30 Amendments of Lara COMI related to 2015/2065(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the European doctrine of the right of competition, which seeks to favour the consumer’s purchasing power, has had a strong influence on the functioning of the food supply chain;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. having regard to the risk, which is increasingly frequent thanks to vertical integration, of conflicts of interest affecting distributors who sell both their own and their competitors’ products;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas European competition law should enable the final consumer to purchase goods at a competitive price, but must also ensure free and fair competition between undertakings, notably in order to encourage them to innovate;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the setting up of the Supply Chain Initiative, which has resulted in the adoption of a set of principles of good practice in B2B relations in the food supply chain and a voluntary framework for the implementation of those principles; believes that efforts to promote fair trading practices in the food supply chain can make a real impact; regrets, however, that farmers’ organisations had no choice but to withdraw from the agreement since their demands had not been sufficiently taken into account;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the principles of good practice and the list of examples of fair and unfair practices in vertical relations in the food supply chain; shares the view that these standards now need to be enforced and their effectiveness assessed;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomNotes the setting up of national platforms of organisations and businesses in the food supply chain to promote fair trading practices and seek to put an end to UTPs, but wonders whether they are really effective;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recognises there to be an extremely fragmented spectrum of public and private legislation across the 28 Member States in the field of UTPs in the food supply chain, with this reflecting the widespread belief that UTPs ought to be addressed via political initiatives rather than in terms of specific issues, even if major differences of opinion remain as to the ensuing results;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Confirms the existence of UTPs in the food supply chain despite all the mechanisms described above, and acknowledges that they are contrary to the basic principles of law;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Confirms the existence of UTPs in the food supply chain and acknowledges that they are contrary to the basic principles of law and that they stem from imbalances in contractual powers in a concentrated market that are on a scale exceeding that of a dominant position within the meaning of antitrust rules;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Emphasises that any serious analysis of UTPs cannot fail to take into account the new economic paradigm that has emerged in recent years: a mass retail sector (MRS) in which market access and competition at points of sale has become a critical competitive variable under the control of supermarkets. Some competition authorities have stressed not only the role played by MRS buyers, but also identified specific practices that transfer excessive and/or unjustified risk to suppliers and which could undermine their competitiveness. They have also found that ‘private labels’ introduce a horizontal dimension to competition in respect of industrial brands which had never previously been a factor;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position clearly have a negative impact, including on employment; stresses that UTPs can hamper investment and product innovation;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position clearly have a negative impact; stresses that UTPs can hamper investment and product innovation, quality and variety and may therefore reduce the choices available to consumers;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Acknowledges, nonetheless, that voluntary and self-regulatory schemes are not enough to put an end to UTPs once and for all, owing to the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms; since in view of the relative strengths of the players on this market it is unlikely that the situation will be satisfactorily resolved via a freely- negotiated agreement; recognises that purely voluntary codes are very important and useful for identifying issues. However, they also have major drawbacks, such as the broad scope for non-participation, conflicts of interest, dispute settlement mechanisms that fail to reflect supplier ‘fear factor’, the lack of genuine penalties for non-compliance and scant or non-participation by the competent authorities;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that action to combat UTPs will help to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and to develop cross- border trading in the EU; the fragmented nature of the markets in the EU exposes European suppliers, distributors and consumers to a range of diverse market conditions, with certain behaviour being permitted in some Member States but not in others. This results in inequitable surplus distribution along the value chain in the various countries concerned;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Considers it essential to change the paradigm underlying European competition law which, since the Treaty of Rome, has served the consumer-citizen by the continual lowering of prices and which, now that Europe is faced with mass unemployment, must increasingly take into account the interests of the worker-citizen;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on the Commission to be strict in its application of European competition law and in particular to impose firm penalties for abuse of a dominant position in the food supply chain;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Calls on the Commission to submit to Parliament as soon as possible the evaluation report announced in its communication of 15 July 2014;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)
Paragraph 14 c (new)
14c. Calls on the Commission to assess the progress achieved by the Supply Chain Initiative and its national platforms;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 d (new)
Paragraph 14 d (new)
