Progress: Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | IMCO |
SCHWAB Andreas ( PPE),
PRENDERGAST Phil ( S&D),
ROCHEFORT Robert ( ALDE),
RÜHLE Heide ( Verts/ALE),
BIELAN Adam ( ECR),
SALVINI Matteo ( EFD)
|
|
| Committee Opinion | PETI | ||
| Committee Opinion | EMPL | ||
| Committee Opinion | JURI |
BALDASSARRE Raffaele ( PPE)
|
|
| Committee Opinion | ECON | ||
| Committee Opinion | ITRE |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
- 2.40 Free movement of services, freedom to provide
- 2.80 Cooperation between administrations
- 3.30.25 International information networks and society, internet
- 3.45.02 Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), craft industries
- 3.45.05 Business policy, e-commerce, after-sales service, commercial distribution
- 4.60.02 Consumer information, advertising, labelling
- 7.40.02 Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters
Events
The European Parliament adopted a resolution on misleading advertisement practices in response to the Commission communication on the subject.
Parliament recalled that it has repeatedly expressed its concern over the problem of misleading marketing practices, which are often of a cross-border nature, and has called on the Commission and the Member States to step up their efforts in terms of raising awareness, strengthening cooperation, enforcement and legislation. For this reason, it welcomed the Commission communication, but stressed that an additional effort was needed, especially with regard to enforcement. It asked the Commission to clarify the scope of Directive 2006/114/EC in order to allow better protection for businesses against misleading marketing practices.
Prevention and information : Parliament called on all Member States to assign a national focal point to which businesses and other victims of misleading practices can report the latter and can obtain information on judicial and non-judicial means of redress. These focal points should play an active role in sharing information between public authorities, citizens and businesses, and should work together in order to warn each other of new misleading practices.
It also called on national as well as international business organisations, and in particular SME organisations, to work closely together with the national focal points and welcome public-private cooperation.
Members supported the Commission’s intention to investigate the possibility of introducing, on the basis of validated criteria, an EU-wide blacklist of misleading marketing practices , and, if practicable, of companies who have been repeatedly convicted for such practices. Such a blacklist should be coherent with that which already exists under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, should be exhaustive, and should include clear definitions of misleading marketing practices.
In addition, Parliament called for:
Europol to play a more active role in tackling these forms of fraud by collecting information regarding cross-border forms of misleading marketing practices; closer cooperation between national enforcement authorities with providers whose services have been used by perpetrators of misleading marketing practices, such as banks, telephone companies, postal services and collection agencies, in particular by stepping up the exchange of information; initiatives on education and information and exchanges of best practice on the dangers.
Enforcement and prosecution : Parliament emphasised that different levels of protection and public enforcement mechanisms among Member States are proving to be obstacles to running advertising campaigns across national borders, and that this leads to major legal and operative uncertainties for businesses. It also noted with concern that the investigative authorities in a number of Member States are extremely unwilling to take up cases of misleading marketing practices because of the lack of clarity of the existing provisions , and lack of confidence that the burden of proof can be sufficiently discharged. Members called on the Commission, therefore, to draw up guidelines for national enforcement bodies on best practices regarding priorities for investigation and prosecution.
Member States, for their part, are asked to boost the capacity of the relevant investigative and judicial authorities.
Parliament also stressed the need to introduce effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, recalling that sanctions can have a preventive effect. It also called on the Commission to establish a mutual cooperation network between national enforcement bodies to improve the implementation of the Directive in cross-border cases.
Furthermore, the Commission is also called upon to examine, as a matter of priority, how any convictions for using serious and repeated misleading marketing practices could affect the eligibility of the companies concerned for taking part in EU procurement procedures and/or receiving EU funding. Parliament called on Members States to ensure that their tax authorities cooperate closely with national focal points by actively inspecting companies which have been reported to use misleading marketing techniques.
Noting that dispute resolution processes have proven inefficient, lengthy and costly, and that they offer no guarantee of adequate and timely compensation for the damage caused, Members called for national laws making it possible for the victims of misleading marketing practices to act collectively in a case against a rogue company.
In order to avoid abusive litigation, the victims should be represented by a qualified entity, as outlined in the Commission documents.
