering from its worst crisis for decades;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new) after subheading 4

10b. Supports the Commission's suggestion to enhance cooperation between various company associations, chambers of commerce and other actors in outside-EU countries, in order to facilitate business partnerships, promote clusters and access to new markets;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Recommends that the Commission consider all dimensions related to internationalisation, namely exporting and importing; notes that there is not sufficient emphasis on this second dimension in the Communication;Deleted

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Calls for a rational use of the budget allocated to the COSME programme and, in particular, underlines the need to further improve access to finance for SMEs; calls for the simplification and rationalisation of the various Community instruments devoted to access to credit or venture capital, in particular for SMEs with internationalisation plans; Deleted Or. en (moved to another part)

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Believes that any revision of financial markets regulation should enable SMEs to increasingly raise finance through capital markets, in order to be less dependent on bank loans;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Calls for the simplification of EU instruments for SMEs and for them to be made more accessible; notes that all too often, EU programmes can be too bureaucratic to be exploited by SMEs;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)

12c. Calls for SMEs to be strongly taken into account in ongoing reform of the structural funds, where appropriate and where it contributes to regional framework conditions for growth and to create synergies with other EU programmes and initiatives; believes that red tape needs to be reduced, for example by accepting proportionate corporate auditing and reporting standards and by introducing common rules for all funds and programmes in the revision of the Financial Regulation;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 d (new)

12d. Calls on Member States to implement as soon as possible the late payments directive into national law, to help give additional liquidity to SMEs in the current economic crisis;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Fiona HALL, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 e (new)

12e. Calls for more effective, simpler and better-coordinated EU instruments devoted to access to credit or risk capital in particular for SMEs with internationalisation plans;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 f (new)

12f. Calls for efficient safeguards for SME portfolios, in view of increased capital requirements for banks, as part of the implementation of Basel III and the deleveraging process currently carried out by a number of banks, while considering the cumulative effect of financial services legislation.

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes the importance of skilled and trained entrepreneurs in facing the challenges of international business; calls on the Commission to promote the ‘Erasmus for young Entrepreneurs’ programme and to look into the possibility of an ‘Erasmus Mundus for entrepreneurs’ to enable talented entrepreneurs to acquire experience in, and to network with, centres of excellence outside the EU; deleted Or. en (moved to another part)

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Welcomes the Commission proposal on the review of European standardisation; stresses the need for a more coherent system of international standards to enable interoperability and reduce obstacles to SMEs going international; Deleted Or. en (moved to another part)

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Emphasises that a simple and efficient intellectual property rights (IPR) regime is key for promoting the internationalisation of SMEs; considers that SMEs need effective IPR protection to encourage the development of new technologies as the basis for their international activities; Deleted Or. en (moved to another part)

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Welcomes the achievement of the 2012 target on minimising administrative burdens; urges the Commission to come up with a new and ambitious reduction target in accordance with the ~~‘Think Small First’ principle~~SBA; believes that the new reduction target should be a net target, including all areas affecting SMEs and taking into account new legislation that is adopted after the targets have been set;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Believes that the concept of excluding micro-enterprises ~~by default~~ from any proposed legislation ~~is not an adequate tool~~should only be a last resort , where their specific needs cannot be addressed with adapted solutions and lighter regimes; calls instead for the establishment of a micro-dimension as an inherent part of the SME test ~~in which all available options are systematically assessed, such as~~and for systematically assessing all available options, including exclusion from the scope or from individual provisions of a legislation, extended transition periods or ~~a lighter regime;~~temporary exemptions as well as a tailor- made legislative approach.