14d. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the application mechanisms put in place by the Member States to boost the confidence of all parties in the proper functioning of a sustainable food supply chain;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 e (new)
Paragraph 14 e (new)
14e. Calls on the Commission to propose, on the basis of its report announced in its communication of 15 July 2014, additional legal or other measures to be put in place at EU level to counteract the scourge of UTPs;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Urges the Commission to submit specific proposals for EU legislation or other regulatory tools banning UTPs in the food supply chain that will enable markets to operate as they should and fair and transparent relations to be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributors;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Urges the Commission to submit specific proposals for EU legislation banning UTPs in the food supply chain that will enable markets to operate as they should and fair and transparent. Economic regulation may prove necessary in order to prevent market disruption and the devastating effects of this on consumers, as well as repercussions that go beyond the interests of those immediately affected. Competition rules operate on an ex-post basis, when ex-ante regulations to be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributors would be preferable to resolve structural issues and create market access conditions, providing potential market entrants with legal certainty and hence encouraging them to invest. Such regulation might also take into consideration other public policies that merit protection;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Stresses that the experience of public intervention in other sectors suggests that economic regulation is a necessary complement to competition rules. Regulatory action has been taken to protect against the dangers of anti-competitive practices, despite the fact that no individual operators enjoyed dominant positions, in the fields of computerised reservation services, the interconnectivity of mobile telecommunications networks and the provision of internet access services. In other words, the Commission’s passive attitude in respect of the food supply chain contrasts with its proactive approach in other sectors;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Suggests that work should begin onat EU rules on the establishment or recognition of national public agencieslevel, including legislative work, for the establishment of public agencies at national level with responsibility for enforcing laws to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain; takes the view that public agencies of this kind should be empowered to conduct investigations on their own initiative and on the basis of informal information and complaints dealt with on a confidential basis (thus overcoming the fear factor), as well as to impose penalties;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Suggests that it might be more appropriate, given the current tendency in various Member States, and the burgeoning body of literature on private regulation, to move towards co-regulation rather than straightforward self- regulation. Suggests that work should begin on EU rules on the establishment or recognition of national public agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws and/or voluntary codes to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain; takes the view that public agencies of this kind should be empowered to conduct ex oficio investigations on their own initiative andor on the basis of informal information andor complaints dealt with on a confidential basis (thus overcoming the fear factor), as well as to impose penalties;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Believes strongly that a single, clear, precise and binding definition of UTPs should be drawn up, so as to allow effective common rules to be laid down with a view to combating such practices;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls for due account to be taken, when drafting rules in this area, of the specific features of each market and the legal requirements obtaining on it, the different situations and approaches in individual Member States, the degree of consolidation or fragmentation of individual markets, and other significant factors; takes the view that such regulatory efforts should ensure that there is relatively broad discretion to tailor the measures to be taken to the specific features of each market and should be based on the general principle of improving enforcement by involva considerable degree of harmonisation of practices withing the relevant public agenciessingle market;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls for due account to be taken, when drafting rules in this area, of the specific features of each market and the legal requirements obtaining on it, the different situations and approaches in individual Member States, the degree of consolidation or fragmentation of individual markets, and other significant factors; takes the view that such regulatory efforts should ensure that there is relatively broad discretion to tailor the measures to be taken to the specific features of each market and should be based on the general principle of improving enforcement by involving the relevant public agencies; stresses that one solution may be an EU framework that complements the voluntary codes and establishes general principles that reflect the differing situations at national level. This would mean that the Member States which already have effective systems could leave these very much unaltered (with small adjustments to bring them into line with any joint measures adopted). Member States with ineffectual systems could improve them, while those without any system could introduce one based on shared EU principles;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to assess the voluntary and self-regulatory schemes put in place to date and. Matters in this area hinge on the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the issues raised and resolved by the various operators in the food supply chain. Calls also the Commission to assess the effectiveness of the regulatory action taken at national and EU level; calls for an assessment of the likely impact of the various types of EU regulatory action that have been proposed, with due account being taken of all the possible implications for the various stakeholders and for consumer welfare;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)