Parliament asked the Commission to evaluate Parliament’s recommendation for a partial extension of the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive by having Annex I (the blacklist) cover business-to-business (B2B) contracts, in parallel to the consideration of a possible review of Directive 2006/114/EC in order to assess whether this would result in a more coherent approach since it would extend the concept of unfair commercial practices, together with the blacklist, to B2B relations.
International cooperation beyond the EU : lastly, Parliament stressed that misleading marketing practices constitute an international problem that extends beyond individual Member States as well as the EU. It called on the Commission and Member States, therefore, to pursue international cooperation on the matter, and to step up involvement in the International Mass Marketing Working Group, which consists of law enforcement, regulatory, and consumer agencies in the US, Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Nigeria, and the UK, and also includes Europol.
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection unanimously adopted the own-initiative report by Cornelis de JONG (GUE/NGL, NL) on misleading advertisement practices in response to the Commission communication on the subject.
Members recall that Parliament has repeatedly expressed its concern over the problem of misleading marketing practices, which are often of a cross-border nature, and has called on the Commission and the Member States to step up their efforts in terms of raising awareness, strengthening cooperation, enforcement and legislation. For this reason, they welcome the Commission communication, but stresses that an additional effort is needed, especially with regard to enforcement. They ask the Commission to clarify the scope of Directive 2006/114/EC in order to allow better protection for businesses against misleading marketing practices.
Prevention and information : the report calls on all Member States to assign a national focal point to which businesses and other victims of misleading practices can report the latter and can obtain information on judicial and non-judicial means of redress. These focal points should play an active role in sharing information between public authorities, citizens and businesses, and should work together in order to warn each other of new misleading practices.
Members also call on national as well as international business organisations, and in particular SME organisations, to work closely together with the national focal points and welcome public-private cooperation.
They support the Commission’s intention to investigate the possibility of introducing, on the basis of validated criteria, an EU-wide blacklist of misleading marketing practices , and, if practicable, of companies who have been repeatedly convicted for such practices. Such a blacklist should be coherent with that which already exists under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, should be exhaustive, and should include clear definitions of misleading marketing practices.
In addition, Members call for
· Europol to play a more active role in tackling these forms of fraud by collecting information regarding cross-border forms of misleading marketing practices;
· closer cooperation between national enforcement authorities with providers whose services have been used by perpetrators of misleading marketing practices, such as banks, telephone companies, postal services and collection agencies, in particular by stepping up the exchange of information;
· initiatives on education and information and exchanges of best practice on the dangers.
Enforcement and prosecution : the report emphasises that different levels of protection and public enforcement mechanisms among Member States are proving to be obstacles to running advertising campaigns across national borders, and that this leads to major legal and operative uncertainties for businesses. It also notes with concern that the investigative authorities in a number of Member States are extremely unwilling to take up cases of misleading marketing practices because of the lack of clarity of the existing provisions , and lack of confidence that the burden of proof can be sufficiently discharged. Members call on the Commission, therefore, to draw up guidelines for national enforcement bodies on best practices regarding priorities for investigation and prosecution.
Member States, for their part, are asked to boost the capacity of the relevant investigative and judicial authorities.
The report stresses the need to introduce effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, recalling that sanctions can have a preventive effect.
Members call on the Commission to establish a mutual cooperation network between national enforcement bodies to improve the implementation of the Directive in cross-border cases.
Furthermore, the Commission to examine, as a matter of priority, how any convictions for using serious and repeated misleading marketing practices could affect the eligibility of the companies concerned for taking part in EU procurement procedures and/or receiving EU funding. Members call on Member States to ensure that their tax authorities cooperate closely with national focal points by actively inspecting companies which have been reported to use misleading marketing techniques.
Noting that dispute resolution processes have proven inefficient, lengthy and costly, and that they offer no guarantee of adequate and timely compensation for the damage caused, Members call for national laws making it possible for the victims of misleading marketing practices to act collectively in a case against a rogue company.
They ask the Commission to evaluate Parliament’s recommendation for a partial extension of the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive by having Annex I (the blacklist) cover business-to-business (B2B) contracts.
International cooperation beyond the EU : lastly, Members stress that misleading marketing practices constitute an international problem that extends beyond individual Member States as well as the EU. They call on the Commission and Member States, therefore, to pursue international cooperation on the matter, and to step up involvement in the International Mass Marketing Working Group, which consists of law enforcement, regulatory, and consumer agencies in the US, Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Nigeria, and the UK, and also includes Europol.