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Urges improvements in~~Highlights the need to improve the efficiency of the transposition of EU legislation into national law; calls on the Commission ~~to consider submitting more legislative proposals in the form of a regulation~~for more harmonisation of legislation in order to reduce the scope for gold-plating and a more systematic use of the SME test; asks the Commission to assess theo what extent ~~to which~~ the application of the ‘"checklist for good implementation of EU legislation’7"[1] can be introduced as a requirement for the Member States to the benefit of the single market;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Urges national governments to a~~pply a ‘comply or explain’ approach similar to the corporate governance provis~~ccept correlation tables for the implementation of EU legislations; stresses that~~, under~~ based on this approach, governments wshould need to duly justify when implementing provisions which are additional to those required by the EU legislation;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Regrets that only a few Member States ~~have integrated~~systematically apply an SME tTest into their national decision- making process; calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for minimum requirements for the ~~systematic~~ implementation of SME tests at national level, based on the SME test applied by the Commission as well as on national best practices;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Calls for a "fitness check" of existing EU legislation to set aside inconsistencies and outdated or ineffective rules;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)

21b. Strongly supports the idea of "one in, one out" as a guiding principle for EU single market legislation, to ensure that no new legislation which imposes costs on SMEs can be brought in without the identification of existing regulations within a given field and of an equivalent value that can be removed;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls for ~~reinforcement of~~ the role of the SME Envoy network in communication and coordination between Member States, and between national and European level, when transposing legislation; calls for SME Envoys to be independent from individual ministries or directorates- general and to be strongly involvedto be reinforced as it brings real added value to communication and coordination, from policy formulation to the implementation of legislation; calls for a strong involvement of the SME Envoys in the SME test procedures;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Takes note of the current evaluation of the SME definition, which already covers ~~over~~more than 99% of all EU businesses; ~~stresses that any modifications should be aimed at~~calls on the Commission to examine the impact of increasing flexibility and ~~curb~~mitigating disincentives to growth (e.g. by considering the criteria as alternative instead of cumulative, and by extending transition periods to 3 years), adapting the turnover and balance sheet ceilings to economic developments, and to allow~~ing~~ for a more differentiated consideration of each of the sub-categories;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. ~~Acknowledges the plans to establish a separate~~Calls on the Commission to examine the potential benefits of complementing the SME definition with a new intermediate category (mid-caps) for companies with up to 1 000 employees; insists that ~~any~~ such new category must not dilute the effectiveness of the SME definition ~~and should be applied in a limited number of areas such as access to funding for R&D or internationalisation activities~~;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Highlights the Single Market as a key enabler in creating the best possible environment for SMEs; deplores that it is still ~~does not exist~~not a reality in many areas, in particular~~ly as regards~~ its digital dimension; calls therefore on the Commission to push for the implementation of the digital single market by 2015, to force Member States to ~~apply~~implement existing legislation, and to make new proposals where internal market legislation is still missing;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Welcomes the ~~Commission's Communica~~new programme for the competitiveness of SME´s (COSME); notes the successful actions o~~n reinforcing the competitiveness of Europe's industries; regrets that neither the concept of competitiveness-proofing nor the ex-post evaluation of leg~~f the CIP that should be continued and further expanded under the new programme, such as the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders for Administrative Burden Reduction, the Enterprise Europe Network and the financial instruments for the provision of equity and loan financing; stresses that all instruments, in particular the non- financial instruments, should be adopted based on a critical evaluation of the CIP and in close cooperation with SME organislation ~~affecting industry are mentioned; calls on the Commission to report regularly on progress achieved in this field~~s; stresses the need to allocate a sufficient budget for COSME in the Multiannual Financial Framework, considering in particular the significant market failures with regard to SME financing and the need to increase EU support for business transfers; believes in this regard that the delineation between COSME and Horizon 2020 in terms of activities and budget deserve further consideration to facilitate orientation for SME and to ensure sufficient funding;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Welcomes the ~~fact that the Commission has acknowledged the importa~~Commission's communication on reinforcing the competitiveness of Europe's industries; regrets that the concept of the manufacturing sector for sustainable growth and employment in the EU in its various strategies and communications; reiterates the need for an integrated industrial policy based on the principles of social market economycompetitiveness-proofing as well as the ex-post evaluation of legislation affecting industry is not mentioned; calls on the Commission to actively apply competitiveness-proofing in its impact assessment and to report regularly on progress achieved in this field; calls on Member States respectively to apply this test when transposing EU legislation into national law;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Phil BENNION, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Considers that ~~the way out of the economic crisis can only be paved by entrepreneurship and SME growth; underlines the importance of addressing the entrepreneurial potential of young people, women and migrants~~only entrepreneurship and the right framework conditions for SMEs competitiveness and growth can pave the way out of the economic crisis; underlines the need to address entrepreneurial potential where the level of SME start ups is below average across all segments of society as well as for specific target group, notably young people and women;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Notes the importance of skilled and trained entrepreneurs in facing the challenges of international business; calls on the Commission to promote the Erasmus for young Entrepreneurs programme as well as to study the possibility of "Erasmus mundus for entrepreneurs" to give the possibility to talented entrepreneurs to acquire experience in centres of excellences outside the EU;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Urges Member States to implement ambitious programmes based on incentives to further promote entrepreneurship; calls for such programmes to include measures ~~that~~ improveing access to finance and markets, to ease administrative requirements and to better include ~~more~~ entrepreneurial education in school curricula at all levels;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Jens ROHDE, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. ~~Calls on the Commission to establish a roadmap on competitive SME taxation, encourag~~Believes that reforms ing Member States t~~o adapt their taxation schemes with a view to lowering the non-labour wage costs for young companies~~hat lower non-labour wage costs for SMEs, significantly increase their growth potential and may allow~~ing such~~ young companies to keep a larger p~~roportion~~arts of their ~~profits for~~gains to be re- invest~~ment~~ed in the company; ~~suggests that the roadmap be based on best practices and include pilot projects;~~

