Activities of Michel DANTIN related to 2015/2065(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (A8-0173/2016 - Edward Czesak) FR
Amendments (34)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Believes that European competition law has very much influenced how the food supply chain works, and therefore considers it essential to change the paradigm underlying European competition law, which, since the Treaty of Rome, has served the consumer-citizen through continual lowering of prices and which, now that Europe is faced with mass unemployment and a crisis in farming, must increasingly take into account the interests of the worker- citizen;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Believes that European competition law must permit consumers to benefit from a wide range of quality products at competitive prices, but also ensure that primary producers and undertakings have an incentive to invest and innovate by giving them a fair chance to promote their products without destroying their freedom of choice as to how they produce them and without being forced out of the market by unfair trading practices;
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 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that CAP reform and the new single common market organisation introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain by supporting, in particular, the establishment and expansion of producer organisations; calls on the Commission and Member States, via those producer organisations, to step up stakeholder dialogue;
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 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Reminds the Commission that the European Parliament's own initiative report adopted in December 2013 called on the Commission to examine the need and possibility of independent enforcement to address the so-called 'fear factor' among primary producers in the supply chain; urges the Commission to consider this in its own report;
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 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given the reluctance of farmers to participate; regrets the pre- emptive conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen, the risk being that the internal market will fragment further;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission to assess the SCI in terms of effectiveness, taking into account concerns cited by the farming community; cautions the Commission to avoid assessing the voluntary initiative based solely on the number of registered participants;
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 119 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers and undertakings regarding the negative impact of UTPs; calls on the Member States and all food supply chain actors to step up best-practice exchanges and asks the Commission to assess these national efforts with a view to selecting best practices for application at EU level; notes in particular the importance of setting up a competent administrative authority to conduct investigations and receive confidential complaints about alleged UTPs, with a view to addressing the 'fear factor' issue but also to introducing genuine penalties for UTPs, and the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as a potential model for adaptation at EU level;
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 130 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national lawvoluntary codes and legislative measures to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs; asks the Commission to assess these national efforts with a view to selecting best practices for application at EU level; notes in particular the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as aone potential model for adaptation at EU level;
Amendment 135 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Takes the view that professional organisations could act as a platform for primary producers to lodge complaints with a competent authority about alleged UTPs, thus addressing the 'fear factor' issue; calls on the Commission to take account of that aspect in the proposals it makes;
Amendment 139 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls on Member States to enforce the measures taken in their national legislation;
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 165 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Believes that framework legislation ought to be based on a comparative analysis not only of the systems set up in each Member State, but also of sector- specific problems encountered, in order to tackle UTPs in a tangible fashion and mount a collective response;
Amendment 168 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Believes that not only uniform application of the principles of good practice adopted in 2011 by all actors in the chain, but also a common interpretation of the rules are vital factors in overcoming the problem of forum shopping;
Amendment 169 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Calls on the Commission to apply European competition law rigorously in cases where UTPs can be penalised; takes the view, however, that existing statutory provisions and rules are not applicable in most cases involving UTPs and that, therefore, the introduction of ad hoc framework legislation is entirely warranted;
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 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 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 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)