PURPOSE: to provide increased protection for companies against misleading marketing practices by revising the provisions of Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising.
BACKGROUND: advertising has a strong economic impact on companies. It allows traders to present their goods and services and is an important element for commercial success. It can also enhance competition by providing customers with better information and the possibility to compare products.
In business relations, customers and competitor firms expect companies to use truthful marketing communication and to act with professional diligence. Small businesses – the mainstay of Europe's economy – are particularly vulnerable to misleading marketing practices as they lack the resources to protect themselves.
A clear and efficient framework safeguarding fair competition and providing effective means to enforce it is required.
The Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive provides a common minimum level of protection against misleading advertising for traders across the EU and also regulates comparative advertising.
As more and more advertising moves online, advertising and marketing practices are changing and may affect thousands of businesses worldwide.
Misleading marketing practices, such as misleading directory companies (traders who send out forms asking businesses to update details in their directories, seemingly for free, but later this is revealed to be a service which must be paid for), continue to cause considerable harm to companies, especially SMEs.
The Commission announced its intention to reassess the functioning of existing rules in its review of the Small Business Act. The Communication therefore gives an overview of how the Directive is currently implemented in the Member States, identifies problems in how it is applied and outlines plans to revise it in the future.
CONTENT: the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive was transposed in Member States through various legislative instruments. However, there is a great variety of rules going beyond the minimum EU-wide protection against misleading advertising. Some Member States decided to go beyond the minimum legal standard enshrined in the Directive and extended the level of protection to business-to-business relations. Other Member States emphasise contractual freedom and the higher degree of diligence expected in transactions between businesses instead, and do not consider it appropriate that businesses and consumers should be protected to an equal degree.
Consequently, the level of protection for European businesses remains varied leaving businesses uncertain about their rights and obligations in cross-border situations. Furthermore, Member States currently enforce the Directive on the basis of different national systems, the key factor being whether public authorities have the power to enforce the Directive effectively.
Most common misleading marketing practices : having examined the application of the Directive, the Commission reached the conclusion that most of the misleading marketing practices operating cross-border take the following forms:
· misleading payment forms disguised as an invoice for services that the trader has purportedly already ordered, where in fact he has not ;
· offers to extend internet domain names (e.g. extension to other country domains) whereby a trader provides false information and exercises psychological pressure in order to conclude a contract ;
· offers to extend protection for trademarks in other countries employed by traders who use misleading advertising and provide untruthful information about the nature of the service, which may, in fact, only be granted by official bodies ;
· legal advice through an internet platform based on a marketing scheme where the service offered is purely based on publicly accessible free legal databases ;
· misleading marketing concerning advertising on social networks based on a practice involving abusive prices (e.g. very expensive pay per click), whilst actually this service is offered by the social networks themselves at much lower rates.
In this context, the Commission considers that even though the current Directive provides a fairly solid regulatory framework for a considerable part of the business-to-business advertising market, the Directive is not effective against certain large-scale misleading schemes which also affect SMEs, which are particularly vulnerable.
Proposal to revise Directive 2006/114/EC : the scale, persistence and financial detriment resulting from certain, clearly misleading marketing practices both at cross-border and national level need to be addressed in a more targeted and efficient manner at EU level.
In this context, the Commission considers that:
1) the definition of advertising in the current Directive is not clear enough to stop current misleading marketing practices and respond to future developments. Consequently, traders as well as national enforcers find it sometimes difficult to recognise that such practices are "advertising" within the meaning of the Directive: it is intended, then, to clarify the scope of the Directive by introducing a new definition of misleading marketing practices;
2) the test for determining whether a practice is misleading does not give sufficient legal certainty for the purpose of tackling these clearly misleading schemes , as it is broad, general and open to different interpretations and case-by-case assessment. An additional specific ban on harmful marketing practices, such as, for example, the fact of concealing the commercial intent of a communication, in the form of a "black-list" would strengthen legal certainty and the level of protection, without unduly affecting the contractual freedom in business-to-business relations.