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2042(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Fiona HALL, Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Jens ROHDE, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Calls on the Commission and Member States to ~~adopt specific~~take concrete measures to promote social entrepreneurship in Europe, in particular through improving access to public and private finance and by improving the mobility and recognition of skilled workerforce and by improving the quality and the availability of corporate social responsibility (CSR) advice for SMEs;

2012/05/15
Committee: ITRE

2012/2016(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes th~~at EU policies and the EU budget sh~~e current economic climate and need for fiscal consolidation necessitates as restrictive a budget as possible that focuses its means on EU policies and programmes that could make a substantial contribution to the revitalisation of sustainable growth in the EU and tohat address~~ing~~ major societal challenges such as the outdated infrastructure, the innovation gap, resource scarcity and climate change;

2012/05/02
Committee: ITRE

2012/2016(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the need to strengthen and coordinate funding in order to implement the EU 2020 strategy~~; is concerned that the ceilings under Heading 1a within the current financial framework are insufficient to meet the EU's priority polices~~ and in this regard welcomes the proposed increase in spending on sustainable growth, notable the FP7 and CIP programmes; stresses however that these increases should be financed through reallocations within the budget;

2012/05/02
Committee: ITRE

2012/2016(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. In this regard believes that there should be a stronger focus on deployment projects within research and innovation funding to bridge the gap between research results and commercialisation thereby ensuring European competitiveness;

2012/05/02
Committee: ITRE

2012/2016(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for ~~enhanced EU support policies for SMEs, i.e. investment~~the EU programmes for SMEs to focus ion ~~their innov~~facilitationg and ~~growth potential, and simplification of their access to funding;~~ simplifying SMEs' access to risk capital to ensure self-sustaining investments in innovation thereby securing SMEs' growth potential;

2012/05/02
Committee: ITRE

2012/2016(BUD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Jens ROHDE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Fully supports the pilot Project Bond Initiative, aimed at mobilising private savings and improving the range of financial instruments available for infrastructure projects in energy, transport and ICT; stresses th~~e need to make adequate use of the EIB's sustainability criteria, on an equal footing with the financial criteria~~at for project bonds to work and become a genuine investment object for the private capital markets, care should be taken not to overregulate the issuing of such bonds and therefore the main criteria for a project bond must be its commercial viability; believes that for projects where relevant the EIB's sustainability criteria and financial criteria are mutually reinforcing;

2012/05/02
Committee: ITRE

2012/2016(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Deplores the fact that initiatives aimed at enhancing the EU's energy headline targets are not given sufficient funding and that the SET plan is yet to receive sufficient funds despite the European Parliaments continuous demands;

