10 Amendments of Philippe JUVIN related to 2016/2100(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that EU competition law and authorities need to guarantee a level playing field in the digital single market; calls on the Commission to launch an in-depth debate on how far the traditional reasoning underlying competition law is suited to the specific conditions of the digital world and its new challenges, and asks it to pursue a policy of active, effective and accelerated enforcement of the competition rules, in particular in the online search and mobile internet sector, in order to remove barriers to innovation and to enable EU consumers to seize all the opportunities that a genuine digital single market can offer;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that EU competition law and authorities need to guarantee a level playing field in the digital single market; calls on the Commission to pursue a policy of active, effective and accelerated enforcement of the competition rules, in particular in the online search and mobile internet sector, in order to combat the abuse of dominant positions and thereby remove barriers to innovation and to enable EU consumers to seize all the opportunities that a genuine digital single market can offer; calls for the closure of lengthy key proceedings in this area before the end of this year;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that, in their answers to the consultation on digital platforms, many economic operators say they regret the absence of a level playing field; takes the view that, in order to create fair conditions of competition, it is necessary to guarantee comparable rules for comparable digital services; also believes that the new economic models should be subject to the same rules as the traditional services they replace;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Notes that, while platforms permit millions of undertakings, including many European SMEs, to exploit the advantages of e-commerce in terms of distribution, advertising and access to consumers, certain practices are increasingly being condemned and many questions are currently being raised in connection with B2B relations; stresses in this context that more than 80% of the replies to the public consultation on digital platforms called for EU action to ensure fairness in B2B relations; takes the view that regulatory and non- regulatory action could be necessary, as the market does not seem capable of remedying these situations by itself; calls on the Commission to take prompt action to halt certain practices which could endanger numerous European SMEs;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for active monitoring of all possible competition issues related to unjustified geo- blocking and other restrictions on online sales; regrets that most e-commerce takes place nationally and that a true internal market without national barriers is not existing in this sector; welcomes the ongoing e-commerce sector enquiry, which should be conducted thoroughly and brought to an expeditious close and which may provide useful input for other actions within the digital single market strategy;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates the need for the timely and proper implementation of Directive 2014/104/EU on antitrust damages actions, and encourages the Commission in the strongest possible terms to monitor its implementation closely and to pursue this issue with the Member States; strongly regrets that the implementation is proceeding slowly and many of the Member States have adopted not even a proposal for implementing legislation; therefore, encourages the Commission in the strongest possible terms to monitor its implementation closely and to pursue this issue with the Member States; stresses that access to justice, which may include the availability of collective redress, is essential for the attainment of the objectives of EU competition policy;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that Parliament, in its report on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain, drew the Commission’s attention to the difficulty of ensuring fair competition given the dual role of distributors which make their own products; welcomes the Commission’s ongoing analysis aimed at determining whether distributors’ brands can create anti-competitive advantages on the market, and calls on the Commission to inform Parliament of the results of this inquiry;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Notes that, in its resolution on the annual report on competition policy for 2014, the European Parliament called on the Commission to closely monitor alliances between major distributors in Europe, and welcomes the Commission’s willingness to discuss the impact of such alliances on producers and consumers within the European Competition Network;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Looks forward to the Commission’s proposal on the ECN+, and calls for the full involvement of the European Parliament under the ordinary legislative procedure; considers that effective tools to tackle distortions of competition are crucial for the functioning of the single market, and that it is imperative to ensure that consumers and businesses can rely on the consistent application of EU competition rules throughout the EU.; considers that European-wide minimum standards are particularly needed as regards leniency programs, sanctions and the independence of national competition authorities;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the current revision of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER); recalls that there is legal uncertainty regarding the issue of whether the allocation of public funding to tourism organisations in its current form is in line with EU state aid rules; calls on the Commission to provide an adequate legal state aid basis for the Member States to support tourism as an important economic factor in the internal market; therefore, stresses the need to take up a new GBER exemption.