Furthermore, the current Directive does not provide for a cross-border cooperation procedure and therefore, national authorities have no formal basis to request an enforcement action from their counterparts in other Member States. Moreover, there are no established tools to share information about marketing practices affecting businesses in Europe. In some Member States national authorities lack enforcement powers to stop such practices in business-to-business relations, particularly in cross-border cases.
The Commission therefore intends to table a proposal to strengthen the protection of businesses against cross-border misleading marketing practices. This proposal to amend the Directive will be complemented by a forthcoming initiative addressing unfair trading practices between businesses in the retail chain.
Apart from revising the definition of advertising and establishing a black list, the revision of the Directive will:
· clarify the interplay of the Directive with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive;
· respond to businesses' needs while at the same time not creating any unnecessary administrative burden;
· step up enforcement and create an ad-hoc working group of national enforcers with immediate effect;
· introduce effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for infringements of the national provisions adopted in application of the Directive.
With regard to a cooperation procedure between Member States , the revision of the Directive will:
· create an enforcement cooperation procedure (enforcement network) grouping national enforcement authorities in charge of the legislation protecting businesses to cooperate in cases of cross-border misleading marketing practices;
introduce mutual assistance obligations for the Member States entailing the explicit possibility of requesting enforcement measures in cross-border situations; introduce provisions that will require Member States to designate an enforcement authority in the area of business-to-business marketing.
PURPOSE: to provide increased protection for companies against misleading marketing practices by revising the provisions of Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising.
BACKGROUND: advertising has a strong economic impact on companies. It allows traders to present their goods and services and is an important element for commercial success. It can also enhance competition by providing customers with better information and the possibility to compare products.
In business relations, customers and competitor firms expect companies to use truthful marketing communication and to act with professional diligence. Small businesses – the mainstay of Europe's economy – are particularly vulnerable to misleading marketing practices as they lack the resources to protect themselves.
A clear and efficient framework safeguarding fair competition and providing effective means to enforce it is required.
The Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive provides a common minimum level of protection against misleading advertising for traders across the EU and also regulates comparative advertising.
As more and more advertising moves online, advertising and marketing practices are changing and may affect thousands of businesses worldwide.
Misleading marketing practices, such as misleading directory companies (traders who send out forms asking businesses to update details in their directories, seemingly for free, but later this is revealed to be a service which must be paid for), continue to cause considerable harm to companies, especially SMEs.
The Commission announced its intention to reassess the functioning of existing rules in its review of the Small Business Act. The Communication therefore gives an overview of how the Directive is currently implemented in the Member States, identifies problems in how it is applied and outlines plans to revise it in the future.
CONTENT: the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive was transposed in Member States through various legislative instruments. However, there is a great variety of rules going beyond the minimum EU-wide protection against misleading advertising. Some Member States decided to go beyond the minimum legal standard enshrined in the Directive and extended the level of protection to business-to-business relations. Other Member States emphasise contractual freedom and the higher degree of diligence expected in transactions between businesses instead, and do not consider it appropriate that businesses and consumers should be protected to an equal degree.
Consequently, the level of protection for European businesses remains varied leaving businesses uncertain about their rights and obligations in cross-border situations. Furthermore, Member States currently enforce the Directive on the basis of different national systems, the key factor being whether public authorities have the power to enforce the Directive effectively.
Most common misleading marketing practices : having examined the application of the Directive, the Commission reached the conclusion that most of the misleading marketing practices operating cross-border take the following forms:
· misleading payment forms disguised as an invoice for services that the trader has purportedly already ordered, where in fact he has not ;
· offers to extend internet domain names (e.g. extension to other country domains) whereby a trader provides false information and exercises psychological pressure in order to conclude a contract ;
· offers to extend protection for trademarks in other countries employed by traders who use misleading advertising and provide untruthful information about the nature of the service, which may, in fact, only be granted by official bodies ;
· legal advice through an internet platform based on a marketing scheme where the service offered is purely based on publicly accessible free legal databases ;
· misleading marketing concerning advertising on social networks based on a practice involving abusive prices (e.g. very expensive pay per click), whilst actually this service is offered by the social networks themselves at much lower rates.
In this context, the Commission considers that even though the current Directive provides a fairly solid regulatory framework for a considerable part of the business-to-business advertising market, the Directive is not effective against certain large-scale misleading schemes which also affect SMEs, which are particularly vulnerable.