2012/05/02
Committee: ITRE

2012/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Energy Roadmap 2050 underlines that full integration of the European energy networks and the opening up of markets are critical for maintaining the balance between energy security, competitiveness, the aim of a ~~low-emissi~~sustainable low-carbon economy and consumer satisfaction;

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas a European Energy Community must be based on a strong common energy market, the coordination of energy purchasing outside of the EU and common European funding of new ~~low-emissi~~sustainable low- carbon energy technologies;

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/2005(INI)

Kent JOHANSSON, Hannu TAKKULA, Jens ROHDE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses that modernising the existing infrastructure, and building new, intelligent and flexible generation, transmission, distribution and storage infrastructure, is essential for a well-integrated and well- connected energy market, where supply at affordable prices is secured, where the potential for cogeneration and efficiency, and for exploiting renewable and ~~unconventional~~sustainable energy sources, is fully exploited, and where no Member State remains isolated from the European gas and electricity networks;

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/2005(INI)

Jens ROHDE, Fiona HALL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Believes that investment in infrastructure needs to be encouraged through stable and innovation-friendly regulatory frameworks that, without impeding the functioning of the internal market, allow pension funds and institutional investors to invest in transmission, recogniszing that it cannot be achieved unless market-driven; recognises, however, that, in certain cases, key infrastructure may not be commercially viable, thus requiring public funding;

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

This Directive shall not apply to snus in Sweden, in accordance with Article 151 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4

(4) ‘'characterising flavour’' means a distinguishable aroma or taste other than tobacco, resulting from an additive or combination of additives, ~~including but not limited to~~with the exception of menthol, including fruit, spice, herb, alcohol, candy~~, menthol~~ or vanilla observable before or upon intended use of the tobacco product;

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall prohibit the placing on the market of tobacco products with a characterising flavour where this increases in an appreciable manner at the stage of consumption the toxic or addictive effect of a tobacco product.

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3

3. In case the experience gained in the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 shows that a certain additive or a combination thereof typically impart a characterising flavour when it exceeds a certain level of presence or concentration tand where these increase in an appreciable manner at the stage of consumption the toxic or addictive effect of a tobacco product. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 22 to set maximum levels for those additives or combination of additives that cause the characterising flavour.

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 5

5. Member States shall prohibit the use of flavourings in the components of tobacco products such as filters, papers, packages, capsules or any technical features allowing modification of flavour or smoke intensity where these increase in an appreciable manner at the stage of consumption the toxic or addictive effect of a tobacco product.. Filters and capsules shall not contain tobacco.

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. In order to ensure their graphic integrity and visibility, health warnings shall be irremovably printed or irremovably affixed, indelible and in no way hidden or interrupted, including by tax stamps, price marks, tracking and tracing marks, security features or by any type of wrapper, pouch, jacket, box or other device or by the opening of the unit packet.

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3

3. For cigarette packets the general warning and the information message shall be printed on the lateral sides of the unit packets. These warnings shall have a width of not less than 20 mm and a height of not less than 43 mm. For roll-your-own tobacco the information message shall be printed on the surface that becomes visible when opening the unit packet. Both the general warning and the information message shall cover 540% of the surface on which they are printed.

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) cover 7540 % of the external area of both the front and back surface of the unit packet and any outside packaging;

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) be positioned at the ~~top~~lower edge of the unit packet and any outside packaging, and in the same direction as any other information appearing on the packaging;

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

The general warning shall be printed or irremovably affixed on the most visible surface of the unit packet and any outside packaging. The text warnings listed in Annex I shall be rotated in such a way as to guarantee their regular appearance. These warnings shall be printed or affixed on the other most visible surface of the unit packet and any outside packaging.