Proposal to revise Directive 2006/114/EC : the scale, persistence and financial detriment resulting from certain, clearly misleading marketing practices both at cross-border and national level need to be addressed in a more targeted and efficient manner at EU level.
In this context, the Commission considers that:
1) the definition of advertising in the current Directive is not clear enough to stop current misleading marketing practices and respond to future developments. Consequently, traders as well as national enforcers find it sometimes difficult to recognise that such practices are "advertising" within the meaning of the Directive: it is intended, then, to clarify the scope of the Directive by introducing a new definition of misleading marketing practices;
2) the test for determining whether a practice is misleading does not give sufficient legal certainty for the purpose of tackling these clearly misleading schemes , as it is broad, general and open to different interpretations and case-by-case assessment. An additional specific ban on harmful marketing practices, such as, for example, the fact of concealing the commercial intent of a communication, in the form of a "black-list" would strengthen legal certainty and the level of protection, without unduly affecting the contractual freedom in business-to-business relations.
Furthermore, the current Directive does not provide for a cross-border cooperation procedure and therefore, national authorities have no formal basis to request an enforcement action from their counterparts in other Member States. Moreover, there are no established tools to share information about marketing practices affecting businesses in Europe. In some Member States national authorities lack enforcement powers to stop such practices in business-to-business relations, particularly in cross-border cases.
The Commission therefore intends to table a proposal to strengthen the protection of businesses against cross-border misleading marketing practices. This proposal to amend the Directive will be complemented by a forthcoming initiative addressing unfair trading practices between businesses in the retail chain.
Apart from revising the definition of advertising and establishing a black list, the revision of the Directive will:
· clarify the interplay of the Directive with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive;
· respond to businesses' needs while at the same time not creating any unnecessary administrative burden;
· step up enforcement and create an ad-hoc working group of national enforcers with immediate effect;
· introduce effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for infringements of the national provisions adopted in application of the Directive.
With regard to a cooperation procedure between Member States , the revision of the Directive will:
· create an enforcement cooperation procedure (enforcement network) grouping national enforcement authorities in charge of the legislation protecting businesses to cooperate in cases of cross-border misleading marketing practices;
introduce mutual assistance obligations for the Member States entailing the explicit possibility of requesting enforcement measures in cross-border situations; introduce provisions that will require Member States to designate an enforcement authority in the area of business-to-business marketing.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2014)62
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T7-0436/2013
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0311/2013
- Committee opinion: PE514.684
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE514.655
- Committee draft report: PE510.678
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2012)0702
- Non-legislative basic document: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2012)0702
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2012)0702 EUR-Lex
- Committee draft report: PE510.678
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE514.655
- Committee opinion: PE514.684
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2014)62
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 59 |
2013/2122(INI)
2013/06/21
IMCO
54 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas misleading marketing practices can take many forms,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas these practices go underreported, as victims of misleading marketing practices often feel ashamed and refrain from reporting such practices to enforcement authorities or comply with payment demands; whereas in view of this it is extremely important that those authorities facilitate reporting and give sufficient priority to such cases;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) D a. whereas Member states have implemented differently Directives 2005/29/EC and 2006/114/EC leading to significant differences between national provisions in those fields; whereas such differences contribute to market fragmentation and create uncertainties on legal enforcement of European rules for businesses, notably in a cross-border context;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas at present rogue traders are very difficult to trace and prosecute, as they often send invoices from one country to another while their bank account is in yet another country, thus also making money transfers difficult to trace;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) G a. whereas, owing to their small scale and limited resources, it is often unfeasible for SMEs, and microbusinesses in particular, to individually mount legal challenges against rogue traders established in a different jurisdiction;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Asks the Commission to clarify the scope of Directive 2006/114/EC in order to allow better protection for businesses against misleading marketing practices;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Recalls that misleading marketing practices are a great burden for the European economy, especially by hampering SMEs' growth potential;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that a better exchange of information between Member States is needed; calls on all Member States to create or assign a national focal point to which businesses and other victims of misleading practices can report them, and where they can obtain information on judicial and non-judicial means of redress, as well as help and expertise regarding the prevention and tackling of various forms of fraud; considers that each focal point should maintain a database recording all types of misleading marketing practices and including easy-to-understand examples; calls on the Commission to ensure coordination of a smooth exchange of information from the national