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – point b

(b) centred in the area in which they are required to be printed or affixed, parallel to the top edge of the unit packet and any outside packaging;

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 5

~~5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt~~ delegated ~~acts in accordance with Article 22, to withdraw the exemption laid down in paragraph 1 if there is a substantial change of circumstances as established in a Commission report.~~

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) be printed or affixed on the two largest surfaces of the unit packet and any outside packaging;

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0366(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3

~~3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt~~ delegated ~~acts in accordance with Article 22 to adapt the requirements in paragraphs 1 and 2 taking into account scientific and market developments.~~

2013/05/28
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) Based on forecasts of biofuel demand provided by the Member States and estimates of indirect land-use change emissions for different biofuel feedstocks ~~it is likely~~there exists a risk that greenhouse gas emissions linked to indirect land use change are significant, and could negate some or all of the greenhouse gas savings of individual biofuels. This is because almost the entire biofuel production in 2020 is expected to come from crops grown on land that could be used to satisfy food and feed marketscould be significant. In order to reduce such emissions, it is appropriate to distinguish between crop ~~groups such as oil crops, cereals, sugars and other starch containing crop~~s as well as differentiate by regions accordingly.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) Liquid renewable fuels are likely to be required by the transport sector in order to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Advanced biofuels, such as those made from wastes and algae, provide high greenhouse gas savings with low risk of causing indirect land use change and do not compete directly for agricultural land for the food and feed markets. It is appropriate, therefore, to encourage greater production of such advanced biofuels as these are currently not commercially available in large quantities, in part due to competition for public subsidies with established food crop based biofuel technologies. Further incentives should be provided by increasing the weighting of advanced biofuels towards 10% target. Further incentives should be provided by setting a separate target of 2.5% for advanced biofuels for transport ~~set~~ in Directive 2009/28/EC ~~compared to conventional biofuels~~. In this context, ~~only advanced~~ biofuels with ~~low~~ estimated low indirect land use change impacts and high overall greenhouse gas savings should be especially supported as part of the post 2020 renewable energy policy framework. However, to avoid market distortion and incentives for fraud also advanced biofuels should be complying with the same sustainability criteria as all other biofuels.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) To prepare for the transition towards advanced biofuels and minimise the overall indirect land use change impacts in the period to 2020, it is appropriate to limit the amount of biofuels and bioliquids obtained from food crops as set out in part A of Annex VIII to Directive 2009/28/EC and part A of Annex V to Directive 98/70/EC that can be counted towards targets set out in Directive 2009/28/EC. Without restricting the overall use of such biofuels, the share of biofuels and bioliquids produced from cereal and other starch rich crops, sugar and oil crops that can be counted towards the targets of Directive 2009/28/EC should be limited ~~to the share~~by introducing a 7.5% cap ofn such biofuels and bioliquids ~~consumed in 2011~~.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)

(9a) Considering that the present EU installed conventional ethanol production capacity is equal to 6% by energy of the expected 2020 gasoline market and that there is a legitimate need to protect the existing investments in conventional biofuel production capacity done in good faith and that there is the need to begin to commercialise ethanol from lignocellulose, a dedicated target of at least 10% renewable energy of the final consumption of energy in transport in petrol in 2020 should be introduced of which 8% should be from biofuel produced from sugars and starch crops.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10

(10) The 7.5% limit set up in Article 3(4)d does not affect the Member States' freedom to arrange their own trajectory as to compliance with this prescribed share of conventional biofuels within the overall 10% target. As a consequence, the access to the market of the biofuels produced by the installations in operation before the end of 2013 remains fully open. Therefore this amending directive does not affect the legitimate expectations of the operators of such installations.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) The models used to estimated the indirect land-use change emissions ~~should be included in the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels~~of biofuels production deliver results with significant variations, limitations and undcer ~~Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC. Biofuels made from feedstocks that do not lead to additional demand for land, such as those from waste feedstocks, should be assigned a zero emissions factor~~tainties. The results of modelling emissions from indirect land-use change are therefore still too uncertain to be included in legislation.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(12) The Commission should review the methodology for estimating land-use change emission factors included in Annexes VIII and V to Directives 2009/28/EC and 98/70/EC respectively in the light of adaptation to technical and scientific progress. To this end, and if warranted by the latest available scientific evidence, the Commission should consider the possibility of revising the proposed crop group indirect land-use change factors, as well as introducing factors at further levels of disaggregation and including additional values should new biofuel feedstocks come to marketperiodically review the list of available advanced biofuels as laid down in Annex IX taking into account consolidated, peer-reviewed, technical and scientific progress – and continuously report on the development of models used to estimate land-use change emissions.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13

(13) Article 19(8) of Directive 2009/28/EC and Article 7d(8) of Directive 98/70/EC include provisions for encouraging the cultivation of biofuels in severely degraded and heavily contaminated land as a~~n interim~~ measure for mitigating against indirect land-use change. ~~These provisions are no longer adequate in their current form~~ Other ILUC mitigation measures, for example the use of co- products, yield increases, manufacturing efficiencies and production on vulnerable, aband one~~ed to be integrated in the approach laid out~~d or unused land, should be assessed by the Commission with the purpose of incorporating these measures into thise Directive ~~to ensure that overall actions for minimising emission from indirect land-use change remain coherent~~s in terms of a bonus or incorporating them positively into the iLUC models like the one already set out in Annex IV part C point 7 of Directive 98/70/EC and in Annex V part C point 7 of Directive 2009/28/EC for biomass obtained from restored degraded land.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) In order to permit adaptation to technical and scientific progress of Directive 98/70/EC, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the methodological principles and values necessary for assessing whether sustainability criteria have been fulfilled in relation to biofuels, criteria and geographic ranges for determining highly diverse grassland, the methodology for the calculation and reporting of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, ~~the methodology for the calculation of indirect land-use change emissions,~~ the permitted level related to the metallic additives content in fuels, the permitted analytical methods related to the fuel specifications and the vapour pressure waiver permitted for petrol containing bioethanol.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19

(19) In order to permit adaptation to technical and scientific progress of Directive 2009/28/EC, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the list of ~~biofuel feedstocks that are counted multiple times towards the target set in Article 3(4)~~advanced biofuels, the energy content of transport fuels, criteria and geographic ranges for determining highly biodiverse grassland, ~~the methodology for the calculation of indirect land-use change emissions,~~ and the methodological principles and values necessary for assessing whether sustainability criteria have been fulfilled in relation to biofuels and bioliquids.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 2 – point c – point -i

(-i) the first subparagraph is replaced by the following: Each Member State shall ensure that the share of energy from renewable sources in all forms of transport in 2020 is at least 10 % of the final consumption of energy in transport in that Member State, and shall ensure that the share of energy from renewable sources in petrol in 2020 is at least 10 % of the final consumption of energy in petrol in that Member State.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 5 – point -a (new)

Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 17 – paragraph 1

(-a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 1. Irrespective of whether the raw materials were cultivated inside or outside the territory of the Community, energy from biofuels and bioliquids shall be taken into account for the purposes referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) only if they fulfill the sustainability criteria set out in paragraphs 2 to 6: (a) measuring compliance with the requirements of this Directive concerning national targets; (b) measuring compliance with renewable energy obligations; (c) eligibility for financial support for the consumption of biofuels and bioliquids.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 5 – point b a (new)

Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 17 – paragraph 5 a (new)

(ba) the following paragraph 5a is inserted: "5a. Raw materials, used to produce biofuels and bioliquids, should not be taken into account for the purposes referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 if, in the year of the raw material production, the use of land covered by paragraphs 4 and 5 has been changed considerably."

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3

The Commission shall, before 31 December 20178, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council ~~review~~analyzing, on the basis of the best ~~latest availabl~~evidence that adheres to the scientific ~~evidence~~method, the effectiveness of the measures introduced by this Directive in limiting indirect land- use change greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of biofuel and bioliquids. The report shall, if appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal based on the best available scientific evidence, for introducing estimated indirect land use change emissions factors into the appropriate sustainability criteria to be applied from 1st January 2021 and a review of the effectiveness of the incentives provided for biofuels from non- land using feedstocks and non-food crops under Article 3(4)d of Directive 2009/28/EC.

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a directive
Annex II – point 3

~~Part B. Feedstocks whose contribution towards the target referred to in Article 3(4) shall be considered to be twice their energy content~~deleted

2013/05/08
Committee: ITRE

2012/0288(COD)