databases, inter alia by facilitating the setting-up of a rapid alert system identifying new practices;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that a better exchange of information between Member States is needed; calls on all Member States to create or assign a national focal point to which businesses and other victims of misleading practices can report them, and where they can obtain help and expertise regarding the prevention and tackling of various forms of fraud; considers that each focal point should maintain a database recording all types of misleading marketing practices and including easy-to-understand examples; calls on the Commission to ensure coordination of a smooth exchange of information from the national databases, inter alia by facilitating the setting-up of a rapid alert system identifying new practices, whilst taking account of the budgetary limitations;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that the national focal points should play an active role in sharing information between public authorities, citizens and businesses, and should work together in order to warn each other of new misleading practices and assist SMEs in the settlement of crossborder disputes by
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas misleading marketing practices can take many forms, with the most prominent being misleading directory company schemes where a rogue company sends out forms inviting businesses to complete or update their business name and contact details, seemingly for free; whereas signatories later discover that they have, in fact, unintentionally signed up to a
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that the national focal points should play an active role in sharing information between public authorities, citizens and businesses, and should work together in order to warn each other of new misleading practices and assist SMEs in the settlement of crossborder disputes by directing defrauded companies to the most appropriate legal mechanism; stresses that these national focal points should also be able to take legal action themselves against misleading practices and fraudulently operating companies;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that the national focal points should play an active role in sharing information between public authorities, citizens and businesses, and should work together in order to warn each other of new misleading practices and assist SMEs in the settlement of crossborder disputes by directing defrauded companies to the most appropriate legal mechanism; believes that these national focal points should be responsible for communicating their general findings to the public of the Member State concerned on a regular basis;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on national as well as international business organisations, and in particular SME organisations, to work closely together with national focal points; in this regard, also welcomes public- private cooperation;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to investigate the possibility of introducing, on the basis of validated criteria, an EU-wide blacklist of
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines the need for national enforcement authorities to work more closely together with enablers of misleading marketing practices, such as banks, telephone companies, postal services and collection agencies
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines the need for national enforcement authorities to work more closely together with enablers of misleading marketing practices, such as banks, telephone companies, postal services and collection agencies, by increasing exchange of information, in order to prevent rogue companies from operating;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines the need for national enforcement authorities to work more closely together with
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) A a. Whereas other misleading marketing practices include misleading payment forms disguised as an invoice for services that the trader has purportedly already ordered where in fact he has not, offers to extend internet domain names whereby a rogue trader provides false information and exercises psychological pressure in order to conclude a contract for a much higher price then when the registration would have been obtained through official providers, and offers to extend the protection of trademarks in other countries while such protection can only be granted by official bodies;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Urges the Commission and the Member States jointly to promote initiatives to educate and inform all business undertakings and promote exchanges of best practice between them, thereby ensuring that they are aware of the dangers;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Notes with concern that the investigative authorities in various Member States are extremely unwilling to take up cases of misleading marketing practices
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Notes with concern that the investigative authorities in various Member States are extremely unwilling to take up cases of misleading marketing practices and tend to argue that they have no confidence that the burden of proof can be sufficiently established; underlines the need for governments to be proactive in tackling financial and economic crime and to consider appropriate criminal penalties when this is sufficiently justified;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on the Member States to appoint an enforcement authority empowered to ensure compliance with the rules, including codes of business practice;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Stresses the need to introduce effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, recalling that
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Stresses that legislative action is necessary as the current legislative framework has several deficiencies, both as regards substantive rules and enforcement; takes the view that the most effective way of introducing coherent and consistent measures to prohibit misleading marketing practices would be a simultaneous review of Directive 2006/114/ΕC and Directive 2005/29/ΕC regarding business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) relations;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Re
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) A a. whereas the scope of Directive 2006/114/EC is currently related to misleading and comparative advertising and its consequences on fair competition within the internal market;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Regrets the Commission's failure to take up Parliament's recommendation for a partial extension of the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive by having Annex I (the blacklist) cover business-to- business (B2B) contracts; considers that amending this directive instead of Directive 2006/114/EC will result in a more coherent approach since it will extend the concept of unfair commercial practices, together with the blacklist, to B2B relations; stresses that this will avoid the need for broadening the concept of misleading advertising, which is necessary in order to capture all forms of misleading practices; emphasises the importance of an exhaustive and clearly defined blacklist of misleading marketing practices for effective enforcement and legal certainty;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Stresses that particular attention should be given to interpretation of the rules governing comparative advertising in accordance with the substantial body of case law established by the EU Court of Justice;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the Commission to examine, as a matter of priority, whether businesses which have been found guilty of serious and repeated misleading marketing practices can be excluded from EU procurement procedures and/or from receiving EU funding for a period of at least five years;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. C
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Draws attention, in particular, to the role played by fraudulent debt collection agencies which do not hesitate to put pressure on businesses to pay invoices which they know or could have known to be fraudulent; calls on the Commission and the Member States to propose means of better controlling such agencies, both before and after their formal establishment; calls on the Commission to look into the need for new regulations governing debt collection agencies;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Draws attention, in particular, to the role played by fraudulent debt collection
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Draws attention, in particular, to the role played by fraudulent debt collection agencies which do not hesitate to put pressure on businesses to pay invoices which they know or could have known to be fraudulent; calls on the Commission and the Member States to propose means of better controlling such agencies, both before and after their formal establishment, and also to consider the possibility of introducing a mandatory requirement for debt collection agencies to report misleading practices;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Calls for the creation of a European support network for small and medium- sized undertakings to resolve cross-border differences, which can direct defrauded businesses towards the most suitable channels of legal redress;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) A b. whereas there is a clear demand from businesses, especially SMEs and microbusinesses, for better protection and for effective action against misleading practices in a business-to-business context, which is outside the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes with concern that dispute resolution processes have proven inefficient, lengthy and costly, and that they offer no guarantee of adequate and timely compensation for the damage caused;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16.
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes with concern that dispute resolution processes have often proven inefficient, lengthy and costly
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16 a. Calls on Member States to facilitate, through their legal systems, the practice of private enforcement, whereby business associations and other relevant organisations are empowered to mount legal challenges against rogue traders;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Stresses that misleading marketing practices constitute an international problem which
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Β a (new) Ba. whereas misleading marketing practices cause market failures and distortions of competition, impairing the ability of businesses to make informed and hence effective choices;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas SMEs, and in particular small businesses and microbusinesses, are the main victims of misleading marketing practices, although such companies are a key driver for growth in Europe; whereas schools, churches, hospitals, NGOs, and municipalities and other public authorities are also being targeted;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) C a. Whereas the Parliament has repeatedly expressed its concern about the problem of misleading marketing practices which often are of a cross- border nature, and called on the Commission and Member States to step up their efforts in raising awareness, strengthening cooperation, enforcement and legislation;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas misleading marketing practices have a knock-on effect on consumers, who are, as a result, charged more for products and services;
source: PE-514.655
2013/07/15
JURI
5 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Is deeply concerned about the negative impact of
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises the fact that different levels of protection and public enforcement mechanisms among Member States are an obstacle to running advertising campaigns across national borders, and that this leads to major legal and operative uncertainties for businesses;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Encourages the Commission to further reflect on a proposal for an amendment to Directive 2006/114 EC to include a blacklist of practices that are to be considered misleading under all circumstances;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Considers that when the Commission reflects on the question of including a blacklist of practices that are considered to be misleading, to ensure that such a list focuses on certain marketing practices and would not include a list of fraudulent companies;
source: PE-516.655
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| docs/0 |
|
| events/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0702/COM_COM(2012)0702_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0702/COM_COM(2012)0702_EN.pdf |
| committees/0/rapporteur |
|
| docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE510.678New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-PR-510678_EN.html |
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE514.655New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-AM-514655_EN.html |
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE514.684&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AD-514684_EN.html |
| events/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0702/COM_COM(2012)0702_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0702/COM_COM(2012)0702_EN.pdf |
| events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
| events/2/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
| events/3 |
|
| events/3 |
|
| events/5 |
|
| events/5 |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 150
|
| procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
| docs/3/body |
EC
|
| events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-311&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2013-0311_EN.html |
| events/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-436New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2013-0436_EN.html |
| activities |
|
| commission |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/3 |
|
| committees/3 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
| committees/5 |
|
| committees/5 |
|
| docs |
|
| events |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
IMCO/7/12302New
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
| procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
| activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52012DC0702:EN
|
| activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0702/COM_COM(2012)0702_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0702/COM_COM(2012)0702_EN.pdf |
| activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52012DC0702:EN
|
| activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0702/COM_COM(2012)0702_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0702/COM_COM(2012)0702_EN.pdf |
| activities/1/committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c |
| activities/2/committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c |
| committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c |
| procedure/subject/3 |
Old
3.45.02 Small and medium-sized enterprises SMEs, craft industriesNew
3.45.02 Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), craft industries |
| activities/0 |
|
| activities/0/body |
Old
EPNew
EC |
| activities/0/commission |
|
| activities/0/committees |
|
| activities/0/date |
Old
2013-09-12T00:00:00New
2012-11-27T00:00:00 |
| activities/0/docs |
|
| activities/0/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Non-legislative basic document published |
| activities/1 |
|
| activities/1/committees |
|
| activities/1/date |
Old
2013-10-22T00:00:00New
2013-09-12T00:00:00 |
| activities/1/docs |
|
| activities/1/type |
Old
Text adopted by Parliament, single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading |
| activities/2/committees |
|
| activities/2/date |
Old
2013-06-21T00:00:00New
2013-09-26T00:00:00 |
| activities/2/docs |
|
| activities/2/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
| activities/4/committees |
|
| activities/4/date |
Old
2013-09-26T00:00:00New
2013-10-22T00:00:00 |
| activities/4/docs |
|
| activities/4/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Results of vote in Parliament |
| committees/2/committee |
Old
JURINew
IMCO |
| committees/2/committee_full |
Old
Legal AffairsNew
Internal Market and Consumer Protection |
| committees/2/date |
Old
2013-06-19T00:00:00New
2013-02-20T00:00:00 |
| committees/2/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
EPPNew
GUE/NGL |
| committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de183710fb8127435bdbc17New
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000 |
| committees/2/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
BALDASSARRE RaffaeleNew
DE JONG Dennis |
| committees/2/responsible |
Old
New
True |
| committees/2/shadows |
|
| committees/4/committee |
Old
IMCONew
JURI |
| committees/4/committee_full |
Old
Internal Market and Consumer ProtectionNew
Legal Affairs |
| committees/4/date |
Old
2013-02-20T00:00:00New
2013-06-19T00:00:00 |
| committees/4/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
PPE |
| committees/4/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de185b40fb8127435bdbf51New
4f1ac62ab819f25efd000022 |
| committees/4/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
DE JONG CornelisNew
BALDASSARRE Raffaele |
| committees/4/responsible |
Old
TrueNew
|
| committees/4/shadows |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 048New
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052 |
| procedure/legal_basis/1 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
|
| activities/6/docs |
|
| activities/6/type |
Old
Vote in plenary scheduledNew
Text adopted by Parliament, single reading |
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
| activities/5/docs/0/text |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
|
| procedure/legal_basis/1 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
|
| procedure/?!oeil-proposed_legal_basis!? |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
|
| activities/6/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in plenary scheduled |
| procedure/?!oeil-proposed_legal_basis!? |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
|
| procedure/legal_basis/1 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
|
| activities/5/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-311&language=EN
|
| activities/5 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
| activities/1 |
|
| activities/1/date |
Old
2013-09-30T00:00:00New
2013-05-08T00:00:00 |
| activities/1/docs/0/title |
Old
A7-0311/2013New
PE510.678 |
| activities/1/docs/0/type |
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, single readingNew
Committee draft report |
| activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE510.678
|
| activities/1/type |
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, single readingNew
Committee draft report |
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Awaiting committee decision |
| activities/5 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
| activities/1 |
|
| activities/1/date |
Old
2013-09-30T00:00:00New
2013-05-08T00:00:00 |
| activities/1/docs/0/title |
Old
A7-0311/2013New
PE510.678 |
| activities/1/docs/0/type |
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, single readingNew
Committee draft report |
| activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE510.678
|
| activities/1/type |
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, single readingNew
Committee draft report |
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Awaiting committee decision |
| activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
| activities/4 |
|
| activities/5 |
|
| procedure/legal_basis/1 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|